Spotted correctly? Human expertise remains essential in AI-assisted identification of Eurasian lynx

IF 1.6 3区 生物学 Q1 ZOOLOGY
Journal of Zoology Pub Date : 2026-03-30 Epub Date: 2025-12-22 DOI:10.1111/jzo.70095
S. Blašković, M. Sindičić, M. Reilly, I. Topličanec, T. Gomerčić
{"title":"Spotted correctly? Human expertise remains essential in AI-assisted identification of Eurasian lynx","authors":"S. Blašković,&nbsp;M. Sindičić,&nbsp;M. Reilly,&nbsp;I. Topličanec,&nbsp;T. Gomerčić","doi":"10.1111/jzo.70095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Identifying individual animals from camera trap photos is crucial for estimating population size and monitoring endangered species such as the Eurasian lynx (<i>Lynx lynx</i>). However, this process can be time-consuming and prone to human error. Artificial intelligence (AI) platforms such as Whiskerbook offer automated solutions, but their effectiveness in real-world conditions is not yet sufficiently evaluated. Therefore, we tested the performance of Whiskerbook's detection algorithm, compared the accuracy of identification algorithms (MiewID and HotSpotter) and evaluated the differences in the identification process between observers with different experience levels and the quality and colour of camera trap photos. We also tested Whiskerbook performance in identifying matching individuals across two monitoring programs within the same population. MiewID clearly outperformed Hotspotter as more encounters were successfully matched (64.0% vs. 45.5%). However, Hotspotter provided a lower average number of potential matches per query and was particularly successful in providing 100% correct matches among the first five suggestions. The identification accuracy of the MiewID algorithm operated by an expert was below the capabilities of an experienced observer performing manual identification (71.7% vs. 92.7%), while novices faced challenges in identifying felids even with the help of AI. Image quality significantly affected identification by all observers and the AI programs, and surprisingly, the AI performed better on black and white images than on colour images. Notably, Whiskerbook identified a transboundary individual that had previously been misclassified by the expert, demonstrating the value of shared AI databases for conservation across national borders. Our results highlight that while AI can support large-scale monitoring, expert oversight remains essential to ensure accuracy. This is particularly important for conservation, where misidentification can lead to over- or underestimation of populations. We recommend the integration of AI with trained expert validation for sound wildlife research and management.</p>","PeriodicalId":17600,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Zoology","volume":"328 3","pages":"223-233"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Zoology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jzo.70095","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ZOOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Identifying individual animals from camera trap photos is crucial for estimating population size and monitoring endangered species such as the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). However, this process can be time-consuming and prone to human error. Artificial intelligence (AI) platforms such as Whiskerbook offer automated solutions, but their effectiveness in real-world conditions is not yet sufficiently evaluated. Therefore, we tested the performance of Whiskerbook's detection algorithm, compared the accuracy of identification algorithms (MiewID and HotSpotter) and evaluated the differences in the identification process between observers with different experience levels and the quality and colour of camera trap photos. We also tested Whiskerbook performance in identifying matching individuals across two monitoring programs within the same population. MiewID clearly outperformed Hotspotter as more encounters were successfully matched (64.0% vs. 45.5%). However, Hotspotter provided a lower average number of potential matches per query and was particularly successful in providing 100% correct matches among the first five suggestions. The identification accuracy of the MiewID algorithm operated by an expert was below the capabilities of an experienced observer performing manual identification (71.7% vs. 92.7%), while novices faced challenges in identifying felids even with the help of AI. Image quality significantly affected identification by all observers and the AI programs, and surprisingly, the AI performed better on black and white images than on colour images. Notably, Whiskerbook identified a transboundary individual that had previously been misclassified by the expert, demonstrating the value of shared AI databases for conservation across national borders. Our results highlight that while AI can support large-scale monitoring, expert oversight remains essential to ensure accuracy. This is particularly important for conservation, where misidentification can lead to over- or underestimation of populations. We recommend the integration of AI with trained expert validation for sound wildlife research and management.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

发现正确吗?人类专业知识在人工智能辅助识别欧亚猞猁方面仍然至关重要
从相机陷阱的照片中识别个体动物对于估计种群规模和监测欧亚猞猁(猞猁)等濒危物种至关重要。然而,这个过程可能很耗时,而且容易出现人为错误。Whiskerbook等人工智能(AI)平台提供了自动化解决方案,但它们在现实世界中的有效性尚未得到充分评估。因此,我们测试了Whiskerbook的检测算法的性能,比较了识别算法(MiewID和HotSpotter)的准确性,并评估了不同经验水平的观察者在识别过程中的差异以及相机陷阱照片的质量和颜色。我们还测试了Whiskerbook在识别同一人群中两个监测程序中的匹配个体方面的性能。miiewid明显优于Hotspotter,因为成功匹配的遭遇更多(64.0% vs 45.5%)。然而,Hotspotter提供的每个查询潜在匹配的平均数量较低,并且在前五个建议中提供100%的正确匹配方面特别成功。专家操作的MiewID算法的识别精度低于有经验的观察者进行人工识别的能力(71.7% vs. 92.7%),而新手即使在人工智能的帮助下也面临识别野外的挑战。图像质量显著影响所有观察者和人工智能程序的识别,令人惊讶的是,人工智能在黑白图像上的表现优于彩色图像。值得注意的是,Whiskerbook发现了一个以前被专家错误分类的跨界个体,这证明了共享人工智能数据库对跨国界保护的价值。我们的研究结果强调,虽然人工智能可以支持大规模监测,但专家监督对于确保准确性仍然至关重要。这对保护尤其重要,因为错误的识别可能导致对种群数量的高估或低估。我们建议将人工智能与训练有素的专家验证相结合,以进行良好的野生动物研究和管理。
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
Journal of Zoology
Journal of Zoology 生物-动物学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
2.8 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Zoology publishes high-quality research papers that are original and are of broad interest. The Editors seek studies that are hypothesis-driven and interdisciplinary in nature. Papers on animal behaviour, ecology, physiology, anatomy, developmental biology, evolution, systematics, genetics and genomics will be considered; research that explores the interface between these disciplines is strongly encouraged. Studies dealing with geographically and/or taxonomically restricted topics should test general hypotheses, describe novel findings or have broad implications. The Journal of Zoology aims to maintain an effective but fair peer-review process that recognises research quality as a combination of the relevance, approach and execution of a research study.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书