From Coastal to Montane Forest Ecosystems, Using Drones for Multi-Species Research in the Tropics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biodiversity monitoring is crucial in tackling defaunation in the Anthropocene, particularly in tropical ecosystems. However, field surveys are often limited by habitat complexity, logistical constraints, financing and detectability. Hence, leveraging drones technology for species monitoring is required to overcome the caveats of conventional surveys. We investigated prospective methods for wildlife monitoring using drones in four ecosystems. We surveyed waterbird populations in Pulau Rambut, a community of ungulates in Baluran and endemic non-human primates in Gunung Halimun-Salak, Indonesia in 2021 using a DJI Matrice 300 RTK and DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise Dual with additional thermal sensors. We then, consecutively, implemented two survey methods at three sites to compare the efficacy of drones against traditional ground survey methods for each species. The results show that drone surveys provide advantages over ground surveys, including precise size estimation, less disturbance and broader area coverage. Moreover, heat signatures helped to detect species which were not easily spotted in the radiometric imagery, while the detailed radiometric imagery allowed for species identification. Our research also demonstrates that machine learning approaches show a relatively high performance in species detection. Our approaches prove promising for wildlife surveys using drones in different ecosystems in tropical forests.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".