Question

We conducted a comprehensive literature search on drones in conservation up to October 2nd 2018, in line with related studies [10,11,35]. All searches were done by the same person in English, mainly using Google Scholar. This was further complemented through reference harvesting, citation tracking, abstracts in conference programs, and author search, using Research Gate and Mendeley (see PRISMA Flowchart in Supplementary Figure S1 Checklist and list of studies reviewed in Table S1). We then removed duplicate and unrelated results. Finally, peer-reviewed publications were collated and revised. Keywords on the search included drones in their various meanings and acronyms: “unmanned aircraft systems”, “UAS”, “remotely piloted aerial system”, “RPAS”, “drone”, “model aircraft”, “unmanned aerial vehicle”, “UAV”, “unmanned aircraft system”. These were combined with terms referring to threats and common conservation measurements in protected areas: “protected area”, Drones 2019, 3, 10 4 of 24 “conservation”, “ecology”, “ecosystem”, “habitat”, “vegetation”, “forest”, “wetland”, “reforestation”, “monitoring”, “survey”, “sampling”, “inventory”, “wildlife”, “fauna”, “bird”, “mammal”, “fish”, “amphibian”, “reptile”, “wildfire”, “landslide”, “remote sensing”, “tourism”, “ecotourism”, “law enforcement”, “poaching”, “anti-poaching”, “logging”, “risk management”, “pollution”, and “search and rescue”. In total, we applied 47 search terms and combinations using logical disjunctions. We classified the studies into categories that represent the common threats and essential management measures in protected areas [5,38–40]. The categories are: “wildlife research and management” for those projects aimed at observing wildlife, estimating population parameters such as abundance and distribution, and establishing management measures to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts (n=96); “ecosystem monitoring" for applications related with the study and mapping of natural habitats (n=106); “Law enforcement” encompassing poaching and other illicit activities (n=6); "Ecotourism" referring to recreational activities and visitors management (n=3); “Environmental management and emergency response" spanning environmental monitoring and protection, natural hazards, search and rescue operations and similar cases (n=45). We briefly tackled legal and ethical issues, including potential impact on wildlife and habitats, but also economic and technological factors, since all shape the feasibility of drones to approach conservation and environmental issues. 3. Results and Discussion The literature search on drones in conservation provided a total of 256 studies. Of these, 99 describe applications that were accomplished in terrestrial and marine protected areas, according to the Protected Planet database [41]. The typology of protected areas includes national, international designations and registered private initiatives, with all UICN management categories (Ia, Ib, II, III, IV, V, VI) represented [1]. We found examples on all continents and in most ecosystems. The United States of America lead the ranking of countries where more drone studies have taken place (45), followed by Canada (26), Australia (17), China (11), Germany (11) and Spain (9).

Manned aircrafts have been traditionally used to complement ground-based wildlife surveys, but under-resourcing of many protected areas prevent their more widespread use. Besides, a significant number of aerial accidents with fatalities have been historically reported [45]. Moreover, aerial incursions are subject to visibility bias since a greater number of observers is required to guarantee an exhaustive count of populations and minimize errors [46]. Drones have emerged as a feasible alternative to surpass such inconveniences at small scales and complement modern wildlife conservation. Remotely sensed capabilities of drones offer a less invasive, non-hazardous, repetitive and reliable monitoring technique [47] to collect species abundance and distribution, document wildlife behavior, life-history and health status. Recent examples target terrestrial mammals [48–50]; marine mammals [51–55]; birds [11,56–60]; reptiles [15,61–64]; and fish [65,66]. Most surveys opted for both optical and thermal cameras, the latter especially appropriate to sense elusive species overnight, when the temperature differences between the animal body and the environment are greater [67]. Other studies implemented acoustic sensors to record songbirds [68] or combine drones with tracking systems aboard [9,69,70] to collect wildlife movement and environmental data. Researchers have also devised ways to use drones for insect monitoring [71], habitat modeling [72] and sampling [73]. Protected areas often face human-wildlife conflicts in populated areas bordering their limits [74]. Some studies described the use of drones in various management tasks, such as moving elephants out of human settlements [75], mapping wildlife damage on crops to calculate compensation costs [76] or dropping fake baits targeting feral species [77]. Drones constitute an attainable low-cost alternative to assess and reduce the risk that hazardous infrastructures [78,79] or mechanical harvesting [80,81] pose to wildlife. Lastly, fine-scale mapping of species distribution, land-use changes and water bodies using high resolution aerial imagery hold potential to complement epidemiological and zoonotic studies [82–85], and may serve as a rapid mechanism to inform prevention and reinforce biosecurity programs. 3.1.2. Ecosystem Monitoring Protected areas are reference sites for ecological monitoring. These activities provide essential information to track ecosystem changes as a result of management and environmental factors [86]. Established methods for habitat monitoring range from in situ and airborne observations to satellitebased remote sensing. The latest generation of commercial satellite sensors [87] collect images at submeter resolution and entail remarkable technological advances to Earth observation, but the geographical availability of products is limited and not always rapidly available. Drones are particularly appropriated to timely survey small areas at unprecedented detail [88], could be adapted to carry sampling devices and take in-situ measurements [89], and may prove advantageous to monitor Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) [90]. Similarly, mapping and quantifying ecosystem services with drones constitute an efficient means to inform site design and zoning, especially when the information available is scarce, outdated and based on coarse-resolution remote sensing images. Also, monitoring habitat degradation with drones in protected areas and borderlands [91,92] represents a novel method to assess the performance of conservation actions. Finally, fine-scale habitat assessment using high resolution maps could assist, selecting suitable reintroduction sites for endangered or locally extinct species [93]. Experimental drone monitoring projects have increased noticeably, both by governmental institutions [94] and research groups, for informing on the distribution [95], health [16,96], productivity [97], composition [98], structure [99,100] and biomass [101–104] of forests using both Drones 2019, 3, 10 7 of 24 passive and active sensors [105]. As a consequence, drone applications forinventory, characterization and habitat restoration are maturing fast, but scaling-up and linking the collected information with that coming from satellite remote sensing remains a knowledge gap [106]. However, some studies represent a step in this direction, including the following: derive and enhance ground-based forest metrics to assist modeling of ecological process at regional scale [107], validate vegetation maps from drone image interpretation [108,109] or address the radiometric calibration of small multispectral cameras to allow comparisons with satellite data [110,111]. Drones have been used for communitybased forest monitoring [112], and therefore suggested as an important asset to impulse the participation of developing countries in the carbon market (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, REDD) [113]. In addition, drones have operated successfully in different ecosystems to measure the spread of invasive species [114–118]; map coastal and marine habitats [119–125]; wetlands [126–130]; grasslands [17,131,132]; savannas [133,134]; glaciers [135–137]; polar areas [138,139]; and riparian ecosystems [140–143]. 3.1.3. Law Enforcement Efficient control and surveillance of illegal activities lead the ranking of measures for effective management of terrestrial [144] and marine [145] protected areas. These conservation actions aim to maintain the integrity of threatened species and ecosystems in the face of human pressures, but in practice suffer from serious deficiencies [146]. Enforcement is especially challenging in large protected areas where iconic species are on the verge of extinction due to illegal hunting, fishing, encroachment or habitat loss. Drones constitute a technological advance to complement insufficient staff and resourcing in anti-poaching [147–150] and other less contentious acts such as vandalism or bonfires in unauthorized areas [151,152]. Drone surveillance aim to autonomously detect and track subjects integrating live streaming visible and thermal camera systems with real time vision processing techniques. However, these applications are subjected to technological and legal constraints. Real-time recognition of suspicious activity or flying in adverse weather conditions remain a work in progress [153]. The relatively low maximum flight time of modest drones is a major obstacle to cover large areas [12], but progress is noticeable. Although the last generation of longendurance fixed-wing and hybrid aerial platforms have higher autonomy, meeting the optimal specifications requires a considerable investment [154] with uncertain benefits, especially in developing countries [155]. Besides, the main barriers to protected areas surveillance using drones take place in the legislative and socio-political sphere. The flight rules often limit flying drones beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS), above a certain altitude or at night, precluding the surveillance in periods of increased illegal activity. On the other hand, there are concerns about the alleged social and ethical implications of using drones with coercive purposes [156]. Duffy debated the advent of militarized conservation and stated that drones and similar technologies could contribute to human rights breaching [157], which may lessen the commitment of native communities [36,158] to protect their natural resources. Under these considerations, more research is needed to identify those technological advances and best practices that do not pose or minimize the risk to the privacy and welfare of people but serve for the purpose of surveillance. In this sense, thermal images reveal the temperature profile of the target, but lack the ability to collect sensitive personal information. Other measures can be taken to restrict the surveillance to previously defined zones and according to poaching threat maps [159]representing those areas with greatest pressures. In addition, some studies have remarked that the effectiveness of antipoaching depends on a greater allocation of resources [144]. For example, to improve the effectiveness of offshore guarding activities [160], patrol vessel could acquire waterproof rotary-wing or fixed-wing drones with float planes to persuade and record illegal fishing within the boundaries of marine protected areas. These evidences could be considered a reliable proof in court, even when offenders are seized outside the no-take zones [161]. Alternatively, there are some reported experiences where drones assisted counter-mapping with reasonable success [162,163]. With all due caution, these are some compelling reasons to encourage the development and implementation of drones to fight poaching. Nevertheless, the success of such Drones 2019, 3, 10 8 of 24 initiatives might require a greater consensus among the parties involved and the development of multidisciplinary strategies that seek to solve these recurrent threats to biodiversity. 3.1.4. Ecotourism Well-managed ecotourism promotes conservation and provides socioeconomic benefits to local communities. Otherwise, it may adversely affect the welfare of the animals and disrupt their habitats [164]. In the midst of the dilemma, drones have been proposed for recreational and educational purposes [165,166], document natural monuments and cultural sites [167]; and social research and visitor surveillance [168,169]. However, drone operations are susceptible to endanger wildlife [35], compromise tourist experience [154] or in case of accidents, lead to pollution or wildfires in sensitive areas due to the presence of toxic and flammable components. Subsequently, to restrain the uncontrolled presence of drones in protected areas, stakeholders agreed on a set of policies to establish permitted activities in Antarctica [170], opted for simpler rules and recommendations [171] or completely banned drones arguing safety reasons and wildlife impact [172]. Even when the economic benefits and leisure possibilities are promising, undesirable events and a lack of ethical practices could emphasize the negative connotations of drones to the detriment of their advantages. Thus, it would be advisable to be cautious in the face of a growing demand to incorporate drones into ecotourism services and continue working on a set of consensual measures to minimize the potential drawbacks drones may bring to protected areas.

How would you summarize this passage?

Answer 1

DRONES FOR CONSERVATION IN PROTECTED AREAS-

DRONES are conducted in conservation of to 2nd October 2018 drones in the various meaning and acronyms- unnamed aircraft systems, UAS remotely piloted aerial system RPAS,drone, model aircraft unnamed aerial vehicle, UAV unnamed aircraft system.

Common conservation measurement in protected areas conservation ecology ,habitat forest, and reforestation, monitoring survey ,inventory, wildlife ,bird ,fish amphibian reptile, landslide ,remote sensing tourism ecotourism, law enforcement causing anti-poaching loggig risk management pollution and Search and rescue .Total 47 search and combination where are applied using logical disjunction.

common threats and essential management measures in protected areas are categorised as-

-Wildlife research and management

Estimating population parameters

Establishing management measures

Ecosystem monitoring

Law enforcement

Ecotourism

Environmental management

Emerging response

Natural hazard operation

Search and rescue operation

Drones in conservation provided at total 256 studies of these 99 where accomplished in terrestrial and marine protected areas.

United state of America lead the ranking where the more drone studies is taken place followed by Canada, Australia, Germany,Spain.

Drones have emerged as a feasile alternative of small scale and complement modern life conservation.

monitoring technique for collecting species abundance and distribution document wildlife behaviour examples-

Target terrestrial mammals, marine mammals ,birds reptiles and fish.

researches device ways to use drones for insect monitoring,habitat, modeling and sampling.

Use of drones for moving elephants, mapping wildlife damage on crops.Drones reduces the risk of hazardous infrastructure post wildlife at low cost.

Drone applications for inventory characterization and habitat restoration and maturing fast.

Drones have been used for community-based forest monitoring.

Drones have also been operated in ecosystem to measure the spread of invasive species, map coastal and marine habitats, wetlands,grasslands, savannas glaciers polar areas and riparian ecosystem.

Drone surveillance aim to autonomously detect and track subjects integrating live streaming visible and thermal camera systems with real time vision processing techniques.

The success of such Drones 2019, 3, 10 8 of 24 initiatives might require a greater consensus among the parties involved and the development of multidisciplinary strategies that seek to solve these recurrent threats to biodiversity.

Drone operations are susceptible to endanger wildlife compromise tourist experience or in case of accidents, lead to pollution or wildfires in sensitive areas due to the presence of toxic and flammable components. To restrain the uncontrolled presence of drones in protected areas, stakeholders agreed on a set of policies to establish permitted activities in Antarctica [ opted for simpler rules and recommendations or completely banned drones arguing safety reasons and wildlife impact.

working on a set of consensual measures to minimize the potential drawbacks drones may bring to protected areas.