Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33391358›Full record

ArticleCurrent zoology2020

A comparison of animal color measurements using a commercially available digital color sensor and photograph analysis.

Alex D Potash, Daniel U Greene, Gabrielle A Foursa, Verity L Mathis, L Mike Conner, Robert A McCleery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current zoology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alex D PotashDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6343-9390
Daniel U GreeneWeyerhaeuser Company, Environmental Research South, Columbus, MS 39701, USA.
Gabrielle A FoursaDepartment of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Verity L MathisFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
L Mike ConnerThe Jones Center at Ichauway, Newton, GA 39870, USA.
Robert A McCleeryDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An animal's pelage, feather, or skin color can serve a variety of functions, so it is important to have multiple standardized methods for measuring color. One of the most common and reliable methods for measuring animal coloration is the use of standardized digital photographs of animals. New technology in the form of a commercially available handheld digital color sensor could provide an alternative to photography-based animal color measurements. To determine whether a digital color sensor could be used to measure animal coloration, we tested the ability of a digital color sensor to measure coloration of mammalian, avian, and lepidopteran museums specimens. We compared results from the sensor to measurements taken using traditional photography methods. Our study yielded significant differences between photography-based and digital color sensor measurements of brightness (light to dark) and colors along the green to red spectrum. There was no difference between photographs and the digital color sensor measurements for colors along the blue to yellow spectrum. The average difference in recorded color (ΔE) by the 2 methods was above the threshold at which humans can perceive a difference. There were significant correlations between the sensor and photographs for all measurements indicating that the sensor is an effective animal coloration measuring tool. However, the sensor's small aperture and narrow light spectrum range designed for human-vision limit its value for ecological research. We discuss the conditions in which a digital color sensor can be an effective tool for measuring animal coloration in both laboratory settings and in the field.

Indexed as

animal colorationcolor measurementcomparative methoddigital photographymuseum specimensNix color sensor

Identifiers

PMID33391358
PMCPMC7769579

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.