Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32369485›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Machine learning goes wild: Using data from captive individuals to infer wildlife behaviours.

Wanja Rast, Sophia Elisabeth Kimmig, Lisa Giese, Anne Berger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Spatial Ecology and Diel Activity of European Wildcat (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Behaviour Classification on Giraffes (Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Wanja RastDepartment of Evolutionary Ecology, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3465-3117
Sophia Elisabeth KimmigDepartment of Ecological Dynamics, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.
Lisa GieseDepartment of Evolutionary Ecology, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.
Anne BergerDepartment of Evolutionary Ecology, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5765-8039

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

1. Remotely tracking distinct behaviours of animals using acceleration data and machine learning has been carried out successfully in several species in captive settings. In order to study the ecology of animals in natural habitats, such behaviour classification models need to be transferred to wild individuals. However, at present, the development of those models usually requires direct observation of the target animals. 2. The goal of this study was to infer the behaviour of wild, free-roaming animals from acceleration data by training behaviour classification models on captive individuals, without the necessity to observe their wild conspecifics. We further sought to develop methods to validate the credibility of the resulting behaviour extrapolations. 3. We trained two machine learning algorithms proposed by the literature, Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM), on data from captive red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and later applied them to data from wild foxes. We also tested a new advance for behaviour classification, by applying a moving window to an Artificial Neural Network (ANN). Finally, we investigated four strategies to validate our classification output. 4. While all three machine learning algorithms performed well under training conditions (Kappa values: RF (0.82), SVM (0.78), ANN (0.85)), the established methods, RF and SVM, failed in classifying distinct behaviours when transferred from captive to wild foxes. Behaviour classification with the ANN and a moving window, in contrast, inferred distinct behaviours and showed consistent results for most individuals. 5. Our approach is a substantial improvement over the methods previously proposed in the literature as it generated plausible results for wild fox behaviour. We were able to infer the behaviour of wild animals that have never been observed in the wild and to further illustrate the credibility of the output. This framework is not restricted to foxes but can be applied to infer the behaviour of many other species and thus empowers new advances in behavioural ecology.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSupport Vector MachineAlgorithmsAnimalsAnimals, WildBehavior, AnimalHumansNeural Networks, Computer

Identifiers

PMID32369485
PMCPMC7200095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.