Comparison of drone and ground surveys for the detection of a rare plant in a fragile ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drone surveys are increasingly used to detect plants, but their efficiency and cost‐effectiveness versus traditional methods, especially for small species, remain unclear. We compared accuracy, time and costs of drone and ground surveys for the detection of wood lilies ( Lilium philadelphicum ) in an endangered alvar ecosystem. We assessed the performance of nine supervised pixel‐based classifiers derived from RGB imagery, varying training samples (60, 80, 100 samples/class) and moving window sizes for modal filtering (7 × 7, 9 × 9, 11 × 11 pixels). Wood lily detection rates ranged from 73 to 78%, with the most efficient classifier (60 samples/class, 11 × 11 pixel window) detecting 90% plants in full bloom, 85% beginning to bloom and 75% fading but only 1% plants that were not blooming. Most detected plants were not covered by vegetation, but some plants partially covered by vegetation were also detected. Estimating exact plant numbers from our drone survey proved challenging due to the misclassification of closely growing plants as single individuals and plants with multiple flowerheads as separate individuals. Conducting the drone survey was faster than conducting the ground survey (18 vs. 345 min), but processing the drone survey data took significantly longer than processing the ground survey data (909 vs. 120 min) even if most of the time spent was computer processing time (869 min of 909 min). Financial costs were higher for the drone survey than for the ground survey, but this difference is subject to change as the number of surveys increases, and will likely diminish over time as technology becomes more affordable. To support practitioners, we provide a customizable template to estimate the basic financial costs of drone surveys. Although we considered the ground survey as the gold standard, careful image examination revealed 31 objects that could be potentially missed wood lilies in full bloom (~3% of the total plants found). Practical implication: Our results suggest that drone surveys have potential as either a complementary technique to ground surveys or as a standalone method for species detection in fragile ecosystems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".