2018
DOI: 10.1093/jisesa/iey033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of Body-Mounted Cameras to Enhance Data Collection: An Evaluation of Two Arthropod Sampling Techniques

Abstract: A study was conducted that compared the effectiveness of a sweepnet versus a vacuum suction device for collecting arthropods in cotton. The study differs from previous research in that body-mounted action cameras (B-MACs) were used to record the activity of the person conducting the arthropod collections. The videos produced by the B-MACs were then analyzed with behavioral event recording software to quantify various aspects of the sampling process. The sampler's speed and the number of sampling sweeps or vacu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The recorded air temperatures for that day were relatively low which would have reduced the number of breaks for water. A similar effect of increased discussion amongst field workers was noted by Hagler et al (2018) when comparing a vacuum method to a simple sweep-net method for arthropod collections in a cotton field. In Hagler et al (2018), the operator and secondary field personnel were both wearing bodycameras so the number and duration of pauses due to discussion could be quantified.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…The recorded air temperatures for that day were relatively low which would have reduced the number of breaks for water. A similar effect of increased discussion amongst field workers was noted by Hagler et al (2018) when comparing a vacuum method to a simple sweep-net method for arthropod collections in a cotton field. In Hagler et al (2018), the operator and secondary field personnel were both wearing bodycameras so the number and duration of pauses due to discussion could be quantified.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…In this instance, the group of observers could potentially look at the video together and determine errors (e.g., why observer 1 always seemed to have higher counts than others and observers 3, 6 and 7 seemed to have lower counts than others). Other studies have shown that the use of cameras recording individuals collecting insects have been useful to correct observer bias [36] and that images provide permanent records which can be reviewed by multiple observers and stakeholder groups in vegetation surveys [37]. While our study was limited to insects, the technique presented could also be used as a non-lethal sampling strategy to study behavior in other animals (e.g., monitoring migratory bird behavior at stopover grounds).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many additional interaction technologies such as immersive 3D Cave environments, augmented reality displays should be explored as methods to assist in non-invasive insect counts and as ways to train new technicians before they are tasked with insect count projects. Other studies have shown that the use of 2D video to track technicians sampling in the field have been useful in correcting common collection mistakes [36]. The 3D cave environment would likely prove useful as an educational tool since it can be used similarly to a classroom setting, allowing multiple individuals to be involved in interactive training.…”
Section: Conclusion and Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A reassessment of our sampling methodology may clarify these discrepancies: As discussed in detail by Hagler et al (2018b), differences in sampling efficacy between alfalfa (sweep netting) and strawberry (hand-held vacuum suctioning) likely obscured some predatordispersal behavioral patterns pertaining to trap-cropping. For instance, the majority of a strawberry plant's vertical canopy is sampled using the hand-held vacuum device.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%