Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42145960›Full record

ReviewPeerJ2026

Towards automated behaviour monitoring in wildlife: a review of machine learning approaches using accelerometer data.

Lorène Jeantet, W Chris Oosthuizen, Damien Chevallier, Emmanuel Dufourq

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Lorène JeantetAfrican Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Muizenberg, Western Cape, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-7317-3154
W Chris OosthuizenMarine Apex Predator Research Unit, Department of Zoology and Institute for Coastal and Marine Research, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha, South Africa.
Damien ChevallierUnité de Recherche BOREA, MNHN, CNRS 8067, SU, IRD 207, UA, Station de Recherche Marine de Martinique, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Les Anses d'Arlet, Martinique.ORCID 0000-0002-2232-6787
Emmanuel DufourqComputer Science, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monitoring animal behaviour provides critical insights into species ecology and offers essential information for guiding management and conservation efforts. Among the various approaches used to study behaviour, bio-logging-the use of animal-borne data recorders-has emerged as a valuable tool for observing animals in their natural habitats while minimising human disturbance. A major advancement in bio-logging has been the integration of accelerometers, which enable high-resolution analysis of movement and activity in free-ranging animals. By identifying movement and postural patterns captured by accelerometers, it becomes possible to associate specific accelerometric sequences with distinct behaviours. This task-automatically classifying repetitive accelerometric patterns linked to behaviours-can be achieved using machine-learning algorithms. The first ecological study applying machine learning to identify animal behaviours from accelerometer data was published in 2009. Since then, numerous studies have expanded this approach across a wide range of species, employing diverse methodological frameworks that make it challenging for new practitioners to identify best practices. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of accelerometer-based behavioural identification in ecology using machine learning. We summarise the range of species and applications investigated, highlight key methodological trends, and offer practical guidance for researchers seeking to apply this approach. Based on 125 studies, we show that current practices largely rely on a general framework combined with species-specific adaptations. This has led to a predominance of species-focused methodological studies and limited generalisation across taxa. More importantly, the high diversity of datasets, combined with highly variable validation procedures-sometimes insufficient to assess model generalisation to novel data-prevents robust comparisons, limiting the identification of broadly applicable approaches. We therefore seek to re-establish a clear methodological framework that enables meaningful cross-study comparisons. Although methodological advances have been relatively modest until recently, 2024 marks a turning point, with a growing number of studies applying deep learning approaches that hold promise for improving model generalisation. While deep learning remains less widely adopted in ecology than in human or livestock behaviour recognition, leveraging advances from these fields and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration will be essential to accelerate progress. In particular, developments in real-time monitoring offer strong potential to enhance conservation efforts, an important next step in bio-logging. Nevertheless, despite increasing automation and generalisation, reliable behavioural classification models will continue to depend on robust ground-truth data and strong expertise in the natural history and biology of the study organisms.

Indexed as

AccelerometryAnimals, WildBehavior, AnimalMachine LearningAnimalsClassification AlgorithmsAccelerometerAnimal behaviour classificationBio-loggingDeep learningMachine learningWildlife monitoring

Identifiers

PMID42145960
PMCPMC13175066

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.