Reassessing the success of experts and nonexperts at correctly differentiating between closely related species from camera trap images: A reply to Gooliaff and Hodges
We present a reply to a recent article in Ecology and Evolution (“Measuring agreement among experts in classifying camera images of similar species” by Gooliaff and Hodges) that demonstrated a lack of consistency in expert‐based classification of images of similar‐looking species. We disagree with s...
Saved in:
Published in | Ecology and evolution Vol. 9; no. 11; pp. 6172 - 6175 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
01.06.2019
John Wiley and Sons Inc Wiley |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | We present a reply to a recent article in Ecology and Evolution (“Measuring agreement among experts in classifying camera images of similar species” by Gooliaff and Hodges) that demonstrated a lack of consistency in expert‐based classification of images of similar‐looking species. We disagree with several conclusions from the study, and show that with some training, and use of multiple images that is becoming standard practice in camera‐trapping studies, even nonexperts can identify similar sympatric species with high consistency. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.5256 Data Availability Statement Linked article Supporting information associated with this article (example photographic sets, NEO training manual, and raw results of the NEO species identification exercise) is provided on Dryad. SourceType-Other Sources-1 content type line 63 ObjectType-Editorial-2 ObjectType-Commentary-1 Data Availability Statement: Supporting information associated with this article (example photographic sets, NEO training manual, and raw results of the NEO species identification exercise) is provided on Dryad. Linked article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.5256 |
ISSN: | 2045-7758 2045-7758 |
DOI: | 10.1002/ece3.5255 |