Towards an automated protocol for wildlife density estimation using camera-traps

Andrea Zampetti, Davide Mirante, Pablo Palencia, Luca Santini
{"title":"Towards an automated protocol for wildlife density estimation using camera-traps","authors":"Andrea Zampetti, Davide Mirante, Pablo Palencia, Luca Santini","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.05.606345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Camera-traps are valuable tools for estimating wildlife population density, and recently developed models enable density estimation without the need for individual recognition. Still, processing and analysis of camera-trap data are extremely time-consuming. While algorithms for automated species classification are becoming more common, they have only served as supporting tools, limiting their true potential in being implemented in ecological analyses without human supervision. Here, we assessed the capability of two camera-trap based models to provide robust density estimates when image classification is carried out by machine learning algorithms. We simulated density estimation with Camera-Traps Distance Sampling (CT-DS) and Random Encounter Model (REM) under different scenarios of automated image classification. We then applied the two models to obtain density estimates of three focal species (roe deer Capreolus capreolus, red fox Vulpes vulpes, and Eurasian badger Meles meles) in a reserve in central Italy. Species detection and classification was carried out both by the user and machine learning algorithms (respectively, MegaDetector and Wildlife Insights), and all outputs were used to estimate density and ultimately compared. Simulation results suggested that the CT-DS model could provide robust density estimates even at poor algorithm performances (down to 50% of correctly classified images), while the REM model is more unpredictable and depends on multiple factors. Density estimates obtained from the MegaDetector output were highly consistent for both models with the manually labelled images. While Wildlife Insights performance differed greatly between species (recall: badger = 0.15; roe deer = 0.56; fox = 0.75), CT-DS estimates did not vary significantly; on the contrary, REM systematically overestimated density, with little overlap in standard errors. We conclude that CT-DS and REM models can be robust to the loss of images when machine learning algorithms are used to identify animals, with the CT-DS being an ideal candidate for applications in a fully unsupervised framework. We propose guidelines to evaluate when and how to integrate machine learning in the analysis of camera-trap data for density estimation, further strengthening the applicability of camera traps as a cost-effective method for density estimation in (spatially and temporally) extensive multi-species monitoring programs.","PeriodicalId":501320,"journal":{"name":"bioRxiv - Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"bioRxiv - Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.05.606345","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Camera-traps are valuable tools for estimating wildlife population density, and recently developed models enable density estimation without the need for individual recognition. Still, processing and analysis of camera-trap data are extremely time-consuming. While algorithms for automated species classification are becoming more common, they have only served as supporting tools, limiting their true potential in being implemented in ecological analyses without human supervision. Here, we assessed the capability of two camera-trap based models to provide robust density estimates when image classification is carried out by machine learning algorithms. We simulated density estimation with Camera-Traps Distance Sampling (CT-DS) and Random Encounter Model (REM) under different scenarios of automated image classification. We then applied the two models to obtain density estimates of three focal species (roe deer Capreolus capreolus, red fox Vulpes vulpes, and Eurasian badger Meles meles) in a reserve in central Italy. Species detection and classification was carried out both by the user and machine learning algorithms (respectively, MegaDetector and Wildlife Insights), and all outputs were used to estimate density and ultimately compared. Simulation results suggested that the CT-DS model could provide robust density estimates even at poor algorithm performances (down to 50% of correctly classified images), while the REM model is more unpredictable and depends on multiple factors. Density estimates obtained from the MegaDetector output were highly consistent for both models with the manually labelled images. While Wildlife Insights performance differed greatly between species (recall: badger = 0.15; roe deer = 0.56; fox = 0.75), CT-DS estimates did not vary significantly; on the contrary, REM systematically overestimated density, with little overlap in standard errors. We conclude that CT-DS and REM models can be robust to the loss of images when machine learning algorithms are used to identify animals, with the CT-DS being an ideal candidate for applications in a fully unsupervised framework. We propose guidelines to evaluate when and how to integrate machine learning in the analysis of camera-trap data for density estimation, further strengthening the applicability of camera traps as a cost-effective method for density estimation in (spatially and temporally) extensive multi-species monitoring programs.
利用相机陷阱实现野生动物密度自动估算协议
相机陷阱是估算野生动物种群密度的重要工具,最近开发的模型可以在不需要识别个体的情况下进行密度估算。不过,处理和分析相机陷阱数据仍然非常耗时。虽然自动物种分类算法越来越常见,但它们只能作为辅助工具,限制了其在没有人工监督的情况下用于生态分析的真正潜力。在此,我们评估了两种基于相机捕捉的模型在使用机器学习算法进行图像分类时提供可靠密度估算的能力。我们模拟了在不同的自动图像分类情况下使用相机-陷阱距离采样(CT-DS)和随机相遇模型(REM)进行密度估算的情况。然后,我们应用这两种模型获得了意大利中部一个保护区中三种重点物种(狍、赤狐和欧亚獾)的密度估计值。用户和机器学习算法(分别为 MegaDetector 和 Wildlife Insights)都对物种进行了检测和分类,所有输出结果都用于估算密度并最终进行比较。模拟结果表明,CT-DS 模型即使在算法性能较差的情况下(正确分类图像的比例低至 50%)也能提供稳健的密度估算,而 REM 模型则更加难以预测,且取决于多种因素。两种模型从 MegaDetector 输出中获得的密度估算结果与人工标注的图像高度一致。Wildlife Insights 的性能在不同物种之间差异很大(召回率:獾 = 0.15;狍 = 0.56;狐 = 0.75),而 CT-DS 的估计值差异不大;相反,REM 系统性地高估了密度,标准误差几乎没有重叠。我们得出的结论是,在使用机器学习算法识别动物时,CT-DS 和 REM 模型对图像丢失具有鲁棒性,CT-DS 是在完全无监督框架下应用的理想候选模型。我们提出了评估何时以及如何将机器学习整合到照相机捕获数据分析中以进行密度估算的指导原则,进一步加强了照相机捕获作为一种具有成本效益的密度估算方法在(空间和时间上)广泛的多物种监测项目中的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信