Skip to content

Combining Sound Recorders and Camera Traps Increased Feral Pig Detection

Wild boars and piglets in a camera-trap frame from Poland
Research · Other research

A year-long monitoring study in northern Australia found that passive acoustic recorders and camera traps detected feral pigs (Sus scrofa) at different times and under different conditions. Because there was little overlap between sound and image detections, combining the two methods produced the highest modelled detection probability in every season.

The researchers trained a custom BirdNET recogniser to identify pig sounds automatically and compared those detections with manually reviewed camera-trap images. No recogniser version was simultaneously strong at finding pig vocalisations and avoiding false detections, so the authors note that the acoustic recogniser still needs improvement for uses such as real-time alerts. Detection nevertheless varied clearly through the annual cycle. Acoustic monitoring outperformed cameras in most seasons, including the Late Dry. Camera traps performed better in the Late Wet.

Weather affected sound and camera detections differently

Temperature and rainfall also affected the two methods differently. Higher temperatures increased the modelled detection probability for cameras, while acoustic detection probability was highest at intermediate temperatures. Moderate weekly rainfall was associated with a higher modelled detection probability in image data but a lower one in sound data. Combining the two data streams reduced the weakness of relying on either method alone.

Sound and cameras provided complementary information

The study shows that the detectability of feral pigs changes with season and environmental conditions, and that autonomous sound and image sensors provide complementary information rather than interchangeable records. The authors conclude that multi-sensor monitoring can improve information available for invasive-pig management, while the most useful sensor combination will depend on local conditions.

Sources and image credit

  1. Scarpelli, M. D. A., Macdonald, S., Golchin, M., Linke, S., & Froese, J. G. (2026). Monitoring feral pigs (Sus scrofa): Complementarity between autonomous sensing methods increases detection probability. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 12(4), 673–689. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.70062Primary peer-reviewed research article first published 24 February 2026. A year of passive acoustic and camera-trap monitoring at Yourka in North Queensland was analysed with multi-season occupancy models. The two methods had little spatio-temporal overlap; combined detections produced the highest modelled detection probability in every season, while sound generally outperformed cameras except during the Late Wet season.

Image: Dariusz Kowalczyk (Darekk2) — wild boars and piglets (Sus scrofa), camera-trap frame from Czarna Struga near Warsaw, Poland, 26 March 2025; representative image, not from the Australian study. Source: Wikimedia Commons. · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Source

About this content: This story was produced with AI assistance within an editorial workflow developed by Wildlife Vagabond. Editorial responsibility remains with Wildlife Vagabond.How AI is used

Other research

SPECIES IN THIS STORY

Species in this story

Wild Boar Sus scrofa Explore species

Independent research and conservation news archive

Did you find this information useful?

Wildlife Vagabond is independently built and maintained. Voluntary support helps cover source verification, hosting and continued work on research and conservation news.

Support Wildlife Vagabond

The news archive will remain freely available.