Cited by 92Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsSmart Agriculture and AIDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Thinking like a naturalist: Enhancing computer vision of citizen science images by harnessing contextual data

Open access
Terry, J. Christopher D., Roy, Helen E., August, Tom A.·2020·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Published 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/2041-210x.13335

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Duff, A. G. (2018). Checklist of beetles of the British Isles (3rd ed.). Iver: Pemberley Books.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Linda, F. Nicola, G. Lorraine, & M. Thomas (Eds.), CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1886/
  14. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Roy, H. E., & Brown, P. (2018). Field guide to the ladybirds of Great Britain and Ireland. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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

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
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