Abstract
Aquatic ecologists routinely count animals to provide critical information for conservation and management. Increased accessibility to underwater recording equipment such as cameras and unmanned underwater devices have allowed footage to be captured efficiently and safely. It has, however, led to immense volumes of data being collected that require manual processing, and thus significant time, labour and money. The use of deep learning to automate image processing has substantial benefits, but has rarely been adopted within the field of aquatic ecology. To test its efficacy and utility, we compared the accuracy and speed of deep learning techniques against human counterparts for quantifying fish abundance in underwater images and video footage. We collected footage of fish assemblages in seagrass meadows in Queensland, Australia. We produced three models using a MaskR-CNN object detection framework to detect the target species, an ecologically important fish, luderick (Girella tricuspidata). Our models were trained on three randomised 80:20 ratios of training:validation data-sets from a total of 6,080 annotations. The computer accurately determined abundance from videos with high performance using unseen footage from the same estuary as the training data (F1 = 92.4%, mAP50 = 92.5%), and from novel footage collected from a different estuary (F1 = 92.3%, mAP50 = 93.4%). The computer’s performance in determining MaxN was 7.1% better than human marine experts, and 13.4% better than citizen scientists in single image test data-sets, and 1.5% and 7.8% higher in video data-sets, respectively. We show that deep learning is a more accurate tool than humans at determining abundance, and that results are consistent and transferable across survey locations. Deep learning methods provide a faster, cheaper and more accurate alternative to manual data analysis methods currently used to monitor and assess animal abundance. Deep learning techniques have much to offer the field of aquatic ecology.
Footnotes
All authors have seen and approved this manuscript. This manuscript has not been accepted or published elsewhere.