Genetic fingerprinting proves cross-correlated automatic photo-identification of individuals as highly efficient in large capture–mark–recapture studies

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.

[1]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Modeling Survival and Testing Biological Hypotheses Using Marked Animals: A Unified Approach with Case Studies , 1992 .

[2]  R. D. Clarke,et al.  The Effect of Toe Clipping on Survival in Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhousei fowleri) , 1972 .

[3]  K. Andrews,et al.  PIT Tagging: Simple Technology at Its Best , 2004 .

[4]  T. Morrison,et al.  Computer-Assisted Photo Identification Outperforms Visible Implant Elastomers in an Endangered Salamander, Eurycea tonkawae , 2013, PloS one.

[5]  T. Burke,et al.  Microsatellite loci in the crested newt (Triturus cristatus) and their utility in other newt taxa , 2002, Conservation Genetics.

[6]  K. Ayres,et al.  api‐calc 1.0: a computer program for calculating the average probability of identity allowing for substructure, inbreeding and the presence of close relatives , 2004 .

[7]  S. Puechmaille,et al.  Empirical evaluation of non‐invasive capture–mark–recapture estimation of population size based on a single sampling session , 2007 .

[8]  David Paetkau,et al.  Genetic tagging of free-ranging black and brown bears , 1999 .

[9]  N. Morton,et al.  Hardy–Weinberg quality control , 1999, Annals of human genetics.

[10]  M. Vences,et al.  Evidence for recent gene flow between north-eastern and south-eastern Madagascan poison frogs from a phylogeography of the Mantella cowani group , 2007, Frontiers in Zoology.

[11]  J. Foster,et al.  The Crested Newt. A Dwindling Pond-Dweller , 2013 .

[12]  S. Ravela,et al.  Multi‐scale features for identifying individuals in large biological databases: an application of pattern recognition technology to the marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum , 2007 .

[13]  Hany Farid,et al.  A computer‐assisted system for photographic mark–recapture analysis , 2012 .

[14]  C. Bradshaw,et al.  Spot the match – wildlife photo-identification using information theory , 2007, Frontiers in Zoology.

[15]  Michael A. McCarthy,et al.  Clarifying the effect of toe clipping on frogs with Bayesian statistics , 2004 .

[16]  L. Brown.  An Evaluation of Some Marking and Trapping Techniques Currently Used in the Study of Anuran Population Dynamics , 1997 .

[17]  D. Pearse,et al.  A genetic analogue of ‘mark–recapture’ methods for estimating population size: an approach based on molecular parentage assessments , 2001, Molecular ecology.

[18]  D. P. A E T K A U,et al.  An empirical exploration of data quality in DNA-based population inventories , 2003 .

[19]  D. Paetkau,et al.  THE OPTIMAL NUMBER OF MARKERS IN GENETIC CAPTURE–MARK–RECAPTURE STUDIES , 2004 .

[20]  Anil K. Jain.  Technology: Biometric recognition , 2007, Nature.

[21]  R. Alford,et al.  Evaluation of the photographic identification method (PIM) as a tool to identify adult Litoria Genimaculata (anura: hylidae) , 2009 .

[22]  G LoweDavid,et al.  Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints , 2004 .

[23]  Gilbert Proulx,et al.  Trapping and marking terrestrial mammals for research: integrating ethics, performance criteria, techniques, and common sense. , 2003, ILAR journal.

[24]  Daniel Ortmann,et al.  Ortmann's funnel trap - a highly efficient tool for monitoring amphibian species , 2010 .

[25]  R. Sacchi,et al.  Photographic identification in reptiles: a matter of scales , 2010 .

[26]  Zaven Arzoumanian,et al.  An astronomical pattern-matching algorithm for computer-aided identification of whale sharks Rhincodon typus , 2005 .

[27]  P. Lukacs,et al.  Review of capture–recapture methods applicable to noninvasive genetic sampling , 2005, Molecular ecology.

[28]  J. Arntzen,et al.  MARKING AND TISSUE SAMPLING EFFECTS ON BODY CONDITION AND SURVIVAL IN THE NEWT TRITURUS CRISTATUS , 1999 .

[29]  KEVIN S. MCKELVEY,et al.  GENETIC ERRORS ASSOCIATED WITH POPULATION ESTIMATION USING NON-INVASIVE MOLECULAR TAGGING: PROBLEMS AND NEW SOLUTIONS , 2004 .

[30]  D. Woodruff,et al.  Estimating population sizes for elusive animals: the forest elephants of Kakum National Park, Ghana , 2003, Molecular ecology.

[31]  R. A. Reijns,et al.  A computer‐aided program for pattern‐matching of natural marks on the spotted raggedtooth shark Carcharias taurus , 2007 .

[32]  O. Rupp,et al.  What remains from a 454 run: estimation of success rates of microsatellite loci development in selected newt species (Calotriton asper, Lissotriton helveticus, and Triturus cristatus) and comparison with Illumina-based approaches , 2013, Ecology and evolution.

[33]  Richard Speare,et al.  Toe-clipping as an acceptable method of identifying individual anurans in mark recapture studies , 2007 .

[34]  T. Hagstrom.  Identification of newt specimens (Urodela, Triturus) by recording the belly pattern and a description of photographic equipment for such registrations , 1973 .

[35]  Brian P. Dreher,et al.  genecap: a program for analysis of multilocus genotype data for non‐invasive sampling and capture‐recapture population estimation , 2004 .

[36]  DOC SCIENCE INTERNAL SERIES 151 , 2022 .

[37]  Shiguang Shan,et al.  Biometric Recognition - 9th Chinese Conference, CCBR 2014, Shenyang, China, November 7-9, 2014. Proceedings , 2014, CCBR.

[38]  Mathieu Denoël,et al.  The use of visual and automatized behavioral markers to assess methodologies: a study case on PIT-tagging in the Alpine newt , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[39]  Nathaniel Valière.  gimlet: a computer program for analysing genetic individual identification data , 2002 .