Cited by 245Wildlife Ecology and ConservationVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Past, present and future approaches using computer vision for animal re‐identification from camera trap data

Open access
Schneider, Stefan, Taylor, Graham W., Linquist, Stefan, Kremer, Stefan C.·2019·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

The ability of a researcher to re‐identify (re‐ ID ) an individual animal upon re‐encounter is fundamental for addressing a broad range of questions in the study of ecosystem function, community and population dynamics and behavioural ecology. Tagging animals during mark and recapture studies is the most common method for reliable animal re‐ ID ; however, camera traps are a desirable alternative, requiring less labour, much less intrusion and prolonged and continuous monitoring into an environment. Despite these advantages, the analyses of camera traps and video for re‐ ID by humans are criticized for their biases related to human judgement and inconsistencies between analyses. In this review, we describe a brief history of camera traps for re‐ ID , present a collection of computer vision feature engineering methodologies previously used for animal re‐ ID , provide an introduction to the underlying mechanisms of deep learning relevant to animal re‐ ID , highlight the success of deep learning methods for human re‐ ID , describe the few ecological studies currently utilizing deep learning for camera trap analyses and our predictions for near future methodologies based on the rapid development of deep learning methods. For decades, ecologists with expertise in computer vision have successfully utilized feature engineering to extract meaningful features from camera trap images to improve the statistical rigor of individual comparisons and remove human bias from their camera trap analyses. Recent years have witnessed the emergence of deep learning systems which have demonstrated the accurate re‐ ID of humans based on image and video data with near perfect accuracy. Despite this success, ecologists have yet to utilize these approaches for animal re‐ ID . By utilizing novel deep learning methods for object detection and similarity comparisons, ecologists can extract animals from an image/video data and train deep learning classifiers to re‐ ID animal individuals beyond the capabilities of a human observer. This methodology will allow ecologists with camera/video trap data to reidentify individuals that exit and re‐enter the camera frame. Our expectation is that this is just the beginning of a major trend that could stand to revolutionize the analysis of camera trap data and, ultimately, our approach to animal ecology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/2041-210x.13133

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The standard for identification of animal species and identity is DNA profiling, which can be difficult to scale to large, distributed populations.

    “The standard for identification of animal species and identity is DNA profiling97, which can be difficult to scale to large, distributed populations54,93.”

    From Perspectives in machine learning for wildlife conservation (2022) · cites this paper as [54]

  • Conventional and more recently DL-based methods have reached strong performance for specific taxa, especially across small populations.

    “Yet, conventional101 and more recently DL-based38,54,102 methods have reached strong performance for specific taxa, especially across small populations.”

    From Perspectives in machine learning for wildlife conservation (2022) · cites this paper as [54]

  • Computer vision recently emerged as a powerful alternative for automatic individual identification.

    “Similar to counting and reconstruction (see next section), computer vision recently emerged as a powerful alternative for automatic individual identification54,98–100.”

    From Perspectives in machine learning for wildlife conservation (2022) · cites this paper as [54]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Burghardt, T., Barham, P., Campbell, N., Cuthill, I., Sherley, R., & Leshoro, T. (2007). A fully automated computer vision system for the biomet- ric identification of African penguins Spheniscus demersus on Robben Island, In Abstracts of oral and poster presentations, 6th international penguin conference. Birds Tasmania, Hobart
  2. Fukushima, K. (1979). Neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position-neocognitron. Electron. & Commun. Japan, 62(10), 11-18.
  3. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
  4. Ravela, S., & Gamble, L. (2004). On recognizing individual salamanders In K.-S. Hong & Z. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of asian conference on computer vision, (pp. 742-747). Jeju, Korea.
  5. Rodner, E., Simon, M., Fisher, R. B., & Denzler, J. (2016). Fine-grained rec- ognition in the noisy wild: Sensitivity analysis of convolutional neural networks approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.06756. · arXiv
  6. Simpson, R., Page, K. R., & De Roure, D. (2014). Zooniverse: Observing the world's largest citizen science platform. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on world wide web. ACM (pp. 1049-1054). New York, NY: IEEE.
  7. Souri, Y., & Kasaei, S. (2015). Fast bird part localization for fine-grained categorization. In Proc. 3rd workshop fine-grained vis. categorization (FGVC3) CVPR, Boston, MA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schneider, S., Taylor, G. W., Linquist, S., & Kremer, S. C.
Affiliations
University of Guelph (CA)
Corresponding author
Schneider, Stefan
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-01-20
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
461-470
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2901771398
Cited by
245
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 3
FWCI
11.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Methods in Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Video Surveillance and Tracking Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
animal re-identification, camera trap data, computer vision, deep learning, feature engineering, mark-recapture, object detection, similarity analysis, person re-identification, animal ecology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review