Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are increasingly used in marine wildlife research. As technological developments rapidly advance the versatility and functionality of affordable UAVs, their potential as a marine aerial survey tool is quickly gaining attention. Currently, there is significant interest in whether cost-effective UAVs can outperform manned aircraft in aerial surveys of marine fauna at sea, although few empirical studies have compared relative sampling efficiency, accuracy and precision. Civil aviation restrictions, and subsequent available civilian technologies, make it unlikely that UAVs will currently be more effective than manned aircraft for large area marine surveys. UAVs do, however, have the capacity to fill a niche for intensive smaller spatial scale sampling and for undertaking aerial surveys in isolated locations. Improvements in UAV sensor resolutions and alternative sensor types, such as multispectral cameras, may increase area coverage, reduce perception error, and increase water penetration for sightability. Additionally, the further development of auto-detection software will rapidly improve image processing and further reduce human observer error inherent in manned aerial surveys. As UAV technologies and associated methodology is further developed and becomes more affordable, these aircraft will be increasingly adopted as a marine aerial survey tool in place of traditional methods using manned aircraft.
In Australian and New Zealand waters, current knowledge on white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) movement ecology is based on individual tracking studies using relatively small numbers of tags. These studies describe a species that occupies highly variable and complex habitats. However, uncertainty remains as to whether the proposed movement patterns are representative of the wider population. Here, we tagged 103 immature Australasian white sharks (147-350 cm fork length) with both acoustic and satellite transmitters to expand our current knowledge of population linkages, spatiotemporal dynamics and coastal habitats. Eighty-three sharks provided useable data. Based on individual tracking periods of up to 5 years and a total of 2,865 days of tracking data, we were able to characterise complex movement patterns over ~45° of latitude and ~72° of longitude and distinguish regular/recurrent patterns from occasional/exceptional migration events. Shark movements ranged from Papua New Guinea to sub-Antarctic waters and to Western Australia, highlighting connectivity across their entire Australasian range. Results over the 12-year study period yielded a comprehensive characterisation of the movement ecology of immature Australasian white sharks across multiple spatial scales and substantially expanded the body of knowledge available for population assessment and management.
Recreational angling has been implicated in population declines of some marine and freshwater fish, but this activity is rarely considered as a threat or even halted when endangered species are targeted. Indeed, in some cases, anglers are drawn to fish for rare or endangered species. Conservation‐oriented behaviours such as catch‐and‐release are often practiced voluntarily due to the ethics of anglers, yet even in these cases, some fishing mortality occurs. Nonetheless, there are many indirect conservation benefits associated with recreational angling. Here, we present a series of case‐studies and consider whether catch‐and‐release angling for endangered fish is a conservation problem or a conservation action. If recreational angling activities contribute to population‐level consequences that are contrary to recovery strategies, then angling for endangered species would seem to be a poor option. However, as revealed by several case‐studies, there is much evidence that anglers are vocal and effective proponents of fish and habitat conservation, and for endangered species, they are often the only voice when other stakeholders are not engaged. Anglers may contribute directly to conservation actions via user fees (e.g. licences), philanthropic donations or by volunteering in research, education and restoration activities. However, it is important to quantify post‐release mortality as well as understand the full suite of factors influencing a given population or species to know the potential risks. A risk assessment approach outlined in the paper may be used by managers to determine when the benefits of angling for endangered species outweigh the risks.
The use of drones to study marine animals shows promise for the examination of numerous aspects of their ecology, behaviour, health and movement patterns. However, the responses of some marine phyla to the presence of drones varies broadly, as do the general operational protocols used to study them. Inconsistent methodological approaches could lead to difficulties comparing studies and can call into question the repeatability of research. This review draws on current literature and researchers with a wealth of practical experience to outline the idiosyncrasies of studying various marine taxa with drones. We also outline current best practice for drone operation in marine environments based on the literature and our practical experience in the field. The protocols outlined herein will be of use to researchers interested in incorporating drones as a tool into their research on marine animals and will help form consistent approaches for drone-based studies in the future.
ContextA series of unprovoked shark attacks on New South Wales (Australia) beaches between 2013 and 2015 triggered an investigation of new and emerging technologies for protecting bathers. Traditionally, bather protection has included several methods for shark capture, detection and/or deterrence but has often relied on environmentally damaging techniques. Heightened environmental awareness, including the important role of sharks in the marine ecosystem, demands new techniques for protection from shark attack. Recent advances in drone-related technologies have enabled the possibility of real-time shark detection and alerting. AimTo determine the reliability of drones to detect shark analogues in the water across a range of environmental conditions experienced on New South Wales beaches. MethodsA standard multirotor drone (DJI Inspire 1) was used to detect shark analogues as a proxy during flights at 0900, 1200 and 1500 hours over a 3-week period. The 27 flights encompassed a range of environmental conditions, including wind speed (2–30.0kmh−1), turbidity (0.4–6.4m), cloud cover (0–100%), glare (0–100%), seas (0.4–1.4m), swells (1.4–2.5m) and sea state (Beaufort Scale 1–5 Bf). Key resultsDetection rates of the shark analogues over the 27 flights were significantly higher for the independent observer conducting post-flight video analysis (50%) than for the drone pilot (38%) (Wald P=0.04). Water depth and turbidity significantly impaired detection of analogues (Wald P=0.04). Specifically, at a set depth of 2m below the water surface, very few analogues were seen by the observer or pilot when water turbidity reduced visibility to less than 1.5m. Similarly, when water visibility was greater than 1.5m, the detection rate was negatively related to water depth. Conclusions The present study demonstrates that drones can fly under most environmental conditions and would be a cost-effective bather protection tool for a range of user groups. ImplicationsThe most effective use of drones would occur during light winds and in shallow clear water. Although poor water visibility may restrict detection, sharks spend large amounts of time near the surface, therefore providing a practical tool for detection in most conditions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.