Abstract
We live in a time of unprecedented scientific and human progress while being increasingly aware of its negative impacts on our planet’s health. Aerial, terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems have significantly declined putting us on course to a sixth mass extinction event. Nonetheless, the advances made in science, engineering, and technology have given us the opportunity to reverse some of our ecosystem damage and preserve them through conservation efforts around the world. However, current conservation efforts are primarily human led with assistance from conventional robotic systems which limit their scope and effectiveness, along with negatively impacting the surroundings. In this perspective, we present the field of bioinspired robotics to develop versatile agents for future conservation efforts that can operate in the natural environment while minimizing the disturbance/impact to its inhabitants and the environment’s natural state. We provide an operational and environmental framework that should be considered while developing bioinspired robots for conservation. These considerations go beyond addressing the challenges of human-led conservation efforts and leverage the advancements in the field of materials, intelligence, and energy harvesting, to make bioinspired robots move and sense like animals. In doing so, it makes bioinspired robots an attractive, non-invasive, sustainable, and effective conservation tool for exploration, data collection, intervention, and maintenance tasks. Finally, we discuss the development of bioinspired robots in the context of collaboration, practicality, and applicability that would ensure their further development and widespread use to protect and preserve our natural world.
1 Introduction
Humans have arrived at a critical juncture in their relationship with nature. Human activities such as unsustainable resource extraction, large-scale production/development, and air, water, and land pollution are degrading the planet’s health and threatening the existence of its inhabitants (Visbeck, 2018). The last 50 years have seen an exponential decline in ecosystem health and a loss of nearly 70% of our planet’s biodiversity (). Conservation efforts are critical to protecting and reviving ecosystems around the world and to prevent a sixth-mass extinction event (; ).
Conservation efforts can be broadly divided into exploration, data collection, monitoring, intervention, and maintenance tasks. Each of these tasks is essential to address ecosystem knowledge gaps, promote ecosystem health, and work towards reversing the ecosystem damage (Table 1). For example, an estimated 17,000 out of 120,000 species monitored by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species are listed as ‘Data deficient’, meaning there is not enough data to make a reliable population estimate (Tuia et al., 2022). Moreover, a vast majority of the oceans’ depths are still unexplored, and the human impact on them remains unknown (Roberto et al., 2020). These ecosystem knowledge gaps emphasize the need for innovative and efficient approaches for conducting exploration, data collection, and monitoring activities. Equally important in conservation efforts are intervention and maintenance tasks. Intervention tasks such as tackling the spread of invasive species are required to prevent biodiversity loss and maintain healthy functioning of the ecosystem (). Additionally, the proper management of invasive species can lead to overall economic benefits for the local communities (; ). Maintenance tasks including removal of trash generated by humans or managing insect outbreaks and forest fires are critical to ensure the continuity of ecosystem services (; ; ).
TABLE 1
| Conservation task | Broad definition |
|---|---|
| Exploration | Accessing terrestrial, marine, arctic, or aerial environments to document known and unknown biodiversity, including previously unexplored environments |
| Data collection | Engaging in invasive or non-invasive sample collection and/or information gathering to address specific questions concerning the ecosystem |
| Monitoring | Regular surveillance to assess the climate and ecosystem state (e.g., population, invasive species, human-wildlife interactions, and overall ecosystem health) |
| Intervention | Undertaking activities that promote ecosystem recovery and improve it’s overall state (e.g., re-wilding, reintroduction of focal species, and removal of invasive species) |
| Maintenance | Undertaking activities that preserve the present natural state of the ecosystem, and ensure sustainability of ecosystem services (e.g., tackling disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and human trash) |
Brief description of tasks involved during conservation.
At present, a majority of conservation efforts are human-led. Human-led exploration, data collection, and monitoring can be risky and is often based on opportunistic sampling and/or use of stationary recording devices (camera and/or sensors) to collect data at regular intervals (Zwerts et al., 2021). Many locations that remain largely uncharted and challenging for humans including cave structures (), the ocean floor (), and extreme cold Arctic and Antarctic regions can provide important information on the ecosystem health. However, such locations present logistical complexities with limited infrastructure, restricted transportation options, and adverse environmental conditions that hinder comprehensive conservation endeavors. A secondary consequence of human led missions is the possibility of harming the environment, disturbing the inhabiting organisms, or influencing the conservation task itself (Figures 1A–C). Using helicopters for biodiversity surveys has been shown to influence the behavior of wildlife in its vicinity () while contributing towards environmental pollution (Figure 1A). Similar expectations hold for automobiles used for wildlife monitoring that can harm small wildlife and the landscape during operation. Intervention and maintenance tasks pose additional challenges since they often require direct human involvement, such as administering medication to animals, resolving human-animal conflicts, or undertaking restoration efforts. The complexity of such tasks require special human expertise and equipment/resources, consequently restricting the scope of their implementation (; ).
FIGURE 1
Tackling some of the issues related to human-led efforts has seen the adoption of robotic systems to facilitate in various conservation tasks. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are used to scan large forest areas to monitor canopy cover while leaving the landscape untouched. They have also been employed to track whales on the ocean surface and fly through unexplored caves that are inaccessible to humans (; Zhang et al., 2017; ). Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) and Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) are used to explore marine life and observe the ocean floor at depths which are risky for manned missions (Sward et al., 2019). Terrestrial robots are deployed to explore and survey landscapes, including active volcano areas and glaciers (). Overall, these systems have allowed researchers and conservationists to survey larger and more diverse areas, and make more frequent repetitive measurements. Intervention and maintenance tasks have also benefited from the use of robotic systems. Large scale forest and coral restoration has been demonstrated using UAVs and AUVs, however, these applications rely on high quantity of plant seed or coral larva dispersal to increase the odds of tree/coral generation (; ). Hybrid systems such as virtual fences and smart beehives have positively impacted the field of agriculture by providing real-time animal monitoring and reducing human-livestock conflict (; ).
Despite the wide use of robotic systems to assist in conservation tasks, their conventional design, locomoting mode, and size can make them ineffective in many situations encountered during conservation. Conventional locomoting mode of wheeled robots makes it challenging to cross gaps, move on uneven terrains, and traverse obstacles (Figure 1B) (). Entering canopies for close inspection and sampling or navigating spatially tight aerial environments with conventional multi-rotor UAVs is accident prone, which is in addition to their loud rotor noise that can disturb wildlife (). In aquatic environments, propeller driven AUVs or ROVs can suspend sediments from the water bed and trap lifeforms in their slipstreams which can harm aquatic life and contaminate samples during collection (). Robotic systems with rigid structural components and lack of sophisticated computation and control, limits their ability to perform precise and intricate movements which are required in many intervention and maintenance tasks. For example, delicate handling of the animal for administering medication or instant decision making to resolve a rapidly evolving human-animal conflict situation remain beyond the capabilities of present-day robotic or hybrid systems.
Improving the capabilities of conventional robots in terrestrial, aquatic, and aerial environments has led to researchers drawing inspiration from millions of years of evolution in nature (Sadeghi et al., 2020; Penick et al., 2022), resulting in the establishment of the fields of biomimetics and bioinspired robotics. Biomimetic robotic systems directly incorporate aspects of the morphology, mechanics, sensing or control found in biological systems. Bioinspired robots abstract the fundamental principles behind the form and function of a biological systems to improve their capabilities (Popovic, 2019). Both of these approaches can be implemented in parallel in a robotic system. Recently, several bioinspired robots have aimed to emulate both the physical appearance and the intrinsic dynamics of biological movement, resulting in robust and agile robots (), that can move, sense, and even look like plants or animals. These new capabilities allow these robots to access different ecosystems and spaces that were not possible before (Savage, 2022). Moreover, it opens up the possibility to operate in close proximity to the local flora and fauna without disturbing it and the environment’s natural state (). Altogether, these characteristics make bioinspired robots an attractive candidate to undertake a variety of conservation tasks. A subset of bioinspired robots operating in terrestrial, aerial/arboreal, and aquatic environments are presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
| Robot | Environment | Description | Organisation | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aerial | Robird | - Bioinspired robot that closely resemble bird in appearance and flight behaviour | Aerium Analytics and University of Twente | Folkertsma et al. (2017) |
| - Serves as an environment-friendly means of bird control | ||||
| Aerial | Robobee | - Inspired by flying insects they can achieve vertical take-off, hovering, and steering | Harvard University | Wood et al. (2013) |
| - Can be used for environmental monitoring, search-and-rescue missions, and crop pollination | ||||
| Aquatic | Ocean One | - Underwater humanoid robot equipped with a bimanual system and haptic feedback | Stanford University | |
| - Perform challenging manipulation tasks in inhospitable marine environments | ||||
| Aquatic | SILVER 2.0 | - Bioinspired underwater hexapod robot inspired by crabs | Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna | Picardi et al. (2020b) |
| - Walks and runs on the seabed, recovering trash, sampling sediment, and monitoring marine habitats | ||||
| Aquatic | SoFi | - Soft robotic fish that can swim in three dimensions, capable of agile swimming manoeuvres | MIT | |
| - Equipped with cameras to continuously record the aquatic life | ||||
| Terrestrial | ANYmal | - Autonomous quadrupedal robot capable of dynamic running and high-mobile climbing | ETH Zurich | |
| - Operate in alpine, forest, underground, and urban environments | ||||
| Terrestrial | MIT Cheetah | - Quadrupedal robot that can see and jump over hurdles as it runs | MIT | Seok et al. (2014) |
| - Traverses rough terrains, climbs debris-laden stairs, and swiftly recovers from unexpected disturbances |
Bioinspired robots used for exploring natural environment with potential application for nature conservation.
In this perspective, we highlight the growing field of bioinspired robotics in the context of conservation. We discuss the potential ways in which bioinspired robots can perform exploration, data collection, monitoring, maintenance, and intervention tasks while minimally influencing the natural state of the environment and its inhabitants. We summarize the operating and environmental considerations that must be fulfilled for bioinspired robots to be used as an effective conservation tool. Finally, we present additional avenues that can be explored using bioinspired robots that should further enhance its role as an effective tool to protect and preserve our natural world.
2 Future trends in bioinspired robotics benefit nature conservation
We approach the development of bioinspired robots for conservation in two parts. First, the operating considerations that guide its development to ensure its longevity, sustainability, and usefulness in field operations (Figure 1D). Second, the environmental considerations that are dictated by conditions specific to terrestrial, aerial, and aquatic environments which influence the robots interaction with the environment.
2.1 Operating considerations
2.1.1 Locomotion and manipulation capabilities
Recent advancements in bioinspired robotics have led to the development of robots that can move and adapt to various environments using different modes of animal-like locomotion (). For example, Salamandra robotica II is a bioinspired robot that can operate in land and water (). This kind of multimodal capability is extremely relevant for conservation efforts, as many ecological phenomena are interconnected across different environments. Additionally, development of bioinspired robots with specialized locomotory capabilities has allowed navigating challenging environments such as walking on water (), climbing up walls (Spenko et al., 2008), and running on the seabed (Picardi et al., 2020b). These new capabilities can eventually expand the scope of conservation efforts around the world, and introduce bioinspired robots to more hazardous and remote environments to help collect data and perform intervention tasks for conservation. Recent advancements in bioinspired locomotion utilizing animal-like propulsion methods can also enable effective monitoring and engagement with the natural environment, while mitigating issues related to noise pollution (Picardi et al., 2020a), and disturbance to the environment’s natural state ().
The increase in accessibility through enhanced locomotion capabilities will potentially increase the opportunities to perform intervention and maintenance tasks. Intervention often involves robotic manipulators that can delicately handle an organism in its natural setting. Soft robotic arms with tactile feedback from embedded sensors will provide a safer alternative to conventional hard-material robotics, allowing the robots to safely interact with living organisms (Shintake et al., 2018; ; ).
Overall, developing robots with environment specific locomotion and manipulation capabilities inspired by the inhabiting organisms will allow robots to enter previously inaccessible spaces and interact in novel and more natural ways with their surroundings to perform activities ranging from data collection to intervention and maintenance (Figures 1E–G).
2.1.2 Durability
In conservation activities, exploration and data collection often require using robots repeatedly in rugged and harsh conditions which can lead to wear and tear on their structures. Furthermore, operating in harsh environments increases the risk of experiencing accidents and/or failures. The use of adaptive structures, high-performance materials, and self-cleaning mechanisms can increase the durability of these robots. Adaptive structures, which can vary in shape and/or stiffness, can better withstand changing environmental conditions and tasks, reducing the stresses on the body (; ). They also provide added functionality and cost-effectiveness. High-performance materials can provide strength, resilience, and corrosion resistance to the robot’s structural components (). The incorporation of flexible electronics can allow the robot to withstand physical stressors from the environment and maintain performance and durability to extend its operating window (; Phillips et al., 2022). The use of self-healing materials will further increase the robot’s operational window in unpredictable environments and bring it closer to achieving autonomous field operation. Eventually, these material considerations can increase the robot’s durability, and potentially reduce costs and electronic waste, paving the way for their widespread and long-term use in conservation (Tan et al., 2021; Terryn et al., 2021).
It is important to carefully evaluate different approaches and weigh their trade-offs when selecting materials and mechanisms to improve the durability of conservation robots. For instance, while adaptive structures can enhance robustness and functionality, they may also increase costs. Similarly, self-healing materials can improve the operational window, but their advanced and costly manufacturing process can pose a challenge. To determine the most appropriate option, one must consider the specific needs and requirements of the conservation activities, as well as the environmental conditions and potential risks associated with operating the robots in those conditions.
2.1.3 Intelligence
Biologically inspired intelligence involves incorporating biological strategies, mechanisms, and structures into robotics research and has been investigated as a means to develop more efficient methodologies and technologies for addressing existing challenges (). Integrating biologically inspired intelligence into robots intended for use in exploration, data collection, and monitoring can impart characteristics such as adaptability, robustness, versatility, and agility. These characteristics are crucial to safely navigate complex unknown environments. They can also enable smooth transitions between locomotion modes when moving from one environment to another (e.g., aerial to arboreal or terrestrial to aquatic) (; ; ).
Moreover, the field of neuromorphic computing and engineering, which involves creating computational systems based on biological structures, has made significant advancements and has the potential to enhance bioinspired robots’ real-time interaction with the physical world (Zhao et al., 2020; ). The development of controllers that can adapt to damages and morphological changes in bioinspired robots will be a significant leap forward in the exploration of hazardous environments. They can enable the control of shape-morphing multi-modal robots, which can change their form and functionality to better navigate and operate in different conditions.
Based on the conservation task, robots should be able to exhibit collective behavior to perform tasks beyond the capabilities of a single individual, with minimal explicit communication (; ; ). This type of collective intelligence, known as swarm intelligence (Schranz et al., 2021), is particularly useful for studying spatio-temporal phenomena such as wastewater plumes, oil spills, convection, and biologically active layers that require simultaneous sampling at multiple locations (Schill et al., 2018). Swarm systems, unlike single robot systems, can continue functioning even if individual robots fail or need to be removed, as they can adapt to changes in the number of robots using only local communication (). Swarm robotics has already demonstrated its effectiveness within the field of high precision agriculture (). Initiatives such as ‘Mobile Agriculture Robot Swarm’ () have harnessed the capabilities of swarm robots to execute various intricate farming tasks, typically associated with human involvement. This utilisation has led to enhanced crop yields and a decreased ecological footprint. Analogously, comparable swarm robotics systems hold promise for monitoring, intervention, and maintenance tasks aimed at the preservation of natural ecosystems. For example, in the project, CoCoRo (Schmickl et al., 2011), a swarm of robots was designed to navigate though underwater habitat while coordinating the swarm members through bioinspired and biomimetic algorithms. Similar to a school of fish, they engaged in the exchange of information to monitor, maintain, and harvest resources in the underwater environment.
2.1.4 Energy
One of the main challenges in achieving full robot autonomy in field operation is the limited capacity of energy storage systems, particularly battery cells, which have not undergone significant changes in design and efficiency. Robots with traditional lithium-ion batteries must be frequently retrieved to replace/recharge the battery followed by redeployment, limiting the duration and economic feasibility of field operations, especially in remote and hostile environments. This is particularly challenging in microrobots which deal with low battery life resulting, at times, in the use of a tether (). Alternative energy dense options using hydraulic fluids could facilitate increased energy density, autonomy, efficiency, and multi-functionality in future robot designs (). Eventually, robots in field operation should be capable of harvesting energy from renewable sources and/or receive energy wirelessly to supplement or replace their on-board energy source. These capabilities aim to reduce the environmental impact of electronic waste and significantly extend the robot’s operational window (). For example, EcoBot III, which has an organic digestive system to power itself, demonstrates the advancements in energy harvesting capabilities in robots. ().
Efficient and intelligent robot controllers can significantly improve a robot’s autonomy and working window by reducing energy consumption and optimizing the decision-making process. Consequently, robots can operate for extended periods without requiring frequent battery replacements, leading to cost savings and improved operational efficiency ().
2.1.5 Biodegradability
Successful retrieval of the robot after completion of its task is critical; we propose bioinspired robots as a tool to remedy the harmful environmental impacts rather than an enabler of environmental degradation. Swarm robots exemplify the importance of biodegradibility where multiple robots are in use to perform a task and the unsuccessful retrieval of one or more individual robots can negatively impact the environment. The development of small fully biodegradable robots can allow their deployment in vast numbers to inaccessible locations for conservation tasks before safely biodegrading into the environment (; Rumley et al., 2023).
A variety of biodegradable materials including cellulose/carboxymethylcellulose, polylactic acid (PLA), and polypropylene fumarate (PPF) can be utilized to create biodegradable structure of the robots which can degrade after accomplishing their specified mechanical function in the field (Sethi et al., 2022). However, to achieve complete biodegradability, electronics and energy source must also be made biodegradable. Though advances have been made in the field of biodegradable electronics (Tan et al., 2016), the developments on a biodegradable energy source like Microbeal Fuel Cells (MFCs) remains extremely challenging. MFC-equipped robots present several challenges while operating in a natural environment, which include the need for nutrient rich liquid feedstocks (), low power output, and vulnerability to the infection of bacteria or fungus. This limits their operational scope and confines the usage to slow or passive tasks. However, recent progress on MFCs, particularly in reactor configuration and system architecture, separator, and cathode catalyst is promising to achieve the goal of completely biodegradable robots (; Winfield et al., 2019).
An alternative sustainable approach involves substituting the conventional digital sensors on the robot with bioindicators for the purpose of monitoring and assessing environmental conditions. Bioindicators encompass living organisms like plants, plankton, animals, and microbes, which are employed to evaluate the ecological wellbeing of the natural surroundings (). For instance, in the project Robocoenosis, Zebra mussels and Daphnia were used as living sensors to monitor natural underwater environments (Rajewicz et al., 2022). This strategy reduces reliance on non-biodegradable components within the robot’s sensing system. Furthermore, analysing the bioindicators in the environment via camera visuals from the robot can minimise the dependence on other traditional sensors. For instance, urban areas can incorporate lichens or fungi onto building walls. These biological indicators serve to reflect the air quality within the city (; ). Employing an aerial robot with an onboard camera to assess the coloration of these structures can provide insights into the air quality.
2.2 Environmental considerations
Robots functioning in a natural environment require regular maintenance tasks like cleaning, lubrication, and inspection, along with the repairing or replacing of robot’s components that have experienced wear and damage. Furthermore, different ecological environments impose specific technological challenges for the robot’s optimal functionality (Figures 1A–C). These specific challenges in bioinspired robots to foster conservation in terrestrial, aerial/arboreal, and marine environments are described below:
2.2.1 Terrestrial
Terrestrial conservation tasks require the robot to perform in urban, rural, and natural environmental conditions. Successful operation would require a combination of locomoting and perceiving capabilities that allow the robot to adapt to different terrains and surface properties (hardness, slipperiness, or irregularities). The integration of proprioception and exteroception coupled with the capability to move like animals can make robots versatile and effective on substrates such as sand, snow, and vegetation. A recent study that incorporated these principles in a legged robot has shown the potential for successful navigation in diverse environments, including alpine, forest, underground, and urban settings ().
One of the significant challenges facing terrestrial robotics is the problem of path planning (Figure 1B). Path planning by building a map in a distributed manner by a swarm of legged robots is one of the solutions to this challenge (Ramachandran et al., 2020). The integration of terrestrial robots with aerial robots presents another promising solution to this challenge. By utilizing visual mapping information provided by aerial robots, terrestrial robots can plan traversable paths and achieve their desired goals with increased efficiency and effectiveness ().
2.2.2 Aerial/arboreal
Operating in aerial and arboreal environments requires counteracting the pull of gravity while performing the conservation task at hand. In addition to flapping robots (Yousaf et al., 2021), developing bioinspired robots that can takeoff from and move on uneven vertical substrates, glide, and perch will significantly expand the scope of conservation efforts to include entering forest canopies, collecting samples, and easily transition from arboreal to aerial environments and vice-versa (Figure 1D). Moving on vertical substrates will allow close inspection and maintenance tasks while eliminating human risk (Spenko et al., 2008). Unlike UAVs, perching and grasping will reduce the reliance on lift generation and thus energy expended. It will also enable the robot to hold position with minimal control effort which is often required for data collection (Roderick et al., 2021; Siddall et al., 2021; ). Glide capabilities, like in animals (Zhao et al., 2019; ), can increase the flight time by reducing the dependence on powered flight, reduce noise pollution and make them more robust to aerial perturbations.
2.2.3 Aquatic
In an underwater environment, the robot experiences additional forces associated with water, such as buoyancy, hydrodynamic drag, and added-mass effect, which must be taken into account during the design, control, and maintenance of the robot (Picardi et al., 2020b; ). Additionally, the pressure experienced by an object increases by 1 atm for every 10 m of depth, requiring all electronic components in a robot to be sealed in rigid watertight canisters, limiting the flexibility of designing compliant and soft bioinspired robots for use at extreme depths. Moreover, the underwater structures require high maintenance as they are highly prone to corrosion and fouling.
Recent advancements in technology have led to the development of an untethered soft robot for deep-sea exploration, utilizing a self-powered design inspired by the structure of a deep-sea snailfish. The delicate electronic components are embedded and distributed within a soft silicone material which eliminates the need for pressure-resistant cases. This innovative design holds potential for future deep-sea exploration and research ().
Underwater visibility issues are also encountered by robots. However, aquatic creatures have adapted sensory mechanisms to overcome these challenges. Seals, for instance, can detect and monitor herrings up to 180 m away by utilizing their wavy whiskers (Zheng et al., 2021). In addition, fish possess mechanosensory lateral-line systems that allow them to perceive and detect their hydrodynamic and physical surroundings (). These natural mechanisms can serve as a source of inspiration for the development of sensor systems in underwater robotics.
Moreover, in the aquatic ecosystem, biological functions from nutrient cycle to energy transfer in food webs see a strong coupling between pelagic and benthic zones (). To have a broader understanding on ocean and freshwater ecosystems, data has to be gathered from both zones. Moreover, there is also a need for precise close-range 3D acquisition of benthic environment (), for example, monitoring the growth of coral reefs. Hence, together with pelagic robots (Yu et al., 2016; ; Romano et al., 2022), focus is also needed on robots that can perform exploration and monitoring in the benthic region (Picardi et al., 2020b).
3 Discussion
Conservation efforts are critical to combat the deteriorating health of our planet. In this perspective, we discuss the development of bioinspired robots as versatile agents that can significantly expand the scope and effectiveness of conservation efforts around the world while minimizing the negative impact on organisms and the environment’s natural state.
Achieving a future where bioinspired robots can perform conservation tasks of exploration, data collection, intervention, and maintenance requires developing novel capabilities, akin to how animals move, sense, and interact in the natural world. Such capabilities can be realized through the concept of physical artificial intelligence, i.e., co-evolving the morphology, actuation, control, and sensing of physical systems can provide them with capabilities to perform tasks akin to intelligent organisms (). Moreover, the development of such capabilities can benefit from studies on the biomechanics, ecology, and sensing in animals which provide insights into the physical and behavioral basis of how organisms adapt, move, and interact in different ecosystems (). Overall, the understanding gained from organisms coupled with the concept of physical artificial intelligence creates a paradigm for researchers on ‘how’ to create versatile robots that are skilful to manipulate unknown objects, move in unpredictable complex environments, and interact with surrounding organisms. (; ).
However, the development of robots with animal-like capabilities alone cannot lead to their effective and widespread use in future conservation efforts. Here, we present additional considerations for the robot that include interdisciplinary research collaboration, practicality in research and field operations, and applicability as interactive agents for conservation.
3.1 Collaboration
Tight collaborations between engineers, biologists, and conservationists is critical to develop bioinspired robots that function like animals and can gather relevant data that is required for the conservation task. Through such collaborations, roboticists/engineers can build bioinspired robots meeting the specific needs of conservation biologists, and in turn conservation biologists can provide valuable expertise on the behaviors, habitats, and ecosystems that the robots will be interacting with (; Schulz et al., 2023). Furthermore, wherever possible, involving the local communities during the development, maintenance, and troubleshooting process of the bioinspired robot will ensure that conservation efforts are sustainable and effective in the long-term without assistance from researchers.
3.2 Practicality
Bioinspired robots must be a cost-effective proposition to significantly contribute towards conservation, especially since conservation projects often have limited budgets. A purpose built bioinspired robot for a conservation task should be favored over a general purpose robot since the former will minimize the hardware and software requirements and drastically reduce the cost (). Additionally, the use of easily available components, low cost fabrication/manufacturing techniques, and modular and scalable designs can further reduce the robot’s cost and upkeep (Thomas and Gilbert, 2014). For example, a modular design can help with troubleshooting to ensure rapid turnaround times between repair and redeployment of the robot in field operations (; Thomas and Gilbert, 2014). Finally, utilizing and publishing open-source designs and technology will enable conservationists and researchers to readily adapt the designs for other research, environmental, and conservation purposes ().
Commercial bio-hybrid implementations such as smart beehives and virtual fences are testament to the potential and practicality of technology in facilitating conservation tasks (). Bioinspired implementations have also been developed such as ‘Spot’ from Boston Dynamics and ‘ANYmal’ from ETH (), demonstrating that such technology is readily being adopted for commercial applications and is not limited to academia. However, these robots are expensive, making them out of reach for most conservation projects. In the future, cost reduction through commercial use and scaling up production can make direct purchase from companies a viable option.
Overall, accounting for collaboration and practicality during the development phase of the robot considerations can further expand the potential impact of the bioinspired robot by facilitating its wider adoption among the conservation and research community.
3.3 Bioinspired robots as interactive agents for conservation
With capabilities that allow bioinspired robots to move, sense, and interact like animals, they can be deployed in close proximity to wildlife and enter previously inaccessible environments to collect data or perform intervention and maintenance tasks (Figures 1E–G). This versatility extends their use beyond these conventional conservation tasks, offering researchers the opportunity to explore diverse and novel applications.
Nobel laureates, Konrad Lorenz and Nikolaas Tinbergen conducted pioneering experiments using mechanical dummies that look like animals to study animal behaviour in controlled settings (). Their studies laid the foundation for integrating biomimetic devices into living systems (Webb, 2000; ). Recent advancements in bioinspired and biomimetic robotics have facilitated the development of artificial systems that can interact with living systems in increasingly creative ways. The interactions between these artificial devices and living organisms are evolving into influential bio-hybrid agents, with the potential to significantly contribute to ecosystem conservation efforts (). For example, biomimetic fish robot, Robofish, which was used to investigate the collective behaviour of fish like recruitment and leadership (). In the LEURRE project, an integration of American cockroaches and miniature insect-like robots known as Insbots was established, creating an experimental mixed society. The fundamental aim of this initiative was to demonstrate the possible control of these mixed societies, which is a key challenge in many scientific fields, including ethology (). Recently, researchers were successful to study the dance-following behaviour in bees using a robotic bee called ‘Robobee’ ().
These social integration of robots into animal societies is referred as ‘organismic augmentation’ (Schmickl et al., 2021). Such augmentations can also create artificial ecological interactions via inter and/or intra species communications to influence the behaviour of the animals at their society level, which ultimately affects the ecosystem in which the society is embedded (; ). This new paradigm of ‘ecosystem hacking’ (Stefanec et al., 2022) via organismic augmentation can positively effect the ecosystem stability or at least slow down the ecosystem decay.
Additionally, the ‘interactive’ bioinspired robots () can potentially be used to train captive animals before their reintroduction into their natural habitats. Moreover, these robots can mitigate human-wildlife conflicts, such as using robot wolves instead of electric fences to safeguard agricultural fields from wildlife (), or utilizing bird-inspired flapping robots to deter birds from congregating near airports during flight operations (Patel and Rughani, 2022). Bioinspired robots can also be used to non-invasively study animal behavior and locomotion in the wild (; Romano et al., 2020; ), as shown in studies on bat echolocation () and locust jumping direction (Romano et al., 2019). Ethorobotics, a growing field of biorobotics, proposes leveraging robotic replicas as an innovative approach for exploring animal behavior (Romano et al., 2020), like social learning in vertebrates (Romano et al., 2021) and zebrafish shoaling (Ruberto et al., 2016).
The valuable insights gained through these interactions can help conservation biologists better understand their animal of interest and assist them in designing tailored and effective conservation strategies.
4 Conclusion
Leveraging advancements in design, materials, intelligence, and energy harvesting is leading to the rapid evolution of bioinspired robots. Specifically, improved locomotory capabilities allow them to overcome operational challenges in terrestrial, aquatic, aerial, and arctic environments. The animal-like appearance and behavior allow easy-integration into the natural environment and interact with the surrounding while minimizing disturbance to inhabitants and preserving the environment’s natural state. Altogether, these capabilities make them versatile agents for future conservation efforts by overcoming current limitations of human-led conservation activities.
Through this perspective, we provide a framework for researchers to develop bioinspired robots with animal-like capabilities that have the potential to revolutionize conservation efforts around the world. These robots can offer sustainable and effective ways to explore uncharted environments, carry out ecological field missions, facilitate data collection and monitoring in extensive, standardized, and repeatable ways, and carry out intervention and maintenance tasks in an efficient and precise manner.
To further strengthen conservation efforts, we highlight the importance of fostering conservation through interdisciplinary collaboration, considering the practicality in research and field operations, and exploring diverse applications. We hope that this piece will encourage future researchers to design and develop bioinspired robots catering to the pressing issue of conservation that is critical to save our planet from rapid biodiversity loss and improve the overall wellbeing of all its inhabitants.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
MC conceived the perspective. MC and PK conceptualized and outlined the perspective. MC, PK, and AS performed literature review, writing, and reviewing of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the open-source images of organisms platform Phylopic for providing us with silhouettes to use for Figure 1. The authors thank the International Max Planck Research School for Intelligent Systems (IMPRS-IS) for supporting AS. This was supported by Max Planck Society.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Correction note
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the scientific content of the article.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AmeliaT. S. M.KhalikW. M. A. W. M.OngM. C.ShaoY. T.PanH. J.BhubalanK. (2021). Marine microplastics as vectors of major ocean pollutants and its hazards to the marine ecosystem and humans. Prog. Earth Planet. Sci.8, 12–26. 10.1186/s40645-020-00405-4
2
AndersonB. A. (2007). A literature review of the effects of helicopter disturbance and noise on selected wildlife species. Avaliable At: http://northslopescience.org/dataset/2585.
3
AubinC. A.ChoudhuryS.JerchR.ArcherL. A.PikulJ. H.ShepherdR. F. (2019). Electrolytic vascular systems for energy-dense robots. Nature571, 51–57. 10.1038/s41586-019-1313-1
4
Beck EichlerP. P.BarkerC. P. (2020). “Surfers of bottom water masses as narrators: water masses and geo properties interaction as benthic habitats for foraminiferal bio indicators,” in Benthic foraminiferal ecology: Indicators of environmental impacts. Editors Beck EichlerP. P.BarkerC. P. (Cham: Spinger), 71–84. 10.1007/978-3-030-61463-8_4
5
BellicosoC. D.BjelonicM.WellhausenL.HoltmannK.GüntherF.TranzattoM.et al (2018). Advances in real-world applications for legged robots. J. Field Robotics35, 1311–1326. 10.1002/rob.21839
6
BendelO. (2022). Passive, active, and proactive systems and machines for the protection and preservation of animals and animal species. Front. Animal Sci.3, 834634. 10.3389/fanim.2022.834634
7
Berger-TalO.Lahoz-MonfortJ. J. (2018). Conservation technology: the next generation. Conserv. Lett.11, e12458. 10.1111/conl.12458
8
BerlingerF.GauciM.NagpalR. (2021). Implicit coordination for 3D underwater collective behaviors in a fish-inspired robot swarm. Sci. Robotics6, eabd8668. 10.1126/scirobotics.abd8668
9
BicerM.PhillipsA. T.MelisA.McGregorA. H.ModeneseL. (2022). Generative deep learning applied to biomechanics: A new augmentation technique for motion capture datasets. J. Biomechanics144, 111301. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2022.111301
10
BiewenerA. A.BomphreyR. J.DaleyM. A.IjspeertA. J. (2022). Stability and manoeuvrability in animal movement: lessons from biology, modelling and robotics. Proc. R. Soc. B289, 20212492. 10.1098/rspb.2021.2492
11
BlenderT.BuchnerT.FernandezB.PichlmaierB.SchlegelC. (2016). “Managing a mobile agricultural robot swarm for a seeding task,” in IECON 2016-42nd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Florence, Italy, 23-26 October 2016 (IEEE), 6879–6886. 10.1109/IECON.2016.7793638
12
BonnetF.MillsR.SzopekM.Schönwetter-FuchsS.HalloyJ.BogdanS.et al (2019). Robots mediating interactions between animals for interspecies collective behaviors. Sci. Robotics4, eaau7897. 10.1126/scirobotics.aau7897
13
Boström-EinarssonL.BabcockR. C.BayraktarovE.CeccarelliD.CookN.FerseS. C.et al (2020). Coral restoration–A systematic review of current methods, successes, failures and future directions. PLOS ONE15, e0226631. 10.1371/journal.pone.0226631
14
Bou MansourC.KoremanE.SteckelJ.PeremansH.VanderelstD. (2019). Avoidance of non-localizable obstacles in echolocating bats: A robotic model. PLOS Comput. Biol.15, e1007550. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007550
15
BrooksA.KauppT.MakarenkoA.WilliamsS.OrebackA. (2005). “Towards component-based robotics,” in 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 02-06 August 2005 (IEEE), 163–168. 10.1109/IROS.2005.1545523
16
BrunoF.BiancoG.MuzzupappaM.BaroneS.RazionaleA. V. (2011). Experimentation of structured light and stereo vision for underwater 3D reconstruction. ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens.66, 508–518. 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2011.02.009
17
BurkhardtR. W. (2014). Tribute to tinbergen: putting niko tinbergen’s ‘four questions’ in historical context. Ethology120, 215–223. 10.1111/eth.12200
18
ButlerZ.CorkeP.PetersonR.RusD. (2006). From robots to animals: virtual fences for controlling cattle. Int. J. Robotics Res.25, 485–508. 10.1177/0278364906065375
19
ByagathvalliG.ChallitaE. J.BhamlaM. S. (2021). Frugal science powered by curiosity. Industrial Eng. Chem. Res.60, 15874–15884. 10.1021/acs.iecr.1c02868
20
CamarrettaN.HarrisonP. A.BaileyT.PottsB.LucieerA.DavidsonN.et al (2020). Monitoring forest structure to guide adaptive management of forest restoration: A review of remote sensing approaches. New For.51, 573–596. 10.1007/s11056-019-09754-5
21
CandirogluB.GungorN. D. (2017). Cave ecosystems: microbiological view. Eur. J. Biol.76, 36–42. 10.5152/EurJBiol.2017.1707
22
CaprariG.ColotA.SiegwartR.HalloyJ.DeneubourgJ. L. (2005). Animal and robot mixed societies: building cooperation between microrobots and cockroaches. IEEE Robotics Automation Mag.12, 58–65. 10.1109/MRA.2005.1458325
23
CeballosG.EhrlichP. R.BarnoskyA. D.GarcíaA.PringleR. M.PalmerT. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv.1, e1400253. 10.1126/sciadv.1400253
24
CecchiS.SpinsanteS.TerenziA.OrcioniS. (2020). A smart sensor-based measurement system for advanced bee hive monitoring. Sensors (Basel, Switz.20, 2726. 10.3390/s20092726
25
ChellapurathM.KhandelwalP.RottierT.SchwabF.JusufiA. (2022). Morphologically adaptive crash landing on a wall: soft-bodied models of gliding geckos with varying material stiffnesses. Adv. Intell. Syst.4, 2200120. 10.1002/aisy.202200120
26
ChellapurathM.NobleS.SreejalekshmiK. (2021a). Design and kinematic analysis of flapping wing mechanism for common swift inspired micro aerial vehicle. Proc. Institution Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci.235, 4026–4036. 10.1177/0954406220974046
27
ChellapurathM.WalkerK. L.DonatoE.PicardiG.StefanniS.LaschiC.et al (2021b). Analysis of station keeping performance of an underwater legged robot. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics27, 3730–3741. 10.1109/TMECH.2021.3132779
28
ChenY.DoshiN.GoldbergB.WangH.WoodR. J. (2018). Controllable water surface to underwater transition through electrowetting in a hybrid terrestrial-aquatic microrobot. Nat. Commun.9, 2495–2511. 10.1038/s41467-018-04855-9
29
ChristensenD. V.DittmannR.Linares-BarrancoB.SebastianA.Le GalloM.RedaelliA.et al (2022). 2022 roadmap on neuromorphic computing and engineering. Neuromorphic Comput. Eng.2, 022501. 10.1088/2634-4386/ac4a83
30
ChristiansenF.Rojano-DoñateL.MadsenP. T.BejderL. (2016). Noise levels of multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicles with implications for potential underwater impacts on marine mammals. Front. Mar. Sci.3, 277. 10.3389/fmars.2016.00277
31
CrespiA.KarakasiliotisK.GuignardA.IjspeertA. J. (2013). Salamandra robotica II: an amphibious robot to study salamander-like swimming and walking gaits. IEEE Trans. Robotics29, 308–320. 10.1109/TRO.2012.2234311
32
CullyA.CluneJ.TaraporeD.MouretJ. B. (2015). Robots that can adapt like animals. Nature521, 503–507. 10.1038/nature14422
33
DailyG. C. (1997). “Introduction: what are ecosystem services,” in Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Editor DailyG. C. (Washington, DC, USA: Island Press), 1–10.
34
DatteriE. (2020). The logic of interactive biorobotics. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.8, 637. 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00637
35
DorigoM.FloreanoD.GambardellaL. M.MondadaF.NolfiS.BaabouraT.et al (2013). Swarmanoid: A novel concept for the study of heterogeneous robotic swarms. IEEE Robotics Automation Mag.20, 60–71. 10.1109/MRA.2013.2252996
36
DunbabinM.ManleyJ.HarrisonP. L. (2020). “Uncrewed maritime systems for coral reef conservation,” in Global Oceans 2020: Singapore–US Gulf Coast, Biloxi, MS, USA, 05-30 October 2020 (IEEE), 1–6. 10.1109/IEEECONF38699.2020.9389173
37
FariaJ. J.DyerJ. R.ClémentR. O.CouzinI. D.HoltN.WardA. J.et al (2010). A novel method for investigating the collective behaviour of fish: introducing ‘robofish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.64, 1211–1218. 10.1007/s00265-010-0988-y
38
FolkertsmaG. A.StraatmanW.NijenhuisN.VennerC. H.StramigioliS. (2017). Robird: a robotic bird of prey. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag.24 (3), 22–29. 10.1109/MRA.2016.2636368
39
GajdaI.GreenmanJ.IeropoulosI. A. (2018). Recent advancements in real-world microbial fuel cell applications. Curr. Opin. Electrochem.11, 78–83. 10.1016/j.coelec.2018.09.006
40
GaoX.LiJ.FanL.ZhouQ.YinK.WangJ.et al (2018). Review of wheeled mobile robots’ navigation problems and application prospects in agriculture. IEEE Access6, 49248–49268. 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2868848
41
George ThuruthelT.PicardiG.IidaF.LaschiC.CalistiM. (2021). Learning to stop: A unifying principle for legged locomotion in varying environments. R. Soc. Open Sci.8, 210223. 10.1098/rsos.210223
42
GravishN.LauderG. V. (2018). Robotics-inspired biology. J. Exp. Biol.221, jeb138438. 10.1242/jeb.138438
43
GriffithsJ. R.KadinM.NascimentoF. J.TamelanderT.TörnroosA.BonagliaS.et al (2017). The importance of benthic–pelagic coupling for marine ecosystem functioning in a changing world. Glob. Change Biol.23, 2179–2196. 10.1111/gcb.13642
44
GrossM. (2021). How locusts become a plague. Curr. Biol.31, 459–461. 10.1016/j.cub.2021.05.007
45
GruberD. F.WoodR. J. (2022). Advances and future outlooks in soft robotics for minimally invasive marine biology. Sci. Robotics7, eabm6807. 10.1126/scirobotics.abm6807
46
HanleyN.RobertsM. (2019). The economic benefits of invasive species management. People Nat.1, 124–137. 10.1002/pan3.31
47
HendriksI. E.DuarteC. M.HeipC. H. R. (2006). Biodiversity research still grounded. Science312, 1715. 10.1126/science.1128548
48
HodgsonA.KellyN.PeelD. (2013). Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for surveying marine fauna: A dugong case study. PLOS ONE8, e79556. 10.1371/journal.pone.0079556
49
HoltE.MillerS. (2011). Bioindicators: using organisms to measure. Nat. Educ. Knowl.3, 8–13.
50
HortonT. W.HauserN.CasselS.KlausK. F.FettermannT.KeyN. (2019). Doctor drone: non-invasive measurement of humpback whale vital signs using unoccupied aerial system infrared thermography. Front. Mar. Sci.6, 466. 10.3389/fmars.2019.00466
51
HuangS.LiuY.ZhaoY.RenZ.GuoC. F. (2019). Flexible electronics: stretchable electrodes and their future. Adv. Funct. Mater.29, 1805924. 10.1002/adfm.201805924
52
HutterM.GehringC.JudD.LauberA.BellicosoC. D.TsounisV.et al (2016). “Anymal-a highly mobile and dynamic quadrupedal robot,” in 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Daejeon, Korea (South), 09-14 October 2016 (IEEE), 38–44. 10.1109/IROS.2016.7758092
53
IeropoulosI.GreenmanJ.MelhuishC.HorsfieldI. (2010). EcoBot-III-A robot with guts. ALIFE733, e40.
54
IlgünA.AngelovK.StefanecM.Schönwetter-FuchsS.StokanicV.VollmannJ.et al (2021). “Bio-hybrid systems for ecosystem level effects,” in Alife 2021: The 2021 conference on artificial lifeCambridge, MA, USA: Island Press. 10.1162/isal/TNQDotTNQ/a_00396
55
IlgünA.MillsR.MondadaF.SchmicklT. (2022). “A study model for reconstructing urban ecological niches,” in Structures and Architecture: A Viable Urban Perspective? eds. CruzP. J. S.HvejselM. F. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 75–82. 10.1201/9781003023555-10
56
JachowskiD.SlotowR.MillspaughJ. (2014). Good virtual fences make good neighbors: opportunities for conservation. Anim. Conserv.17, 187–196. 10.1111/acv.12082
57
JacksonB. E.EvangelistaD. J.RayD. D.HedrickT. L. (2016). 3D for the people: multi-camera motion capture in the field with consumer-grade cameras and open source software. Biol. Open5, 1334–1342. 10.1242/bio.018713
58
JaffeJ. S.FranksP. J.RobertsP. L.MirzaD.SchurgersC.KastnerR.et al (2017). A swarm of autonomous miniature underwater robot drifters for exploring submesoscale ocean dynamics. Nat. Commun.8, 14189–14198. 10.1038/ncomms14189
59
KankoR. M.LaendeE. K.DavisE. M.SelbieW. S.DeluzioK. J. (2021). Concurrent assessment of gait kinematics using marker-based and markerless motion capture. J. Biomechanics127, 110665. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110665
60
KäslinR.FankhauserP.StummE.TaylorZ.MuegglerE.DelmericoJ.et al (2016). “Collaborative localization of aerial and ground robots through elevation maps,” in 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), Lausanne, Switzerland, 23-27 October 2016 (IEEE), 284–290. 10.1109/SSRR.2016.7784317
61
KatzschmannR. K.DelPretoJ.MacCurdyR.RusD. (2018). Exploration of underwater life with an acoustically controlled soft robotic fish. Sci. Robotics3, eaar3449. 10.1126/scirobotics.aar3449
62
KellerR. P.FrangK.LodgeD. M. (2008). Preventing the spread of invasive species: economic benefits of intervention guided by ecological predictions. Conserv. Biol.22, 80–88. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00811.x
63
KhaheshiA.RajabiH. (2022). Mechanical intelligence (mi): A bioinspired concept for transforming engineering design. Adv. Sci.9, 2203783. 10.1002/advs.202203783
64
KhandelwalP. C.HedrickT. L. (2022). Combined effects of body posture and three-dimensional wing shape enable efficient gliding in flying lizards. Sci. Rep.12, 1793–1811. 10.1038/s41598-022-05739-1
65
KhatibO.YehX.BrantnerG.SoeB.KimB.GangulyS.et al (2016). Ocean one: A robotic avatar for oceanic discovery. IEEE Robotics Automation Mag.23, 20–29. 10.1109/MRA.2016.2613281
66
KimJ.ParkH.YoonC. (2022). Advances in biodegradable soft robots. Polymers14, 4574. 10.3390/polym14214574
67
KondoyanniM.LoukatosD.MaraveasC.DrososC.ArvanitisK. G. (2022). Bio-inspired robots and structures toward fostering the modernization of agriculture. Biomimetics7, 69. 10.3390/biomimetics7020069
68
KrauseJ.WinfieldA. F.DeneubourgJ. L. (2011). Interactive robots in experimental biology. Trends Ecol. Evol.26, 369–375. 10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.015
69
KulkarniM. (2019). Digital accessibility: challenges and opportunities. IIMB Manag. Rev.31, 91–98. 10.1016/j.iimb.2018.05.009
70
LandgrafT.BierbachD.KirbachA.CusingR.OertelM.LehmannK.et al (2018). Dancing honey bee robot elicits dance-following and recruits foragers. ArXiv:1803.07126. 10.48550/arXiv.1803.07126
71
LazicD.SchmicklT. (2021). Can robots inform a honeybee colony’s foraging decision-making?Artif. Life Conf. Proc.33, 42. 10.1162/isal_a_00397
72
LedgerS. E.LohJ.AlmondR.BöhmM.ClementsC. F.CurrieJ.et al (2023). Past, present, and future of the living planet index. npj Biodivers.2, 12. 10.1038/s44185-023-00017-3
73
LiG.ChenX.ZhouF.LiangY.XiaoY.CaoX.et al (2021a). Self-powered soft robot in the mariana trench. Nature591, 66–71. 10.1038/s41586-020-03153-z
74
LiJ.XuZ.ZhuD.DongK.YanT.ZengZ.et al (2021b). Bio-inspired intelligence with applications to robotics: A survey. Intell. Robotics1, 8. 10.20517/ir.2021.08
75
LiL.RaviS.WangC. (2022). Editorial: robotics to understand animal behaviour. Front. Robotics AI9, 963416. 10.3389/frobt.2022.963416
76
LiP.WangY.GuptaU.LiuJ.ZhangL.DuD.et al (2019). Transparent soft robots for effective camouflage. Adv. Funct. Mater.29, 1901908. 10.1002/adfm.201901908
77
LiT.ZhouL.LiY.ChaiH.YangK. (2020). An energy efficient motion controller based on SLCP for the electrically actuated quadruped robot. J. Bionic Eng.17, 290–302. 10.1007/s42235-020-0023-6
78
LiangZ.HeJ.HuC.PuX.KhaniH.DaiL.et al (2022). Next-generation energy harvesting and storage technologies for robots across all scales. Adv. Intell. Syst.5, 45. 10.1002/aisy.202200045
79
LindersT. E. W.SchaffnerU.EschenR.AbebeA.ChogeS. K.NigatuL.et al (2019). Direct and indirect effects of invasive species: biodiversity loss is a major mechanism by which an invasive tree affects ecosystem functioning. J. Ecol.107, 2660–2672. 10.1111/1365-2745.13268
80
LiuJ.IacoponiS.LaschiC.WenL.CalistiM. (2020). Underwater mobile manipulation: A soft arm on a benthic legged robot. IEEE Robotics Automation Mag.27, 12–26. 10.1109/MRA.2020.3024001
81
LockR.BurgessS.VaidyanathanR. (2013). Multi-modal locomotion: from animal to application. Bioinspiration Biomimetics9, 011001. 10.1088/1748-3182/9/1/011001
82
LokM.HelblingE. F.ZhangX.WoodR.BrooksD.WeiG. Y. (2017). A low mass power electronics unit to drive piezoelectric actuators for flying microrobots. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.33, 3180–3191. 10.1109/TPEL.2017.2704290
83
MatosP.VieiraJ.RochaB.BranquinhoC.PinhoP. (2019). Modeling the provision of air-quality regulation ecosystem service provided by urban green spaces using lichens as ecological indicators. Sci. Total Environ.665, 521–530. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.023
84
McGuireK.De WagterC.TuylsK.KappenH.de CroonG. C. (2019). Minimal navigation solution for a swarm of tiny flying robots to explore an unknown environment. Sci. Robotics4, eaaw9710. 10.1126/scirobotics.aaw9710
85
MikiT.LeeJ.HwangboJ.WellhausenL.KoltunV.HutterM. (2022). Learning robust perceptive locomotion for quadrupedal robots in the wild. Sci. Robotics7, eabk2822. 10.1126/scirobotics.abk2822
86
MiriyevA.KovačM. (2020). Skills for physical artificial intelligence. Nat. Mach. Intell.2, 658–660. 10.1038/s42256-020-00258-y
87
MogdansJ. (2019). Sensory ecology of the fish lateral-line system: morphological and physiological adaptations for the perception of hydrodynamic stimuli. J. Fish Biol.95, 53–72. 10.1111/jfb.13966
88
MohanM.RichardsonG.GopanG.AghaiM. M.BajajS.GalgamuwaG. P.et al (2021). UAV-Supported forest regeneration: current trends, challenges and implications. Remote Sens.13, 2596. 10.3390/rs13132596
89
MorimotoY.OnoeH.TakeuchiS. (2018). Biohybrid robot powered by an antagonistic pair of skeletal muscle tissues. Sci. Robotics3, eaat4440. 10.1126/scirobotics.aat4440
90
MuscatoG.BonaccorsoF.CantelliL.LongoD.MelitaC. D. (2012). Volcanic environments: robots for exploration and measurement. IEEE Robotics Automation Mag.19, 40–49. 10.1109/MRA.2011.2181684
91
PanL.WangF.ChengY.LeowW. R.ZhangY. W.WangM.et al (2020). A supertough electro-tendon based on spider silk composites. Nat. Commun.11, 1332–1339. 10.1038/s41467-020-14988-5
92
PatelY.RughaniP. H. (2022). “Swarm ornithopter robirds: an architecture to protect aerospace for aerial defense,” in Proceedings of the 2022 3rd international conference on robotics systems and vehicle technology (New York, NY, USA): RSVT), 12–15. 10.1145/3560453.3560456
93
PenickC. A.CopeG.MorankarS.MistryY.GrishinA.ChawlaN.et al (2022). The comparative approach to bio-inspired design: integrating biodiversity and biologists into the design process. Integr. Comp. Biol.62, 1153–1163. 10.1093/icb/icac097
94
PhillipsJ. W.ProminskiA.TianB. (2022). Recent advances in materials and applications for bioelectronic and biorobotic systems. View3, 20200157. 10.1002/VIW.20200157
95
PicardiG.BorrelliC.SartiA.ChimientiG.CalistiM. (2020a). A minimal metric for the characterization of acoustic noise emitted by underwater vehicles. Sensors20, 6644. 10.3390/s20226644
96
PicardiG.ChellapurathM.IacoponiS.StefanniS.LaschiC.CalistiM. (2020b). Bioinspired underwater legged robot for seabed exploration with low environmental disturbance. Sci. Robotics5, eaaz1012. 10.1126/scirobotics.aaz1012
97
PopovicM. B. (2019). “Bioinspired robots,” in BiomechatronicsCambridge, MA, USA: Academic Press, 495–591. 10.1016/C2016-0-04132-3
98
RajewiczW.RomanoD.VarugheseJ.SchmicklT.TheniusR. (2022). “Lifeforms potentially useful for automated underwater monitoring systems,” in Alife 2022: The 2022 conference on artificial lifeCambridge, MA, USA: Publisher: MIT Press. 10.1162/isal_a_00527
99
RamachandranR. K.KakishZ.BermanS. (2020). Information correlated Lévy walk exploration and distributed mapping using a swarm of robots. IEEE Trans. Robotics36, 1422–1441. 10.1109/TRO.2020.2991612
100
RobertoD.EmanuelaF.JacopoA.BillettD.CarugatiL.CinziaC.et al (2020). Ecological variables for developing a global deep-ocean monitoring and conservation strategy. Nat. Ecol. Evol.4, 181–192. 10.1038/s41559-019-1091-z
101
RoderickW. R.CutkoskyM. R.LentinkD. (2021). Bird-inspired dynamic grasping and perching in arboreal environments. Sci. Robotics6, eabj7562. 10.1126/scirobotics.abj7562
102
RomanoD.BenelliG.KavallieratosN. G.AthanassiouC. G.CanaleA.StefaniniC. (2020). Beetle-robot hybrid interaction: sex, lateralization and mating experience modulate behavioural responses to robotic cues in the larger grain borer prostephanus truncatus (horn). Biol. Cybern.114, 473–483. 10.1007/s00422-020-00839-5
103
RomanoD.BenelliG.StefaniniC. (2019). Encoding lateralization of jump kinematics and eye use in a locust via bio-robotic artifacts. J. Exp. Biol.222, jeb187427. 10.1242/jeb.187427
104
RomanoD.BenelliG.StefaniniC. (2021). Opposite valence social information provided by bio-robotic demonstrators shapes selection processes in the green bottle fly. J. R. Soc. Interface18, 20210056. 10.1098/rsif.2021.0056
105
RomanoD.WahiA.MiragliaM.StefaniniC. (2022). Development of a novel underactuated robotic fish with magnetic transmission system. Machines10, 755. 10.3390/machines10090755
106
RubertoT.MwaffoV.SinghS.NeriD.PorfiriM. (2016). Zebrafish response to a robotic replica in three dimensions. R. Soc. Open Sci.3, 160505. 10.1098/rsos.160505
107
RumleyE. H.PreningerD.Shagan ShomronA.RothemundP.HartmannF.BaumgartnerM.et al (2023). Biodegradable electrohydraulic actuators for sustainable soft robots. Sci. Adv.9, eadf5551. 10.1126/sciadv.adf5551
108
SadeghiA.Del DottoreE.MondiniA.MazzolaiB. (2020). Passive morphological adaptation for obstacle avoidance in a self-growing robot produced by additive manufacturing. Soft Robot.7, 85–94. 10.1089/soro.2019.0025
109
SavageN. (2022). Bioinspired robots walk, swim, slither and fly. Nature. 10.1038/d41586-022-03014-x
110
SchillF.BahrA.MartinoliA. (2018). “Vertex: A new distributed underwater robotic platform for environmental monitoring,” in Distributed autonomous robotic systems: The 13th international symposiumNew York, NY, USA: Publisher: Springer, 679–693. 10.1007/978-3-319-73008-0_47
111
SchmicklT.SzopekM.MondadaF.MillsR.StefanecM.HofstadlerD. N.et al (2021). Social integrating robots suggest mitigation strategies for ecosystem decay. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.9, 612605. 10.3389/fbioe.2021.612605
112
SchmicklT.TheniusR.MoslingerC.TimmisJ.TyrrellA.ReadM.et al (2011). “Cocoro–the self-aware underwater swarm,” in 2011 Fifth IEEE Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems Workshops, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 03-07 October 2011 (IEEE), 120–126. 10.1109/SASOW.2011.11
113
SchranzM.Di CaroG. A.SchmicklT.ElmenreichW.ArvinF.ŞekercioğluA.et al (2021). Swarm intelligence and cyber-physical systems: concepts, challenges and future trends. Swarm Evol. Comput.60, 100762. 10.1016/j.swevo.2020.100762
114
SchulzA. K.ShriverC.StathatosS.SelebB.WeigelE. G.ChangY. H.et al (2023). Conservation tools: the next generation of engineering–biology collaborations. J. R. Soc. Interface20, 20230232. 10.1098/rsif.2023.0232
115
SeokS.WangA.ChuahM. Y.HyunD. J.LeeJ.OttenD. M.et al (2014). Design principles for energy-efficient legged locomotion and implementation on the MIT cheetah robot. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics20, 1117–1129. 10.1109/TMECH.2014.2339013
116
SethiS. S.KovacM.WiesemüllerF.MiriyevA.BoutryC. M. (2022). Biodegradable sensors are ready to transform autonomous ecological monitoring. Nat. Ecol. Evol.6, 1245–1247. 10.1038/s41559-022-01824-w
117
ShintakeJ.CacuccioloV.FloreanoD.SheaH. (2018). Soft robotic grippers. Adv. Mater.30, 1707035. 10.1002/adma.201707035
118
SiddallR.ByrnesG.FullR. J.JusufiA. (2021). Tails stabilize landing of gliding geckos crashing head-first into tree trunks. Commun. Biol.4, 1020–1112. 10.1038/s42003-021-02378-6
119
SpenkoM. J.HaynesG. C.SaundersJ.CutkoskyM. R.RizziA. A.FullR. J.et al (2008). Biologically inspired climbing with a hexapedal robot. J. Field Robotics25, 223–242. 10.1002/rob.20238
120
StefanecM.HofstadlerD. N.KrajníkT.TurgutA. E.AlemdarH.LennoxB.et al (2022). A minimally invasive approach towards “ecosystem hacking” with honeybees. Front. Robotics AI9, 791921. 10.3389/frobt.2022.791921
121
SwardD.MonkJ.BarrettN. (2019). A systematic review of remotely operated vehicle surveys for visually assessing fish assemblages. Front. Mar. Sci.6, 134. 10.3389/fmars.2019.00134
122
TanM. J.OwhC.CheeP. L.KyawA. K. K.KaiD.LohX. J. (2016). Biodegradable electronics: cornerstone for sustainable electronics and transient applications. J. Mater. Chem. C4, 5531–5558. 10.1039/C6TC00678G
123
TanY. J.SusantoG. J.Anwar AliH. P.TeeB. C. (2021). Progress and roadmap for intelligent self-healing materials in autonomous robotics. Adv. Mater.33, 2002800. 10.1002/adma.202002800
124
TerrynS.LangenbachJ.RoelsE.BrancartJ.Bakkali-HassaniC.PoutrelQ. A.et al (2021). A review on self-healing polymers for soft robotics. Mater. Today47, 187–205. 10.1016/j.mattod.2021.01.009
125
ThomasD. S.GilbertS. W. (2014). Costs and cost effectiveness of additive manufacturing. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.1176, 76. 10.6028/NIST.SP.1176
126
TuiaD.KellenbergerB.BeeryS.CostelloeB. R.ZuffiS.RisseB.et al (2022). Perspectives in machine learning for wildlife conservation. Nat. Commun.13, 792–815. 10.1038/s41467-022-27980-y
127
VisbeckM. (2018). Ocean science research is key for a sustainable future. Nat. Commun.9, 690–694. 10.1038/s41467-018-03158-3
128
WebbB. (2000). What does robotics offer animal behaviour?Anim. Behav.60, 545–558. 10.1006/anbe.2000.1514
129
WinfieldJ.RossiterJ.IeropoulosI. (2019). The dawn of biodegradable robots. Washington, DC, USA: American Chemical Society (ACS).
130
WoodR.NagpalR.WeiG. Y. (2013). Flight of the robobees. Sci. Am.308, 60–65. 10.1038/scientificamerican0313-60
131
YousafR.ShahzadA.QadriM. M.JavedA. (2021). Recent advancements in flapping mechanism and wing design of micro aerial vehicles. Proc. Institution Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci.235, 4425–4446. 10.1177/09544062209-60783
132
YuJ.ZhangC.LiuL. (2016). Design and control of a single-motor-actuated robotic fish capable of fast swimming and maneuverability. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics21, 1711–1719. 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2517931
133
ZhangG.ShangB.ChenY.MoyesH. (2017). “SmartCaveDrone: 3D cave mapping using UAVs as robotic co-archaeologists,” in 2017 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Miami, FL, USA, 13-16 June 2017 (IEEE), 1052–1057. 10.1109/ICUAS.2017.7991499
134
ZhaoF.WangW.ZhangJ.WyrwaJ.SunF. (2019). Aerodynamic characteristics and pitching adjusting mechanism of the flying squirrel with deployed patagium. IEEE Access7, 185554–185564. 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2961451
135
ZhaoJ.RisiN.MonforteM.BartolozziC.IndiveriG.DonatiE. (2020). Closed-loop spiking control on a neuromorphic processor implemented on the iCub. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Circuits Syst.10, 546–556. 10.1109/JETCAS.2020.3040390
136
ZhengX.KamatA. M.CaoM.KottapalliA. G. P. (2021). Creating underwater vision through wavy whiskers: A review of the flow-sensing mechanisms and biomimetic potential of seal whiskers. J. R. Soc. Interface18, 20210629. 10.1098/rsif.2021.0629
137
ZwertsJ. A.StephensonP.MaiselsF.RowcliffeM.AstarasC.JansenP. A.et al (2021). Methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors. Conservation Sci. Pract.3, e568. 10.1111/csp2.568
Summary
Keywords
biomimetics, bioinspiration, collaboration, locomotion, exploration, monitoring, intervention, maintenance
Citation
Chellapurath M, Khandelwal PC and Schulz AK (2023) Bioinspired robots can foster nature conservation. Front. Robot. AI 10:1145798. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2023.1145798
Received
16 January 2023
Accepted
25 September 2023
Published
18 October 2023
Corrected
05 June 2026
Volume
10 - 2023
Edited by
Edoardo Datteri, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy
Reviewed by
Edgar Buchanan, University of York, United Kingdom
Thomas Schmickl, University of Graz, Austria
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Chellapurath, Khandelwal and Schulz.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mrudul Chellapurath, mrudulc@kth.se
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.