Thinking like a naturalist: Enhancing computer vision of citizen science images by harnessing contextual data
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The accurate identification of species in images submitted by citizen scientists is currently a bottleneck for many data uses. Machine learning tools offer the potential to provide rapid, objective and scalable species identification for the benefit of many aspects of ecological science. Currently, most approaches only make use of image pixel data for classification. However, an experienced naturalist would also use a wide variety of contextual information such as the location and date of recording. Here, we examine the automated identification of ladybird (Coccinellidae) records from the British Isles submitted to the UK Ladybird Survey, a volunteer‐led mass participation recording scheme. Each image is associated with metadata; a date, location and recorder ID, which can be cross‐referenced with other data sources to determine local weather at the time of recording, habitat types and the experience of the observer. We built multi‐input neural network models that synthesize metadata and images to identify records to species level. We show that machine learning models can effectively harness contextual information to improve the interpretation of images. Against an image‐only baseline of 48.2%, we observe a 9.1 percentage‐point improvement in top‐1 accuracy with a multi‐input model compared to only a 3.6% increase when using an ensemble of image and metadata models. This suggests that contextual data are being used to interpret an image, beyond just providing a prior expectation. We show that our neural network models appear to be utilizing similar pieces of evidence as human naturalists to make identifications. Metadata is a key tool for human naturalists. We show it can also be harnessed by computer vision systems. Contextualization offers considerable extra information, particularly for challenging species, even within small and relatively homogeneous areas such as the British Isles. Although complex relationships between disparate sources of information can be profitably interpreted by simple neural network architectures, there is likely considerable room for further progress. Contextualizing images has the potential to lead to a step change in the accuracy of automated identification tools, with considerable benefits for large‐scale verification of submitted records.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
New tools and technologies to detect new invasions, including image recognition, machine learning, and remote sensing, will be influential in advancing citizen science for surveillance and monitoring of IAS.
“The emergence of new tools and technologies to detect new invasions, including image recognition, use of machine learning, and remote sensing, will be influential in advancing citizen science for surveillance and monitoring of IAS (August et al., 2015; Terry, Roy, & August, 2020).”
From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as Terry, Roy, & August, 2020
The Introduction (page unavailable) says automated species identification could improve invasive non-native species surveillance and that computer vision could speed identification of citizen-science records. The Discussion (page unavailable) supports the value of machine-learning models for those records. The paper does not establish remote sensing as a tool for detecting new invasions or advancing citizen-science surveillance; its reference to satellite data concerns a model architecture used elsewhere. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946 · see citing works
Inception-v4, Inception-ResNet and the Impact of Residual Connections on Learning
Szegedy, C., Ioffe, S., Vanhoucke, V., & Alemi, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.11231 · Cited by 4,636 · see citing works
A systematic study of the class imbalance problem in convolutional neural networks
Buda, M., Maki, A., & Mazurowski, M. A. (2018) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2018.07.011 · Cited by 3,088 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Our approach to augmenting metadata (adding Gaussian noise to each element) was relatively basic and more targeted approaches to generating additional synthetic training data (Chawla et al. 2002) could lead to better results.”
BackgroundThe iNaturalist Species Classification and Detection Dataset
Van Horn, G., Mac Aodha, O., Song, Y., Cui, Y., Sun, C., Shepard, A., Adam, H., Perona, P., & Belongie, S. (2018) · 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2018.00914 · Cited by 1,451 · see citing works
Applications for deep learning in ecology
Christin, S., Hervet, É., & Lecomte, N. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13256 · Cited by 724 · see citing works
A Vision for Global Biodiversity Monitoring With Citizen Science
(2018) · Advances in Ecological Research · doi:10.1016/bs.aecr.2018.06.003 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 39
- S Allaire, J., & Chollet, F. (2019). keras: R Interface to 'Keras'. Retrieved from https ://cran.r-proje ct.org/packa ge=keras August, T., Harvey, M., Lightfoot, P., Kilbey, D., Papadopoulos, T., & Jepson, P. (2015). Emerging technologies for biological recording. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 115(3), 731-749. https ://doi. org/10.1111/bij.12534 · DOI · Paper page
- Berg, T., Liu, J., Lee, S. W., Alexander, M. L., Jacobs, D. W., & Belhumeur, P. N. (2014). Birdsnap: Large-scale fine-grained visual categorization of birds. Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019-2026. https ://doi. org/10.1109/CVPR.2014.259 · DOI
- Boakes, E. H., Gliozzo, G., Seymour, V., Harvey, M., Smith, C., Roy, D. B., & Haklay, M. (2016). Patterns of contribution to citizen science bio- diversity projects increase understanding of volunteers' recording behaviour. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 33051. https ://doi.org/10.1038/ srep3 3051 · DOI
- Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002). SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 16, 321-357. https ://doi.org/10.1613/ jair.953 · DOI · Paper page
- Comont, R. F., Roy, H. E., Lewis, O. T., Harrington, R., Shortall, C. R., & Purse, B. V. (2012). Using biological traits to explain ladybird distri- bution patterns. Journal of Biogeography, 39(10), 1772-1781. https :// doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02734.x · DOI
- Creed, E. R. (1966). Geographic variation in the two-spot Ladybird in England and Wales. Heredity, 21(1), 57-72. https ://doi.org/10.1038/ hdy.1966. · DOI
- Cui, Y., Song, Y., Sun, C., Howard, A., & Belongie, S. (2018). Large scale fine-grained categorization and domain-specific transfer learning. arXiv preprint. https ://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2018.00432 · DOI
- Duff, A. G. (2018). Checklist of beetles of the British Isles (3rd ed.). Iver: Pemberley Books.
- Ellen, J. S., Graff, C. A., & Ohman, M. D. (2019). Improving plankton image classification using context metadata. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 17(8), 439-461. https ://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10324 · DOI
- Gardiner, M. M., Allee, L. L., Brown, P. M., Losey, J. E., Roy, H. E., & Smyth, R. R. (2012). Lessons from lady beetles: Accuracy of mon- itoring data from US and UK citizen-science programs. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(9), 471-476. https ://doi. org/10.1890/110185 · DOI
- Gaston, K. J., & O'Neill, M. A. (2004). Automated species identification: Why not? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1444), 655-667. https ://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1442 · DOI
- Gibb, R., Browning, E., Glover-Kapfer, P., & Jones, K. E. (2019). Emerging opportunities and challenges for passive acoustics in ecological as- sessment and monitoring. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(2), 169-185. https ://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13101 · DOI
- Linda, F. Nicola, G. Lorraine, & M. Thomas (Eds.), CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1886/
- Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem ser- vices of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, & H. T. Ngo, Eds.). Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat.
- Isaac, N. J. B., van Strien, A. J., August, T. A., de Zeeuw, M. P., & Roy, D. B. (2014). Statistics for citizen science: Extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5(10), 1052-1060. https ://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12254 · DOI
- Johnston, A., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M., & Kelling, S. (2018). Estimates of observer expertise improve species distributions from citizen science data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 88-97. https :// doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12838 · DOI
- Jouveau, S., Delaunay, M., Vignes-Lebbe, R., & Nattier, R. (2018). A multi-access identification key based on colour patterns in lady- birds (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae). ZooKeys, 758, 55-73. https ://doi. org/10.3897/zooke ys.758.22171 · DOI
- Laina, I., Rupprecht, C., Belagiannis, V., Tombari, F., & Navab, N. (2016). Deeper depth prediction with fully convolutional residual networks. Proceedings -2016 4th International Conference on 3D Vision, 3DV 2016 (pp. 239-248). https ://doi.org/10.1109/3DV.2016. · DOI
- Mac Aodha, O., Cole, E., & Perona, P. (2019). Presence-only geographical priors for fine-grained image classification. Retrieved from http:// arxiv.org/abs/1906.05272 · arXiv
- Marques, A. C. R., Raimundo, M. M., Cavalheiro, E. M. B., Salles, L. F. P., Lyra, C., & Von Zuben, F. J. (2018). Ant genera identification using an ensemble of convolutional neural networks. PLoS ONE, 13(1), 1-13. https ://doi.org/10.1371/journ al.pone.0192011 · DOI
- Martineau, M., Conte, D., Raveaux, R., Arnault, I., Munier, D., & Venturini, G. (2017). A survey on image-based insect classifica- tion. Pattern Recognition, 65, 273-284. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j. patcog.2016.12.020 · DOI
- Martineau, M., Raveaux, R., Chatelain, C., Conte, D., & Venturini, G. (2018). Effective training of convolutional neural networks for insect image recognition. In J. Blanc-Talon, D. Helbert, W. Philips, D. Popescu, & P. Scheunders (Eds.), Advanced concepts for intelligent vision systems. ACIVS 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. (Vol. 11182, pp. 426-437). Cham: Springer. https ://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01449-0_36 · DOI
- Miao, Z., Gaynor, K. M., Wang, J., Liu, Z., Muellerklein, O., Norouzzadeh, M. S., … Getz, W. M. (2018). A comparison of visual features used by humans and machines to classify wildlife. BioRxiv, 450189. https :// doi.org/10.1101/450189 · DOI
- Minetto, R., Pamplona Segundo, M., & Sarkar, S. (2019). Hydra: An ensemble of convolutional neural networks for geospatial land clas- sification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 57(9), 6530-6541. https ://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2019.2906883 · DOI
- Pocock, M. J. O., Roy, H. E., Preston, C. D., & Roy, D. B. (2015). The Biological Records Centre: A pioneer of citizen science. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 115(3), 475-493. https ://doi.org/10.1111/bij. 12548 · DOI
- Rowland, C. S., Morton, R. D., Carrasco, L., McShane, G., O'Neil, A. W., & Wood, C. M. (2017). Land Cover Map 2015 (1 km percentage target class, GB). NERC Environmental Information Data Centre. https :// doi.org/10.5285/505d1 e0c-ab60-4a60-b448-68c5b bae403e · DOI
- Roy, H. E., & Brown, P. (2018). Field guide to the ladybirds of Great Britain and Ireland. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
- Roy, H. E., Brown, P. M. J., Adriaens, T., Berkvens, N., Borges, I., Clusella- Trullas, S., … Zhao, Z. (2016). The harlequin ladybird, Harmonia axyridis: Global perspectives on invasion history and ecology. Biological Invasions, 18(4), 997-1044. https ://doi.org/10.1007/ s10530-016-1077-6 · DOI
- Rzanny, M., Seeland, M., Wäldchen, J., & Mäder, P. (2017). Acquiring and preprocessing leaf images for automated plant identification: Understanding the tradeoff between effort and information gain. Plant Methods, 13(1), 1-11. https ://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-017-0245-8 · DOI
- Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(9), 467-471. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j. tree.2009.03.017 · DOI
- Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Lintott, C., Simpson, R., Smith, A., & Packer, C. (2015). Snapshot Serengeti, high-frequency annotated camera trap images of 40 mammalian species in an African savanna. Scientific Data, 2, 150026. https ://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015. · DOI · Paper page
- Tang, K., Paluri, M., Fei-Fei, L., Fergus, R., & Bourdev, L. (2015). Improving image classification with location context. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2015 Inter (pp. 1008- 1016). https ://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2015.121 · DOI
- Torney, C. J., Lloyd-Jones, D. J., Chevallier, M., Moyer, D. C., Maliti, H. T., Mwita, M., … Hopcraft, G. C. (2019). A comparison of deep learning and citizen science techniques for counting wildlife in aerial survey images. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(6), 779-787. https ://doi. org/10.1111/2041-210X.13165 · DOI · Paper page
- Trouille, L., Lintott, C. J., & Fortson, L. F. (2019). Citizen science frontiers: Efficiency, engagement, and serendipitous discovery with human-ma- chine systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(6), 1902-1909. https ://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.18071 90116 · DOI
- Wäldchen, J., & Mäder, P. (2018). Machine learning for image based species identification. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(11), 2216- 2225. https ://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13075 · DOI
- Weinstein, B. G. (2018). A computer vision for animal ecology. Journal of Animal Ecology, 87(3), 533-545. https ://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12780 · DOI
- Willi, M., Pitman, R. T., Cardoso, A. W., Locke, C., Swanson, A., Boyer, A., … Fortson, L. (2019). Identifying animal species in camera trap im- ages using deep learning and citizen science. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(1), 80-91. https ://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13099 · DOI
- Wittich, H. C., Seeland, M., Wäldchen, J., Rzanny, M., & Mäder, P. (2018). Recommending plant taxa for supporting on-site species identifi- cation. BMC Bioinformatics, 19(1), 1-17. https ://doi.org/10.1186/ s12859-018-2201-7 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Scientists' warning on invasive alien species
Pyšek, P., Hulme, P. E., Simberloff, D., Bacher, S., Blackburn, T. M., Carlton, J. T., Dawson, W., Essl, F., Foxcroft, L. C., Genovesi, P., et al. (2020) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12627 · Cited by 2,234 · see citing works
Self-citationFamily as a Third Space for AI Literacies: How do children and parents learn about AI together?
Druga, S., Christoph, F. L., & Ko, A. J. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502031 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
- Authors
- Terry, J. C. D., Roy, H. E., & August, T. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Terry, J. Christopher D.
- Venue
- Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-01-13
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 303-315
- ISSN
- 2041-210X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2991744714
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10
- FWCI
- 5.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Methods in Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Environment Research Council (NE/L002612/1, NE/R016429/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Smart Agriculture and AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- automated species identification, contextual metadata, multi-input neural network, Coccinellidae, image classification, observer experience, habitat type, meteorological observations, record verification
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