Heating decoys to mimic thermal signatures of live animals for drones

Thermal sensors mounted on drones (unoccupied aircraft systems) are popular and effective tools for monitoring cryptic animal species, although few studies have quantified sampling error of animal counts from thermal images. Using decoys is one effective strategy to quantify bias and count accuracy; however, plastic decoys do not mimic thermal signatures of representative species. Our objective was to produce heat signatures in animal decoys to realistically match thermal images of live animals obtained from a drone-based sensor. We tested commercially available methods to heat plastic decoys of three different size classes, including chemical foot warmers, manually heated water, electric socks, pad, or blanket, and mini and small electric space heaters. We used criteria in two categories, 1) external temperature differences from ambient temperatures (ambient difference) and 2) color bins from a palette in thermal images obtained from a drone near the ground and in the air, to determine if heated decoys adequately matched respective live animals in four body regions. Three methods achieved similar thermal signatures to live animals for three to four body regions in external temperatures and predominantly matched the corresponding yellow color bins in thermal drone images from the ground and in the air. Pigeon decoys were best and most consistently heated with three-foot warmers. Goose and deer decoys were best heated by mini and small space heaters, respectively, in their body cavities, with a heated sock in the head of the goose decoy. The materials and equipment for our best heating methods were relatively inexpensive, commercially available items that provide sustained heat and could be adapted to various shapes and sizes for a wide range of avian and mammalian species. Our heating methods could be used in future studies to quantify bias and validate methodologies for drone surveys of animals with thermal sensors.•We determined optimal heating methods for plastic animal decoys with inexpensive and commercially available equipment to mimic thermal signatures of live animals.•Methods could be used to quantify bias and improve thermal surveys of animals with drones in future studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
MethodsX
Published
2024-08-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102933
Primary Topic
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Heating decoys to mimic thermal signatures of live animals for drones

Morgan B. Pfeiffer, Jared A. Elmore, Bradley F. Blackwell, Landon R. Jones et al.
MethodsX
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
article

Heating decoys to mimic thermal signatures of live animals for drones

Morgan B. Pfeiffer, Jared A. Elmore, Bradley F. Blackwell, Landon R. Jones, Kristine O. Evans, Raymond B Iglay, Cerise Mensah
article en

Abstract

Thermal sensors mounted on drones (unoccupied aircraft systems) are popular and effective tools for monitoring cryptic animal species, although few studies have quantified sampling error of animal counts from thermal images. Using decoys is one effective strategy to quantify bias and count accuracy; however, plastic decoys do not mimic thermal signatures of representative species. Our objective was to produce heat signatures in animal decoys to realistically match thermal images of live animals obtained from a drone-based sensor. We tested commercially available methods to heat plastic decoys of three different size classes, including chemical foot warmers, manually heated water, electric socks, pad, or blanket, and mini and small electric space heaters. We used criteria in two categories, 1) external temperature differences from ambient temperatures (ambient difference) and 2) color bins from a palette in thermal images obtained from a drone near the ground and in the air, to determine if heated decoys adequately matched respective live animals in four body regions. Three methods achieved similar thermal signatures to live animals for three to four body regions in external temperatures and predominantly matched the corresponding yellow color bins in thermal drone images from the ground and in the air. Pigeon decoys were best and most consistently heated with three-foot warmers. Goose and deer decoys were best heated by mini and small space heaters, respectively, in their body cavities, with a heated sock in the head of the goose decoy. The materials and equipment for our best heating methods were relatively inexpensive, commercially available items that provide sustained heat and could be adapted to various shapes and sizes for a wide range of avian and mammalian species. Our heating methods could be used in future studies to quantify bias and validate methodologies for drone surveys of animals with thermal sensors.•We determined optimal heating methods for plastic animal decoys with inexpensive and commercially available equipment to mimic thermal signatures of live animals.•Methods could be used to quantify bias and improve thermal surveys of animals with drones in future studies.

MethodsXVol. 13
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (US), Mississippi Museum of Natural Science (US), Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks (US), National Wildlife Research Center, Clemson University (US), Mississippi State University (US)
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mississippi State University, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Wildlife Research Center
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 86%
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.