Robert Abrams | Search USGS

USGS2025

Two-stage models improve machine learning classifiers in wildlife research: A case study in identifying false positive detections of Ruffed Grouse

Autonomous recording units are increasingly being used to monitor wildlife on large geographic and temporal scales, paired with machine learning (ML) to automate detection of wildlife. However, false positive detections from ML classifiers can result in erroneous ecological models that can lead to misguided management and conservation actions. We used a two-stage general approach to understand and reduce false positive detections, a technique in which outputs of the primary classification model are passed to a secondary classification model to yield the probability that a detection from the primary model is a true positive detection. This approach is demonstrated on two open-source models that detect Ruffed Grouse ( Bonasa umbellus ). We analyzed over 9500 h of acoustic data collected in 2022–2023 from the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont, USA, and found the two models detected different types of acoustic signals associated with differing life history traits. The first model yielded 4106 detections (71.5 % true positives) while the second model yielded 524 detections (17.0 % true positives). Secondary logistic regression models separated true positives and false positives with high accuracy (84.5 % and 89.8 % respectively). Our findings go beyond improving Ruffed Grouse monitoring and conservation efforts to, more broadly, illustrate how two-stage ML approaches can improve the use of model-derived detections in wildlife research.

Vermont↗

USGS2023

Evaluating a tandem human-machine approach to labelling of wildlife in remote camera monitoring

Remote cameras (“trail cameras”) are a popular tool for non-invasive, continuous wildlife monitoring, and as they become more prevalent in wildlife research, machine learning (ML) is increasingly used to automate or accelerate the labor-intensive process of labelling (i.e., tagging) photos. Human-machine hybrid tagging approaches have been shown to greatly increase tagging efficiency (i.e., time to tag a single image). However, those potential increases hinge on the extent to which an ML model makes correct vs. incorrect predictions. We performed an experiment using a ML model that produces bounding boxes around animals, people, and vehicles in remote camera imagery (MegaDetector) to consider the impact of a ML model’s performance on its ability to accelerate human labeling. Six participants tagged trail camera images collected from 12 sites in Vermont and Maine, USA (January–September 2022) using three tagging methods (one with ML bounding box assistance and two without assistance). We used a generalized linear mixed model to examine the influence of ML model performance and tagging method on tagging efficiency. We found that ML bounding boxes offer significant improvement in tagging efficiency when labelling data compared to unassisted tagging. Additionally, the time taken to label with bounding boxes was not statistically different from an unassisted tagging approach. However, we found that gains in efficiency are contingent on the ML algorithm’s performance and that incorrect ML predictions, particularly the 4.2% false positive and 3.6% false negative predictions, can slow the tagging process compared to a non-hybrid approach. These findings indicate that although practitioners usually forgo the production of bounding boxes when selecting a data labelling process due to the increased effort, ML bounding box-assisted tagging can offer an efficient method for labeling. More broadly, ML-assisted data labelling offers an opportunity to accelerate the analysis of trail camera imagery, but an assessment of the ML model’s performance can illuminate whether the hybrid-tagging approach is ultimately a help or hinderance.

Maine, Vermont↗