Individual Identification of the Endangered Wyoming Toad<i>Anaxyrus baxteri</i>and Implications for Monitoring Species Recovery

Morrison, Thomas A.; Keinath, Douglas A.; Estes‐Zumpf, Wendy A.; Crall, Jonathan; Stewart, Charles

doi:10.1670/14-155

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wild‐ID has also been previously used to match images of the Wyoming Toad ( Anaxyrus baxteri ) with the authors reporting a recognition rate of approximately 53%, even with a small database size (Morrison et al., ). Hence, the performance of Wild‐ID based on our research and previous research performance of Wild‐ID can significantly differ between databases and a thorough evaluation of recognition rate is important prior to matching a complete image database with Wild‐ID.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, even relatively low FRRs have been found to bias estimates of vital rates and population size (Morrison et al., , ; Winiarski & McGarigal, ). For example, Morrison et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Morrison et al. () reported a 200% positively biased population size with a FRR of 21.3%. Statistical approaches have been developed to incorporate false rejection error (FRE) with CR data (Givens et al., ; Hiby et al., ; Morrison et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These methods are typically not fully automated and require the user to evaluate a number of top ranked matches (e.g., 10 or 20 images) based on a similarity score the algorithm calculates for all unique pairs of images (Crall, Stewart, Berger‐Wolf, Rubenstein, & Sundaresan, ; Morrison, Yoshizaki, Nichols, & Bolger, ). Several recent studies have evaluated the performance and effectiveness of available photo‐matching algorithms, but they are typically restricted to a single matching algorithm and image database [although see Morrison, Keinath, Estes‐Zumpf, Crall, and Stewart ()]. For a researcher to understand the limitations of different photo‐matching algorithms—and to be able to choose the best algorithm for the required purpose, a comparison of multiple photo‐matching algorithms and diverse databases is necessary.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of photo‐matching algorithms commonly used for photographic capture–recapture studies

Matthé

Sannolo

Winiarski

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Photographic capture–recapture is a valuable tool for obtaining demographic information on wildlife populations due to its noninvasive nature and cost‐effectiveness. Recently, several computer‐aided photo‐matching algorithms have been developed to more efficiently match images of unique individuals in databases with thousands of images. However, the identification accuracy of these algorithms can severely bias estimates of vital rates and population size. Therefore, it is important to understand the performance and limitations of state‐of‐the‐art photo‐matching algorithms prior to implementation in capture–recapture studies involving possibly thousands of images. Here, we compared the performance of four photo‐matching algorithms; Wild‐ID, I3S Pattern+, APHIS, and AmphIdent using multiple amphibian databases of varying image quality. We measured the performance of each algorithm and evaluated the performance in relation to database size and the number of matching images in the database. We found that algorithm performance differed greatly by algorithm and image database, with recognition rates ranging from 100% to 22.6% when limiting the review to the 10 highest ranking images. We found that recognition rate degraded marginally with increased database size and could be improved considerably with a higher number of matching images in the database. In our study, the pixel‐based algorithm of AmphIdent exhibited superior recognition rates compared to the other approaches. We recommend carefully evaluating algorithm performance prior to using it to match a complete database. By choosing a suitable matching algorithm, databases of sizes that are unfeasible to match “by eye” can be easily translated to accurate individual capture histories necessary for robust demographic estimates.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, even relatively low FRRs have been found to bias estimates of vital rates and population size (Morrison et al., , ; Winiarski & McGarigal, ). For example, Morrison et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of photo‐matching algorithms commonly used for photographic capture–recapture studies

Matthé

Sannolo

Winiarski

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Amphibians possess a diverse range of color pattern and body markings (Hoffman and Blouin 2000) that can be used for individual identification (Heyer et al 1993). For example, natural color patterns were recently used for the individual identification of amphibians such as Leiopelma archeyi (Bradfield 2004), Melanophryniscus cambaraensis (Caorsi et al 2012), Anaxyrus baxteri (Morrison et al 2016), Salamandrina perspicillata (Romiti et al 2017) and Triturus dobrogicus (Naumov and Lukanov 2018), where the individuals were physically captured and handled for documenting their unique patterns. Our study, however, differs from others because we did not handle any frog and merely remotely photographed them in the natural habitat.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shot the spots: A reliable field method for individual identification of Amolops formosus (Anura, Ranidae)

Patel¹,

Das²

2020

Herpetozoa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural body patterns in amphibians are widely used for individual recognition. In this study, we photographed individuals of Amolops formosus for four days of sampling without handling them. We processed 301 photographs of dorsal blotch pattern in HotSpotter software and verified them visually for confirmation. We identified 160 unique individuals of A. formosus based on the images taken in the field, resulting in an abundance estimate of 180 individuals. The success rate in identifying individuals of A. formosus using the HotSpotter software was 94.3%. We tested the effect of image quality and distance on recognition efficiency. Poor image quality reduced the recognition efficiency of the software but with a careful user review it was possible to identify the individual. The difference between using only the software and software plus human confirmation was very small. This protocol is useful for rapid population estimation of frogs with natural body patterns.

show abstract

Optimizing the automated recognition of individual animals to support population monitoring

Lorm

Horswill

Rabaiotti

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Individual Identification of the Endangered Wyoming ToadAnaxyrus baxteriand Implications for Monitoring Species Recovery

Cited by 23 publications

References 14 publications

Comparison of photo‐matching algorithms commonly used for photographic capture–recapture studies

Comparison of photo‐matching algorithms commonly used for photographic capture–recapture studies

Shot the spots: A reliable field method for individual identification of Amolops formosus (Anura, Ranidae)

Optimizing the automated recognition of individual animals to support population monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About