arXiv:2508.03545cs.CVq-bio.QM2025-08被引 1

无人机热成像+可见光监测鹿群,高效估算密度。

Advancing Wildlife Monitoring: Drone-Based Sampling for Roe Deer Density Estimation

  • 用无人机航拍热成像与可见光图像,系统化采集数据
  • 三种方法估算密度均显示比相机陷阱更高,尤其在开阔地
  • 适合大范围、快速、非侵入式野生动物监测

我们使用无人飞行器在奥地利东南部对原鹿(Capreolus capreolus)密度进行估算,并与相机陷阱数据对比。传统方法如捕获-标记-重捕、距离取样或相机陷阱虽成熟但耗时或空间受限。通过热成像(IR)和RGB影像,无人机实现高效、非干扰式动物计数。调查于2024年10月和11月的无叶期开展,覆盖三个次伊利里亚丘陵与台地地貌区域,单日完成,基于350米网格预设起飞点并采用算法生成系统随机飞行航线。多架无人机协同作业,可单日覆盖大面积,减少重复计数。飞行高度设定为60米,以避免惊扰原鹿同时确保检测能力。动物在录像中人工标注后,按平方公里推算密度。采用三种递增复杂度的外推方法:简单面积法、自助法和零膨胀负二项模型。作为对比,利用同期相机陷阱数据计算了随机遭遇模型(REM)估计值。无人机方法结果相近,总体高于REM,仅在十月一个区域例外。我们推测,无人机反映白天在开阔与林地的活动情况,而REM则平均了林区较长时间内的活动。尽管两者均估算密度,却提供不同视角。结果表明,无人机是一种有前景且可扩展的野生动物密度估算方法。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

We use unmanned aerial drones to estimate wildlife density in southeastern Austria and compare these estimates to camera trap data. Traditional methods like capture-recapture, distance sampling, or camera traps are well-established but labour-intensive or spatially constrained. Using thermal (IR) and RGB imagery, drones enable efficient, non-intrusive animal counting. Our surveys were conducted during the leafless period on single days in October and November 2024 in three areas of a sub-Illyrian hill and terrace landscape. Flight transects were based on predefined launch points using a 350 m grid and an algorithm that defined the direction of systematically randomized transects. This setup allowed surveying large areas in one day using multiple drones, minimizing double counts. Flight altitude was set at 60 m to avoid disturbing roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) while ensuring detection. Animals were manually annotated in the recorded imagery and extrapolated to densities per square kilometer. We applied three extrapolation methods with increasing complexity: naive area-based extrapolation, bootstrapping, and zero-inflated negative binomial modelling. For comparison, a Random Encounter Model (REM) estimate was calculated using camera trap data from the flight period. The drone-based methods yielded similar results, generally showing higher densities than REM, except in one area in October. We hypothesize that drone-based density reflects daytime activity in open and forested areas, while REM estimates average activity over longer periods within forested zones. Although both approaches estimate density, they offer different perspectives on wildlife presence. Our results show that drones offer a promising, scalable method for wildlife density estimation.

无人机监测野生动物密度热成像遥感

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。