mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Deep learning-based ecological analysis of camera trap images is impacted by training data quality and quantity

arXiv 2408.14348 ↗First posted 26 Aug 2024cs.CVcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large image collections generated from camera traps offer valuable insights into species richness, occupancy, and activity patterns, significantly aiding biodiversity monitoring. However, the manual processing of these datasets is time-consuming, hindering analytical processes. To address this, deep neural networks have been widely adopted to automate image labelling, but the impact of classification error on key ecological metrics remains unclear. Here, we analyse data from camera trap collections in an African savannah (82,300 labelled images, 47 species) and an Asian sub-tropical dry forest (40,308 labelled images, 29 species) to compare ecological metrics derived from expert-generated species identifications with those generated by deep learning classification models. We specifically assess the impact of deep learning model architecture, proportion of label noise in the training data, and the size of the training dataset on three key ecological metrics: species richness, occupancy, and activity patterns. We found that predictions of species richness derived from deep neural networks closely match those calculated from expert labels and remained resilient to up to 10% noise in the training dataset (mis-labelled images) and a 50% reduction in the training dataset size. We found that our choice of deep learning model architecture (ResNet vs ConvNext-T) or depth (ResNet18, 50, 101) did not impact predicted ecological metrics. In contrast, species-specific metrics were more sensitive; less common and visually similar species were disproportionately affected by a reduction in deep neural network accuracy, with consequences for occupancy and diel activity pattern estimates. To ensure the reliability of their findings, practitioners should prioritize creating large, clean training sets and account for class imbalance across species over exploring numerous deep learning model architectures.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 77 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2024.

Builds on

17 of 77 references.

References · 17

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  3. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  4. 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,545
  5. 2014How transferable are features in deep neural networks?cited by 1,216
  6. 2018Recognition in Terra Incognitacited by 655
  7. 2017Deep Learning is Robust to Massive Label Noisecited by 164
  8. 2019Efficient Pipeline for Camera Trap Image Reviewcited by 79
  9. 2021The iWildCam 2021 Competition Datasetcited by 77
  10. 2019Context R-CNN: Long Term Temporal Context for Per-Camera Object Detectioncited by 45
  11. 2019A deep active learning system for species identification and counting in camera trap imagescited by 44
  12. 2022SVL-Adapter: Self-Supervised Adapter for Vision-Language Pretrained Modelscited by 34
5 more
  1. 2021Iterative Human and Automated Identification of Wildlife Imagescited by 22
  2. 2023ConvNet vs Transformer, Supervised vs CLIP: Beyond ImageNet Accuracycited by 19
  3. 2021Focus on the Positives: Self-Supervised Learning for Biodiversity Monitoringcited by 16
  4. 2018The Resistance to Label Noise in K-NN and DNN Depends on its Concentrationcited by 1
  5. 2023Comparison between transformers and convolutional models for fine-grained classification of insectscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.