1932

Abstract

The use of unoccupied aircraft systems (UASs, also known as drones) in science is growing rapidly. Recent advances in microelectronics and battery technology have resulted in the rapid development of low-cost UASs that are transforming many industries. Drones are poised to revolutionize marine science and conservation, as they provide essentially on-demand remote sensing capabilities at low cost and with reduced human risk. A variety of multirotor, fixed-wing, and transitional UAS platforms are capable of carrying various optical and physical sampling payloads and are being employed in almost every subdiscipline of marine science and conservation. This article provides an overview of the UAS platforms and sensors used in marine science and conservation missions along with example physical, biological, and natural resource management applications and typical analytical workflows. It concludes with details on potential effects of UASs on marine wildlife and a look to the future of UASs in marine science and conservation.

Associated Article

There are media items related to this article:
Unoccupied Aircraft Systems in Marine Science and Conservation: Supplemental Video 3

Associated Article

There are media items related to this article:
Unoccupied Aircraft Systems in Marine Science and Conservation: Supplemental Video 1

Associated Article

There are media items related to this article:
Unoccupied Aircraft Systems in Marine Science and Conservation: Supplemental Video 2
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-marine-010318-095323
2019-01-03
2024-04-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/marine/11/1/annurev-marine-010318-095323.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-marine-010318-095323&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adão T, Hruška J, Pádua L, Bessa J, Peres E et al. 2017. Hyperspectral imaging: a review on UAV-based sensors, data processing and applications for agriculture and forestry. Remote Sens 9:1110
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson K, Gaston KJ 2013. Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11:138–46
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Angliss RP, Ferguson M, Hall PG, Helker VT, Kennedy A, Sformo T 2018. Comparing manned to unmanned aerial surveys for cetacean monitoring in the Arctic: methods and operational results. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 6:109–27
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Apprill A, Miller CA, Moore MJ, Durban JW, Fearnbach H, Barrett-Lennard LG 2017. Extensive core microbiome in drone-captured whale blow supports a framework for health monitoring. mSystems 2:e00119–17
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arona L, Dale J, Heaslip SG, Hammill MO, Johnston DW 2018. Assessing the disturbance potential of small unoccupied aircraft systems (UAS) on gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) at breeding colonies in Nova Scotia, Canada. PeerJ 6:e4467
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Beacon Sky Surv. 2017. Drone pilot gender gap Infographic, Beacon Sky Surv. Seattle: http://www.beaconskysurvey.com/industry-trends.html
  7. Bevan E, Whiting S, Tucker T, Guinea M, Raith A, Douglas R 2018. Measuring behavioral responses of sea turtles, saltwater crocodiles, and crested terns to drone disturbance to define ethical operating thresholds. PLOS ONE 13:e0194460
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bevan E, Wibbels T, Navarro E, Rosas M, Najera BMZ et al. 2016. Using unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology for locating, identifying, and monitoring courtship and mating behavior in the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Herpetol. Rev. 47:27–32
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Borowicz A, McDowall P, Youngflesh C, Sayre-McCord T, Clucas G et al. 2018. Multi-modal survey of Adélie penguin mega-colonies reveals the Danger Islands as a seabird hotspot. Sci. Rep. 8:3926
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brooke S, Graham D, Jacobs T, Littnan C, Manuel M, O'Conner R 2015. Testing marine conservation applications of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) in a remote marine protected area. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 3:237–51
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brouwer RL, de Schipper MA, Rynne PF, Graham FJ, Reniers AJHM, MacMahan JH 2015. Surfzone monitoring using rotary wing unmanned aerial vehicles. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 32:855–63
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Campana S 2017. Drones in archaeology. State-of-the-art and future perspectives. Archaeol. Prospect. 24:275–96
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Casella E, Collin A, Harris D, Ferse S, Bejarano S et al. 2016. Mapping coral reefs using consumer-grade drones and structure from motion photogrammetry techniques. Coral Reefs 36:269–75
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Casella E, Rovere A, Pedroncini A, Mucerino L, Casella M et al. 2014. Study of wave runup using numerical models and low-altitude aerial photogrammetry: a tool for coastal management. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 149:160–67
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chirayath V, Earle SA 2016. Drones that see through waves – preliminary results from airborne fluid lensing for centimeter-scale aquatic conservation. Aquat. Conserv. 26:S2237–50
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Christiansen F, Dujon AM, Sprogis KR, Arnould JPY, Bejder L 2016.a Noninvasive unmanned aerial vehicle provides estimates of the energetic cost of reproduction in humpback whales. Ecosphere 7:e01468
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Christiansen F, Rojano-Doñate L, Madsen PT, Bejder L 2016.b Noise levels of multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicles with implications for potential underwater impacts on marine mammals. Front. Mar. Sci. 3:277
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Christiansen F, Vivier F, Charlton C, Ward R, Amerson A et al. 2018. Maternal body size and condition determine calf growth rates in southern right whales. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 592:267–81
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Clenet HGEJ, Constantin D, Rehak M, Akhtman Y, Bajjouk T et al. 2015. UAV based multispectral imaging over a lagoon with corals in Reunion Island Poster presented at the 9th EARSeL SIG Imaging Spectroscopy Workshop Luxembourg: April 14–16
  20. Colefax AP, Butcher PA, Kelaher BP 2018. The potential for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to conduct marine fauna surveys in place of manned aircraft. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75:1–8
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Corrigan CE, Roberts GC, Ramana MV, Kim D, Ramanathan V 2008. Capturing vertical profiles of aerosols and black carbon over the Indian Ocean using autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 8:737–47
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Croze H 1972. A modified photogrammetric technique for assessing age‐structures of elephant populations and its use in Kidepo National Park. Afr. J. Ecol. 10:91–115
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Detert M, Weitbrecht V 2015. A low-cost airborne velocimetry system: proof of concept. J. Hydraul. Res. 53:532–39
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Di Stefano G, Romeo G, Mazzini A, Iarocci A, Hadi S, Pelphrey S 2018. The Lusi drone: a multidisciplinary tool to access extreme environments. Mar. Pet. Geol. 90:26–37
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Domínguez-Sánchez CA, Acevedo-Whitehouse KA, Gendron D 2018. Effect of drone‐based blow sampling on blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) behavior. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 34:841–50
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Durban JW, Fearnbach H, Barrett-Lennard LG, Perryman WL, Leroi DJ 2015. Photogrammetry of killer whales using a small hexacopter launched at sea. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 3:131–35
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Durban JW, Moore MJ, Chiang G, Hickmott LS, Bocconcelli A et al. 2016. Photogrammetry of blue whales with an unmanned hexacopter. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 32:1510–15
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Elliott S 2016. The potential for automating assisted natural regeneration of tropical forest ecosystems. Biotropica 48:825–33
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Engelhardt KG 1989. An overview of health and human service robotics. Robot. Auton. Syst. 5:205–26
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ferguson M, Angliss RP, Kennedy A, Lynch B, Willoughby A et al. 2018. Performance of manned and unmanned aerial surveys to collect visual data and imagery for estimating arctic cetacean density and associated uncertainty. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 6:128–54
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fiori L, Doshi A, Martinez E, Orams MB, Bollard-Breen B 2017. The use of unmanned aerial systems in marine mammal research. Remote Sens 9:543
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Floreano D, Wood RJ 2015. Science, technology and the future of small autonomous drones. Nature 521:460–66
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gallagher AJ, Papastamatiou YP, Barnett A 2018. Apex predatory sharks and crocodiles simultaneously scavenge a whale carcass. J. Ethol. 36:205–9
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Geoghegan JL, Pirotta V, Harvey E, Smith A, Buchmann JP et al. 2018. Virological sampling of inaccessible wildlife with drones. Viruses 10:300
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Goebel ME, Perryman WL, Hinke JT, Krause DJ, Hann NA et al. 2015. A small unmanned aerial system for estimating abundance and size of Antarctic predators. Polar Biol 38:619–30
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Goldbogen JA, Cade DE, Calambokidis J, Friedlaender AS, Potvin J et al. 2017. How baleen whales feed: the biomechanics of engulfment and filtration. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 9:367–86
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gooday OJ, Key N, Goldstien S, Zawar-Reza P 2018. An assessment of thermal-image acquisition with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for direct counts of coastal marine mammals ashore. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 6:100–8
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hengstmann E, Gräwe D, Tamminga M, Fischer EK 2017. Marine litter abundance and distribution on beaches on the Isle of Rügen considering the influence of exposition, morphology and recreational activities. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 115:297–306
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hodgson A, Kelly N, Peel D 2013. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for surveying marine fauna: a Dugong case study. PLOS ONE 8:e79556
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hodgson JC, Baylis SM, Mott R, Herrod A, Clarke RH 2016. Precision wildlife monitoring using unmanned aerial vehicles. Sci. Rep. 6:22574
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hodgson JC, Mott R, Baylis SM, Pham TT, Wotherspoon S et al. 2018. Drones count wildlife more accurately and precisely than humans. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9:1160–67
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Holton AE, Lawson S, Love C 2014. Unmanned aerial vehicles: opportunities, barriers, and the future of “drone journalism. Journal. Pract. 9:634–50
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Inoue J, Curry JA 2004. Application of Aerosondes to high-resolution observations of sea surface temperature over Barrow Canyon. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31:L14312
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Irazarry J, Gheisari M, Walker BN 2012. Usability implications of aerial drone technology as construction safety inspection tools. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 17:194–212
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Jackley J, Gardner L, Djunaedi AF, Salomon AK 2016. Ancient clam gardens, traditional management portfolios, and the resilience of coupled human-ocean systems. Ecol. Soc. 21:20
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Jaud M, Grasso F, Le Dantec N, Verney R, Delacourt C et al. 2016. Potential of UAVs for monitoring mudflat morphodynamics (application to the Seine Estuary, France). Int. J. Geo-Inf. 5:50
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Johnston DW, Dale J, Murray K, Josephson E, Newton E, Wood S 2017. Comparing occupied and unoccupied aircraft surveys of wildlife populations: assessing the gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) breeding colony on Muskeget Island, USA. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 5:178–91
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kalacska M, Chmura GL, Lucanus O, Bérubé D, Arroyo-Mora JP 2017. Structure from motion will revolutionize analyses of tidal wetland landscapes. Remote Sens. Environ. 199:14–24
    [Google Scholar]
  49. King S, Leon J, Mulcahy M, Jackson L, Corbett B 2017. Condition survey of coastal structures using UAV and photogrammetry. Australasian Coasts and Ports 2017: Working with Nature704–10 Barton, Aust.: Eng. Aust., PIANC Aust., Inst. Prof. Eng. N.Z
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kiszka JJ, Mourier J, Gastrich K, Heithaus MR 2016. Using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to investigate shark and ray densities in a shallow coral lagoon. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 560:237–42
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Koh LP, Wich SA 2012. Dawn of drone ecology: low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 5:121–32
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kopacek P 2000. Robots in entertainment, leisure and hobby new tasks for robot control. IFAC Proc. Vol. 33:539–43
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kopaska J 2014. Drones—a fisheries assessment tool. Fisheries 39:319
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Krause DJ, Hinke JT, Perryman WL, Goebel ME, LeRoi DJ 2017. An accurate and adaptable photogrammetric approach for estimating the mass and body condition of pinnipeds using an unmanned aerial system. PLOS ONE 12:e0187465
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Laidlaw S 2017. Unmanned aerial system (UAS) and structure from motion (SfM) 3-dimensional modeling of intertidal archaeological features in Fulford Harbour, Saltspring Island, British Columbia, Canada MS Thesis, R. Roads Univ. Victoria, Can:
  56. Laliberte AS, Rango A 2009. Texture and scale in object-based analysis of subdecimeter resolution unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 47:761–70
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Lee E, Yoon H, Hyun SP, Burnett WC, Koh D-C et al. 2016. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)-based thermal infrared (TIR) mapping, a novel approach to assess groundwater discharge into the coastal zone. Limnol Oceanogr. Methods 14:725–35
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Lega M, Kosmatka J, Ferrara C, Russo F, Napoli RMA, Persechino G 2012. Using advanced aerial platforms and infrared thermography to track environmental contamination. Environ. Forensics 13:332–38
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Levy J, Hunter C, Lukacazyk T, Franklin EC 2018. Assessing the spatial distribution of coral bleaching using small unmanned aerial systems. Coral Reefs 37:373–87
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Lin Y, Hyyppä J, Jaakkola A 2011. Mini-UAV-borne LIDAR for fine-scale mapping. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 8:426–30
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Lomax AS, Corso W, Etro JF 2005. Employing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as an element of the integrated ocean observing system. Proceedings of OCEANS 2005 MTS/IEEE184–90 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Lukaczyk T, Bieri T, de Sousa JT, Levy J, McGillivary PA 2016. Unmanned aircraft as mobile components of Ocean Observing Systems for management of marine resources. OCEANS 2016 MTS/IEEE Monterey New York: IEEE https://doi.org/10.1109/OCEANS.2016.7761485
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Lyu P, Malang Y, Liu HHT, Lai J, Liu J et al. 2017. Autonomous cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms monitoring using multirotor UAS. Int. J. Remote Sens. 38:2818–43
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Macharet D, Perez-Imaz H, Rezeck P, Potje G, Benyosef L et al. 2016. Autonomous aeromagnetic surveys using a fluxgate magnetometer. Sensors 16:2169
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Mancini F, Dubbini M, Gattelli M, Stecchi F, Fabbri S, Gabbianelli G 2013. Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) for high-resolution reconstruction of topography: the structure from motion approach on coastal environments. Remote Sens 5:6880–98
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Marvin DC, Koh LP, Lynam AJ, Wich S, Davies AB et al. 2016. Integrating technologies for scalable ecology and conservation. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 7:262–75
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Matsuba Y, Sato S 2018. Nearshore bathymetry estimation using UAV. Coast. Eng. J. 60:51–59
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Maxwell SM, Ban NC, Morgan LE 2014. Pragmatic approaches for effective management of pelagic marine protected areas. Endanger. Species Res. 26:59–74
    [Google Scholar]
  69. McEvoy JF, Hall GP, McDonald PG 2016. Evaluation of unmanned aerial vehicle shape, flight path and camera type for waterfowl surveys: disturbance effects and species recognition. PeerJ 4:e1831
    [Google Scholar]
  70. McIntyre EM, Gasiewski AJ 2007. An ultra-lightweight L-band digital Lobe-Differencing Correlation Radiometer (LDCR) for airborne UAV SSS mapping. 2007 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium1095–97 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Merrill J, Pan Z, Mewes T, Herwitz S 2013. Airborne hyperspectral imaging of seagrass and coral reef Paper presented at AGU Fall Meeting San Francisco: Dec 9–13
  72. Miller DGM, Slicer NM, Hanich Q 2013. Monitoring, control and surveillance of protected areas and specially managed areas in the marine domain. Mar. Policy 39:64–71
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Mulero-Pázmány M, Stolper R, van Essen LD, Negro JJ, Sassen T 2014. Remotely piloted aircraft systems as a rhinoceros anti-poaching tool in Africa. PLOS ONE 9:e83873
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Noonan R 2017. Women in STEM: 2017 update Issue Brief 06-17 Off. Chief Econ., Econ. Stat. Adm., US Dep. Commerce Washington, DC:
  75. Nowacek DP, Christiansen F, Bejder L, Goldbogen JA, Friedlaender AS 2016. Studying cetacean behaviour: new technological approaches and conservation applications. Anim. Behav. 120:235–44
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Olivares-Mendez M, Fu C, Ludivig P, Bissyandé T, Kannan S et al. 2015. Towards an autonomous vision-based unmanned aerial system against wildlife poachers. Sensors 15:31362–91
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Ore JP, Elbaum S, Burgin A, Detweiler C 2015. Autonomous aerial water sampling. J. Field Robot. 32:1095–13
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Perryman WL, Lynn MS 1993. Identification of geographic forms of common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) from aerial photogrammetry. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 9:119–37
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Pirotta V, Smith A, Ostrowski M, Russell D, Jonsen ID et al. 2017. An economical custom-built drone for assessing whale health. Front. Mar. Sci. 4:425
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Pomeroy P, O'Connor L, Davies P 2015. Assessing use of and reaction to unmanned aerial systems in gray and harbor seals during breeding and molt in the UK. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 3:102–13
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Powers C, Hanlon R, Schmale D 2018. Tracking of a fluorescent dye in a freshwater lake with an unmanned surface vehicle and an unmanned aircraft system. Remote Sens 10:81
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Rees AF, Avens L, Ballorain K, Bevan E, Broderick AC et al. 2018. The potential of unmanned aerial systems for sea turtle research and conservation: a review and future directions. Endanger. Species Res. 35:81–100
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Ridge J, Seymour A, Rodriguez AB, Dale J, Newton E, Johnston DW 2017. Advancing UAS methods for monitoring coastal environments Paper presented at AGU Fall Meeting New Orleans: Dec 11–15
  84. Rieucau G, Kiszka JJ, Castillo JC, Mourier J, Boswell KM, Heithaus MR 2018. Using unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) surveys and image analysis in the study of large surface‐associated marine species: a case study on reef sharks Carcharhinus melanopterus shoaling behaviour. J. Fish Biol. 93:119–27
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Rümmler M-C, Mustafa O, Maercker J, Peter H-U, Esefeld J 2015. Measuring the influence of unmanned aerial vehicles on Adélie penguins. Polar Biol 39:1329–34
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Sandbrook C 2015. The social implications of using drones for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 44:636–47
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Sasse DB 2003. Job-related mortality of wildlife workers in the United States, 1937–2000. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 31:1000–3
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Schofield G, Katselidis KA, Lilley MKS, Reina RD, Hays GC 2017. Detecting elusive aspects of wildlife ecology using drones: new insights on the mating dynamics and operational sex ratios of sea turtles. Funct. Ecol. 31:2310–19
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Seymour AC, Dale J, Hammill M, Halpin PN, Johnston DW 2017.a Automated detection and enumeration of marine wildlife using unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and thermal imagery. Sci. Rep. 7:45127
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Seymour AC, Ridge JT, Rodriguez AB, Newton E, Dale J, Johnston DW 2017.b Deploying fixed wing unoccupied aerial systems (UAS) for coastal morphology assessment and management. J. Coast. Res. 34:704–17
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Shintani C, Fonstad MA 2017. Comparing remote-sensing techniques collecting bathymetric data from a gravel-bed river. Int. J. Remote Sens. 38:2883–902
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N 2006. Interactive humanoid robots for a science museum. IEEE Intell. Syst. 22:25–32
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Shkurti F, Xu A, Meghjani M, Gamboa Higuera JC, Girdhar Y et al. 2012. Multi-domain monitoring of marine environments using a heterogeneous robot team. 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems1747–53 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Shukla A, Karki H 2016. Application of robotics in offshore oil and gas industry—a review. Part II. Robot. Auton. Syst. 75:508–24
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Smith CE, Sykora-Bodie ST, Bloodworth B, Pack SM, Spradlin TR, LeBoeuf NR 2016. Assessment of known impacts of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) on marine mammals: data gaps and recommendations for researchers in the United States. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 4:31–44
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Smith JA 2004. “Unmanned” leaves women out. Mechanical Engineering Feb 8
  97. Su T-C 2017. A study of a matching pixel by pixel (MPP) algorithm to establish an empirical model of water quality mapping, as based on unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) images. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 58:213–24
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Sweeney KL, Helker VT, Perryman WL, LeRoi DJ, Fritz LW et al. 2016. Flying beneath the clouds at the edge of the world: using a hexacopter to supplement abundance surveys of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in Alaska. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 4:70–81
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Sykora-Bodie ST, Bezy V, Johnston DW, Newton E, Lohmann KJ 2017. Quantifying nearshore sea turtle densities: applications of unmanned aerial systems for population assessments. Sci. Rep. 7:1255641
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Terada A, Morita Y, Hashimoto T, Mori T, Ohba T et al. 2018. Water sampling using a drone at Yugama crater lake, Kusatsu-Shirane volcano, Japan. Earth Planets Space 70:64
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Toonen HM, Bush SR 2018. The digital frontiers of fisheries governance: fish attraction devices, drones and satellites. J. Environ. Policy Plan. In press. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1461084
    [Crossref]
  102. Tremblay JA, Desrochers A, Aubry Y, Pace P, Bird DM 2017. A low-cost technique for radio-tracking wildlife using a small standard unmanned aerial vehicle. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 94:102–8
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Twidwell D, Allen CR, Detweiler C, Higgins J, Laney C, Elbaum S 2016. Smokey comes of age: unmanned aerial systems for fire management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14:333–39
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Veenstra TS, Churnside JH 2012. Airborne sensors for detecting large marine debris at sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 65:63–68
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Villa T, Gonzalez F, Miljievic B, Ristovski Z, Morawska L 2016. An overview of small unmanned aerial vehicles for air quality measurements: present applications and future prospectives. Sensors 16:1072
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Weinstein BG 2017. A computer vision for animal ecology. J. Anim. Ecol. 87:533–45
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Weisler W, Stewart W, Anderson MB, Peters KJ, Gopalarathnam A, Bryant M 2017. Testing and characterization of a fixed wing cross-domain unmanned vehicle operating in aerial and underwater environments. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 43:969–82
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Xu F, Gao Z, Jiang X, Shang W, Ning J et al. 2018. A UAV and S2A data-based estimation of the initial biomass of green algae in the South Yellow Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 128:408–14
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Zhang C, Kovacs JM 2012. The application of small unmanned aerial systems for precision agriculture: a review. Precis. Agric. 13:693–712
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-marine-010318-095323
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-marine-010318-095323
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error