Advertisement

Polar Biology

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 217–224 | Cite as

Study of fauna population changes on Penguin Island and Turret Point Oasis (King George Island, Antarctica) using an unmanned aerial vehicle

  • Małgorzata Korczak-AbshireEmail author
  • Anna Zmarz
  • Mirosław Rodzewicz
  • Marlena Kycko
  • Izabela Karsznia
  • Katarzyna J. Chwedorzewska
Open Access
Short Note

Abstract

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as an alternative to manned aircrafts is an excellent, less invasive, safe tool, especially in sensitive polar regions. Here we used a fixed-wing UAV to collect data on seabird and pinniped populations in hardly accessible Antarctic areas. The implementation of an auto-piloted UAV equipped with a digital camera (Canon EOS 700D, 35 mm f/2.0 lens) allowed us to collect high-quality material applicable to a quantitative analysis of the fauna populations. A successful photogrammetric mission, at an altitude of 550 m above sea level, was accomplished during one Beyond Visual Line of Sight flight above hard-to-access Penguin Island and Turret Point Oasis (King George Island). Obtained selected RGB images were processed to generate a panoramic image stitch with resolution of 0.07 m ground sampling distance. A total of 4290 (SD = 33.08) breeding individuals of two penguin species, Adélie (Pygoscelis adeliae) and chinstrap (Pygoscelis antarcticus), 426 (SD = 7.78) individuals of the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) and 6 individuals of the Weddell seal (Leptonychotes weddellii) were identified in both study areas. Additionally, 222 (SD = 2.0) individuals of the southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus) and 76 (SD = 1.0) of the Antarctic shag (Phalacrocorax atriceps bransfieldensis) in the Turret Point area were recognized. The presented observations on the natural history of the investigated fauna together with the available literature may be useful in future research on population trends. A comparison with available historical data for both investigated areas suggests a decrease of 68.29% in both penguin species in the 1980–2016 period. The presented results confirmed that UAVs are useful for remote census work for Antarctic seabirds.

Keywords

Remote sensing South Shetlands Pygoscelis Pinnipeds BVLOS flight Antarctica 

Introduction

Penguin Island is situated in front of Turret Point, which is one of the oases of King George Island, South Shetland Islands, Maritime Antarctica (Birkenmajer 1982; Pudełko 2008). Both sites are sporadically visited by researchers, more frequently by tourists (Pfeiffer and Peter 2004; Sander et al. 2007). Until 2015, the Penguin I site qualified as an Important Bird Area (Harris et al. 2015). Studies of Penguin I fauna were reported by Sladen et al. (1968), Croxall and Kirkwood (1979), Jabłoński (1980, 1984), Trivelpiece et al. (1987), Shuford and Spear (1988), Pereira et al. (1990), Naveen et al. (2000) Pfeiffer and Peter (2004), Sander et al. (2007) and Korczak-Abshire et al. (2012). The latest information on the fauna inventory was recorded in 2013 (Harris et al. 2015). Data on the bird and pinniped populations of Turret Point have been published only by a few authors (Croxall and Kirkwood 1979; Jabłoński 1984, 1987; Trivelpiece et al. 1987; Pereira et al. 1990; Naveen et al. 2000; Korczak-Abshire et al. 2011). According to Pfeiffer and Peter (2004), 11 bird species nest on Penguin I, among which the most abundant species are Adélie (Pygoscelis adeliae) and chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarcticus). On Turret Point, just eight species of breeding birds were recognized (Pereira et al. 1990). In both areas, i.e., Penguin I and Turret Point oasis, a few species of pinnipeds have their breeding, moulting and resting sites (Jabłoński 1980, 1987).

Use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to collect environmental data is a relatively new phenomenon in Antarctica, but it has already proved to be a very effective tool for ecosystem monitoring purposes (e.g., Turner et al. 2012; Watts et al. 2012; Funaki et al. 2014; Bollard-Breen et al. 2015; Dąbski et al. 2017; Mustafa et al. 2017; Weimerskirch et al. 2018). Owing to remote sensing, it is possible to detect environmental changes occurring over large and difficult-to-reach areas and whenever the collection of field data is very difficult or impossible. UAVs, including Vertical Take-Off & Landing (Goebel et al. 2015; Krause et al. 2017; Mustafa et al. 2017) and small unmanned aircraft systems (according to Watts et al. 2012), can operate at lower altitudes and thus can collect higher resolution images at a lower cost than satellites or conventional airplanes (e.g., Berni et al. 2009; Anderson and Gaston 2013). The first tests on the suitability of multicopters and fixed-wing UAVs for conducting censuses of penguins were very promising (Trathan et al. 2014; Goebel et al. 2015; Ratcliffe et al. 2015; Zmarz et al. 2015) and offered a non-invasive method to study Antarctic wildlife (Korczak-Abshire et al. 2016; Rümmler et al. 2016).

Here we used a fixed-wing UAV to collect data on seabird and pinniped populations in remote and hardly accessible Antarctic areas in an effort to add natural history observations to the available literature that may be useful in future research on population trends. We lend further credence to the notion that UAVs are useful for remote census work for Antarctic seabirds and pinnipeds.

Materials and methods

The study area covers Penguin Island (62°06′S, 57°56′W) and Turret Point Oasis (62°06′S, 57°56′W) (Fig. 1a). According to Pfeiffer and Peter (2004), 11 bird species nest on Penguin I, among which the Adélie penguin, chinstrap penguin and southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus). The same species of penguins and the southern giant petrel nest on Turret Point Oasis, together with four other flying bird species, including the Antarctic shag (Phalacrocorax atriceps bransfieldensis) (Pereira et al. 1990). In both study areas, three species of pinnipeds occur, namely the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina), Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella) (Jabłoński 1987) and Weddell seal (Leptonychotes weddellii) (Antarctic Treaty 2006).
Fig. 1

The study area, a Turret Point ice-free oasis located at King George Island and Penguin Island, South Shetlands, Antarctica. GPS trajectory record of the flight plan carried out by the PW-ZOOM UAV (1 December 2016) above the study area marked by the dotted line. b Localization of gathering places of investigated bird and pinniped species in Turret Point (King George Island) and on Penguin Island in season 2016, based on UAV-derived material

In this research, we used a long-range fixed-winged UAV, i.e., PW-ZOOM (maximum take-off weight 23 kg, combustion engine), designed and implemented by the Warsaw University of Technology (Goetzendorf-Grabowski and Rodzewicz 2016; Rodzewicz et al. 2017). UAV was equipped with an auto-pilot enabling autonomous flight and with digital cameras (Canon EOS 700D digital camera with Canon 35 mm f/2.0 lens) (see also Zmarz et al. 2015). Beyond the Visual Line of Sight flight was performed at an altitude of 550 m above sea level on 1 December 2016. Locations for take-offs and landings for the UAVs were set close to the Henryk Arctowski Polish Antarctic Station, approximately 30 km away in a straight line from the goal (Fig. 1a). The flight plan depends on the size of the area, atmospheric conditions on the day of the flight and flight characteristics of the UAV. The trajectory of the PW-ZOOM flight was programmed with HORIZONmp software (MicroPilot, Stony Mountain, Canada) (see also Witczuk et al. 2017). To stitch a complete map together, the image overlapping (forward and side lap) ranged at least 60% between adjacent image frames. The task flight was performed in 2 h 14 min (with an average speed of 103 km/h) over a total distance of 230 km (Fig. 1a).

In the presented study, except for the literature data, historical unpublished data were used to document the population census of the investigated fauna. Ground censuses of bird populations from Penguin I and Turret Point were conducted in December 2008 using CEMP (the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Ecosystem Monitoring Program) standard methods (A3 breeding population size Procedure A, Ground count) (CCAMLR 2014). Both sites were also visited in January 2007 and 2009, when a record of the observed fauna was carried out. During these visits, all seal individuals were counted along an accessible stretch of the shore by the authors, in accordance with the methods of long-term monitoring carried out in the Admiralty Bay, King George Island (Salwicka and Sierakowski 1998; Salwicka and Rakusa-Suszczewski 2002; Ciaputa and Siciński 2006).

Data analysis

A total of 1630 RAW images in RGB (red, green, blue) taken from the UAV during the task flight were converted and saved as TIFF files in Digital Photo Professional. Subsequently, the selected images were processed with Open-source software Image Composite Editor, version 2.0.3.0 (64 bit) (Microsoft 2015), to generate a panoramic image stitch. All the collected data have a resolution of 0.07 m ground sampling distance (GSD), expressed as a geometric projection of the sensor through the lens to the ground. On images obtained on 1 December 2016, the number of occupied nests (equal to the number of breeding pairs) in the study areas was estimated on the basis of photographic interpretation using ArcGIS 10.5 (Environmental Systems Research Institute 2016) software. A standardized process for photo interpretation was used to ensure that the counting process has a low probability of missing nests (systematic grid searching) (e.g., Hodgson et al. 2016). The date of UAV census was determined using the breeding chronology of chinstrap and Adélie species on the basis of direct filed observations in easily accessible penguin colonies situated in the vicinity of the Arctowski Station (Point Thomas) (Fig. 1a). The breeding chronology was estimated according to CEMP method A9 (CCAMLR 2014). At this stage, most non-breeding penguins left, and the breeding population remaining at the site was comprised almost entirely of single adult individuals on their nests incubating eggs. Three separate counts of individuals incubating eggs (members of pairs standing between nests as well as birds standing or ‘floating’ around the colony were ignored) in each of the breeding groups in the colony visible on the image were carried out by an experienced photo interpreter. Each of the results obtained differed by no more than 10%, and the mean value [\(\bar{X}\)] and standard deviation [SD] were calculated. This method is a modification of the CEMP standard methods for estimation of penguin breeding population size, including method A3A—ground counts of nests and method A3B—using aerial photography (CCAMLR 2014). Analogically, counts of pinniped individuals visible on the images were analyzed. Species of fauna were identified based on the analysis of the following traits: plumage, pelage patterns and colours, shape and size of the body visible in the image. Available historical data for both investigated areas were summarized and are presented in.

Results and discussion

During one PW-ZOOM UAV flight, digital image data sufficient to cover the area of Penguin I and Turret Point (total 3.2183 km2) were collected. Analysis of the panoramic image stitch allowed for identification of seabird breeding colonies and individuals of pinnipeds gathering on the shore. It was possible to classify individuals of penguin species: chinstrap and Adélie (Figs. 1b, 2, 3 and Table 1, Online Resource 1) as well as the southern giant petrel (Figs. 1b, 2 and Table 2) and Antarctic shag (Figs. 1b, 2 and Table 3) on the aerial material. Additionally, individuals of the southern elephant seal (Figs. 1b, 2 and Table 4) and Weddell seal (Figs. 1b, 3 and Table 4) occurring on the shore of both sites were identified.
Fig. 2

Example of compilation of high-resolution (0.07 m GSD) aerial images of Turret Point (King George Island), presetting selected concentrations of investigated fauna species: a southern elephant seal; b Adélie penguin; c Antarctic shag; d southern giant petrel

Fig. 3

Example of compilation of high-resolution (0.07 m GSD) aerial images of Penguin Island, presetting selected concentrations of investigated fauna species: a Weddell seal; b chinstrap penguin breeding group

Table 1

Number of total breeding pairs of chinstraps and Adélies on Penguin Island (PI) and Turret Point (TP) on King George Island in the summer seasons

Period

Species

Total

Reference

Chinstrap

Adélie

PI

TP

PI

TP

PI

TP

1966 (January)

5155

400

400a

223a

na

na

Croxall and Kirkwood (1979)

1979 (January)

7058

nd

1710

nd

8768

na

Jabłoński (1980)

1980a (December)

7581

917

3114

1918

10,695

2835

Jabłoński (1984)

1980b (December)

8794

nd

3425

nd

12,219

na

Trivelpiece et al. (1987)

1996 (November)

Not counted

nd

1966

nd

na

na

Naveen et al. (2000)

1997 (November)

nd

Not counted

nd

1077

na

na

Naveen et al. (2000)

1997 (December)

Not counted

nd

2441

nd

na

na

Naveen et al. (2000)

2000 (January)

3774

nd

2390a

nd

na

na

Pfeiffer and Peter (2004)

2000 (December)

3296

nd

792

nd

4088

na

Pfeiffer and Peter (2004)

2003 (December)

2672

nd

684

nd

3356

na

Sander et al. (2007)

2007 (January)

nd

89

nd

182a

na

na

Personal observation

2008 (December)

4161

80

556

246

4717

326

Personal observation

2013

1545

nd

54

nd

1599

na

Harris et al. (2015)

2016 (December)

nab

28

nab

153

4109

181

Recent study

Historical published data (to 2003) on PI populations are presented according to Sanders et al. (2007)

nd no data available, na not applicable

aOnly young chicks in crèches were counted

bDistinguishing penguin species in UAV images (0.07 m GSD) were not possible

Table 2

Number of breeding pairs of the southern giant petrel on Penguin Island (PI) and in Turret Point (TP) on King George Island

Year

PI

TP

Total

Reference

1979 (January)

512

nd

na

Jabłoński (1980)

1997 (December)

507

nd

na

Naveen et al. (2000)

1998 (December)

578

nd

na

Naveen et al. (2000)

1999 (January)

439

nd

na

Naveen et al. (2000)

1999 (December)

634

nd

na

Naveen et al. (2000)

2008 (December)

721

338

1059

Personal observation

2012

288

nd

na

Harris et al. (2015)

2016 (December)

nd

222

na

Recent study

nd no data available, na not applicable

Table 3

Number of breeding pairs of the Antarctic shag in Turret Point colony on King George Island

Year

Nests

Chicks

Reference

2007 (January)

48

92

Personal observation

2008 (December)

55

98

Personal observation

2016 (December)

76

nd

Recent study

nd no data available

Table 4

Individuals of pinniped species identified on shores of Penguin Island (PI) and Turret Point (TP) on King George Island

Year

Southern elephant seal

Weddell seal

Antarctic fur seal

Reference

PI

TP

PI

TP

PI

TP

2007 (January)

nd

482

nd

0

nd

6

Personal observation

2008 (December)

8

464

3

0

1

1

Personal observation

2009 (January)

25

414

2

1

401

203

Personal observation

2016 (December)

3

423

3

3

0

0

Recent study

nd no data available

On UAV derived material, eight breeding groups of Pygoscelid penguins were identified on Penguin I and three breeding groups on Turret Point. Based on direct ground observation of fauna in previous summer seasons, it was assumed that on Penguin I chinstraps formed four groups in the NE part of the island and four groups in the SW part of the island consisted of chinstraps and Adélies nesting together (see also, e.g., Sander et al. 2007). On Turret Point, two breeding groups of Adélies and one of chinstraps were identified (Figs. 1b, 2). The structure and distribution of individuals occupying nests identified in the breeding groups within analyzed UAV material correspond with the characteristic for preferences of identified species. The inter-nest distances in the case of Adélie (43.2 ± 1.3 cm) and chinstraps (59.2 ± 2.2 cm) are comparable and significantly shorter than for the third Pygoscelis species breed in this region, gentoo (74.3 ± 3.8 cm) (Volkman and Trivelpiece 1981).

In each group, the number of occupied nests (individuals incubating eggs) was censused, ranging from 16 to maximum 2017. In total, 4290 (SD = 33.08) occupied nests were recorded, namely 3532 (SD = 48.3) nests of chinstraps, 153 (SD = 1.2) nests of Adélies and 605 (SD = 19.6) nests of chinstraps and Adélies in a mixed colony. Comparison of UAV-derived material and ground census data with the already published historical figures are presented in Table 1 and Online Resource 1. A summary of these results indicates that the investigated penguin breeding populations decreased significantly for both penguin species, Adélie (84.06%) and chinstrap (50.09%), in the 1980–2008 period. This trend in penguin population size seemed to continue. In 2016, there were 68.29% penguins less than in 1980 in both study areas. This result reflects the trends in populations from different localities on King George Island (e.g., Chwedorzewska and Korczak 2010; Korczak-Abshire et al. 2013; Braun et al. 2017; Sierakowski et al. 2017; Znój et al. 2017) as well as trends in the whole Antarctic Peninsula region (e.g., Hinke et al. 2007; Lynch et al. 2012; Lyver et al. 2014). Moreover, some authors suggest that further reductions in the ice-dependent Adélies population are likely if the frequent climate anomalous events continue (Ainley et al. 2010; Hinke et al. 2017).

The population of southern giant petrel on Penguin I was stable and was even increasing until 2008 (Table 2). In 2012, Harris et al. (2015) reported only 288 nests on Penguin I, which suggests there were fewer birds than previously recorded. Unfortunately, there was impossible to identify the individuals of this species by photo-interpretation in the aerial images of Penguin I in 2016. The reason for this could be an indistinguishable colour of southern giant petrel plumage on the rock background, other than on Turret Point where 222 (SD = 2.0) clearly visible individuals in total were identified in the aerial material (Fig. 2, Table 2). Personal observations suggest a decrease in the southern giant petrel breeding population size in this area.

A different population trend was observed for the Antarctic shag species. The breeding group on Turret Point, totaling 76 (SD = 1.00) nests, clearly visible in Fig. 3, is the only breeding colony of this species in the whole investigated area. Data indicate that since 2008 the number of breeding populations of the Antarctic shag has increased.

In the region of King George Island, the greatest number of fur seals is observed in February and March (Jabłoński 1987; Salwicka and Sierakowski 1998; Salwicka and Rakusa-Suszczewski 2002), and they are hardly ever recorded on the shores in December. No fur seals were identified on aerial images taken in December, although the ground census conducted in January 2009 on Turret Point amounted to 203 individuals (Table 4). Jabłoński (1987) reported 102 and 169 + 3 juvenile individuals of this species on Turret and Penguin I, respectively, in March 1981. However, lack of data obtained at the same time of the year does not allow us to identify a trend in the population size of the fur seal. In the present study, 426 (SD = 7.78) elephant seals, mostly on Turret Point, and 6 (SD = 0) individuals of Weddell seals (Table 4) were identified. Sporadic census of pinnipeds conducted in both areas suggests that the population of elephant seals is stable, and Turret Point might be a significant breeding site of this species.

Censuses of the breeding and resting populations of both investigated areas are made sporadically. Our study has shown that the use of UAVs to monitor the fauna in hardly accessible areas seems highly efficient and suitable for monitoring of bird and pinniped populations. Moreover, planned implementation of advance techniques, such as automatic estimation of the objects, will increase the efficiency and accuracy of analyses (e.g., Zmarz et al. 2015).

Notes

Acknowledgements

Gracious thanks are directed to Dr. Anna Kidawa for help in preparing permit documentation to conduct research on KGI, Adam Tomaszewski and Paweł Kusideł for UAV operation and service, and all the other members involved in the implementation of MONICA project. Gracious thanks are given to Captain Joseph C. Abshire for English proofreading. The research was funding by the Polish-Norwegian Research Programme operated by the National Centre for Research and Development under the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 in the frame of Project Contract No. 197810. The data used in the paper were collected at the Henryk Arctowski Polish Antarctic Station.

Supplementary material

300_2018_2379_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (157 kb)
Supplementary material 1 Number of breeding pairs of chinstraps and Adélies in SW mixed colony on Penguin Island (South Shetlands, Antarctica) (PDF 157 kb)

References

  1. Ainley D, Russell J, Jenouvrier S, Woehler E, Lyver POB, Fraser WR, Kooyman GL (2010) Antarctic penguin response to habitat change as Earth’s troposphere reaches 2°C above preindustrial levels. Ecol Monogr 80:49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson K, Gaston KJ (2013) Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Front Ecol Environ 11:138–146.  https://doi.org/10.1890/120150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antarctic Treaty (2006) Turret Point Eastern end of King George Island. Visitor site guide. Webpage of the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. https://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/att375_e.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2018
  4. Berni J, Zarco-Tejada P, Suarez L, Fererez E (2009) Thermal and narrow-band multispectral remote sensing for vegetation monitoring from an unmanned aerial vehicle. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 47:722–738.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2008.2010457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkenmajer K (1982) The Penguin Island volcano, South Shetland Islands (Antarctica): its structure and succession. Stud Geol Pol 74:155–173Google Scholar
  6. Bollard-Breen B, Brooks JD, Jones MRL, Robertson J, Betschart S, Kung O, Cary SC, Lee CK, Pointing SB (2015) Application of an unmanned aerial vehicle in spatial mapping of terrestrial biology and human disturbance in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, East Antarctica. Polar Biol 38:573–578.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1586-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun C, Esefeld J, Peter HU (2017) Monitoring the consequences of local climate change on the natural resources of the ice-free regions of Maxwell Bay (King George Island, Antarctic). Umweltbundesamt. Texte 26/2017. Dessau-Roßlau, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  8. CCAMLR (2014) Ecosystem monitoring program: standard methods. Standard Method A3A, A9: Penguins: Adélie, chinstrap, gentoo, macaroni (Pygoscelis adeliae, Pygoscelis antarctica, Pygoscelis papua, Eudyptes chrysolophus) parameters: breeding population size. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Hobart, p 233Google Scholar
  9. Chwedorzewska KJ, Korczak M (2010) Human impact upon the environment in the vicinity of Arctowski Station, King George Island, Antarctica. Pol Polar Res 31:45–60.  https://doi.org/10.4202/ppres.2010.04 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciaputa P, Siciński J (2006) Seasonal and annual changes in Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella) diet in the area of Admiralty Bay, King George Island, South Shetland Islands. Pol Polar Res 27:171–184Google Scholar
  11. Croxall JP, Kirkwood ED (1979) The distribution of penguins on the Antarctic Peninsula and Islands of the Scotia Sea. Report. British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, pp 1–186Google Scholar
  12. Dąbski M, Zmarz A, Pabjanek P, Korczak-Abshire M, Karsznia I, Chwedorzewska KJ (2017) UAV-based detection and spatial analyses of periglacial landforms on Demay Point (King George Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica). Geomorphology 290:29–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.03.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Funaki M, Higashino S-I, Sakanaka S, Iwata N, Nakamura N, Hirasawa N, Obara N, Kuwabara M (2014) Small unmanned aerial vehicles for aeromagnetic surveys and their flights in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica. Polar Sci 8:342–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goebel ME, Perryman WL, Hinke JT, Krause DJ, Hann NA, Gardner S, LeRoi DJ (2015) A small unmanned aerial system for estimating abundance and size of Antarctic predators. Polar Biol 38:619–630.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1625-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goetzendorf-Grabowski T, Rodzewicz M (2016) Design of UAV for photogrammetric mission in Antarctic area. J Aerosp Eng 231:1660–1675.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954410016656881 Google Scholar
  16. Harris CM, Lorenz K, Fishpool LDC, Lascelles B, Cooper J, Coria NR, Croxall JP, Emmerson LM, Fraser WR, Fijn RC, Jouventin P, LaRue MA, Le Maho Y, Lynch HJ, Naveen R, Patterson-Fraser DL, Peter H-U, Poncet S, Phillips RA, Southwell CJ, van Franeker JA, Weimerskirch H, Wienecke B, Woehler EJ (2015) Important bird areas in Antarctica 2015. BirdLife International and Environmental Research & Assessment Ltd., CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Hinke JT, Salwicka K, Trivelpiece SG, Watters GM, Trivelpiece WZ (2007) Divergent responses of Pygoscelis penguins reveal a common environmental driver. Oecologia 153:845–855.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0781-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hinke JT, Trivelpiece SG, Trivelpiece WZ (2017) Variable vital rates and the risk of population declines in Adélie penguins from the Antarctic Peninsula region. Ecosphere 8:e01666.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1666 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hodgson JC, Baylis SM, Mott R, Herrod A, Clarke RH (2016) Precision wildlife monitoring using unmanned aerial vehicles. Sci Rep 6:22574.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jabłoński B (1980) Distribution and numbers of birds and pinnipeds on Penguin Island (South Shetland Islands) in January 1979. Pol Polar Res 1:109–116Google Scholar
  21. Jabłoński B (1984) Distribution and numbers of penguins in the region of King George Island (South Shetland Islands) in the breeding season 1980/1981. Pol Polar Res 5:17–30Google Scholar
  22. Jabłoński B (1987) Distribution and number of fur seals, Arctocephalus gazella (Peters, 1875) of King George Island (South Shetlands). Acta Zool Cracov 30:119–136Google Scholar
  23. Korczak-Abshire M, Angiel PJ, Wierzbicki G (2011) Records of white-rumped sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis) on the South Shetland Islands. Polar Rec 47:262–267.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247410000665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Korczak-Abshire M, Chwedorzewska KJ, Wąsowicz P, Bednarek PT (2012) Genetic structure of declining chinstrap penguin (Pygoscelis antarctica) populations from South Shetland Islands (Antarctica). Polar Biol 35:1681–1689.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-012-1210-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Korczak-Abshire M, Węgrzyn M, Angiel PJ, Lisowska M (2013) Pygoscelid penguins breeding distribution and population trends at Lions Rump rookery, King George Island. Pol Polar Res 34:87–99.  https://doi.org/10.2478/popore-2013-0002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Korczak-Abshire M, Kidawa A, Zmarz A, Storvold R, Karlsen SR, Rodzewicz M, Chwedorzewska K, Znój A (2016) Preliminary study on nesting Adélie penguins disturbance by unmanned aerial vehicles. CCAMLR Sci 23:1–16Google Scholar
  27. Krause DJ, Hinke JT, Perryman WL, Goebel ME, LeRoi DJ (2017) An accurate and adaptable photogrammetric approach for estimating the mass and body condition of pinnipeds using an unmanned aerial system. PLoS ONE 12(11):e0187465.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lynch HJ, Naveen R, Trathan PN, Fagan WF (2012) Spatially integrated assessment reveals widespread changes in penguin populations on the Antarctic Peninsula. Ecol 93:1367–1377.  https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1588.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lyver PO, Barron M, Barton KJ, Ainley DG, Pollard A, Gordon S, McNeill Ballard G, Wilson PR (2014) Trends in the breeding population of Adélie penguins in the Ross Sea, 1981–2012: a coincidence of climate and resource extraction effects. PLoS ONE 9:e91188.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mustafa O, Esefeld J, Grämer H, Maercker J, Rümmler M-C, Senf M, Pfeifer C, Peter H-U (2017) Monitoring penguin colonies in the Antarctic using remote sensing data. Umweltbundesamt, Texte 30/2017, Dessau-Roßlau, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  31. Naveen R, Forrest SC, Dagit RG, Blight LK, Trivelpiece WZ, Trivelpiece SG (2000) Censuses of penguin, blue-eyed shag and southern giant petrel populations in the Antarctic Peninsula region, 1994–2000. Polar Rec 36:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pereira AB, Sander M, Strieder M (1990) Biologic notes about Turret Point, King George Island, Antarctica. Pesq Antártica Bras 2:73–77Google Scholar
  33. Pfeiffer S, Peter H-U (2004) Ecological studies toward the management of an Antarctic tourist landing site (Penguin Island, South Shetland Islands). Polar Rec 40:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247404003845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pudełko R (2008) Two new topographic maps for sites of scientific interest on King George Island, West Antarctica. Pol Polar Res 29:291–297Google Scholar
  35. Ratcliffe N, Guihen D, Robst J, Crofts S, Stanworth A, Enderlein P (2015) A protocol for the aerial survey of penguin colonies using UAVs. J Unmanned Veh Syst 3:95–101.  https://doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2015-0006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodzewicz M, Głowacki D, Hajduk J (2017) Some dynamic aspects of photogrammetry missions performed by “PW-ZOOM”—the UAV of Warsaw University of Technology. Arch Mech Eng 64:37–55.  https://doi.org/10.1515/meceng-2017-0003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rümmler MC, Mustafa O, Maercker J, Peter H-U, Esefeld J (2016) Measuring the influence of unmanned aerial vehicles on Adélie penguins. Polar Biol 39:1329–1334.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-015-1838-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salwicka K, Rakusa-Suszczewski S (2002) Long-term monitoring of Antarctic pinnipeds in Admiralty Bay (South Shetlands, Antarctica). Acta Theriol 47:443–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salwicka K, Sierakowski K (1998) Seasonal numbers of five species of seals in Admiralty Bay (South Shetland Islands). Pol Polar Res 19:231–243Google Scholar
  40. Sander M, Coelho Balbăo T, Schneider Costa E, dos Santos RC, Petry MV (2007) Decline of the breeding population of Pygoscelis antarctica and Pygoscelis adeliae on Penguin Island, South Shetland, Antarctica. Polar Biol 30:651–654.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-006-0218-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shuford WD, Spear LB (1988) Survey of breeding Chinstrap penguins in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica. Br Antarct Surv Bull 81:9–30Google Scholar
  42. Sierakowski K, Korczak-Abshire M, Jadwiszczak P (2017) Changes in bird communities of Admiralty Bay, King George Island (West Antarctica): insights from monitoring data (1977–1996). Pol Polar Res 38:229–260.  https://doi.org/10.1515/popore-2017-0010 Google Scholar
  43. Sladen WJL, Wood RC, Monagham EP (1968) The USA RP bird banding program, 1958–1965, vol 12. Antarctic Research Series. Antarctic Bird Studies, Baltimore, pp 213–262Google Scholar
  44. Trathan PN, Fox AJ, Ratcliff N, Fretwell PT (2014) Advances in the use of airborne aerial survey techniques to estimate krill-eating penguin populations in Area 48. Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management, Document WG-EMM-14/05, Presented on CCAMLR WG-EMM Meeting, 7–18 July 2014, Punta Arenas, ChileGoogle Scholar
  45. Trivelpiece WZ, Trivelpiece SG, Volkman NJ (1987) Ecological segregation of adelie, gentoo and chinstrap penguins at King George Island, Antarctica. Ecology 58:351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turner D, Lucieer A, Watson C (2012) An automated technique for generating georectified mosaics from ultra-high resolution Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) imagery, based on structure from motion (SfM) point clouds. Remote Sens 4:1392–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Volkman NJ, Trivelpiece W (1981) Nest-site selection among Adélie, Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins in mixed species rookeries. Wilson Bull 93:243–248Google Scholar
  48. Watts AC, Ambrosia VG, Hinkley EA (2012) Unmanned aircraft systems in remote sensing and scientific research: classification and considerations of use. Remote Sens 4:1671–1692.  https://doi.org/10.3390/rs4061671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weimerskirch H, Prudor A, Schull Q (2018) Flights of drones over sub-Antarctic seabirds show species- and status-specific behavioural and physiological responses. Polar Biol 41:259–266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-017-2187-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Witczuk J, Pagacz S, Zmarz A, Cypel M (2017) Exploring the feasibility of unmanned aerial vehicles and thermal imaging for ungulate surveys in forests—preliminary results. Int J Remote Sens.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2017.1390621 Google Scholar
  51. Zmarz A, Korczak-Abshire M, Storvold R, Rodzewicz M, Kędzierska I (2015) Indicator species population monitoring in Antarctica with UAV. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XL-1/W4.  https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-xl-1-w4-189-2015
  52. Znój A, Chwedorzewska KJ, Androsiuk P, Cuba-Diaz M, Giełwanowska I, Koc J, Korczak-Abshire M, Grzesiak J, Zmarz A (2017) Rapid environmental changes in the Western Antarctic Peninsula region due to climate change and human activity. Appl Ecol Environ Res 15:525–539.  https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1504_525539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Biochemistry and BiophysicsPolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Department of Geoinformatics, Cartography and Remote Sensing, Faculty of Geography and Regional StudiesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  3. 3.Institute of Aeronautical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Faculty of Power and Aeronautical EngineeringWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations