ArticlePloS one2024
Performance of different automatic photographic identification software for larvae and adults of the European fire salamander.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Large Lizard in a Small Islet: Abundance, Body Growth, and Diet ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Individual identification of bony fishes using unique body markings: Implications and applications.Journal of fish biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For many species, population sizes are unknown despite their importance for conservation. For population size estimation, capture-mark-recapture (CMR) studies are often used, which include the necessity to identify each individual, mostly through individual markings or genetic characters. Invasive marking techniques, however, can negatively affect the individual fitness. Alternatives are low-impact techniques such as the use of photos for individual identification, for species with stable distinctive phenotypic traits. For the individual identification of photos, a variety of different software, with different requirements, is available. The European fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) is a species in which individuals, both at the larval stage and as adults, have individual specific patterns that allow for individual identification. In this study, we compared the performance of five different software for the use of photographic identification for the European fire salamander: Amphibian & Reptile Wildbook (ARW), AmphIdent, I3S pattern+, ManderMatcher and Wild-ID. While adults can be identified by all five software, European fire salamander larvae can currently only be identified by two of the five (ARW and Wild-ID). We used one dataset of European fire salamander larval pictures taken in the laboratory and tested this dataset in two of the five software (ARW and Wild-ID). We used another dataset of European fire salamander adult pictures taken in the field and tested this using all five software. We compared the requirements of all software on the pictures used and calculated the False Rejection Rate (FRR) and the Recognition Rate (RR). For the larval dataset (421 pictures) we found that the ARW and Wild-ID performed equally well for individual identification (99.6% and 100% Recognition Rate, respectively). For the adult dataset (377 pictures), we found the best False Rejection Rate in ManderMatcher and the highest Recognition Rate in the ARW. Additionally, the ARW is the only program that requires no image pre-processing. In times of amphibian declines, non-invasive photo identification software allowing capture-mark-recapture studies help to gain knowledge on population sizes, distribution, movement and demography of a population and can thus help to support species conservation.
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.