Loading…
BirdNET: applications, performance, pitfalls and future opportunities
Automated recognition software is paramount for effective passive acoustic monitoring. BirdNET is a free and recently developed bird sound recognizer. I performed a literature review to evaluate the current applications and performance of BirdNET, which is growing in popularity but has been subject...
Saved in:
Published in: | Ibis (London, England) England), 2023-07, Vol.165 (3), p.1068-1075 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3323-c539c604656436a446ed0e5a155a9215ba737582ba12e25f86b9ec5d94c809e13 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3323-c539c604656436a446ed0e5a155a9215ba737582ba12e25f86b9ec5d94c809e13 |
container_end_page | 1075 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 1068 |
container_title | Ibis (London, England) |
container_volume | 165 |
creator | Pérez‐Granados, Cristian |
description | Automated recognition software is paramount for effective passive acoustic monitoring. BirdNET is a free and recently developed bird sound recognizer. I performed a literature review to evaluate the current applications and performance of BirdNET, which is growing in popularity but has been subject to few assessments, and to provide recommendations for future studies using BirdNET. Prior research has employed BirdNET for a wide range of purposes but few studies have linked BirdNET detections to ecological processes or real‐world monitoring schemes. Among evaluated studies, average precision (% detections correctly identified) usually ranged around 72–85%, and recall rate (% target species vocalizations detected) ranged around 33–84%. Some studies did not assess BirdNET performance, which hampers the interpretation of the ecological results and may provide poorly informed decisions. Recommendations on how to evaluate BirdNET efficiency are provided. The impact of the confidence score threshold, a user‐selected parameter as the minimum score for detections reported, on BirdNET output although variable among species is consistent. The use of high confidence score thresholds increases the percentage of detections correctly classified but lowers the proportion of calls and bird species detected. The selection of an optimal score may depend on the priorities of the user and research goals. BirdNET is a great tool for automated bird monitoring but it should be used with caution due to inherent challenges for automated bird identification. The continued refinement of BirdNET suggests further improvements in the coming years. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/ibi.13193 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2823595466</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2823595466</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3323-c539c604656436a446ed0e5a155a9215ba737582ba12e25f86b9ec5d94c809e13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMouK4e_AcFT4LdzeSrjTddVl1Y9LKCt5CmKWTptjFpkf33RuvVOczwwjMz8CB0DXgBqZaucgugIOkJmgErWC5BfpyiGcYgc0jtHF3EuE-xoBJmaP3oQv263t1n2vvWGT24vot3mbeh6cNBd8am4IZGt23MdFdnzTiMwWa9930Yxs4NzsZLdJaAaK_-5hy9P613q5d8-_a8WT1sc0MpobnhVBqBmeCCUaEZE7bGlmvgXEsCvNIFLXhJKg3EEt6UopLW8FoyU2Jpgc7RzXTXh_5ztHFQ-34MXXqpSEkol5wJkajbiTKhjzHYRvngDjocFWD1Y0klS-rXUmKXE_vlWnv8H1Sbx8208Q1-hmem</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2823595466</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>BirdNET: applications, performance, pitfalls and future opportunities</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Pérez‐Granados, Cristian</creator><creatorcontrib>Pérez‐Granados, Cristian</creatorcontrib><description>Automated recognition software is paramount for effective passive acoustic monitoring. BirdNET is a free and recently developed bird sound recognizer. I performed a literature review to evaluate the current applications and performance of BirdNET, which is growing in popularity but has been subject to few assessments, and to provide recommendations for future studies using BirdNET. Prior research has employed BirdNET for a wide range of purposes but few studies have linked BirdNET detections to ecological processes or real‐world monitoring schemes. Among evaluated studies, average precision (% detections correctly identified) usually ranged around 72–85%, and recall rate (% target species vocalizations detected) ranged around 33–84%. Some studies did not assess BirdNET performance, which hampers the interpretation of the ecological results and may provide poorly informed decisions. Recommendations on how to evaluate BirdNET efficiency are provided. The impact of the confidence score threshold, a user‐selected parameter as the minimum score for detections reported, on BirdNET output although variable among species is consistent. The use of high confidence score thresholds increases the percentage of detections correctly classified but lowers the proportion of calls and bird species detected. The selection of an optimal score may depend on the priorities of the user and research goals. BirdNET is a great tool for automated bird monitoring but it should be used with caution due to inherent challenges for automated bird identification. The continued refinement of BirdNET suggests further improvements in the coming years.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0019-1019</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1474-919X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ibi.13193</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Acoustic tracking ; bird sound recognition ; Birds ; confidence score ; convolutional neural network ; Ecological effects ; Literature reviews ; Monitoring ; passive acoustic monitoring ; precision ; recall rate ; Target detection ; Vocalization behavior ; Voice recognition</subject><ispartof>Ibis (London, England), 2023-07, Vol.165 (3), p.1068-1075</ispartof><rights>2023 The Author. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ornithologists' Union.</rights><rights>2023. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3323-c539c604656436a446ed0e5a155a9215ba737582ba12e25f86b9ec5d94c809e13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3323-c539c604656436a446ed0e5a155a9215ba737582ba12e25f86b9ec5d94c809e13</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3247-4182</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pérez‐Granados, Cristian</creatorcontrib><title>BirdNET: applications, performance, pitfalls and future opportunities</title><title>Ibis (London, England)</title><description>Automated recognition software is paramount for effective passive acoustic monitoring. BirdNET is a free and recently developed bird sound recognizer. I performed a literature review to evaluate the current applications and performance of BirdNET, which is growing in popularity but has been subject to few assessments, and to provide recommendations for future studies using BirdNET. Prior research has employed BirdNET for a wide range of purposes but few studies have linked BirdNET detections to ecological processes or real‐world monitoring schemes. Among evaluated studies, average precision (% detections correctly identified) usually ranged around 72–85%, and recall rate (% target species vocalizations detected) ranged around 33–84%. Some studies did not assess BirdNET performance, which hampers the interpretation of the ecological results and may provide poorly informed decisions. Recommendations on how to evaluate BirdNET efficiency are provided. The impact of the confidence score threshold, a user‐selected parameter as the minimum score for detections reported, on BirdNET output although variable among species is consistent. The use of high confidence score thresholds increases the percentage of detections correctly classified but lowers the proportion of calls and bird species detected. The selection of an optimal score may depend on the priorities of the user and research goals. BirdNET is a great tool for automated bird monitoring but it should be used with caution due to inherent challenges for automated bird identification. The continued refinement of BirdNET suggests further improvements in the coming years.</description><subject>Acoustic tracking</subject><subject>bird sound recognition</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>confidence score</subject><subject>convolutional neural network</subject><subject>Ecological effects</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Monitoring</subject><subject>passive acoustic monitoring</subject><subject>precision</subject><subject>recall rate</subject><subject>Target detection</subject><subject>Vocalization behavior</subject><subject>Voice recognition</subject><issn>0019-1019</issn><issn>1474-919X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMouK4e_AcFT4LdzeSrjTddVl1Y9LKCt5CmKWTptjFpkf33RuvVOczwwjMz8CB0DXgBqZaucgugIOkJmgErWC5BfpyiGcYgc0jtHF3EuE-xoBJmaP3oQv263t1n2vvWGT24vot3mbeh6cNBd8am4IZGt23MdFdnzTiMwWa9930Yxs4NzsZLdJaAaK_-5hy9P613q5d8-_a8WT1sc0MpobnhVBqBmeCCUaEZE7bGlmvgXEsCvNIFLXhJKg3EEt6UopLW8FoyU2Jpgc7RzXTXh_5ztHFQ-34MXXqpSEkol5wJkajbiTKhjzHYRvngDjocFWD1Y0klS-rXUmKXE_vlWnv8H1Sbx8208Q1-hmem</recordid><startdate>202307</startdate><enddate>202307</enddate><creator>Pérez‐Granados, Cristian</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3247-4182</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202307</creationdate><title>BirdNET: applications, performance, pitfalls and future opportunities</title><author>Pérez‐Granados, Cristian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3323-c539c604656436a446ed0e5a155a9215ba737582ba12e25f86b9ec5d94c809e13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Acoustic tracking</topic><topic>bird sound recognition</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>confidence score</topic><topic>convolutional neural network</topic><topic>Ecological effects</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Monitoring</topic><topic>passive acoustic monitoring</topic><topic>precision</topic><topic>recall rate</topic><topic>Target detection</topic><topic>Vocalization behavior</topic><topic>Voice recognition</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pérez‐Granados, Cristian</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Ibis (London, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pérez‐Granados, Cristian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>BirdNET: applications, performance, pitfalls and future opportunities</atitle><jtitle>Ibis (London, England)</jtitle><date>2023-07</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>165</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1068</spage><epage>1075</epage><pages>1068-1075</pages><issn>0019-1019</issn><eissn>1474-919X</eissn><abstract>Automated recognition software is paramount for effective passive acoustic monitoring. BirdNET is a free and recently developed bird sound recognizer. I performed a literature review to evaluate the current applications and performance of BirdNET, which is growing in popularity but has been subject to few assessments, and to provide recommendations for future studies using BirdNET. Prior research has employed BirdNET for a wide range of purposes but few studies have linked BirdNET detections to ecological processes or real‐world monitoring schemes. Among evaluated studies, average precision (% detections correctly identified) usually ranged around 72–85%, and recall rate (% target species vocalizations detected) ranged around 33–84%. Some studies did not assess BirdNET performance, which hampers the interpretation of the ecological results and may provide poorly informed decisions. Recommendations on how to evaluate BirdNET efficiency are provided. The impact of the confidence score threshold, a user‐selected parameter as the minimum score for detections reported, on BirdNET output although variable among species is consistent. The use of high confidence score thresholds increases the percentage of detections correctly classified but lowers the proportion of calls and bird species detected. The selection of an optimal score may depend on the priorities of the user and research goals. BirdNET is a great tool for automated bird monitoring but it should be used with caution due to inherent challenges for automated bird identification. The continued refinement of BirdNET suggests further improvements in the coming years.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/ibi.13193</doi><tpages>1075</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3247-4182</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0019-1019 |
ispartof | Ibis (London, England), 2023-07, Vol.165 (3), p.1068-1075 |
issn | 0019-1019 1474-919X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2823595466 |
source | Wiley |
subjects | Acoustic tracking bird sound recognition Birds confidence score convolutional neural network Ecological effects Literature reviews Monitoring passive acoustic monitoring precision recall rate Target detection Vocalization behavior Voice recognition |
title | BirdNET: applications, performance, pitfalls and future opportunities |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T09%3A19%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=BirdNET:%20applications,%20performance,%20pitfalls%20and%20future%20opportunities&rft.jtitle=Ibis%20(London,%20England)&rft.au=P%C3%A9rez%E2%80%90Granados,%20Cristian&rft.date=2023-07&rft.volume=165&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1068&rft.epage=1075&rft.pages=1068-1075&rft.issn=0019-1019&rft.eissn=1474-919X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ibi.13193&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2823595466%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3323-c539c604656436a446ed0e5a155a9215ba737582ba12e25f86b9ec5d94c809e13%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2823595466&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |