Cargando…
Animal Detection and Classification from Camera Trap Images Using Different Mainstream Object Detection Architectures
SIMPLE SUMMARY: The imagery captured by cameras provides important information for wildlife research and conservation. Deep learning technology can assist ecologists in automatically identifying and processing imagery captured from camera traps, improving research capabilities and efficiency. Curren...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9367452/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35953964 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12151976 |
_version_ | 1784765808232103936 |
---|---|
author | Tan, Mengyu Chao, Wentao Cheng, Jo-Ku Zhou, Mo Ma, Yiwen Jiang, Xinyi Ge, Jianping Yu, Lian Feng, Limin |
author_facet | Tan, Mengyu Chao, Wentao Cheng, Jo-Ku Zhou, Mo Ma, Yiwen Jiang, Xinyi Ge, Jianping Yu, Lian Feng, Limin |
author_sort | Tan, Mengyu |
collection | PubMed |
description | SIMPLE SUMMARY: The imagery captured by cameras provides important information for wildlife research and conservation. Deep learning technology can assist ecologists in automatically identifying and processing imagery captured from camera traps, improving research capabilities and efficiency. Currently, many general deep learning architectures have been proposed but few have evaluated their applicability for use in real camera trap scenarios. Our study constructed the Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park wildlife dataset (NTLNP dataset) for the first time and compared the real-world application performance of three currently mainstream object detection models. We hope this study provides a reference on the applicability of the AI technique in wild real-life scenarios and truly help ecologists to conduct wildlife conservation, management, and research more effectively. ABSTRACT: Camera traps are widely used in wildlife surveys and biodiversity monitoring. Depending on its triggering mechanism, a large number of images or videos are sometimes accumulated. Some literature has proposed the application of deep learning techniques to automatically identify wildlife in camera trap imagery, which can significantly reduce manual work and speed up analysis processes. However, there are few studies validating and comparing the applicability of different models for object detection in real field monitoring scenarios. In this study, we firstly constructed a wildlife image dataset of the Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park (NTLNP dataset). Furthermore, we evaluated the recognition performance of three currently mainstream object detection architectures and compared the performance of training models on day and night data separately versus together. In this experiment, we selected YOLOv5 series models (anchor-based one-stage), Cascade R-CNN under feature extractor HRNet32 (anchor-based two-stage), and FCOS under feature extractors ResNet50 and ResNet101 (anchor-free one-stage). The experimental results showed that performance of the object detection models of the day-night joint training is satisfying. Specifically, the average result of our models was 0.98 mAP (mean average precision) in the animal image detection and 88% accuracy in the animal video classification. One-stage YOLOv5m achieved the best recognition accuracy. With the help of AI technology, ecologists can extract information from masses of imagery potentially quickly and efficiently, saving much time. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9367452 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93674522022-08-12 Animal Detection and Classification from Camera Trap Images Using Different Mainstream Object Detection Architectures Tan, Mengyu Chao, Wentao Cheng, Jo-Ku Zhou, Mo Ma, Yiwen Jiang, Xinyi Ge, Jianping Yu, Lian Feng, Limin Animals (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: The imagery captured by cameras provides important information for wildlife research and conservation. Deep learning technology can assist ecologists in automatically identifying and processing imagery captured from camera traps, improving research capabilities and efficiency. Currently, many general deep learning architectures have been proposed but few have evaluated their applicability for use in real camera trap scenarios. Our study constructed the Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park wildlife dataset (NTLNP dataset) for the first time and compared the real-world application performance of three currently mainstream object detection models. We hope this study provides a reference on the applicability of the AI technique in wild real-life scenarios and truly help ecologists to conduct wildlife conservation, management, and research more effectively. ABSTRACT: Camera traps are widely used in wildlife surveys and biodiversity monitoring. Depending on its triggering mechanism, a large number of images or videos are sometimes accumulated. Some literature has proposed the application of deep learning techniques to automatically identify wildlife in camera trap imagery, which can significantly reduce manual work and speed up analysis processes. However, there are few studies validating and comparing the applicability of different models for object detection in real field monitoring scenarios. In this study, we firstly constructed a wildlife image dataset of the Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park (NTLNP dataset). Furthermore, we evaluated the recognition performance of three currently mainstream object detection architectures and compared the performance of training models on day and night data separately versus together. In this experiment, we selected YOLOv5 series models (anchor-based one-stage), Cascade R-CNN under feature extractor HRNet32 (anchor-based two-stage), and FCOS under feature extractors ResNet50 and ResNet101 (anchor-free one-stage). The experimental results showed that performance of the object detection models of the day-night joint training is satisfying. Specifically, the average result of our models was 0.98 mAP (mean average precision) in the animal image detection and 88% accuracy in the animal video classification. One-stage YOLOv5m achieved the best recognition accuracy. With the help of AI technology, ecologists can extract information from masses of imagery potentially quickly and efficiently, saving much time. MDPI 2022-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9367452/ /pubmed/35953964 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12151976 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Tan, Mengyu Chao, Wentao Cheng, Jo-Ku Zhou, Mo Ma, Yiwen Jiang, Xinyi Ge, Jianping Yu, Lian Feng, Limin Animal Detection and Classification from Camera Trap Images Using Different Mainstream Object Detection Architectures |
title | Animal Detection and Classification from Camera Trap Images Using Different Mainstream Object Detection Architectures |
title_full | Animal Detection and Classification from Camera Trap Images Using Different Mainstream Object Detection Architectures |
title_fullStr | Animal Detection and Classification from Camera Trap Images Using Different Mainstream Object Detection Architectures |
title_full_unstemmed | Animal Detection and Classification from Camera Trap Images Using Different Mainstream Object Detection Architectures |
title_short | Animal Detection and Classification from Camera Trap Images Using Different Mainstream Object Detection Architectures |
title_sort | animal detection and classification from camera trap images using different mainstream object detection architectures |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9367452/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35953964 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12151976 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tanmengyu animaldetectionandclassificationfromcameratrapimagesusingdifferentmainstreamobjectdetectionarchitectures AT chaowentao animaldetectionandclassificationfromcameratrapimagesusingdifferentmainstreamobjectdetectionarchitectures AT chengjoku animaldetectionandclassificationfromcameratrapimagesusingdifferentmainstreamobjectdetectionarchitectures AT zhoumo animaldetectionandclassificationfromcameratrapimagesusingdifferentmainstreamobjectdetectionarchitectures AT mayiwen animaldetectionandclassificationfromcameratrapimagesusingdifferentmainstreamobjectdetectionarchitectures AT jiangxinyi animaldetectionandclassificationfromcameratrapimagesusingdifferentmainstreamobjectdetectionarchitectures AT gejianping animaldetectionandclassificationfromcameratrapimagesusingdifferentmainstreamobjectdetectionarchitectures AT yulian animaldetectionandclassificationfromcameratrapimagesusingdifferentmainstreamobjectdetectionarchitectures AT fenglimin animaldetectionandclassificationfromcameratrapimagesusingdifferentmainstreamobjectdetectionarchitectures |