digplanet beta 1: Athena
Share digplanet:

Agriculture

Applied sciences

Arts

Belief

Business

Chronology

Culture

Education

Environment

Geography

Health

History

Humanities

Language

Law

Life

Mathematics

Nature

People

Politics

Science

Society

Technology

Automated species identification is a method of making the expertise of taxonomists available to ecologists, parataxonomists and others via computers, PDAs and other digital technology.

Introduction[edit]

The automated identification of biological objects such as insects (individuals) and/or groups (e.g., species, guilds, characters) has been a dream among systematists for centuries. The goal of some of the first multivariate biometric methods was to address the perennial problem of group discrimination and inter-group characterization. Despite much preliminary work in the 1950s and '60s, progress in designing and implementing practical systems for fully automated object biological identification has proven frustratingly slow. As recently as 2004 Dan Janzen [1] updated the dream for a new audience:

The spaceship lands. He steps out. He points it around. It says ‘friendly–unfriendly—edible–poisonous—safe– dangerous—living–inanimate’. On the next sweep it says ‘Quercus oleoides—Homo sapiens—Spondias mombin—Solanum nigrum—Crotalus durissus—Morpho peleides— serpentine’. This has been in my head since reading science fiction in ninth grade half a century ago.

The species identification problem[edit]

DFE - the graphical interface of the Daisy system. The image is the wing of a biting midge culicoides sp, some species of which are vectors of Bluetongue. Others may also be vectors of Schmallenberg virus an emerging disease of livestock, especially sheep.
(Credit: Mark A. O'Neill)

Janzen’s preferred solution to this classic problem involved building machines to identify species from their DNA. His predicted budget and proposed research team is “US$1 million and five bright people.” However, recent developments in computer architectures, as well as innovations in software design, have placed the tools needed to realize Janzen’s vision in the hands of the systematics community not in several years hence, but now; and not just for DNA barcodes, but for digital images of organisms too. A recent survey of results accuracy results for small-scale trials (<50 taxa) obtained by such systems shows an average reproducible accuracy of over 85 percent with no significant correlation between accuracy and the number of included taxa or the type of group being assessed (e.g., butterflies, moths, bees, pollen, spores, foraminifera, dinoflagellates, vertebrates).[2] Moreover, these identifications, often involving thousands of individual specimens, can be made in a fraction of the time required by human experts and can be done on site, on demand, anywhere in the world.

These developments could not have come at a better time. As the taxonomic community already knows, the world is running out of specialists who can identify the very biodiversity whose preservation has become a global concern. In commenting on this problem in palaeontology as long ago as 1993, Roger Kaesler [3]

recognized:

“… we are running out of systematic palaeontologists who have anything approaching synoptic knowledge of a major group of organisms … Palaeontologists of the next century are unlikely to have the luxury of dealing at length with taxonomic problems … Palaeontology will have to sustain its level of excitement without the aid of systematists, who have contributed so much to its success.”

.

This expertise deficiency cuts as deeply into those commercial industries that rely on accurate identifications (e.g., agriculture, biostratigraphy) as it does into a wide range of pure and applied research programmes (e.g., conservation, biological oceanography, climatology, ecology). It is also commonly, though informally, acknowledged that the technical, taxonomic literature of all organismal groups is littered with examples of inconsistent and incorrect identifications. This is due to a variety of factors, including taxonomists being insufficiently trained and skilled in making identifications (e.g., using different rules-of-thumb in recognizing the boundaries between similar groups), insufficiently detailed original group descriptions and/or illustrations, inadequate access to current monographs and well-curated collections and, of course, taxonomists having different opinions regarding group concepts. Peer review only weeds out the most obvious errors of commission or omission in this area, and then only when an author provides adequate representations (e.g., illustrations, recordings, and gene sequences) of the specimens in question.

Systematics too has much to gain, both practically and theoretically, from the further development and use of automated identification systems. It is now widely recognized that the days of systematics as a field populated by mildly eccentric individuals pursuing knowledge in splendid isolation from funding priorities and economic imperatives are rapidly drawing to a close.[citation needed] In order to attract both personnel and resources, systematics must transform itself into a “large, coordinated, international scientific enterprise” [4] Many have identified use of the Internet— especially via the World Wide Web — as the medium through which this transformation can be made. While establishment of a virtual, GenBank-like system for accessing morphological data, audio clips, video files and so forth would be a significant step in the right direction, improved access to observational information and/or text-based descriptions alone will not address either the taxonomic impediment or low identification reproducibility issues successfully. Instead, the inevitable subjectivity associated with making critical decisions on the basis of qualitative criteria must be reduced or, at the very least, embedded within a more formally analytic context.

SDS protein gel images of sphinx moth caterpillars. It can be used in a similar way to DNA fingerprinting

Properly designed, flexible, and robust, automated identification systems, organized around distributed computing architectures and referenced to authoritatively identified collections of training set data (e.g., images, and gene sequences) can, in principle, provide all systematists with access to the electronic data archives and the necessary analytic tools to handle routine identifications of common taxa. Properly designed systems can also recognize when their algorithms cannot make a reliable identification and refer that image to a specialist (whose address can be accessed from another database). Such systems can also include elements of artificial intelligence and so improve their performance the more they are used. Most tantalizingly, once morphological (or molecular) models of a species have been developed and demonstrated to be accurate, these models can be queried to determine which aspects of the observed patterns of variation and variation limits are being used to achieve the identification, thus opening the way for the discovery of new and (potentially) more reliable taxonomic characters.

References cited[edit]

  1. ^ Janzen, Daniel H. (March 22, 2004). "Now is the time.". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B 359: 731–732. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1444. PMC 1693358. PMID 15253359. 
  2. ^ Gaston, Kevin J.; O'Neill, Mark A. (March 22, 2004). "Automated species recognition: why not?". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B 359: 655–667. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1442. PMC 1693351. PMID 15253351. 
  3. ^ Kaesler, Roger L (1993). "A window of opportunity: peering into a new century of palaeontology". Journal of Palaeontology 67 (3): 329–333. JSTOR 1306022. 
  4. ^ Wheeler, Quentin D. (2003). Transforming taxonomy (PDF) (22). The Systematist. pp. 3–5. 

External links[edit]

Here are some links to the home pages of species identification systems. The SPIDA and DAISY system are essentially generic and capable of classifying any image material presented. The ABIS and DrawWing system are restricted to insects with membranous wings as they operate by matching a specific set of characters based on wing venation.


Original courtesy of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_species_identification — Please support Wikipedia.
This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia. A portion of the proceeds from advertising on Digplanet goes to supporting Wikipedia.
229 videos foundNext > 

Potato Cyst Nematode (PCN) - Automated Cyst Species Identification & Counting

Developed by the former Biocontrol Lab at NMSU as a proof-of-concept for the USDA/APHIS. This system exceeded all expectations and demonstrated that rapid, a...

Automated Botanical Species Identification

This video shows the LeafView system, work presented at CHI2007 on designing a mobile user interface for automated botanical species identification. Users ta...

Big Spider Egg Sac In The House Scary Nature Or Proof Of Alien Life Pt1

Two very nasty discoveries around my home. The first seems to be a massive green ooze weeping insect larvae which needs identification from an entomologist, ...

idBee: Automated Bee Identification from Wing Venation

http://idBee.ece.wisc.edu About 35% of the world's crops and 80% of the world's flowers are pollinated by bees. Recently, honeybees have begun dying off at a...

Use of DNA Analysis in Seafood Species Identification - Seafood ID from ACGT, Inc.mp4

ACGT, Inc. has provided DNA analysis services to scientists at the National Institutes of Health, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, universities, and con...

Geometry-based Insect Wing Morphological Analysis

The identification and description of winged insects often employs features of wing venation, wing shape, and wing colour, banding, and or spot patterns as d...

P2/2 RAPID RITAWeb - Automated Insect Identification using Robotic & Image Analysis

More fully developed system: Demonstration of fulling automated system to handle, identify, count, and physically sort large volumes of insects in support of...

P1/2 RAPID RITAWeb - Automated Insect Identification using Robotics & Image Analysis

Early Stage of Development. Demonstration of fulling automated system to handle, identify, count, and physically sort large volumes of insects in support of ...

Automatic acquisition and integration of Gram slide images with Metafer

In 2013 MetaSystems established contact with Copan, an Italian company manufacturing laboratory products for microbiology and WASP(TM), an automated microbio...

French Automated Microbiology Market 2014 Molecular Diagnostics, Microbial Identification, Antibioti

Complete report is spread across 423 pages is available @ http://www.reportsnreports.com/reports/274760-french-automated-microbiology-market-2014-molecular-d...

229 videos foundNext > 

We're sorry, but there's no news about "Automated species identification" right now.

Loading

Oops, we seem to be having trouble contacting Twitter

Talk About Automated species identification

You can talk about Automated species identification with people all over the world in our discussions.

Support Wikipedia

A portion of the proceeds from advertising on Digplanet goes to supporting Wikipedia. Please add your support for Wikipedia!