Paper detail

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.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.