Energy-efficient computing for wildlife tracking: design tradeoffs and early experiences with ZebraNet

Over the past decade, mobile computing and wireless communication have become increasingly important drivers of many new computing applications. The field of wireless sensor networks particularly focuses on applications involving autonomous use of compute, sensing, and wireless communication devices for both scientific and commercial purposes. This paper examines the research decisions and design tradeoffs that arise when applying wireless peer-to-peer networking techniques in a mobile sensor network designed to support wildlife tracking for biology research.The ZebraNet system includes custom tracking collars (nodes) carried by animals under study across a large, wild area; the collars operate as a peer-to-peer network to deliver logged data back to researchers. The collars include global positioning system (GPS), Flash memory, wireless transceivers, and a small CPU; essentially each node is a small, wireless computing device. Since there is no cellular service or broadcast communication covering the region where animals are studied, ad hoc, peer-to-peer routing is needed. Although numerous ad hoc protocols exist, additional challenges arise because the researchers themselves are mobile and thus there is no fixed base station towards which to aim data. Overall, our goal is to use the least energy, storage, and other resources necessary to maintain a reliable system with a very high `data homing' success rate. We plan to deploy a 30-node ZebraNet system at the Mpala Research Centre in central Kenya. More broadly, we believe that the domain-centric protocols and energy tradeoffs presented here for ZebraNet will have general applicability in other wireless and sensor applications.

[1]  J. Altmann,et al.  Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. , 1974, Behaviour.

[2]  P. Karn,et al.  MACA-a New Channel Access Method for Packet Radio , 1990 .

[3]  D. Rubenstein.  The ecology of female social behavior in horses, zebras, and asses , 1993 .

[4]  David A. Maltz,et al.  Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks , 1994, Mobidata.

[5]  Charles E. Perkins,et al.  Highly dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector routing (DSDV) for mobile computers , 1994, SIGCOMM.

[6]  J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves,et al.  An efficient routing protocol for wireless networks , 1996, Mob. Networks Appl..

[7]  Zygmunt J. Haas.  On the relaying capability of the reconfigurable wireless networks , 1997, 1997 IEEE 47th Vehicular Technology Conference. Technology in Motion.

[8]  Charles E. Perkins,et al.  Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector routing , 1999, Proceedings WMCSA'99. Second IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications.

[9]  Carla Schlatter Ellis,et al.  The case for higher-level power management , 1999, Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems.

[10]  Satish Kumar,et al.  Next century challenges: scalable coordination in sensor networks , 1999, MobiCom.

[11]  Elizabeth M. Belding-Royer,et al.  A review of current routing protocols for ad hoc mobile wireless networks , 1999, IEEE Wirel. Commun..

[12]  Robert Szewczyk,et al.  System architecture directions for networked sensors , 2000, ASPLOS IX.

[13]  Deborah Estrin,et al.  Directed diffusion: a scalable and robust communication paradigm for sensor networks , 2000, MobiCom '00.

[14]  Wendi Heinzelman,et al.  Energy-efficient communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[15]  Gregory J. Pottie,et al.  Wireless integrated network sensors , 2000, Commun. ACM.

[16]  Miodrag Potkonjak,et al.  Exposure in wireless Ad-Hoc sensor networks , 2001, MobiCom '01.

[17]  Philippe Bonnet,et al.  Towards Sensor Database Systems , 2001, Mobile Data Management.

[18]  Krishna M. Sivalingam,et al.  Data gathering in sensor networks using the energy*delay metric , 2001, Proceedings 15th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium. IPDPS 2001.

[19]  Miodrag Potkonjak,et al.  Coverage problems in wireless ad-hoc sensor networks , 2001, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2001. Conference on Computer Communications. Twentieth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Society (Cat. No.01CH37213).

[20]  David E. Culler,et al.  Supporting aggregate queries over ad-hoc wireless sensor networks , 2002, Proceedings Fourth IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications.

[21]  Sowmyanarayanan Sadagopan,et al.  WWW: service provider , 2002, UBIQ.

[22]  Mani Srivastava,et al.  Energy-aware wireless microsensor networks , 2002, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..

[23]  Michael G. Corr,et al.  Statistically accurate sensor networking , 2002, 2002 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference Record. WCNC 2002 (Cat. No.02TH8609).

[24]  John Anderson,et al.  Wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring , 2002, WSNA '02.

[25]  Deborah Estrin,et al.  An Empirical Study of Epidemic Algorithms in Large Scale Multihop Wireless Networks , 2002 .

[26]  Gaurav S. Sukhatme,et al.  Connecting the Physical World with Pervasive Networks , 2002, IEEE Pervasive Comput..

[27]  Nael B. Abu-Ghazaleh,et al.  A taxonomy of wireless micro-sensor network models , 2002, MOCO.

[28]  Charles E. Perkins,et al.  Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing , 2001, RFC.