Can edge AI mitigate environmental effects on camera trap performance?

Abstract Abiotic 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Published
2025-05-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1598
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Species Distribution and Climate Change
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.84

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Can edge AI mitigate environmental effects on camera trap performance?

Jared T. Beaver, Jeffrey C. Mosley, Lance B. McNew, Taylor L. Kaltenbach
1 citations
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Species Distribution and Climate Change
1.84
article

Can edge AI mitigate environmental effects on camera trap performance?

Jared T. Beaver, Jeffrey C. Mosley, Lance B. McNew, Taylor L. Kaltenbach
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Abiotic 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.

Wildlife Society BulletinVol. 49(3)
Montana State University (US)
Montana State University, Montana Agricultural Experiment Station
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Species Distribution and Climate Change
1.84
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.