2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.2504
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards Posidonia Meadows Detection, Mapping and Automatic recognition using Unmanned Marine Vehicles

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Unmanned vehicles and machine learning are considered promising approaches in the marine science community. Unmanned marine vehicles (UMVs) have the advantages of both acoustic data from single beam echosounders and underwater cameras, which achieve very high accuracy in seagrass mapping (>95%) [155]. This high accuracy is also reported with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and the OBIA technique.…”
Section: Background and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unmanned vehicles and machine learning are considered promising approaches in the marine science community. Unmanned marine vehicles (UMVs) have the advantages of both acoustic data from single beam echosounders and underwater cameras, which achieve very high accuracy in seagrass mapping (>95%) [155]. This high accuracy is also reported with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and the OBIA technique.…”
Section: Background and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sonar system Echologger ECT D710S records raw data corresponding to the power spectra of returning echoes, enabling depth calculation and the inference of bottom acoustic properties. Acoustic reflectance reveals information about bottom composition, while dual frequencies enable various analyses [64,65]. Field tests will further explore these capabilities based on acquired data.…”
Section: Single-beam Echosoundermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The section of the path depicted in Figure 6b from the coordinates (0, −10) and (20, 10) is the desired trajectory of the joystick control and was taken from the real motion of the CNR INM ROV described in [119]. During the dive performed in Biograd Na Moru [120,121], the ROV moved at an average speed of 0.2 m/s. The remaining part of the path was controlled through way-point transmissions: the speed reaching a way-point varied from 0.5 m/s in zones where there were many details to inspect and precise maneuvers to be performed (e.g., the area depicted in Figure 6b) up to a speed of 1.5 m/s when the path was straight forward or did not require precise maneuvering (e.g., Figure 6c and the area that surround the relays in Figure 6a).…”
Section: Nodes Deployment Position Control and Pathmentioning
confidence: 99%