Exploring Ground-Truth Nature Tech & the Future of Biodiversity Monitoring
Imagine a world where cutting-edge technology works hand-in-hand with nature to safeguard our planet's biodiversity. That world is becoming a reality.
As ecosystems face mounting pressures from climate change and human activity, the need for precise, field-verified data is more urgent than ever.
Driven by frameworks like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), which emphasize transparency in environmental impact reporting, the demand for reliable biodiversity data is rapidly increasing. In fact, the biodiversity monitoring tech market is projected to grow by 20.7% annually until 2030.
While satellites and drones provide large-scale monitoring, ground-based solutions such as acoustic sensors, camera traps, and environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling deliver critical on-the-ground insights. By integrating these technologies, organizations can build a more complete and verifiable picture of ecosystems, ensuring conservation and policy decisions are based on accurate, high-confidence data.
Watch the playback
This article is based on insights from an NTC Now session featuring biodiversity monitoring expert Carly Batist, Ph.D. During the session, we examined the evolution of ground-truth monitoring technologies, their integration with remote sensing, the challenges that remain, and the future direction of the field.
For a deeper dive, watch the key highlights from this session below:
What do we mean by ‘ground-truth’ technologies?
Ground-truth technologies are tools that verify and complement data gathered from remote sensing technologies like satellites and drones. While remote sensing provides broad, high-level insights, these ground-based solutions offer detailed, on-the-ground data that provide a more accurate and nuanced understanding of ecosystems.
These tools—such as acoustic sensors for wildlife sounds, camera traps for animal activity, environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling, and manual field surveys—serve as a reliable benchmark for monitoring efforts. Together, ground-truth technologies and remote sensing allow conservationists to fill in gaps, providing a clearer, more complete picture of biodiversity.
The history of ground-truth monitoring
Wildlife monitoring has evolved significantly from its early days:
1930s: The first bioacoustic recorders, developed at Cornell Lab of Ornithology, were so large they had to be transported by wagon.
1900s–1950s: Camera traps emerged, originally using trip-wire mechanisms to trigger flashes on 35mm film.
Today: Compact, AI-enabled recording devices and cloud-based analytics make it possible to track wildlife across vast areas with minimal human intervention.
Interestingly, many of the technologies used in conservation today originated elsewhere: Trail cameras were first popular among hunters, bioacoustic microphones came from the film industry, and drones were initially developed for military applications. Over time, conservationists recognized their potential, repurposing them for biodiversity monitoring.
The nature tech monitoring landscape today
Biodiversity monitoring technology has continued to make significant strides, and today we have a range of powerful tools at our disposal to monitor and protect wildlife and our ecosystems.
Satellites give us a broad, bird’s-eye view of large areas, while drones allow for real-time data collection across diverse, sometimes hard-to-reach environments.
Though not technically ‘on the ground’, drones have become a core part of the groundtruth monitoring toolkit because they offer a unique way to integrate various sensors in hard-to-reach environments.
By attaching cameras, bioacoustic recorders, and even DNA sampling arms to drones, it’s possible to gather a wide range of data from the air from all kinds of terrain. In the Rainforest X Competition, many finalist teams used drones to transport these sensors into forests, effectively setting up mobile “labs” in remote areas.
Image source: Anthropocene Magazine
On-the-ground sensors like camera traps and sound recorders provide detailed insights into wildlife behavior and habitat conditions. One of the most groundbreaking tools to emerge has been environmental DNA (eDNA), which detects genetic traces left by animals and plants, even when they’re not visible. GPS collars and tracking devices also help monitor animal movements, offering crucial data on their behaviors and patterns.
Opportunities for citizen science and democratizing the data collection process are also on the rise, as smartphones make it easy to collect data directly from the natural environment. Mozaic Earth has created a mobile app which enables anyone to capture nature data for vegetation and habitat surveys, no training required.
A deeper exploration of the on-ground monitoring tech stack
The key to effective monitoring is selecting the right combination of tools based on project needs, species behavior, and environmental conditions. Below, we explore some of the most commonly used on-ground nature monitoring technologies, and their limitations:
Environmental DNA (eDNA)
eDNA sampling is a powerful tool for detecting species across the entire tree of life, from fungi and plants to invertebrates and large mammals. By analyzing DNA fragments left in soil, water, or even air, researchers can identify species present in an area without direct observation. This method is especially useful for monitoring elusive or hard-to-spot organisms.
However, eDNA also comes with limitations—it doesn’t reveal when or exactly where a species was present, as DNA can travel through water or persist in the environment for weeks. While excellent for biodiversity assessments, eDNA is best complemented with other methods for precise population monitoring.
Camera traps
Camera traps are widely used to monitor mammals, ground-dwelling birds, and even arboreal species. They provide visual confirmation of species presence and can be used to estimate population densities, particularly for animals with unique markings like big cats or whale sharks.
With time-stamped and geolocated imagery, camera traps offer auditable, long-term data archives. While highly effective, they work best for species that are large enough to trigger motion sensors and may not capture smaller, less active animals.
Bioacoustics
For vocal species like birds, amphibians, and marine mammals, bioacoustics is an essential monitoring tool. Sound recordings can help identify species, track individuals, and even estimate population density. Acoustic sensors can also detect sounds beyond human hearing, such as bat echolocation or deep-sea whale calls.
These recorders, placed in terrestrial or underwater environments, provide continuous, non-invasive data collection. However, bioacoustics is limited to species that produce identifiable sounds and requires AI or expert validation for accurate analysis.
Beyond the basics
Wildlife monitoring extends beyond these core technologies. Drones are increasingly used to deploy multiple sensors, including LiDAR, thermal cameras, and even eDNA samplers, making them a versatile tool for large-scale surveys. Environmental sensors, such as weather stations and soil probes, further enhance ecosystem monitoring by providing data on habitat conditions.
Choosing the right nature monitoring tech: Questions to ask
With so many nature and wildlife monitoring technologies available, it’s tempting to use everything at once. The key to an effective and cost-efficient project is selecting the right tools for your specific goals:
1. What is the goal of the project?
Are you tracking a specific species, establishing biodiversity baselines, or assessing the impact of conservation efforts? The purpose of your study will determine which tools are most effective—camera traps for monitoring large mammals, bioacoustics for vocal species, or environmental DNA (eDNA) for broad biodiversity surveys.
2. What is the spatial scale?
Consider the size of your study area. A single-site study may require fewer sensors, while large landscapes might benefit from drones or remote sensing. Keep in mind that some technologies, like eDNA, work well for broad-scale assessments but may not provide precise location data.
3. What is the temporal scale?
Is this a one-time survey or a long-term monitoring effort? Some tools, like camera traps and acoustic recorders, can be left in the field for extended periods, while others, like eDNA sampling, may require repeated collection over time. Understanding your timeframe helps ensure your chosen tech aligns with your data collection needs.
By focusing on these core questions—goal, spatial scale, and timeframe—you can build a targeted, efficient monitoring approach that maximizes insights while keeping costs and complexity in check.
Nature tech in action: WildMon biodiversity monitoring in Indonesia
Wildmon, in partnership with Planet Indonesia, worked with local Dayak communities to establish no-take zones by monitoring key species impacted by hunting and illegal trade. (A no-take’ zone is a highly protected area where removing or destroying natural or cultural resources is prohibited).
Using a combination of camera traps for land mammals like pangolins and peccaries, bioacoustics for endangered birds like hornbills, and satellite imagery to map habitat conditions, WildMon built a comprehensive picture of wildlife presence and ecosystem health. For a deeper dive, see this case study.
Companies specializing in ground-truth biodiversity monitoring
As ground-truth monitoring technologies gain momentum, several companies and organizations are pioneering innovative solutions that are making a significant impact on biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection:
Okala - Leveraging environmental DNA (eDNA), camera traps, and acoustic sensors, Okala is building a well-sampled research site in Gabon, contributing valuable biodiversity data to support local conservation initiatives.
Biometrio - Specializing in a hybrid approach, Biometrio combines satellite imagery with ground-based technologies, providing holistic insights into ecosystems that can guide better management and restoration strategies
Hula Earth - The company has developed the Biot, a sensor that captures microclimate data, bioacoustics, and other vital environmental variables, offering new ways to monitor ecosystem health and enhance sustainability efforts.
Mozaic Earth - Using AI-powered analytics alongside remote sensing, Mozaic Earth provides real-time biodiversity monitoring and ecosystem insights that are crucial for conservation and sustainability efforts.
Pivotal - Focused on monitoring both positive conservation outcomes and the risks posed by development, Pivotal combines various technologies to assess the impact of protected areas, restoration projects, and even mining operations.
Synature - Leveraging AI-driven analytics and smart bioacoustic monitoring, Synature develops real-time biodiversity assessment technologies to track ecosystem health.
Applied Genomics - Consultancy specialising in the development and delivery of DNA-based solutions to enhance ecological assessments. With proprietary sampling methods designed to maximise eDNA capture and species detection.
Looking forward: challenges & opportunities in the ground-truth monitoring space
This democratization of biodiversity monitoring helps integrate nature into financial decision-making, potentially driving investment in the future. That said, we are only at the beginning of this journey, and there are plenty of opportunities for further growth and innovation within the ground-truth monitoring space:
1. Challenge has shifted from data collection to analytics
While data collection was once the primary bottleneck, the real challenge now lies in data analysis—figuring out how to process, interpret, and effectively apply all the information we are gathering.
2. The central role of AI
AI is playing a pivotal role in addressing the data analysis bottleneck, particularly by automating tasks like species identification from camera trap images and bioacoustic recordings. However, human expertise remains crucial for training and validating AI models.
As AI becomes an increasingly powerful tool in nature monitoring, it’s important to consider whether the carbon footprint of AI-driven conservation efforts might inadvertently harm the very ecosystems they aim to protect.
3. Insect monitoring at scale remains difficult
Insect monitoring remains a significant challenge, due to a historical bias in ecology that has favored birds and mammals over invertebrates. This has influenced the development of technology, leaving a gap in tools for studying insects. However, efforts are underway to bridge this gap, such as the AMI trap.
4. The importance of combining technologies
No single technology can capture an entire ecosystem. For example, remote sensing provides broad aerial insights but can miss critical on-the-ground details, such as "empty forest syndrome," where a forest appears intact from space but lacks biodiversity.
Meanwhile, ground-based monitoring methods like camera traps and acoustic sensors offer rich, localized data but face scalability challenges due to deployment and maintenance demands. Combining remote sensing with ground-based methods, like eDNA and acoustic monitoring, help provide a fuller picture of biodiversity, as seen in initiatives like Project Centinella.
5. Technology can’t replace human collaboration
As we look to the future, the fusion of technology and human expertise will not just advance conservation efforts; it will redefine them. However, this transformation hinges on trust, trust between a diverse range of stakeholders, from technology developers and conservationists to project developers, investors, and local communities. Effective collaboration among these groups is crucial to ensure that technology serves as a tool for empowerment, not a replacement for traditional knowledge. Building strong partnerships across sectors will be key.
Ultimately, the future of our ecosystems lies in the collective efforts of innovators, investors, and community leaders working hand-in-hand - leveraging the strengths of both human ingenuity and digital tools to monitor, protect, and restore nature for generations to come.
