Methodological Ambiguity and Inconsistency Constrain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as A Silver Bullet for Monitoring Ecological Restoration

The last decade has seen an exponential increase in the application of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to ecological monitoring research, though with little standardisation or comparability in methodological approaches and research aims. We reviewed the international peer-reviewed literature in orde...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Todd M. Buters, Philip W. Bateman, Todd Robinson, David Belton, Kingsley W. Dixon, Adam T. Cross
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2019-05-01
Series:Remote Sensing
Subjects:
UAS
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/10/1180
id doaj-6f58b7b621644c6e8dfdeecc2a413a6d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6f58b7b621644c6e8dfdeecc2a413a6d2020-11-25T01:36:54ZengMDPI AGRemote Sensing2072-42922019-05-011110118010.3390/rs11101180rs11101180Methodological Ambiguity and Inconsistency Constrain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as A Silver Bullet for Monitoring Ecological RestorationTodd M. Buters0Philip W. Bateman1Todd Robinson2David Belton3Kingsley W. Dixon4Adam T. Cross5Centre for Mine Site Restoration, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, AustraliaSchool of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, AustraliaSchool of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, AustraliaSchool of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, AustraliaCentre for Mine Site Restoration, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, AustraliaCentre for Mine Site Restoration, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, AustraliaThe last decade has seen an exponential increase in the application of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to ecological monitoring research, though with little standardisation or comparability in methodological approaches and research aims. We reviewed the international peer-reviewed literature in order to explore the potential limitations on the feasibility of UAV-use in the monitoring of ecological restoration, and examined how they might be mitigated to maximise the quality, reliability and comparability of UAV-generated data. We found little evidence of translational research applying UAV-based approaches to ecological restoration, with less than 7% of 2133 published UAV monitoring studies centred around ecological restoration. Of the 48 studies, > 65% had been published in the three years preceding this study. Where studies utilised UAVs for rehabilitation or restoration applications, there was a strong propensity for single-sensor monitoring using commercially available RPAs fitted with the modest-resolution RGB sensors available. There was a strong positive correlation between the use of complex and expensive sensors (e.g., LiDAR, thermal cameras, hyperspectral sensors) and the complexity of chosen image classification techniques (e.g., machine learning), suggesting that cost remains a primary constraint to the wide application of multiple or complex sensors in UAV-based research. We propose that if UAV-acquired data are to represent the future of ecological monitoring, research requires a) consistency in the proven application of different platforms and sensors to the monitoring of target landforms, organisms and ecosystems, underpinned by clearly articulated monitoring goals and outcomes; b) optimization of data analysis techniques and the manner in which data are reported, undertaken in cross-disciplinary partnership with fields such as bioinformatics and machine learning; and c) the development of sound, reasonable and multi-laterally homogenous regulatory and policy framework supporting the application of UAVs to the large-scale and potentially trans-disciplinary ecological applications of the future.https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/10/1180ecological restorationdroneUASrehabilitationrevegetation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Todd M. Buters
Philip W. Bateman
Todd Robinson
David Belton
Kingsley W. Dixon
Adam T. Cross
spellingShingle Todd M. Buters
Philip W. Bateman
Todd Robinson
David Belton
Kingsley W. Dixon
Adam T. Cross
Methodological Ambiguity and Inconsistency Constrain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as A Silver Bullet for Monitoring Ecological Restoration
Remote Sensing
ecological restoration
drone
UAS
rehabilitation
revegetation
author_facet Todd M. Buters
Philip W. Bateman
Todd Robinson
David Belton
Kingsley W. Dixon
Adam T. Cross
author_sort Todd M. Buters
title Methodological Ambiguity and Inconsistency Constrain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as A Silver Bullet for Monitoring Ecological Restoration
title_short Methodological Ambiguity and Inconsistency Constrain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as A Silver Bullet for Monitoring Ecological Restoration
title_full Methodological Ambiguity and Inconsistency Constrain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as A Silver Bullet for Monitoring Ecological Restoration
title_fullStr Methodological Ambiguity and Inconsistency Constrain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as A Silver Bullet for Monitoring Ecological Restoration
title_full_unstemmed Methodological Ambiguity and Inconsistency Constrain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as A Silver Bullet for Monitoring Ecological Restoration
title_sort methodological ambiguity and inconsistency constrain unmanned aerial vehicles as a silver bullet for monitoring ecological restoration
publisher MDPI AG
series Remote Sensing
issn 2072-4292
publishDate 2019-05-01
description The last decade has seen an exponential increase in the application of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to ecological monitoring research, though with little standardisation or comparability in methodological approaches and research aims. We reviewed the international peer-reviewed literature in order to explore the potential limitations on the feasibility of UAV-use in the monitoring of ecological restoration, and examined how they might be mitigated to maximise the quality, reliability and comparability of UAV-generated data. We found little evidence of translational research applying UAV-based approaches to ecological restoration, with less than 7% of 2133 published UAV monitoring studies centred around ecological restoration. Of the 48 studies, > 65% had been published in the three years preceding this study. Where studies utilised UAVs for rehabilitation or restoration applications, there was a strong propensity for single-sensor monitoring using commercially available RPAs fitted with the modest-resolution RGB sensors available. There was a strong positive correlation between the use of complex and expensive sensors (e.g., LiDAR, thermal cameras, hyperspectral sensors) and the complexity of chosen image classification techniques (e.g., machine learning), suggesting that cost remains a primary constraint to the wide application of multiple or complex sensors in UAV-based research. We propose that if UAV-acquired data are to represent the future of ecological monitoring, research requires a) consistency in the proven application of different platforms and sensors to the monitoring of target landforms, organisms and ecosystems, underpinned by clearly articulated monitoring goals and outcomes; b) optimization of data analysis techniques and the manner in which data are reported, undertaken in cross-disciplinary partnership with fields such as bioinformatics and machine learning; and c) the development of sound, reasonable and multi-laterally homogenous regulatory and policy framework supporting the application of UAVs to the large-scale and potentially trans-disciplinary ecological applications of the future.
topic ecological restoration
drone
UAS
rehabilitation
revegetation
url https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/10/1180
work_keys_str_mv AT toddmbuters methodologicalambiguityandinconsistencyconstrainunmannedaerialvehiclesasasilverbulletformonitoringecologicalrestoration
AT philipwbateman methodologicalambiguityandinconsistencyconstrainunmannedaerialvehiclesasasilverbulletformonitoringecologicalrestoration
AT toddrobinson methodologicalambiguityandinconsistencyconstrainunmannedaerialvehiclesasasilverbulletformonitoringecologicalrestoration
AT davidbelton methodologicalambiguityandinconsistencyconstrainunmannedaerialvehiclesasasilverbulletformonitoringecologicalrestoration
AT kingsleywdixon methodologicalambiguityandinconsistencyconstrainunmannedaerialvehiclesasasilverbulletformonitoringecologicalrestoration
AT adamtcross methodologicalambiguityandinconsistencyconstrainunmannedaerialvehiclesasasilverbulletformonitoringecologicalrestoration
_version_ 1725060994818899968