Back

Application of Machine Learning Tools for Waterbird Colony Monitoring Provides Gains in Precision and Temporal Efficiency

Vallery, A. C.; Kabra, K.; Gibbons, R.; Arnold, H.; Minnich, N.; Barman, A.

2026-07-02 ecology
10.64898/2026.07.01.735369 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Waterbirds serve as important indicators of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem health, making effective monitoring essential for tracking population health and identifying potential causes of decline. Drones have provided opportunities to overcome historic waterbird monitoring challenges, but the expertise and time required for manual image analysis creates a major bottleneck. Recent advances in deep learning-based object detection have enabled rapid, automatic detection of features in complex ecological imagery, though applications have largely been limited to single-species colonies, and practitioners lack quantitative comparisons of annotation time and accuracy across different levels of automation. We systematically compared four waterbird monitoring approaches using identical survey areas from Chester Island, a mixed-species colony in Matagorda Bay, Texas, in 2025: (1) traditional ground-based counts, (2) manual drone imagery-based counts, (3) computer-assisted counts using pre-annotations from an object detector with manual human verification (Human+ML), and (4) fully automated counts using object detector annotations (ML-only). We trained a YOLOv10 object detection model on manually annotated imagery of Chester Island in 2021 and applied it to the 2025 imagery. Manual drone annotation detected 6,530 birds in 40.5 hr and served as the primary reference standard. Human+ML detected 5,826 birds (89% of manual) in 7.7 hr, an 81% reduction in annotation time. ML-only detected 5,679 birds (87% of manual) in approximately 46 min, a 98% reduction. Ground counts recorded 5,868 birds (90% of manual). Detection generalized well across species while classification depended heavily on training data and morphological distinctiveness. The Human+ML workflow emerged as a practical middle ground, providing practitioners with empirical data to evaluate partial versus full automation strategies based on monitoring objectives.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
40.9%
2
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.2%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.2%
5
Ecological Informatics
33 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.4%
6
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.3%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 39%
2.7%
8
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.5%
9
Journal of Applied Ecology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.5%
10
Ecological Applications
34 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
11
Remote Sensing
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
12
Journal of Animal Ecology
75 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
13
Ecosphere
57 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
14
Conservation Science and Practice
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
15
Ecology
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
16
Conservation Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
17
Biological Conservation
46 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
18
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
19
Molecular Ecology Resources
171 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
20
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.6%
21
Movement Ecology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
22
Environmental DNA
56 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
23
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.6%
24
Frontiers in Marine Science
62 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
25
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.5%
26
Ecological Indicators
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
27
FACETS
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
28
Animal Conservation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%