Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

Jennifer L. Stenglein

Publications and source records attributed to Jennifer L. Stenglein.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Improving the accessibility and transferability of machine learning algorithms for identification of animals in camera trap images: MLWIC2

Motion‐activated wildlife cameras (or “camera traps”) are frequently used to remotely and noninvasively observe animals. The vast number of images collected from camera trap projects has prompted some biologists to employ machine learning algorithms to automatically recognize species in these images, or at least filter‐out images that do not contain animals. These approaches are often limited by model transferability, as a model trained to recognize species from one location might not work as well for the same species in different locations. Furthermore, these methods often require advanced computational skills, making them inaccessible to many biologists. We used 3 million camera trap images from 18 studies in 10 states across the United States of America to train two deep neural networks, one that recognizes 58 species, the “species model,” and one that determines if an image is empty or if it contains an animal, the “empty‐animal model.” Our species model and empty‐animal model had accuracies of 96.8% and 97.3%, respectively. Furthermore, the models performed well on some out‐of‐sample datasets, as the species model had 91% accuracy on species from Canada (accuracy range 36%–91% across all out‐of‐sample datasets) and the empty‐animal model achieved an accuracy of 91%–94% on out‐of‐sample datasets from different continents. Our software addresses some of the limitations of using machine learning to classify images from camera traps. By including many species from several locations, our species model is potentially applicable to many camera trap studies in North America. We also found that our empty‐animal model can facilitate removal of images without animals globally. We provide the trained models in an R package (MLWIC2: Machine Learning for Wildlife Image Classification in R), which contains Shiny Applications that allow scientists with minimal programming experience to use trained models and train new models in six neural network architectures with varying depths.

Ecology and Evolution

Harvest and group effects on pup survival in a cooperative breeder

Recruitment in cooperative breeders can be negatively affected by changes in group size and composition. The majority of cooperative breeding studies have not evaluated human harvest; therefore, the effects of recurring annual harvest and group characteristics on survival of young are poorly understood. We evaluated how harvest and groups affect pup survival using genetic sampling and pedigrees for grey wolves in North America. We hypothesized that harvest reduces pup survival because of (i) reduced group size, (ii) increased breeder turnover and/or (iii) reduced number of female helpers. Alternatively, harvest may increase pup survival possibly due to increased per capita food availability or it could be compensatory with other forms of mortality. Harvest appeared to be additive because it reduced both pup survival and group size. In addition to harvest, turnover of breeding males and the presence of older, non-breeding males also reduced pup survival. Large groups and breeder stability increased pup survival when there was harvest, however. Inferences about the effect of harvest on recruitment require knowledge of harvest rate of young as well as the indirect effects associated with changes in group size and composition, as we show. The number of young harvested is a poor measure of the effect of harvest on recruitment in cooperative breeders.

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sci

Mortality patterns and detection bias from carcass data: An example from wolf recovery in Wisconsin

We developed models and provide computer code to make carcass recovery data more useful to wildlife managers. With these tools, wildlife managers can understand the spatial, temporal (e.g., across time periods, seasons), and demographic patterns in mortality causes from carcass recovery datasets. From datasets of radio-collared and non-collared carcasses, managers can calculate the detection bias by mortality cause in a non-collared carcass dataset compared to a collared carcass dataset. As a first step, we provide a standard procedure to assign mortality causes to carcasses. We provide an example of these methods for radio-collared wolves ( n  = 208) and non-collared wolves ( n  = 668) found dead in Wisconsin (1979–2012). We analyzed differences in mortality cause relative to season, age and sex classes, wolf harvest zones, and recovery phase (1979–1995: initial recovery, 1996–2002: early growth, 2003–2012: late growth). Seasonally, illegal kills and natural deaths were proportionally higher in winter (Oct–Mar) than summer (Apr–Sep) for collared wolves, whereas vehicle strikes and legal kills were higher in summer than winter. Spatially, more illegally killed collared wolves occurred in eastern wolf harvest zones where wolves reestablished more slowly and in the central forest region where optimal habitat is isolated by agriculture. Natural mortalities of collared wolves (e.g., disease, intraspecific strife, or starvation) were highest in western wolf harvest zones where wolves established earlier and existed at higher densities. Calculating detection bias in the non-collared dataset revealed that more than half of the non-collared carcasses on the landscape are not found. The lowest detection probabilities for non-collared carcasses (0.113–0.176) occurred in winter for natural, illegal, and unknown mortality causes.

Wisconsin

Hair of the dog: obtaining samples from coyotes and wolves noninvasively

Canids can be difficult to detect and their populations difficult to monitor. We tested whether hair samples could be collected from coyotes (Canis latrans) in Texas, USA and gray wolves (C. lupus) in Montana, USA using lure to elicit rubbing behavior at both man-made and natural collection devices. We used mitochondrial and nuclear DNA to determine whether collected hair samples were from coyote, wolf, or nontarget species. Both coyotes and wolves rubbed on man-made barbed surfaces but coyotes in Texas seldom rubbed on hanging barbed surfaces. Wolves in Montana showed a tendency to rub at stations where natural-material collection devices (sticks and debris) were present. Time to detection was relatively short (5 nights and 4 nights for coyotes and wolves, respectively) with nontarget and unknown species comprising approximately 26% of the detections in both locations. Eliciting rubbing behavior from coyotes and wolves using lures has advantages over opportunistic genetic sampling methods (e.g., scat transects) because it elicits a behavior that deposits a hair sample at a fixed sampling location, thereby increasing the efficiency of sampling for these canids. Hair samples from rub stations could be used to provide estimates of abundance, measures of genetic diversity and health, and detection-nondetection data useful for cost-effective population monitoring.

Texas;Montana