Comparison of Three Techniques to Identify and Count Individual Animals in Aerial Imagery

Q3 Computer Science
P. Terletzky, R. D. Ramsey
{"title":"Comparison of Three Techniques to Identify and Count Individual Animals in Aerial Imagery","authors":"P. Terletzky, R. D. Ramsey","doi":"10.4236/JSIP.2016.73013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Whether a species is rare and requires \nprotection or is overabundant and needs control, an accurate estimate of \npopulation size is essential for the development of conservation plans and management \ngoals. Current wildlife surveys are logistically difficult, frequently biased, \nand time consuming. Therefore, there is a need to provide additional techniques \nto improve survey methods for censusing wildlife species. We examined three \nmethods to enumerate animals in remotely sensed aerial imagery: manual photo \ninterpretation, an unsupervised classification, and multi- image, multi-step \ntechnique. We compared the performance of the three techniques based on the \nprobability of correctly detecting animals, the probability of under-counting \nanimals (false positives), and the probability of over-counting animals (false \nnegatives). Manual photo-interpretation had a high probability of detecting an \nanimal (81% ± 24%), the lowest probability of over-counting an animal (8% ± \n16%), and a relatively low probability of under-counting an animal (19% ± 24%). \nAn unsupervised, ISODATA classification with subtraction of a background image \nhad the highest probability of detecting an animal (82% ± 10%), a high \nprobability of over-counting an animal (69% ± 27%) but a low probability of \nunder-counting an animal (18% ± 18%). The multi-image, multi-step procedure \nincorporated more information, but had the lowest probability of detecting an \nanimal (50% ± 26%), the highest probability of over-counting an animal (72% ± \n26%), and the highest probability of under-counting an animal (50% ± 26%). \nManual interpreters better discriminated between animal and non-animal features \nand had fewer over-counting errors (i.e., false positives) than either the \nunsupervised classification or the multi-image, multi-step techniques \nindicating that benefits of automation need to be weighed against potential \nlosses in accuracy. Identification and counting of animals in remotely sensed \nimagery could provide wildlife managers with a tool to improve population \nestimates and aid in enumerating animals across large natural systems.","PeriodicalId":38474,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing","volume":"9 1","pages":"123-135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/JSIP.2016.73013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Computer Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Whether a species is rare and requires protection or is overabundant and needs control, an accurate estimate of population size is essential for the development of conservation plans and management goals. Current wildlife surveys are logistically difficult, frequently biased, and time consuming. Therefore, there is a need to provide additional techniques to improve survey methods for censusing wildlife species. We examined three methods to enumerate animals in remotely sensed aerial imagery: manual photo interpretation, an unsupervised classification, and multi- image, multi-step technique. We compared the performance of the three techniques based on the probability of correctly detecting animals, the probability of under-counting animals (false positives), and the probability of over-counting animals (false negatives). Manual photo-interpretation had a high probability of detecting an animal (81% ± 24%), the lowest probability of over-counting an animal (8% ± 16%), and a relatively low probability of under-counting an animal (19% ± 24%). An unsupervised, ISODATA classification with subtraction of a background image had the highest probability of detecting an animal (82% ± 10%), a high probability of over-counting an animal (69% ± 27%) but a low probability of under-counting an animal (18% ± 18%). The multi-image, multi-step procedure incorporated more information, but had the lowest probability of detecting an animal (50% ± 26%), the highest probability of over-counting an animal (72% ± 26%), and the highest probability of under-counting an animal (50% ± 26%). Manual interpreters better discriminated between animal and non-animal features and had fewer over-counting errors (i.e., false positives) than either the unsupervised classification or the multi-image, multi-step techniques indicating that benefits of automation need to be weighed against potential losses in accuracy. Identification and counting of animals in remotely sensed imagery could provide wildlife managers with a tool to improve population estimates and aid in enumerating animals across large natural systems.
航拍图像中动物个体识别和计数的三种技术比较
无论一个物种是稀有的需要保护还是过多的需要控制,对种群规模的准确估计对于制定保护计划和管理目标都是至关重要的。目前的野生动物调查在后勤上很困难,经常有偏见,而且耗时。因此,有必要提供额外的技术来改进野生动物物种普查的调查方法。我们研究了三种方法来列举遥感航空影像中的动物:人工解译、无监督分类和多图像、多步骤技术。我们根据正确检测动物的概率、漏数动物的概率(假阳性)和漏数动物的概率(假阴性)来比较这三种技术的性能。人工照片判读发现动物的概率较高(81%±24%),漏报动物的概率最低(8%±16%),漏报动物的概率相对较低(19%±24%)。无监督的ISODATA分类,减去背景图像,检测动物的概率最高(82%±10%),多计数动物的概率很高(69%±27%),但少计数动物的概率很低(18%±18%)。多图像、多步骤程序包含了更多的信息,但检测到动物的概率最低(50%±26%),多计数动物的概率最高(72%±26%),少计数动物的概率最高(50%±26%)。与无监督分类或多图像、多步骤技术相比,人工解释器能更好地区分动物和非动物特征,并且有更少的计数错误(即误报),这表明自动化的好处需要与准确性的潜在损失进行权衡。遥感图像中的动物识别和计数可以为野生动物管理人员提供一种工具,以改进种群估计,并帮助枚举大型自然系统中的动物。
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
CiteScore
3.20
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