4.6 Article

A comparison of deep learning and citizen science techniques for counting wildlife in aerial survey images

期刊

METHODS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 779-787

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.13165

关键词

citizen science; conservation; deep learning; monitoring; population ecology; surveys

类别

资金

  1. European Union Horizon 2020 [641918]
  2. James S. McDonnell Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fast and accurate estimates of wildlife abundance are an essential component of efforts to conserve ecosystems in the face of rapid environmental change. A widely used method for estimating species abundance involves flying aerial transects, taking photographs, counting animals within the images and then inferring total population size based on a statistical estimate of species density in the region. The intermediate task of manually counting the aerial images is highly labour intensive and is often the limiting step in making a population estimate. Here, we assess the use of two novel approaches to perform this task by deploying both citizen scientists and deep learning to count aerial images of the 2015 survey of wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Through the use of the online platform Zooniverse, we collected multiple non-expert counts by citizen scientists and used three different aggregation methods to obtain a single count for the survey images. We also counted the images by developing a bespoke deep learning method via the use of a convolutional neural network. The results of both approaches were then compared. After filtering of the citizen science counts, both approaches provided highly accurate total estimates. The deep learning method was far faster and appears to be a more reliable and predictable approach; however, we note that citizen science volunteers played an important role when creating training data for the algorithm. Notably, our results show that accurate, species-specific, automated counting of aerial wildlife images is now possible.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据