Cane Toad Monitoring: Data Reduction in a High Rate Application

  • Wen Hu
  • Nirupama Bulusu
  • Thanh Dang
  • Andrew Taylor
  • Chun Tung Chou
  • Sanjay Jha
  • Van Nghia Tran
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter describes our experiences developing wireless, acoustic sensor network systems for a high rate sensing application: monitoring amphibian populations in northern Australia. Our goal was to use automatic recognition of animal vocalizations to census the populations of native frogs and an invasive introduced species, the Cane Toad. This application falls within the large class of detection and classification applications based on acoustic signals, which also includes condition-based maintenance, vehicle classification, and in particular monitoring birds and animals. As most applications in this class, amphibian monitoring is challenging because it requires high frequency acoustic sampling (10kHz), complex signal processing and calls for low cost and long-lived unattended system operation in a challenging environment, characterized by significant environment noise as well as flooding, extreme heat and humidity and occasional forest fires. These design and deployment challenges were addressed over several phases. An initial system addressed the challenges of weather-proof, unattended operation. Our second system focused on miniaturization and driving down system costs. Our final system enabled fast in-network frog classification at the motes themselves using compressed sensing. Our experience shows that compressed sensing works in practice and can be a powerful tool in developing and implementing not only cane toad monitoring applications, but other high rate sensing applications.

Wireless sensor networks Acoustic sensing High rate Hybrid architecture Machine learning Lightweight classification Compressive sensing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ali AM, Yao K, Collier TC, Taylor CE, Blumstein DT, Girod L (2007) An empirical study of collaborative acoustic source localization. In: IPSN ’07: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Information processing in sensor networks, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 41–50, DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1236360.1236367
  2. 2.
    Allen M, Girod L, Newton R, Madden S, Blumstein DT, Estrin D (2008) Voxnet: An interactive, rapidly-deployable acoustic monitoring platform. In: IPSN ’08: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Information processing in sensor networks, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 371–382, DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IPSN.2008.45
  3. 3.
    Anonymous (2008) The pleb project. http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au/hardware/pleb/
  4. 4.
    Boyle F, Haupt J, Fudge G, Nowak R (2007) Detecting signal structure from randomly-sampled data. In: Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing (SSP), Madison, Wisconsin, pp 326–330Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Candes E, Romberg JK, Tao T (2006) Robust uncertainty principles: exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 52(2):489–509CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crossbow Technology Inc (2010) http://www.xbow.com
  7. 7.
    van Dam RA, Walden DJ, Begg GW (2002) A preliminary risk assessment of cane toads in kakadu national park. Scientist Report 164, Supervising Science, Darwin NT, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dang T, Bulusu N, Hu W (2008) Lightweight acoustic classification for cane-toad monitoring. In: Proc. 42nd Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers, CA, USA, pp 1601–1605, DOI 10.1109/ACSSC.2008.5074693Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davenport M, Duarte M, Wakin M, Laska J, Takhar D, Kelly K, Baraniuk R (2007) The smashed filter for compressive classification and target recognition. In: Proceedings of Computational Imaging V at SPIE Electronic Imaging, San Jose, California, pp 326–330Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Estrin D, Girod L, Pottie G, Srivastava M (2001) Instrumenting the world with wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Salt Lake City, UtahGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Girod L (2005) A self-calibrating system of distributed acoustic arrays. PhD Thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Girod L, Jamieson K, Mei Y, Newton R, Rost S, Thiagarajan A, Balakrishnan H, Madden S (2006) Wavescope: a signal-oriented data stream management system. In: SenSys ’06: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 421–422, DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1182807.1182886
  13. 13.
    Gnawali O, Jang KY, Paek J, Vieira M, Govindan R, Greenstein B, Joki A, Estrin D, Kohler E (2006) The tenet architecture for tiered sensor networks. In: SenSys ’06: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 153–166, DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1182807.1182823
  14. 14.
    Greenstein B, Mar C, Pesterev A, Farshchi S, Kohler E, Judy J, Estrin D (2006) Capturing high-frequency phenomena using a bandwidth-limited sensor network. In: SenSys ’06: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 279–292, DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1182807.1182835
  15. 15.
    Hill J, Szewczyk R, Woo A, Hollar S, Culler DE, Pister KSJ (2000) System architecture directions for networked sensors. In: Proc. 9th Intl. Conf. on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Boston, MA, USA, pp 93–104Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hu W, Tran VN, Bulusu N, tung Chou C, Jha S, Taylor A (2005) The design and evaluation of a hybrid sensor network for cane-toad monitoring. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN/SPOTS), Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hu W, Bulusu N, Chou CT, Jha S, Taylor A, Tran VN (2009) Design and evaluation of a hybrid sensor network for cane toad monitoring. ACM Trans Sen Netw 5(1):1–28, DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1464420.1464424 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim S, Culler D, Demmel J (2004) Structural health monitoring using wireless sensor networks. Berkeley Deeply Embedded Network System Course ReportGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krishnamurthy L, Adler R, Buonadonna P, Chhabra J, Flanigan M, Kushalnagar N, Nachman L, Yarvis M (2005) Design and deployment of industrial sensor networks: experiences from a semiconductor plant and the north sea. In: SenSys ’05: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 64–75, DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1098918.1098926
  20. 20.
    Lever C (2001) The Cane Toad. Westbury Publishing, West YorkshireGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin K, Yu J, Hsu J, Zahedi S, Lee D, Friedman J, Kansal A, Raghunathan V, Srivastava M (2005) Heliomote: enabling long-lived sensor networks through solar energy harvesting. In: SenSys ’05: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 309–309, DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1098918.1098974
  22. 22.
    Luo L, Cao Q, Huang C, Wang L, Abdelzaher TF, Stankovic JA, Ward M (2009) Design, implementation, and evaluation of enviromic: A storage-centric audio sensor network. ACM Trans Sen Netw 5(3):1–35, DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1525856.1525860 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mainwaring A, Culler D, Polastre J, Szewczyk R, Anderson J (2002) Wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring. In: WSNA ’02: Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Wireless sensor networks and applications, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 88–97, DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/570738.570751
  24. 24.
    Mechitov K, Kim W, Agha G, Nagayama T (2004) High-frequency distributed sensing for structure monitoring. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Networked Sensing Systems, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Quinlan JR (1993) C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann Inc., San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schwiebert L, Gupta SK, Weinmann J (2001) Research challenges in wireless networks of biomedical sensors. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, ACM, Rome, Italy, pp 151–165, DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/381677.381692
  27. 27.
    Srivastava M, Muntz R, Potkonjak M (2001) Smart kindergarten: sensor-based wireless networks for smart developmental problem-solving enviroments. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, ACM, Rome, Italy, pp 132–138, DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/381677.381690
  28. 28.
    Szewczyk R, Osterweil E, Polastre J, Hamilton M, Mainwaring A, Estrin D (2004) Habitat monitoring with sensor networks. Commun ACM 47(6):34–40, DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/990680.990704 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taylor A, Grigg G, Watson G, McCallum H (1996) Monitoring frog communities: an application of machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 8th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, AAAI, Menlo Park, CA, USA, pp 1564–1569Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang H, Estrin D, Girod L (2003) Preprocessing in a tiered sensor network for habitat monitoring. EURASIP JASP (special issue of sensor networks) 4:392–401Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Werner-Allen G, Lorincz K, Ruiz M, Marcillo O, Johnson J, Lees J, Welsh M (2006) Deploying a wireless sensor network on an active volcano. IEEE Internet Comput. (Special Sensor Nets Issue) 10(2):18–25Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wen Hu
    • 1
  • Nirupama Bulusu
  • Thanh Dang
  • Andrew Taylor
  • Chun Tung Chou
  • Sanjay Jha
  • Van Nghia Tran
  1. 1.CSIROBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations