Researcher profile

Daniel J. Ingram

Daniel J. Ingram contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 11 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
1works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Deep learning-based ecological analysis of camera trap images is impacted by training data quality and quantity

Large image collections generated from camera traps offer valuable insights into species richness, occupancy, and activity patterns, significantly aiding biodiversity monitoring. However, the manual processing of these datasets is time-consuming, hindering analytical processes. To address this, deep neural networks have been widely adopted to automate image labelling, but the impact of classification error on key ecological metrics remains unclear. Here, we analyse data from camera trap collections in an African savannah (82,300 labelled images, 47 species) and an Asian sub-tropical dry forest (40,308 labelled images, 29 species) to compare ecological metrics derived from expert-generated species identifications with those generated by deep learning classification models. We specifically assess the impact of deep learning model architecture, proportion of label noise in the training data, and the size of the training dataset on three key ecological metrics: species richness, occupancy, and activity patterns. We found that predictions of species richness derived from deep neural networks closely match those calculated from expert labels and remained resilient to up to 10% noise in the training dataset (mis-labelled images) and a 50% reduction in the training dataset size. We found that our choice of deep learning model architecture (ResNet vs ConvNext-T) or depth (ResNet18, 50, 101) did not impact predicted ecological metrics. In contrast, species-specific metrics were more sensitive; less common and visually similar species were disproportionately affected by a reduction in deep neural network accuracy, with consequences for occupancy and diel activity pattern estimates. To ensure the reliability of their findings, practitioners should prioritize creating large, clean training sets and account for class imbalance across species over exploring numerous deep learning model architectures.