COMPUTER-AIDED PHOTOGRAPH MATCHING IN STUDIES USING INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFICATION: AN EXAMPLE FROM SERENGETI CHEETAHS

Abstract Photographic identification of naturally marked animals is a powerful and nonintrusive technique for obtaining information on behavior, population size, and life-history parameters in wild populations. Yet handling large quantities of photographs is time consuming and prone to error. Computer-aided matching can limit the number of photographs that must be examined visually to confirm that 2 sightings are the same individual. To identify individuals, I used a 3-dimensional (3-D) computer-matching system to aid in matching nearly 10,000 photographs of Serengeti cheetahs, Acinonyx jubatus, taken over 25 years. Accuracy in matching 2 photographs increased to 100% as the computer-generated similarity coefficient increased to 0.600 on a scale from 0 to 1. Probability of missing a match decreased to 6.4% when I used a threshold of similarity of 0.450. Poor quality of photographs decreased accuracy and resulted in up to 33% of matches being missed. Comparisons of photographs at skewed camera angles generally reduced similarity coefficients. Similarity coefficients were no higher for related or unrelated animals, suggesting that the technique is not appropriate for distinguishing subtle similarities. Because 3-D computer-aided matching does not require familiarity with distinctive features of the particular study animal, it is robust to matcher inexperience. This technique can be modified for other species that have complex and variable pelage patterns.

[1]  V. Gelder,et al.  The Serengeti Lion , 1973 .

[2]  Mark A. Hindell,et al.  The effects of flipper bands on adult survival rate and reproduction in the Royal Penguin , 2008 .

[3]  J. C. Briand Petersen,et al.  An identification system for zebra (Equus burchelli, Gray) , 1972 .

[4]  T. Caro,et al.  Use of Quantitative Analyses of Pelage Characteristics to Reveal Family Resemblances in Genetically Monomorphic Cheetahs , 1991 .

[5]  T. Caro Cheetahs of the Serengeti Plains: Group Living in an Asocial Species , 1994 .

[6]  Innes Cuthill,et al.  Field experiments in animal behaviour: methods and ethics , 1991, Animal Behaviour.

[7]  J. B. Foster THE GIRAFFE OF NAIROBI NATIONAL PARK: HOME RANGE, SEX RATIOS, THE HERD, AND FOOD , 1966 .

[8]  I. Douglas‐Hamilton,et al.  On the ecology and behaviour of the Lake Manyara elephants , 1973 .

[9]  B. Slough,et al.  A COMPARISON OF THREE LIVE CAPTURING DEVICES FOR LYNX: CAPTURE EFFICIENCY AND INJURIES , 1994 .

[10]  J. Goodall The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior , 1986 .

[11]  Helias A. Udo de Haes,et al.  IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL SPERM WHALES BY WAVELET TRANSFORM OF THE TRAILING EDGE OF THE FLUKES , 1998 .

[12]  K. Lorenz The Companion in the Bird's World , 1937 .

[13]  Hal Whitehead,et al.  AN ASSESSMENT OF CHANGES WITH TIME IN THE MARKING PATTERNS USED FOR PHOTOIDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL SPERM WHALES, PHYSETER MACROCEPHALUS , 1995 .

[14]  Lucia F. Jacobs,et al.  Sexually differentiated effects of radio transmitters on predation risk and behaviour in kangaroo rats Dipodomys merriami , 1992, Canadian Journal of Zoology.

[15]  D. Scott Identification of individual Bewick’s swans by bill patterns , 1978 .

[16]  Marcella J. Kelly,et al.  Lineage Loss in Serengeti Cheetahs: Consequences of High Reproductive Variance and Heritability of Fitness on Effective Population Size , 2001 .

[17]  Marcella J. Kelly,et al.  Demography of the Serengeti cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) population: the first 25 years , 1998 .

[18]  Marcella J. Kelly,et al.  Viability of the Serengeti Cheetah Population , 2000 .

[19]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research , 1969 .

[20]  N. Nur,et al.  LIFETIME REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS IN BIRDS , 1991 .

[21]  M. J. Delany Introduction: marking animals for research , 1978 .