Lightweight deep learning model for real-time acoustic bird pest detection on edge microcontrollers


Abstract

Agricultural pest management in resource-limited regions faces significant challenges from avian pests like Quelea species, which cause substantial grain crop losses. Yet current management relies mainly on labor-intensive manual monitoring, as the existing automated monitoring solutions remain prohibitively expensive. Acoustic monitoring on affordable microcontrollers offers a low-cost, viable solution for automating avian pest detection in smallholder farms across low-income countries. This paper presents Enhanced MicroDSC (Microcontroller Depthwise Separable Convolution), an optimized depthwise separable convolution architecture for acoustic pest bird detection on low-cost microcontrollers. Audio data used to train the model were collected across three regions of Rwanda (Bugesera, Busogo, and Nyagatare) from grain crop farms cultivating maize, wheat, and rice. Recording sessions captured natural behavioral contexts across varied environmental conditions, seasons, and times of day to ensure representative real acoustic complexity and diversity. A dataset comprising 9,970 audio samples (1.5–5 seconds duration) representing 11 classes—eight pest species, two beneficial species, and one non-bird category—was constructed. The mel-frequency energy (MFE) feature was extracted and fed into the compared machine learning models. Rigorous evaluation of Enhanced MicroDSC across 10 independent training runs demonstrated the performance of 97.4% ± 2.3% accuracy, 97.5% ± 2.3% precision, 97.4% ± 2.3% recall, and 97.4% ± 1.5% F1-score. The model comprises 7,483 parameters, representing 97.6% and 99.9% reductions compared to standard DSC and traditional CNN architectures, respectively, and 494× fewer parameters than state-of-the-art models such as YAMNet (3.7M parameters). Practical feasibility was validated through deployment on a Seeed XIAO ESP32S3 microcontroller, demonstrating real-time inference capability with minimal resources. The proposed system offers an economically viable solution for automated pest detection in smallholder grain crop production systems, where avian pests pose critical threats to food security.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].