A Manual for Monitoring Wild Boars (Sus scrofa) Using Thermal Infrared Cameras Mounted on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Kim et al propose a wild boar monitoring method using UAV in two different landscapes that differ in topographical features- Flat ground and mountainous terrain. I fully appreciate the work and accomplishments of the authors. The work has a greater implication on designing animal surveys using UAVs and would certainly add valuable knowledge to the existing survey methods. It seems to be a valuable tool for field conservation managers who are interested in a quick animal survey to bolster their monitoring program (though technical training would be needed to plan and use UAVs)
I have few comments that may be useful to improve the MS further. I have also commented directly in the PDF.
- Can the authors state how much visibility (“secured”) is safe enough while operating the UAV at night based on the work?
- What would be a range of UAVs for such exercise? Can it adequately sample large forests? This is important to state as conservation authorities would certainly want to know if this method is a good investment for their monitoring protocols. Can it be effectively used for any other mammals?
- It would be beneficial to know the cost-benefit trade-off of using this method in terms of time saved, fewer financial constraints, or human resources.
- The technicalities of UAV handling in flight and survey described in the MS are a little difficult to understand. I suggest that the authors can have a relook at this aspect ( mostly in section 3.1.2)
- A comparison of results with conventional methods in terms of animal detectability, costs, benefits would have really strengthened the MS, but I assume this is beyond the scope of the present study.
- I suggest that authors have a relook at the grammar in the manuscript
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Kim et al propose a wild boar monitoring method using UAV in two different landscapes that differ in topographical features- Flat ground and mountainous terrain. I fully appreciate the work and accomplishments of the authors. The work has a greater implication on designing animal surveys using UAVs and would certainly add valuable knowledge to the existing survey methods. It seems to be a valuable tool for field conservation managers who are interested in a quick animal survey to bolster their monitoring program (though technical training would be needed to plan and use UAVs).
I have few comments that may be useful to improve the MS further. I have also commented directly in the PDF
- Can the authors state how much visibility (“secured”) is safe enough while operating the UAV at night based on the work?
-(L366) This part mentions it. As an additional explanation, it can be said that stability is secured because the reconnaissance UAV creates a route in advance after testing whether the route goes well and then monitoring UAV flies along that route without any manipulation.
- What would be a range of UAVs for such exercise? Can it adequately sample large forests? This is important to state as conservation authorities would certainly want to know if this method is a good investment for their monitoring protocols. Can it be effectively used for any other mammals?
- To answer the comments, if a researcher creates a route using a waypoint and save it, they can extract the route by file and utilize it for the other drones. The range that UAVs can cover or sample would vary according to its flying speed, camera angle and monitoring height. We think that this UAVs with thermal camera method can cover large area considering its battery running time (more than half hectare). And if we utilize reconnaissance drone and Waypoint function, sampling area can be extended because the drone moves on its own. Since wild boars have been effectively detected, it is applicable to similar monitoring of medium and large animals. Actually, Bushaw (2019) monitored medium size mesocarnivore such as coyotes with the similar methodology (you can see Bushaw’s thesis in the reference list)
It would be beneficial to know the cost-benefit trade-off of using this method in terms of time saved, fewer financial constraints, or human resources.
- Part 3 describes the advantages of each monitoring method. In addition, when using a reconnaissance drone, the risk of collision is reduced, so you can take care of financial aspects such as reducing the repair cost of expensive monitoring drones.
The technicalities of UAV handling in flight and survey described in the MS are a little difficult to understand. I suggest that the authors can have a relook at this aspect ( mostly in section 3.1.2)
- We added the some explanation as your comments in part 3.
I suggest that authors have a relook at the grammar in the manuscript
- We checked the grammar again.
My line by line comments:
L24 ; it would be good to end the abstract with a statement that shows the relevance of this study i.e. how UAV can help to better survey methods....
- we changed some sentence as you commended line 24. abstract 내용 끝부분 수정했습니다. 확인 부탁드려요.
L30 : humans
- we corrected as you suggested. “human” to “humans”
L53 : species.
- we corrected as you suggested. “avian” to “avian species”
L57 : What damages? Please restructure
- we add more information as you suggested.
L59: You only provide mammal examples, what about birds? I think you can include the mammalian examples in one simple sentensce.
- As you pointed out, we deleted the avian part because our manuscript is addressing monitoring method for mammals.
L62: apply
- we corrected as you suggested. “are applicable” to “apply”
L67: mountain
- we corrected as you suggested. “mountain” to “a mountain”
L73: south
- we corrected as you suggested. “Korea” to “South Korea”
L73: from air you mean?
- We add additional information to clarify the meaning.
L88: ? shooting? you mean to say nightime recording
- We change the word to clarify the meaning. “shooting” to “recording”
Line130: I dont understand this? Is it easier to use UAVs or difficult than the conventional methods?
- We change the sentence to clarify the meaning.
Line134: Why only a fragmented area?
- We change the sentence to clarify the meaning.
L145: Why is this needed?
-We add additional sentence. To further explain your question, when the drone rotates 360 degrees, it monitors the area corresponding to the circle shape. It is easy to calculate the monitoring area and can monitor a larger area. This method is similar to point survey in bird monitoring and Bushaw (2019) suggested it for standardized monitoring.
L151: smaller area you mean?
- We change the word to clarify the meaning. “remote” to “distant”
L159: you mean with a camera angle of 45?
- We change the word to clarify the meaning.
L179: remove bold
- We change the word as you suggested.
L179: the whole. Please check for articles through out the MS
- We change the word as you suggested.
L185: Can you please elaborate?
- We delete some sentence to help understand easily.
L232: does not apply
- we corrected as you suggested. “is not applicable” to “does not apply”
L269: can apply
- we corrected as you suggested. “can be applicable” to “can apply”
L273: a point
- we corrected as you suggested. “point” to “a point”
L276: manipulate
- we corrected as you suggested. “manipulating” to “manipulate”
L288: manipulate
- we corrected as you suggested. “comparison” to “the comparison”
L313: reference?
- We change the word and add some information to clarify the meaning.
L317: How does this help? Can you please elaborate? Why this is done or needed?
- We change the sentence to clarify the meaning
L319: regular you mean?
- We change the word to clarify the meaning. “sustainable” to “repeated”
L323: .
- We add “.” As you suggested
L330: you mean mountain forests as well as flat?
- We delete some words to help understand easily.
L334: rethink about rewriting this sentence i.e. UAV crashes are costly to repair as well as time consuming...
- We change the sentence as you suggested.
L336: very confusing, please rewrite. You mean to say that a route should be created by using a recon UAV first and then the regular UAV?
- We change the sentence as you suggested
L349: you mean it can be used anytime irrespective of changes in environment
- We change the sentence to clarify the meaning
L356: For example, after breeding... I think you may want to generalize your technique/ application to broader audience...
- We change the word as you suggested.
L395: what does it mean?
- We change the word to clarify the meaning. “sustainable” to “repeated”
L402: by
- we corrected as you suggested. “to” to “by”
L404-405: It will be good to generalize across different habitats, terrains and not specific to Korea. This will have more impact on general audience across the world
- We change the sentence as you suggested.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
MS: A manual for monitoring wild boars (Sus scrofa) using thermal infrared cameras mounted on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
Overall
The study was appropriate for the question/ statement looked. It set out to develop a method using UAV’s and infrared camera technology, as well as to find the optimal time to perform such a study and both of those goals were achieved. In my opinion, there were no major flaws within the article and it is consistent with itself. It gave new information on how to tack species using UAVs both in flat and hilly areas. The structure needs some improvement in the way it has been written up in this study as its very hard to distinguish from what their methods are vs actual results they are gathering from the study. The paper could use more Boar pictures and how they look from height, or on thermal.
Title and Abstract
The aim of the paper is very clear. They clearly state what is found in the first few sentences of the abstract, they explain some of the methods used to find it, and effectively describe how UAV’s can be used in this application. The results in the abstract are hard to pick up and can use more clarifying. The abstract goes into a lot of extra details on tracking boars and UAV methods without giving a way the whole paper.
Introduction
The authors explain methods already in use and provide explanations as to why they are inadequate methods. Research question is clearly defined, and is justified, as they are attempting to confirm the best season, as well as develop methods that utilize thermal imaging, a new method.
Methods
The methodologies section provides adequate detail about what was sampled. The methods they used to select sites, collect samples, and what was being measured was all present and valid. Variables were defined and explained what altitudes best made for drone surveillance.
Results
No results section. A section showing a successful field monitoring might add to the paper but it only describes itself as a “manual”. The data was presented appropriately. The tables and figures used to describe results are all relevant to the text, Units all make sense for the data being measured and all of the numbers represent distinct objects, distances, or angles appropriately. The categories are all relevant to the group they are in. Text in the “results” section is slightly repetitive, all of it is relevant, however, as some repetition is necessary because of the different methods used. They determine that winter is the ideal season and the method is viable and effective when compared to the methods previously used.
Discussion and Conclusions
The results section adequately discussed the results without overinterpretation. It explains the advantages and disadvantages of their method, explains the places where error may occur, specifically writing about the potential damage that can occur when flying a UAV in forested areas. This section also describes the areas where this method may not be applicable, as well as some potential challenges to replicating this study in Korea, mostly related to UAV licenses and governmental regulation and cooperation that is required to operate UAV’s in specific areas
Author Response
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
The study was appropriate for the question/ statement looked. It set out to develop a method using UAV’s and infrared camera technology, as well as to find the optimal time to perform such a study and both of those goals were achieved. In my opinion, there were no major flaws within the article and it is consistent with itself. It gave new information on how to tack species using UAVs both in flat and hilly areas. The structure needs some improvement in the way it has been written up in this study as its very hard to distinguish from what their methods are vs actual results they are gathering from the study. The paper could use more Boar pictures and how they look from height, or on thermal.
-We re-organized our manuscript little bit. And regarding pictures, we already provided some boar pictures with several heights and magnification..
Title and Abstract
The aim of the paper is very clear. They clearly state what is found in the first few sentences of the abstract, they explain some of the methods used to find it, and effectively describe how UAV’s can be used in this application. The results in the abstract are hard to pick up and can use more clarifying. The abstract goes into a lot of extra details on tracking boars and UAV methods without giving a way the whole paper.
-We changed some sentence in abstract to make it more clarified
Introduction
The authors explain methods already in use and provide explanations as to why they are inadequate methods. Research question is clearly defined, and is justified, as they are attempting to confirm the best season, as well as develop methods that utilize thermal imaging, a new method.
Methods
The methodologies section provides adequate detail about what was sampled. The methods they used to select sites, collect samples, and what was being measured was all present and valid. Variables were defined and explained what altitudes best made for drone surveillance.
Results
No results section. A section showing a successful field monitoring might add to the paper but it only describes itself as a “manual”. The data was presented appropriately. The tables and figures used to describe results are all relevant to the text, Units all make sense for the data being measured and all of the numbers represent distinct objects, distances, or angles appropriately. The categories are all relevant to the group they are in. Text in the “results” section is slightly repetitive, all of it is relevant, however, as some repetition is necessary because of the different methods used. They determine that winter is the ideal season and the method is viable and effective when compared to the methods previously used.
-We are describing a technique for monitoring using a drone, so we did not create a separate result part. However, we have provided photos of actual wild boar detections to show the infrared camera ratio at each altitude.
Discussion and Conclusions
The results section adequately discussed the results without overinterpretation. It explains the advantages and disadvantages of their method, explains the places where error may occur, specifically writing about the potential damage that can occur when flying a UAV in forested areas. This section also describes the areas where this method may not be applicable, as well as some potential challenges to replicating this study in Korea, mostly related to UAV licenses and governmental regulation and cooperation that is required to operate UAV’s in specific areas.
-We are trying to explain the details for the methodology in the discussion and conclusion part as you suggested
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Minor
L 119: Bold
L 477: No need to add a section for Patents in not applicable
L227 & L249: section numbers are the same
Major
The authors combine Discussion and conclusions which doesn’t make sense. The discussion is not linked to existing literature (No citation at all). The results need to be compared from similar studies, discuss how results may have been different/better if methods were different from the literature. The conclusion is the take home message of the research and no reference citation.
Author Response
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
Minor
L 119: Bold
We corrected as you suggested.
L 477: No need to add a section for Patents in not applicable
We checked as you suggested.
L227 & L249: section numbers are the same
We corrected as you suggested.
Major
The authors combine Discussion and conclusions which doesn’t make sense. The discussion is not linked to existing literature (No citation at all). The results need to be compared from similar studies, discuss how results may have been different/better if methods were different from the literature. The conclusion is the take home message of the research and no reference citation.
Thank you for valuable comment on our manuscript. Yes, we agree with your comment that discussion part should be linked existing literature. However, our manuscript is a technical note to introduce new methodology about how we can utilize the UAV in various environmental condition. Actually, we mentioned previous literatures in the introduction and method parts. For the format of our manuscript, we refered to other technical notes published in the Remote sensing. A aticle used "discussion and conclusion" session [1] while another article used "conclusion" part [2] only. As you pointed out, our discussion and conclusion part doesn't have linkage to existing literature, so we changed the part to "conclusion".
- Padokhin, A.M.; Mylnikova, A.A.; Yasyukevich, Y.V.; Morozov, Y.V.; Kurbatov, G.A.; Vesnin, A.M. Galileo E5 AltBOC Signals: Application for Single-Frequency Total Electron Content Estimations. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3973. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13193973
- Fan, L.; Cai, Y. An Efficient Filtering Approach for Removing Outdoor Point Cloud Data of Manhattan-World Buildings. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3796. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13193796
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors response for the comments with evidence and accept present form for publication.
