Assessing rotation-invariant feature classification for automated wildebeest population counts
Open accessAbstract
Accurate and on-demand animal population counts are the holy grail for wildlife conservation organizations throughout the world because they enable fast and responsive adaptive management policies. While the collection of image data from camera traps, satellites, and manned or unmanned aircraft has advanced significantly, the detection and identification of animals within images remains a major bottleneck since counting is primarily conducted by dedicated enumerators or citizen scientists. Recent developments in the field of computer vision suggest a potential resolution to this issue through the use of rotation-invariant object descriptors combined with machine learning algorithms. Here we implement an algorithm to detect and count wildebeest from aerial images collected in the Serengeti National Park in 2009 as part of the biennial wildebeest count. We find that the per image error rates are greater than, but comparable to, two separate human counts. For the total count, the algorithm is more accurate than both manual counts, suggesting that human counters have a tendency to systematically over or under count images. While the accuracy of the algorithm is not yet at an acceptable level for fully automatic counts, our results show this method is a promising avenue for further research and we highlight specific areas where future research should focus in order to develop fast and accurate enumeration of aerial count data. If combined with a bespoke image collection protocol, this approach may yield a fully automated wildebeest count in the near future.
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?
If achieved, this will have major implications for conservation as currently the process of detecting and identifying animals within images is the main bottleneck for estimating population sizes from aerial surveys.
“If achieved, this will have major implications for conservation as currently the process of detecting and identifying animals within images is the main bottleneck for estimating population sizes from aerial surveys (Torney et al., 2016).”
From Applications of machine learning in animal behaviour studies (2017) · cites this paper as Torney et al., 2016
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 32
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [16]Laliberte AS, Ripple WJ. Automated wildlife counts from remotely sensed imagery. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2003;p. 362– 371.
- [32]Bradski G. Dr Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools. 2000;.
- Authors
- Torney, C. J., Dobson, A. P., Borner, F., Lloyd-Jones, D. J., Moyer, D., Maliti, H. T., Mwita, M., Fredrick, H., Borner, M., & Hopcraft, J. G. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Exeter (GB)
- Princeton University (US)
- Frankfurt Zoological Society (DE)
- Field Museum of Natural History (US)
- Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TZ)
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Torney, Colin J.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2016-05-26
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e0156342
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4881999
- OpenAlex
- W2408366234
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 3.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- James S. McDonnell Foundation
- EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (641918)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- 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
- Keywords
- aerial imagery, wildlife population monitoring, Serengeti National Park
- MeSH terms
- Aircraft, Algorithms, Animals, Animals, Wild, Antelopes, Artificial Intelligence, Environmental Monitoring, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Population Density, Video Recording
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