skip to main content
research-article

Design and evaluation of a hybrid sensor network for cane toad monitoring

Published:11 February 2009Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article investigates a wireless acoustic sensor network application—monitoring amphibian populations in the monsoonal woodlands of northern Australia. Our goal is to use automatic recognition of animal vocalizations to census the populations of native frogs and the invasive introduced species, the cane toad. This is a challenging application because it requires high frequency acoustic sampling, complex signal processing, wide area sensing coverage and long-lived unattended operation.

We set up two prototypes of wireless sensor networks that recognize vocalizations of up to ninth frog species found in northern Australia. Our first prototype consists of only resource-rich Stargate devices. Our second prototype is more complex and consists of a hybrid mixture of Stargates and inexpensive, resource-poor Mica2 devices operating in concert. In the hybrid system, the Mica2s are used to collect acoustic samples, and expand the sensor network coverage. The Stargates are used for resource-intensive tasks such as fast Fourier transforms (FFTs) and machine learning.

The hybrid system incorporates four algorithms designed to account for the sampling, processing, energy, and communication bottlenecks of the Mica2s (1) high frequency sampling, (2) thresholding and noise reduction, to reduce data transmission by up to 90%, (3) sampling scheduling, which exploits the sensor network redundancy to increase the effective sample processing rate, and (4) harvesting-aware energy management, which exploits sensor energy harvesting capabilities to extend the system lifetime.

Our evaluation shows the performance of our systems over a range of scenarios, and demonstrate that the feasibility and benefits of a hybrid systems approach justify the additional system complexity.

References

  1. Ammari, H. M. and Das, S. K. 2006. An energy-efficient data dissemination protocol for wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOMW). 357--363. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bhardwaj, M. and Chandrakasan, A. 2002. Bounding the lifetime of sensor networks via optimal role assignments. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the IEEE Communications Society (INFOCOM).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bulusu, N., Heidemann, J., and Estrin, D. 2000. Gps-less low cost outdoor localization for very small devices. IEEE Personal Communications Magazine 7, 5 (October), 28--34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Chellappa, R., Qian, G., and Zheng, Q. 2004. Vehicle detection and tracking using acoustic and video sensors. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng, M. X., Ruan, L., and Wu, W. 2005. Achieving minimum coverage breach under bandwidth constraints in wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the IEEE Communications Society (INFOCOM).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chrysoulakis, N., Prastacos, P., and Cartalis, C. 2004. Estimation and mapping of the spatial distribution of total solar irradiance at heterogeneous surfaces. In Proceedings of the 7th Panhellenic Geographical Conference of the Hellenic Geographical Society. Vol. 1. 66--73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Dam, R. V., Walden, D. J., and Begg, G. W. 2002. A preliminary risk assessment of cane toads in Kakadu National Park. Scientist Report 164, Supervising Science, Darwin NT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Estrin, D., Girod, L., Pottie, G., and 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, Utah.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Girod, L. 2005. A self-calibrating system of distributed acoustic arrays. Ph.D. Thesis, UCLA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Girod, L., Mei, Y., Newton, R., Rost, S., Thiagarajan, A., Balakrishnan, H., and Madden, S. Wavescope: An adaptive wireless sensor network system for high data-rate applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gnawali, O., Jang, K.-Y., Paek, J., Vieira, M., Govindan, R., Greenstein, B., Joki, A., Estrin, D., and Kohler, E. 2006. The tenet architecture for tiered sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor systems (SenSys'06). 153--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Heinzelman, W., Chandrakasan, A., and Balakrishnan, H. 2002. An application-specific protocol architecture for wireless microsensor networks. IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., 660--670. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hou, Y., Shi, Y., and Sherali, H. 2004. Rate aladdress in wireless sensor networks with network lifetime requirement. In Proceedings of the ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHoc). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Hu, W., Bulusu, N., and Jha, S. 2004. A communication paradigm for hybrid sensor/actuator networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC). 201--205.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu, W., Tran, V. N., Bulusu, N., tung Chou, C., Jha, S., and 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). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jiang, X., Polastre, J., and Culler, D. E. 2005. Perpetual environmentally powered sensor networks. In IPSN. 463--468. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kansal, A. and Srivastava, M. B. 2005. An environmental energy harvesting framework for sensor networks. In ISPLED. 481--486. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kar, K., Krishnamurthy, A., and Jaggi, N. 2005. Dynamic node activation in networks of rechargeable sensors. In Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the IEEE Communications Society (INFOCOM).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim, S., Culler, D., and Demmel, J. 2004. Structural health monitoring using wireless sensor networks. Berkeley Deeply Embedded Network System Course Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Krishnamurthy, L., Adler, R., Buonadonna, P., Chhabra, J., Flanigan, M., Kushalnagar, N., Nachman, L., and Yarvis, M. 2005. Design and deployment of industrial sensor networks: experiences from a semiconductor plant and the north sea. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (sensys'05). 64--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Lee, J.-J., Krishnamachari, B., and Kuo, C.-C. J. 2004. Impact of heterogeneous deployment on lifetime sensing coverage in sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference on Sensor and Ad hoc Communications and Networks (SECON).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lever, C. 2001. The Cane Toad. Westbury Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin, K., Yu, J., Hsu, J., Zahedi, S., Lee, D., Friedman, J., Kansal, A., Raghunathan, V., and Srivastava, M. 2005. Heliomote: enabling long-lived sensor networks through solar energy harvesting. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys'05). 309--309. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mechitov, K., Kim, W., Agha, G., and Nagayama, T. 2004. High-frequency distributed sensing for structure monitoring. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Networked Sensing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Meguerdichian, S., Koushanfar, F., Qu, G., and Potkonjak, M. 2001. Exposure in wireless ad-hoc sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom'01). 139--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Mini, R. A. F., Nath, B., and Loureiro, A. 2002. A probabilistic approach to predict the energy consumption in wireless sensor networks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Polastre, J., Szewczyk, R., and Culler, D. 2005. Telos: enabling ultra-low power wireless research. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN'05). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Quinlan, J. R. 1993. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Raghunathan, V., Kansal, A., Hsu, J., Friedman, J., and Srivastava, M. B. 2005. Design considerations for solar energy harvesting wireless embedded systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Processing on Sensor Network (IPSN). 457--462. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Schwiebert, L., Gupta, S. K., and Weinmann, J. 2001. Research challenges in wireless networks of biomedical sensors. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM). 151--165. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Shenck, N. S. and Paradiso, J. A. 2001. Energy scavenging with shoe-mounted piezoelectrics. IEEE Micro 21, 3, 30--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Shukla, S., Bulusu, N., and Jha, S. 2004. Cane toad monitoring in Kakadu National Park using wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Advanced Network Conference (APAN).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh, S., Woo, M., and Raghavendra, C. S. 1998. Power-aware routing in mobile ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. 181--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Srivastava, M., Muntz, R., and Potkonjak, M. 2001. Smart kindergarten: sensor-based wireless networks for smart developmental problem-solving enviroments. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM). 132--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Starner, T. 1996. Human-powered wearable computing. IBM Syst. J. 35, 3/4, 618--629. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Taylor, A., Grigg, G., Watson, G., and McCallum, H. 1996. Monitoring frog communities: An application of machine learning. In Proceedings of the 8th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (AAAI). 1564--1569. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Wang, H., Estrin, D., and Girod, L. 2003. Preprocessing in a tiered sensor network for habitat monitoring. EURASIP JASP Special Issue of Sensor Networks, 392--401. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Werner-Allen, G., Lorincz, K., Johnson, J., Lees, J., and Welsh, M. 2006. Fidelity and yield in a volcano monitoring sensor network. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (USENIX). 27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Xu, Y., Heidemann, J., and Estrin, D. 2001. Geography-informed energy conservation for ad hoc routing. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom). 70--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Ye, W., Heidemann, J., and Estrin, D. 2002. An energy-efficient MAC protocol for wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Inernational Conference on Computer Communication (INFOCOM). 1567--1576.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhao, Y., Govindan, R., and Estrin, D. 2001. Residual energy scans for monitoring wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC). ACM, Rome, Italy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Design and evaluation of a hybrid sensor network for cane toad monitoring

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks
        ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks  Volume 5, Issue 1
        February 2009
        307 pages
        ISSN:1550-4859
        EISSN:1550-4867
        DOI:10.1145/1464420
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2009 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 11 February 2009
        • Accepted: 1 January 2008
        • Revised: 1 July 2007
        • Received: 1 December 2006
        Published in tosn Volume 5, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader