A comparison of manual and automated detection of rusa deer (Rusa timorensis) from RPAS-derived thermal imagery (original) (raw)

Export / Share

Export / Share

Export / Share

Share this record

Export this record

PlumX

PlumX

PlumX

Altmetric

Altmetric

Altmetric

View Altmetric information about this item.

Sudholz, A., Denman, S., Pople, A. R., Brennan, M., Amos, M. and Hamilton, G. (2021)A comparison of manual and automated detection of rusa deer (Rusa timorensis) from RPAS-derived thermal imagery. Wildlife Research, 49 (1). pp. 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR20169

Full text not currently attached. Access may be available via the Publisher's website or OpenAccess link.

Article Link: https://doi.org/10.1071/WR20169

Publisher URL: https://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR20169

Abstract

Context: Monitoring is an essential part of managing invasive species; however, accurate, cost-effective detection techniques are necessary for it to be routinely undertaken. Current detection techniques for invasive deer are time consuming, expensive and have associated biases, which may be overcome by exploiting new technologies.Aims: We assessed the accuracy and cost effectiveness of automated detection methods in comparison to manual detection of thermal footage of deer captured by remotely piloted aircraft systems.Methods: Thermal footage captured by RPAS was assessed using an algorithm combining two object-detection techniques, namely, YOLO and Faster-RCNN. The number of deer found using manual review on each sampling day was compared with the number of deer found on each day using machine learning. Detection rates were compared across survey areas and sampling occasions.Key results: Overall, there was no difference in the mean number of deer detected using manual and that detected by automated review (P = 0.057). The automated-detection algorithm identified between 66.7% and 100% of deer detected using manual review of thermal imagery on all but one of the sampling days. There was no difference in the mean proportion of deer detected using either manual or automated review at three repeated sampling events (P = 0.174). However, identifying deer using the automated review algorithm was 84% cheaper than the cost of manual review. Low cloud cover appeared to affect detectability using the automated review algorithm.Conclusions: Automated methods provide a fast and effective way to detect deer. For maximum effectiveness, imagery that encompasses a range of environments should be used as part of the training dataset, as well as large groups for herding species. Adequate sensing conditions are essential to gain accurate counts of deer by automated detection.Implications: Machine learning in combination with RPAS may decrease the cost and improve the detection and monitoring of invasive species.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people are advised the journals and articles on this site may contain images or names of deceased persons in photographs or printed material. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander material and information accessed on this site may be culturally sensitive for some individuals and communities. Some material may contain language, terms, or descriptions that reflect the authors' views, or those of the period in which the item was written and may be considered inappropriate today. These views are not necessarily the views of the Department. While the information may not reflect current understandings, it is provided in an historical context.