Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34199208›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

An Evaluation of the Factors Affecting 'Poacher' Detection with Drones and the Efficacy of Machine-Learning for Detection.

Katie E Doull, Carl Chalmers, Paul Fergus, Steve Longmore, Alex K Piel, Serge A Wich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Katie E DoullIndependent Researcher, Nottingham NG21 9FN, UK.
Carl ChalmersSchool of Computer Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.
Paul FergusSchool of Computer Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.
Steve LongmoreAstrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6353-0170
Alex K PielDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, Taviton Street, Bloomsbury, London WC1H OBW, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4674-537X
Serge A WichSchool of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3954-5174

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drones are being increasingly used in conservation to tackle the illegal poaching of animals. An important aspect of using drones for this purpose is establishing the technological and the environmental factors that increase the chances of success when detecting poachers. Recent studies focused on investigating these factors, and this research builds upon this as well as exploring the efficacy of machine-learning for automated detection. In an experimental setting with voluntary test subjects, various factors were tested for their effect on detection probability: camera type (visible spectrum, RGB, and thermal infrared, TIR), time of day, camera angle, canopy density, and walking/stationary test subjects. The drone footage was analysed both manually by volunteers and through automated detection software. A generalised linear model with a logit link function was used to statistically analyse the data for both types of analysis. The findings concluded that using a TIR camera improved detection probability, particularly at dawn and with a 90° camera angle. An oblique angle was more effective during RGB flights, and walking/stationary test subjects did not influence detection with both cameras. Probability of detection decreased with increasing vegetation cover. Machine-learning software had a successful detection probability of 0.558, however, it produced nearly five times more false positives than manual analysis. Manual analysis, however, produced 2.5 times more false negatives than automated detection. Despite manual analysis producing more true positive detections than automated detection in this study, the automated software gives promising, successful results, and the advantages of automated methods over manual analysis make it a promising tool with the potential to be successfully incorporated into anti-poaching strategies.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSoftwareAnimalsHumansangleautomatedcameracanopydetectiondronespoachersRGBtime of dayTIR

Identifiers

PMID34199208
PMCPMC8232034

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.