A comparison of drone imagery and ground-based methods for estimating the extent of habitat destruction by lesser snow geese (Anser caerulescens caerulescens) in La Pérouse Bay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lesser snow goose (Anser caerulescens caerulescens) populations have dramatically altered vegetation communities through increased foraging pressure. In remote regions, regular habitat assessments are logistically challenging and time consuming. Drones are increasingly being used by ecologists to conduct habitat assessments, but reliance on georeferenced data as ground truth may not always be feasible. We estimated goose habitat degradation using photointerpretation of drone imagery and compared estimates to those made with ground-based linear transects. In July 2016, we surveyed five study plots in La Pérouse Bay, Manitoba, to evaluate the effectiveness of a fixed-wing drone with simple Red Green Blue (RGB) imagery for evaluating habitat degradation by snow geese. Ground-based land cover data was collected and grouped into barren, shrub, or non-shrub categories. We compared estimates between ground-based transects and those made from unsupervised classification of drone imagery collected at altitudes of 75, 100, and 120 m above ground level (ground sampling distances of 2.4, 3.2, and 3.8 cm respectively). We found large time savings during the data collection step of drone surveys, but these savings were ultimately lost during imagery processing. Based on photointerpretation, overall accuracy of drone imagery was generally high (88.8% to 92.0%) and Kappa coefficients were similar to previously published habitat assessments from drone imagery. Mixed model estimates indicated 75m drone imagery overestimated barren (F2,182 = 100.03, P < 0.0001) and shrub classes (F2,182 = 160.16, P < 0.0001) compared to ground estimates. Inconspicuous graminoid and forb species (non-shrubs) were difficult to detect from drone imagery and were underestimated compared to ground-based transects (F2,182 = 843.77, P < 0.0001). Our findings corroborate previous findings, and that simple RGB imagery is useful for evaluating broad scale goose damage, and may play an important role in measuring habitat destruction by geese and other agents of environmental change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".