See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334317187

Autonomous Pest Bird Deterring for Agricultural Crops Using Teams of

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Conference Paper · June 2019

CITATIONS READS

6 604

2 authors:

Zihao Wang K.C. Wong

The University of Sydney The University of Sydney
9 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   553 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Autonomous UAV for pest bird deterring in vineyards View project

Hyperion Green Aircraft View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zihao Wang on 09 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Autonomous Pest Bird Deterring for Agricultural Crops Using Teams of
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Zihao Wang1 and KC Wong2
Abstract— An algorithm for autonomous bird deterring using
teams of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is being proposed
in this paper. Birds cause significant damage to commercial
crops globally. A bird deterring system using autonomous
UAVs can potentially overcome the limitations of current bird
management methods. The problem of controlling UAVs to
deter birds is formulated as a model predictive control problem.
Occupancy gird map is used to construct a world model which
represents the system’s knowledge of the current location of
target birds. A bird behaviour model and a sensor model are
derived based on experimental results from a series of field
trials. The future state of the target is estimated by propagating
the centralised world model in time. Cooperative deterring
missions are planned autonomously by optimising cost functions
assigned to each UAV. A series of simulated scenarios are
used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the system at driving
UAVs to protect an 8 hectare area from multiple bird flocks.
Furthermore, it is demonstrated that by cooperating a team of
two UAVs, the same bird deterring mission can be completed
more efficiently compared to using a single UAV.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Pest birds are responsible for a significant amount of
damage to commercial crops. In Australia, the total loss
of commercial crops to pest bird damage is estimated to
be at around AU$300 million annually in 2007 [1]; the
estimates in the United States can well exceed US$4.7 billion
[2]. Many methods have been developed to deter birds yet
there is still a lack of panacea for every situation [3]. The
recent advancement in UAV and autonomous technologies
bring increasingly more interests in using UAVs for bird
deterring among researchers and property owners [4], [5].
UAVs are not constrained by rough terrains and obstacles
on the ground. The cost of operation can also be reduced
significantly by exploiting autonomous technologies.
Due to the difficulties in detecting bird locations precisely,
the problem of controlling UAVs to deter birds is similar to
the search problem. The search problem has been studied
extensively in the field of autonomous systems. One of the
most popular approach is to model the search area with a
target probability map [6], [7], [8], [9], such that only an
estimate of the target location is available at initialisation.
A key difference between the theoretical algorithms and the
practical bird deterring mission lies in the assumption of the
targets’ behaviour. In the search problem, dynamic targets
*This work was not supported by any organization
1 Zihao Wang is with Faculty of Engineering & IT, School of Aerospace,
Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia
zwan7346@uni.sydney.edu.au
2 KC Wong is with Faculty of Engineering & IT, School of Aerospace,
Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia
kc.wong@sydney.edu.au
do not react to UAVs. Targets that exhibit evasive behaviour
also require the UAVs to actively pursue the targets.
In this paper, a novel bird deterring algorithm using teams
of UAVs is being proposed, with a bird behaviour model de-
rived from actual experiment results. The problem of driving
each UAV to deter birds is formulated as a model predictive
control problem. A model of the area to be protected is
constructed using a occupancy grid map. Simulated scenarios
are utilised to demonstrate the viability of the algorithm.
The main contribution of the bird deterring algorithm is
that, a novel and dynamic evader model is developed based
on experimental results. In addition, an appropriate pursue
algorithm is developed and implemented with the evader
model and bird deterring objective in mind.
The rest of this paper is arranged as follows. In section
II, previous work done on the UAV bird deterring project
is introduced. In section III, the bird deterring problem is
formulated. In section IV, the bird deterring strategy is ex-
plained with details on the UAV trajectory planning method.
Section V presents simulation results of the algorithm in
three example scenarios, followed by the discussion of the
results. The paper is concluded in section VI.
II. R ELATED W ORK
This paper is an extension to our previous work in [10],
where a novel bird deterrent system using multiple UAVs for
vineyards was proposed. In the proposed system, a series of
ground sensors provide early warning about bird attack and
initial estimate of the bird location. The system launches the
UAV upon bird detection confirmation, and simultaneously
plans the bird deterring mission based on the current knowl-
edge of bird location. The UAVs are commanded to return
and land if all birds are successfully deterred or battery level
is critical. The trajectory planning phase will be the focus of
this paper.
The most difficult aspect in solving the problem is mod-
elling the bird behaviour. Naive scaring methods induce
habituation in the birds. Habituation occurs when the birds
learn that the objects are not real threat. This inconsistency in
behaviour over time makes modelling bird behaviour almost
impossible. However, habituation can be avoided by taking
wildlife anti-predator learning into the design considerations
of the UAV. A UAV prototype that is designed to cause anti-
predator learning in birds is built by capitalising on decades
of research in bird psychology, as shown in Fig. 1. The
prototype was utilised in a series of field trials to observe the
bird behaviour. The reader is referred to [11] for a detailed
description of our bird psychology implementation.
 Fig. 2: Example target probability map of the system.
Fig. 1: Prototype UAV used in field trials.

M̃ with edge length Lx and Ly is defined by Equation (2).

III. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION  
 c̄ = xmin + Lx (i − 1/2)
The problem of multiple UAVs deterring multiple bird
flocks from a pre-defined area with control constraints on
the UAVs is considered. The formulation of the problem is
presented in this section.
A. UAV and Bird Dynamics Model
The UAVs in the problem are assumed to be multi-rotor
UAVs. Both the UAVs and target birds are modelled with
simple second-order dynamics. The states of UAVs and bird
flocks, xUAV and xbird , include position, velocity (V ) and
heading (ψ). The dynamics are constrained by maximum
velocity and maximum yaw rate. All target birds are assumed
to form flocks, and make decisions collectively as a flock.
The position of the flock is the geometric centre.
B. World Model
The occupancy grid map is an appropriate algorithm
for problems involving targets in two dimensional domain.
Although in reality both the birds and the UAVs exist in the
three dimensional domain, the bird deterring problem can
be formulated as a 2D problem because all the crops to be
protected are at ground level. Birds that exist well above the
ground level are not of concern to the safety of the crops.
Collisions between UAVs can be avoided by commanding
each UAV to operate at different altitude intervals. The area
to be protected can be represented by rectangular cells of
uniform size in the x dimension between xmin and xmax ;
and in the y dimension between ymin and ymax . The spatial
domain M of the occupancy gird map can thus be defined
by Equation (1).
M̃ = c̄ x ,
c̄y = ymin + Ly ( j − 1/2)

i = 1, 2, . . . , Nx , j = 1, 2, . . . , Ny (2)
To add the knowledge of the bird locations onto the map,
a probability score k ∈ [0, 1] is assigned to each cell at each
time step t ∈ ℜ. The probability score is the indicator for the
system’s belief in the existence of a bird flock. For example,
k = 1 at a cell indicates the system is 100% confident that
birds are located in that cell, and vice versa for k = 0. The
occupancy grid map with score k at each cell is therefore a
probability map of the target. An example of the initial target
probability map obtained by the simulated ground sensors is
shown in Fig. 2. The red and green triangles represent the
current locations of two bird flocks. The light grey cells are
assigned k = 0.5 as the initial state of the world, whereas
the dark grey cells have k = 0.8 that represents the higher
probability around bird flocks.
The target probability map is updated at each time step by
information from the bird detection sensors, the sensor model
is formulated in Section III-C. Furthermore, k approaches a
non-zero nominal value if no sensor information is available.
This dynamic aspect of the map reflects the fact that the
system’s confidence about a cell gradually decreases over
time. It also accounts for the possibility of birds returning
to areas that were previously traversed by the UAVs. The
probability approaches the nominal value knominal according
to Equation (3).
k(t + 1, c̄) = τ probability k(t, c̄) + (1 − τ probability )knominal (3)
τ probability ∈ [0, 1] is a time constant that dictates the rate at
 
which k approaches knominal .

 c̄x ∈ [xmin , xmax ]
M = c̄  (1)
c̄y ∈ [ymin , ymax ] C. Sensor Model
Each cell in the occupancy grid map is identified by the Information about bird locations is assumed to be available
coordinates c̄ at the centre of the cell. The Nx × Ny cell set from the bird detection system, which are cameras on the

Fig. 3: Illustration of the sensor model. Grey-scale bar
indicates probability of target existence, darker is higher
probability.
ground and on the UAVs. However, during our early testing,
it was difficult to locate the birds precisely. The camera
is modelled with considerable margins of error in order to
account for the uncertainty. A circular sector of radius rsensor
and angle θsensor is placed in front of the UAV to represent
the space covered by the camera, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
If no bird flock is inside the sector, all cells covered by the
sector are assigned klow . If any bird flock is inside the circular
sector, cells in the radius rerror centred at the detected bird
flock are assigned khigh .
In practice, ground cameras are also required to provide
early warning for the system, which can then be used to
decide if the UAVs should be launched. For demonstration
of the core algorithm, the ground cameras are not considered
in the problem formulation at this stage. Knowledge of the
initial bird location is assumed.
D. Bird Behaviour Model
The bird behaviour observed from our field experiments
[11] can be summarised as follows:
• On average, birds started fleeing when the UAV was
450 m away from the UAVs; no birds were seen within
50 m of the UAV.
• Targeted birds did not return to the area at least 2 hours
after being exposed to the UAV.
• Once settled, Birds tended not to move to conserve
energy.
To model this behaviour, a second scalar number i ∈ [0, 1]
is introduced and assigned to each cell c̄ ∈ M̃ at each time
step t ∈ ℜ to represent the interests of the birds in visiting
each cell. The introduction of i allows the influence of the
UAVs to be directly mapped onto the occupancy grid map to
form an interests map. The interests are assumed to decrease
proportionally to the distance from the UAV. A circle of
radius ralert is placed at c̄UAV , the centre of the UAV. Within
this circle, at the future time step, the interests of each cell
takes the minimum of the previous interests state and the
Initial cell i=0.9  Initial cell i=0.7 
Target cell Target cell
(a) t=0 s (b) t=10 s
Initial cell i=0.4  Initial cell i=0.2 
Target cell Target cell
(c) t=20 s (d) t=30 s
Fig. 4: Demonstration of the evasive behaviour, ithreshold =
0.5. The big circle (light blue) centred at the bird flock
represents the search area. (a) Initial condition. (b) No new
target cell at i = 0.7. (c) A new target cell is selected as
i < ithreshold (d) Another target cell is selected as i < ithreshold
at previous target cell.
distance fraction of distance(cell,UAV ) and ralert :
 
distance(c̄, c̄UAV )
i(t + 1, c̄) = min i(t, c̄), (4)
ralert
The notation distance(c̄1 , c̄2 ) is a simple function that com-
putes the euclidean distance between two sets of coordinates.
Realistically, UAVs flying over cells that are far away from
the birds do not make the area less interesting for the birds.
The interests should only decrease if the UAV is observed by
the birds. Therefore, i for each bird flock should only update
according to Equation (4) if the UAV is within radius ralert
of the bird flock. This constraint effectively eliminates the
false reduction in i.
To account for the likelihood of birds returning to area that
was previously traversed by a UAV, i approaches a nominal
value inominal according to Equation (5).
i(t + 1, c̄) = τinterest i(t, c̄) + (1 − τinterest )inominal (5)
τinterest is the time constant that determines the speed at
which i approaches inominal . Equation (5) ensures a cell with
low i may approach inominal when the influence of UAV is
absent, so that the target birds may visit the cell in the future.
The evasive behaviour is implemented by driving target bird
flocks towards cells with high i. A demonstration of the
decision process is shown in Fig. 4. At each time step, the
cells within radius rsearch of each bird flock are considered.
Among this subset of cells, the cell with the highest i is
selected as the target cell for the bird flock. However, as
mentioned at the beginning of this subsection, birds conserve
energy by avoiding unnecessary flights. Therefore, the target
cell is identical to the current occupying cell unless the
current occupying cell has i that is below the threshold
 (a) Map of target probability cost (b) Map of distance cost
Fig. 5: Visualisation of different components of the cost function. (a)The target probability component 1 − k(t + n, c̄) is
essentially the inverse of the target probability map for a single UAV. (b)The distance cost fd (c̄) increase linearly from 0
at the centre of the UAV to 1 at and beyond the perimeter of the search circle. (c)The heading difference cost fh (c̄) is
proportional to the heading change required. (d)Sum of all cost components, where α = 0.6, β = 0.1, γ = 0.3.
ithreshold . If i of the target cell is reduced below ithreshold
before the bird flock has reached the cell, a new target cell
is selected.
IV. B IRD D ETERRING S TRATEGY
This section focuses on the trajectory planning for the
team of UAVs. The strategy for the single UAV scenario
is first discussed, followed by the strategy for multiple UAV
cooperation.
A. Single UAV Strategy
The trajectory planning problem can be simplified signif-
icantly by exploiting the advanced GPS mission capabili-
ties of existing commercial off-the-shelf autopilots such as
Pixhawk [12]. These autopilots accompanied with ground
control software are able to accept GPS coordinates as
waypoints and generate trajectories automatically.
The first step of the strategy is to search for the optimal
waypoint for the UAV to visit. The dynamics of the multi-
rotor type UAV is assumed to be holonomic. Therefore, the
existing occupancy grid map can be exploited by making all
potential waypoints W equivalent to the cell set M̃:
W ≡ M̃
Therefore each potential waypoint has coordinates at the
centre of the equivalent grid cell.
Receding horizon control is utilised in the proposed strat-
egy. At a given time step t, the subset of waypoints Wn
reachable by the UAV in the next n steps are selected
according to the UAV’s maximum velocity and turning
rate. The target probability of each waypoint in Wn is then
predicted according to Equation (3). The optimality of each
potential waypoint is formulated with a cost function that
incorporates the target probability and the difficulty for the
UAV to reach the waypoint. The optimal waypoint is the cell
with minimum cost:
minimise α · (1 − k(t + n, c̄)) + β · fd (c̄) + γ · fh (c̄)
c̄∈Wn
The different components of the cost function are visualised
in Fig. 5. In Equation (7), fd is a simple function that
(c) Map of heading difference cost (d) Map of total cost
computes and normalises the distance between the UAV and
the potential waypoint:
distance(c̄, c̄UAV )
fd (c̄) = (8)
n ·VUAV,max
Similarly, fh computes the heading change required to reach
the potential cell and normalises the results:
   
−1 c̄y −c̄UAVy
fψ tan c̄x −c̄UAVx , ψUAV
fh (c̄) = (9)
π
The function fψ (ψ1 , ψ2 ) takes two heading angle in the
global axis and computes the correct angular difference. For
example, fψ (10◦ , 350◦ ) returns 20◦ instead of the incorrect
−340◦ . α, β and γ are weights used to balance priority
between the bird deterring mission and smoothness of the
trajectories. The weights sum to unity:
α +β +γ = 1 (10)
The UAV is driven towards the optimal waypoint after
the search process is completed. As the UAV approaches
the target birds, the interests map of the birds is also being
(6) updated. This causes the target birds to leave their original
position, and to search for new cells with high interests state
to settle. The target probability map is updated according to
the sensor model or Equation (3) at every time step. The
algorithm searches for the optimal waypoint again at future
time steps to incorporate the updated target probability.
B. Multiple UAV Strategy
If each UAV in the team naively searches for the optimal
waypoint according to the local target probability map, all
UAVs may eventually focus on the same target and disregard
other targets. The solution to the problem is to take the
movement of other UAVs into the optimal waypoint search
process.
(7) The centralised nature of the system allows the same
global target probability map to be shared across all UAVs. A
priority score is assigned to each UAV at initialisation. The
algorithm searches for the optimal waypoint for the UAV
 (a) Single UAV t=1 s (b) Single UAV t=42 s
(e) Multi-UAV t=1 s (f) Multi-UAV t=42 s
Fig. 6: Snapshots of the two single-target simulations. Figure (a), (b), (c) and (d) show the single UAV simulation. Figure
(e), (f), (g) and (h) show the multi-UAV simulation.
with highest priority first, and predicts the target probability
map in the next time step by driving the UAV forward in
time. The predicted target probability is saved and used for
the optimal waypoint search for the UAV with second highest
priority. The use of the predicted target probability map
essentially increases the cost in the region which is going
to be explored by the first UAV in the future time steps.
Consequently, the cooperation strategy prevents the second
UAV from achieving the same objective as the first UAV. The
strategy can be extended to include any number of agents,
provided that each agent is assigned with a different priority
score.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
In this section, the proposed bird deterring algorithm is
demonstrated with three simulated scenarios. The scenarios
are: single target and single UAV; single target and multiple
UAVs; multiple targets and multiple UAVs. The area to be
protected in the simulation is a subset of the spatial domain.
All cells outside the boundary of protected area have inominal
lower than the cells inside the boundary. This is implemented
so that target birds are more interested in staying inside the
protected area.
A. Single Target Scenarios
The initial states of the two single-target scenarios are
identical, with the exception that one of the UAVs is disabled
in the single-UAV scenario. The initial estimate of the bird
location is assumed to be available from the ground bird
detection system. The simulation of the single-UAV scenario
is shown from Fig. 6a to Fig. 6d. In Fig. 6a, the active UAV
is initialised at the bottom right corner outside the protected
area. A bird flock is randomly initialised inside the protected
(c) Single UAV t=80 s (d) Single UAV t=123 s
(g) Multi-UAV t=70 s (h) Multi-UAV t=95 s
area. At t = 42s, in Fig. 6b, the birds first entered the sensor’s
field-of-view as the UAV moves towards the target. The UAV
is able to deter the birds away from the initial position, shown
in Fig. 6c. The birds are forced to move towards the upper
left corner of the protected area due to the active pursue
from the UAV. Eventually, the birds are deterred from the
protected area at t = 123s as demonstrated in Fig. 6d.
The single-target-multi-UAV simulation is shown from
Fig. 6e to Fig. 6h. The now active second UAV is assigned
with lower priory than the first UAV. The major difference
occurs around t = 70s, shown in Fig. 6g, when the birds
stop moving to the left and are forced to move towards the
upper boundary due to the presence of the second UAV. The
two UAVs remain on either side of the target cooperatively
to restrict the motion of the birds. The birds are deterred at
t = 95s, as shown in Fig. 6g.
In both scenarios, the proposed algorithm successfully
drive the UAVs to deter birds from the protected area. The
bird behaviour model is also demonstrated and the results
adhere to the experimental results described in Section III.
The birds only start fleeing when the UAVs are sufficiently
close to them, they also actively move towards area with
high interests and avoid intercepting the UAVs. The UAVs
on the other hand are able to pursue the birds by following
the cost function, the resulting trajectories are smooth and
are bounded by the constraints.
In addition, the increase in efficiency when cooperating
multiple UAVs is demonstrate in the simulation. With two
UAVs, the bird deterring mission time is reduced from
123s to 95s, a reduction of 22.8%. In the absence of the
cooperation strategy, the trajectories of two UAVs would
overlap and allow the birds to move either left or right and
delay the mission completion time.
 (a) Multi-target t=1 s (b) Multi-target t=25 s
Fig. 7: Snapshots of the multi-target-multi-UAV simulation.
B. Multiple Target Scenario
The initial condition of the multi-target scenario is shown
in Fig. 7a. Two target flocks are initialised randomly in the
protected area. Two UAVs are initialised outside the lower
boundary of the area. Both UAVs are driven towards the
initial estimate of the flock location. At t = 25s, as shown
in Fig. 7b, both flocks are in the filed-of-view of the sensor.
In Fig. 7c, it is clear that the relative positions among the
flocks and the UAVs cause the two flocks to evade in different
directions. Flock-1 moves towards the upper right corner
of the area, whereas flock-2 moves towards the upper left
corner. The algorithm then assigns UAV-1 to deter flock-1,
and UAV-2 to flock-2, according to the cooperation strategy.
In Fig. 7d, both flocks are deterred from the area at t = 87s.
This simulation demonstrates the algorithm’s capability to
cooperate multiple UAVs to deter multiple target bird flocks.
This is a crucial capability in bird deterring mission, because
a single flock of birds may split into multiple smaller flocks
while being deterred.
The example simulations affirm the applicability of the
proposed algorithm. The algorithm should be evaluated fur-
ther using more simulations. For a given set of mission
parameters (area to be protected and number of targets), there
exists an optimal number of UAVs to complete the mission in
the shortest time. A large number of numerical simulations
are needed to search for the optimum.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, a novel algorithm for protecting agricultural
crops from pest birds using teams of UAVs is proposed. The
problem is formulated with occupancy grid map to allow
uncertainties in sensor measurement. Furthermore, the bird
behaviour is modelled using interests map that possesses
properties derived from experimental results. It is demon-
strated using a series of simulation that the algorithm is able
to cooperate multiple UAVs to deter multiple bird flocks.
Future research should focus on searching for the optimal
number of UAVs for a given set of mission parameters, as
well as including constraints on the endurance of each UAV.
Experiments will be conducted with the prototype UAVs in
the near future to validate the algorithm.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank Dr. Andrea Griffin from the Uni-
versity of Newcastle, Darren Fahey from New South Wales
View publication stats
(c) Multi-target t=56 s (d) Multi-target t=87 s
Department of Primary Industry and Dr. Andrew Lucas from
Agent Oriented Software for their support in our field trials.
We would also like to thank the help from the University of
Sydney UAV-Lab members, Matthew Anderson, Pengfei Yu
and Yucheng Huang.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Tracey, M. Bomford, Q. Hart, G. Saunders, and R. Sinclair,
Managing bird damage to fruit and other horticultural crops. Bureau
of Rural Science, Canberra, 2007.
[2] S. A. Shwiff, K. L. Ernest, S. L. Degroot, A. M. Anderson, and S. S.
Shwiff, “The Economic Impact of Blackbird Damage to Crops,” in
Ecology and Management of Balckbirds (lcteridate) in North America,
G. Linz, M. Avery, and R. Dolbeer, Eds. Boca Raton, FL.: CRC Press,
2017, ch. 12, pp. 207–216.
[3] M. R. Conover, Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts. Boca Raton,
FL.: CRC Press, 2001.
[4] B. A. Grimm, B. A. Lahneman, P. B. Cathcart, R. C. Elgin, G. L.
Meshnik, and J. P. Parmigiani, “Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
System for Controlling Pest Bird Population in Vineyards,” in Volume
4: Dynamics, Control and Uncertainty, Parts A and B. ASME, nov
2012, p. 499.
[5] Y. Ampatzidis, J. Ward, and O. Samara, “Autonomous system for
pest bird control in specialty crops using unmanned aerial vehicles,”
in American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual
International Meeting 2015, vol. 2, 2015, pp. 962–968.
[6] C. W. Lum, R. T. Rysdyk, and A. Pongpunwattana, “Occupancy based
map searching using heterogeneous teams of autonomous vehicles,”
AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, no.
August, pp. 1–15, 2006.
[7] J. R. Riehl, G. E. Collins, and J. P. Hespanha, “Cooperative search
by UAV teams: A model predictive approach using dynamic graphs,”
IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 47,
no. 4, pp. 2637–2656, 2011.
[8] S. Waharte and N. Trigoni, “Supporting search and rescue operations
with UAVs,” Proceedings - EST 2010 - 2010 International Conference
on Emerging Security Technologies, ROBOSEC 2010 - Robots and
Security, LAB-RS 2010 - Learning and Adaptive Behavior in Robotic
Systems, pp. 142–147, 2010.
[9] L. Bertuccelli and J. How, “Search for dynamic targets with uncertain
probability maps,” in 2006 American Control Conference. IEEE,
2006, p. 6 pp.
[10] Z. Wang and K. Wong, “Autonomous Bird Deterrent System for
Vineyards using Multiple Bio-inspired Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,” in
Proceedings of the 10th International Micro Air Vehicle Conference
and Competition, Melbourne, 2018, pp. 256–281.
[11] Z. Wang, A. S. Griffin, A. Lucas, and K. C. Wong, “Psychological
warfare in vineyard : Using drones and bird psychology to control bird
damage to wine grapes,” Crop Protection, vol. 120, no. September
2018, pp. 163–170, 2019.
[12] MRobotics, “mRo Pixhawk 2.4.6 Cool Kit (Limited edition),”
2016. [Online]. Available: https://store.mrobotics.io/product-p/mro-
pixhawk1-fullkit-mr.htm