Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35757165›Full record

ReviewPeerJ2022

Remote sensing techniques for automated marine mammals detection: a review of methods and current challenges.

Esteban N Rodofili, Vincent Lecours, Michelle LaRue

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Esteban N RodofiliSchool of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
Vincent LecoursSchool of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
Michelle LaRueSchool of Earth and Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Marine mammals are under pressure from multiple threats, such as global climate change, bycatch, and vessel collisions. In this context, more frequent and spatially extensive surveys for abundance and distribution studies are necessary to inform conservation efforts. Marine mammal surveys have been performed visually from land, ships, and aircraft. These methods can be costly, logistically challenging in remote locations, dangerous to researchers, and disturbing to the animals. The growing use of imagery from satellite and unoccupied aerial systems (UAS) can help address some of these challenges, complementing crewed surveys and allowing for more frequent and evenly distributed surveys, especially for remote locations. However, manual counts in satellite and UAS imagery remain time and labor intensive, but the automation of image analyses offers promising solutions. Here, we reviewed the literature for automated methods applied to detect marine mammals in satellite and UAS imagery. The performance of studies is quantitatively compared with metrics that evaluate false positives and false negatives from automated detection against manual counts of animals, which allows for a better assessment of the impact of miscounts in conservation contexts. In general, methods that relied solely on statistical differences in the spectral responses of animals and their surroundings performed worse than studies that used convolutional neural networks (CNN). Despite mixed results, CNN showed promise, and its use and evaluation should continue. Overall, while automation can reduce time and labor, more research is needed to improve the accuracy of automated counts. With the current state of knowledge, it is best to use semi-automated approaches that involve user revision of the output. These approaches currently enable the best tradeoff between time effort and detection accuracy. Based on our analysis, we identified thermal infrared UAS imagery as a future research avenue for marine mammal detection and also recommend the further exploration of object-based image analysis (OBIA). Our analysis also showed that past studies have focused on the automated detection of baleen whales and pinnipeds and that there is a gap in studies looking at toothed whales, polar bears, sirenians, and mustelids.

Indexed as

CaniformiaRemote Sensing TechnologyAircraftAnimalsNeural Networks, ComputerWhalesAccuracy metricsConservation surveysObject-based image analysisRemote sensingThermal infrared

Identifiers

PMID35757165
PMCPMC9220915

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.