Can edge AI mitigate environmental effects on camera trap performance?

dc.contributor.authorKaltenbach, Taylor L.
dc.contributor.authorMosley, Jeffrey C.
dc.contributor.authorMcNew, Lance B.
dc.contributor.authorBeaver, Jared T.
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-27T17:07:58Z
dc.date.issued2025-05
dc.description.abstractAbiotic and biotic conditions can affect camera trap performance, and failure to account for environmental factors can bias wildlife research and management inferences modeled from camera trap data. We investigated whether a camera trap enabled with edge artificial intelligence (AI) could mitigate environmental effects on camera trap performance. We compared an edge AI-enabled prototype with 2 camera trap models commonly used by wildlife managers and researchers in a field experiment in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem of south-central Montana, USA. Camera trap performance was affected by air temperature, wind speed, and time of day. Increased air temperatures and wind speeds decreased the conditional probability of positive detections, and the edge AI-enabled prototype did not mitigate these effects. The conditional probability of positive detections was <0.15 when air temperatures were ≥30°C or wind speeds were ≥15 km/h. However, when air temperatures were ≥30°C, the conditional probability of false positives was nearly zero for the edge AI-enabled prototype vs. 0.10 to 1.00 for the camera traps without AI, thereby making image collection and analysis more efficient. Air temperature had no effect on missed detections during crepuscular periods, but during daytime, the conditional probability of missed detections was >0.15 when air temperatures were ≥30°C. During nighttime, the conditional probability of missed detections decreased as air temperature increased, with the conditional probability of missed detections <0.25 when air temperatures were ≥30°C. The edge AI-enabled prototype did not mitigate time-of-day effects on the conditional probability of missed detections, and the edge AI-enabled prototype was more likely to miss detections than camera traps without AI. The conditional probability of missed detections ranged from 0.20 to 0.80 for the edge AI-enabled prototype vs. 0.05 to 0.50 for the camera traps without AI. As AI technology advances, edge AI-enabled camera traps must limit missed detections while continuing to minimize false positives during warm conditions.
dc.identifier.citationLaura M. Cardona, Barry W. Brook, Zach Aandahl, Jessie C. Buettel, Survival analysis of wildlife cameras on roads exposed to theft, Biodiversity and Conservation, 10.1007/s10531-025-03153-3, 34, 11, (4067-4083), (2025).
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/wsb.1598
dc.identifier.issn0091-7648
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/19512
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherWiley
dc.rightscc-by
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectcamera trap
dc.subjectdetection probability
dc.subjectedge artificial intelligence
dc.subjectenvironmental conditions
dc.subjectGreater Yellowstone Ecosystem
dc.subjectMontana
dc.subjectpassive monitoring
dc.subjectremote sensing
dc.titleCan edge AI mitigate environmental effects on camera trap performance?
dc.typeArticle
mus.citation.extentfirstpage1
mus.citation.extentlastpage17
mus.citation.journaltitleWildlife Society Bulletin
mus.relation.collegeCollege of Agriculture
mus.relation.departmentAnimal & Range Sciences
mus.relation.universityMontana State University - Bozeman

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Camera-trap-performance-2025.pdf
Size:
1.23 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
825 B
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: