Remote Sensing
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
remote sensing Article Insect Monitoring Radar: Maximizing Performance and Utility V. Alistair Drake 1,2,* , Shane Hatty 1,3, Colin Symons 1,4 and Haikou Wang 5 1 School of Science, UNSW Canberra, The University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2610, Australia; [email protected] (S.H.); [email protected] (C.S.) 2 Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT 2617, Australia 3 Now at PO Box 154, Lobethal, SA 5241, Australia 4 Now with Western Sydney University Penrith, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia 5 Australian Plague Locust Commission, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 11 January 2020; Accepted: 5 February 2020; Published: 11 February 2020 Abstract: Autonomously-operating radars employing the ‘ZLC configuration’ have been providing long-term datasets of insect flight activity to heights of about 1 km since the late 1990s. A unit of this type operating in Australia has recently received a major upgrade. The aim of the project was to maximize the utility of the radar to entomologists and aeroecologists by providing larger and more continuous datasets and extending observations to 2.5 km. The upgrade was achieved primarily by incorporating modern digital technology, which provides much improved data-acquisition-and-control performance and data-archiving capacity; by implementing a more comprehensive observing protocol; and by replacing fixed electronic signal-acquisition gates with specially developed software that identifies insect echoes and applies a narrow moving gate that follows them. The upgraded version provides an approximately five-fold increase in hourly sample sizes, a doubling of the duration of observations (from 12 to 24 h per day) and a doubling of the height range over which observations are made. The design considerations (incentives and constraints) that informed the various subsystem implementations are identified, and the necessary compromises are discussed. Observations of the development of a layer echo during a migration by two different insect types are presented as a demonstration of the upgraded unit’s capabilities. Keywords: radar; insect; migration; aeroecology; signal gating; ZLC configuration 1. Introduction Radars that are specifically designed for long-term observations of insects flying at heights up to around 1 km were first deployed around 1990 [1]. From the late 1990s, a design employing the ‘ZLC (Zenith-pointing Linear-polarized Conical scan) configuration’ [2], in which the beam incorporates both rotating linear polarization and a very narrow angle conical scan (sometimes termed ‘nutation’), has predominated. Known variously as IMRs (‘insect monitoring radars’ [2]) or VLRs (‘vertical-looking radars’ [3]), units of this type have been operated over extended (multiple-year) periods in Australia, China, Japan, and the UK. Long-term data from these radars have led to advances in the understanding of migratory behaviour and its ecological consequences (e.g., [4,5]) and have also provided support for operational pest forecasting [6]. Observations from small, purpose-built radars such as these complement the data on insect movement that are now becoming available from operational weather-surveillance radars (WSRs, e.g., [7]). The narrow beam, high range resolution, and short observing range of the IMRs and VLRs allow them to resolve individual insects, enabling the discrimination of different target types [8,9] and the examination of within-population variances Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 596; doi:10.3390/rs12040596 www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 596 2 of 20 of migration parameters (e.g., [10]). The relatively low capital and running costs of these units makeRemote them Sens. more 2020, 12 compatible, 596 with the modest budgets typical of entomological and aeroecological2 of 21 research programs. population variances of migration parameters (e.g., [10]). The relatively low capital and running costs The original IMR and VLR implementations were developed during the 1990s and incorporated of these units make them more compatible with the modest budgets typical of entomological and technologiesaeroecological that research were available programs. and affordable at that time. As subunits have aged and come to need repair orThe replacement, original IMR more and VLR modern implementations equipment haswere been developed introduced, during either the 1990s through and incorporated necessity—as supersededtechnologies components that were available became and unavailable—or affordable at that to take time. advantage As subunits of have improved aged and performance come to need and reliability.repair or In replacement, the case of the more IMRs modern operating equipment in Australia, has been opportunities introduced, provided either through by new data-acquisitionnecessity―as technologiessuperseded have components led to a became more general unavailable review―or of to the take systems’ advantage design of improved and operating performance protocols, and as wellreliability. as recognition In the case that of an the IMR’s IMRs eff operatingectiveness in as Australia, a facility opportunities for observing provided insect migrationby new data could‐ beacquisition considerably technologies increased. have Experience led to a more gained general through review analysing of the systems’ IMR data design from and over operating a decade (e.g.,protocols, [6,10,11 as]) alsowell informedas recognition this that review an IMR’s by indicating effectiveness circumstances as a facility for where observing larger insect datasets, migration or more continuouscould be considerably observation, increased. would likely Experience have enabled gained through additional analysing or stronger IMR data scientific from over inferences. a decade An upgraded(e.g., [6,10,11]) unit, designated also informed IMRU this review (‘IMR by Upgraded’), indicating circumstances was subsequently where developed larger datasets, and or deployed more continuous observation, would likely have enabled additional or stronger scientific inferences. An to Hay, New South Wales, Australia (34.5458◦S, 144.8663◦E), where it commenced observations in Augustupgraded 2017. unit, designated IMRU (‘IMR Upgraded’), was subsequently developed and deployed to Hay, New South Wales, Australia (34.5458°S, 144.8663°E), where it commenced observations in In this paper, the main features of the IMRU that distinguish it from its predecessors are outlined, August 2017. the methods used to enhance its performance are described, and example observations that illustrate In this paper, the main features of the IMRU that distinguish it from its predecessors are its capabilities are presented. The essential features of the ZLC configuration—vertical beam, rotating outlined, the methods used to enhance its performance are described, and example observations that polarization,illustrate its and capabilities narrow-angle are presented. scan—are The unchanged, essential features as is the of antenna the ZLC assembly configuration that implements―vertical thisbeam, [12] (ch.rotating 5). polarization, In its external and appearance, narrow‐angle therefore, scan―are theunchanged, unit resembles as is the anantenna IMR assembly (Figure1). that The IMRUimplements also continues this [12] to (ch. rely 5). on In an its X-band external transceiver appearance, that therefore, is derived the unit from resembles a commercial an IMR civil-marine (Figure radar1). The (BridgeMaster IMRU also continues E, Northrop to rely Grumman on an X‐band Sperry transceiver Marine, that New is derived Malden, from UK); a thiscommercial employs civil pulse‐ transmissionmarine radar (25 (BridgeMaster kW peak power) E, Northrop and operates Grumman non-coherently. Sperry Marine, The New innovations Malden, presented UK); this employs here relate to thepulse radar’s transmission operating (25 protocols kW peak andpower) the and initial operates processing, non‐coherently. both in hardware The innovations and software, presented of the echohere signals. relate Theto the extracted radar’s echooperating signals protocols differ little and fromthe initial those processing, from an IMR, both and in thehardware algorithm and for retrievingsoftware, trajectory of the echo and signals. target-character The extracted parameters echo signals from differ these little signals from [12 those] (ch. from 7) [ 13an] IMR, did not and require the modification.algorithm for The retrieving upgraded trajectory version and provides target‐character an approximately parameters five-fold from these increase signals in[12] hourly (ch. 7) sample [13] sizes,did a not doubling require of modification. the duration The of observations upgraded version (from provides 12 to 24 an h per approximately day), and a doublingfive‐fold increase of the height in rangehourly over sample which sizes, observations a doubling are of made. the duration of observations (from 12 to 24 h per day), and a doubling of the height range over which observations are made. Figure 1. IMRU equipment cabin and antenna, Hay, New South Wales (NSW), April 2017. Figure 1. IMRU equipment cabin and antenna, Hay, New South Wales (NSW), April 2017. TheThe IMRU IMRU may may represent represent the the limits limits of of what what non-coherentnon‐coherent radar radar technology technology—now―now superseded superseded in manyin many other other applications—can applications―can deliverdeliver for for entomological entomological observation. observation.