ArticleEcology and evolution2015
Genetic fingerprinting proves cross-correlated automatic photo-identification of individuals as highly efficient in large capture-mark-recapture studies.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of different automatic photographic identification software for larvae and adults of the European fire salamander.PloS one · 2024Article
- Comparison of sample types from white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) for DNA extraction and analyses.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Genotyping validates the efficacy of photographic identification in a capture-mark-recapture study based on the head scale patterns of the prairie lizard (Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Testing the applicability of tagging the Great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) using passive integrated transponders.PloS one · 2019Article
- Genotyping validates photo-identification by the head scale pattern in a large population of the European adder (Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Fragile coexistence of a global chytrid pathogen with amphibian populations is mediated by environment and demography.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2017Article
- Comparison of photo-matching algorithms commonly used for photographic capture-recapture studies.Ecology and evolution · 2017Article
- Photographic identification of individuals of a free-ranging, small terrestrial vertebrate.Ecology and evolution · 2016Article
- Article
- Linking habitat suitability to demography in a pond-breeding amphibian.Frontiers in zoology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Capture-mark-recapture (CMR) approaches are the backbone of many studies in population ecology to gain insight on the life cycle, migration, habitat use, and demography of target species. The reliable and repeatable recognition of an individual throughout its lifetime is the basic requirement of a CMR study. Although invasive techniques are available to mark individuals permanently, noninvasive methods for individual recognition mainly rest on photographic identification of external body markings, which are unique at the individual level. The re-identification of an individual based on comparing shape patterns of photographs by eye is commonly used. Automated processes for photographic re-identification have been recently established, but their performance in large datasets (i.e., > 1000 individuals) has rarely been tested thoroughly. Here, we evaluated the performance of the program AMPHIDENT, an automatic algorithm to identify individuals on the basis of ventral spot patterns in the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) versus the genotypic fingerprint of individuals based on highly polymorphic microsatellite loci using GENECAP. Between 2008 and 2010, we captured, sampled and photographed adult newts and calculated for 1648 samples/photographs recapture rates for both approaches. Recapture rates differed slightly with 8.34% for GENECAP and 9.83% for AMPHIDENT. With an estimated rate of 2% false rejections (FRR) and 0.00% false acceptances (FAR), AMPHIDENT proved to be a highly reliable algorithm for CMR studies of large datasets. We conclude that the application of automatic recognition software of individual photographs can be a rather powerful and reliable tool in noninvasive CMR studies for a large number of individuals. Because the cross-correlation of standardized shape patterns is generally applicable to any pattern that provides enough information, this algorithm is capable of becoming a single application with broad use in CMR studies for many species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.