Pre‐screening acoustic and other natural signatures for use in noninvasive individual identification

Summary 1. Common ecological tasks, such as wildlife monitoring, adaptive management, and behavioural study, often make use of natural signatures (e.g. animal calls or visual markings) to identify individual animals noninvasively. However, there is no accepted method for pre-screening candidate natural signatures to select which signatures are the best-suited for this purpose. In this paper, we suggest a pre-screening checklist and focus on the challenge of assessing a candidate signature’s individuality. 2. Individuality is critical, as the use of low-individuality natural signatures can lead to misidentification of individuals and therefore bias estimation of population parameters and population response to management actions. An information-based metric of individuality could assist researchers with selecting suitable signatures by allowing comparison among candidate signatures and providing an estimate of how many individuals may be reliably discriminated using a particular signature. 3. Before an individuality metric can be used to pre-screen natural signatures, the metric must first be calculated from preliminary sampling and must be robust to typical sampling concerns. We used field-collected animal vocalizations as well as simulations to test how robust the metric is to variation in sampling design. 4. We found that the metric is fairly robust to the number of animals sampled and the number of sessions (e.g. calling bouts) analysed, but that it is sensitive to the number of observations per session. 5. Synthesis and applications. Managers and researchers could save time and energy and improve the accuracy of estimates (such as abundance, survival, or population response) based on individual identification by first pre-screening candidate natural signatures for their individuality. As long as the number of observations per session is controlled, the relative values of the individuality metric can be meaningfully compared. The metric can thus be used as a tool to estimate relative individuality and so facilitates a difficult step in choosing a natural signature for noninvasive individual identification. We include instructions on how to calculate and interpret the individuality metric.

[1]  R. Sacchi,et al.  Turnover of territorial Scops Owls Otus scops as estimated by spectrographic analyses of male hoots , 2001 .

[2]  S. Creel,et al.  Population size estimation in Yellowstone wolves with error‐prone noninvasive microsatellite genotypes , 2003, Molecular ecology.

[3]  C. Pennycuick,et al.  A method of identifying individual lions Panthera leo with an analysis of the reliability of identification , 2009 .

[4]  C. J. Pennycuick,et al.  Identification using natural markings , 1978 .

[5]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[6]  Graeme Caughley,et al.  Wildlife Ecology and Management , 1994 .

[7]  K. Armitage,et al.  Life history consequences of social complexity a comparative study of ground-dwelling sciurids , 1998 .

[8]  P. Taberlet,et al.  How to track and assess genotyping errors in population genetics studies , 2004, Molecular ecology.

[9]  Randall W. Davis,et al.  Photo-Identification of Sea Otters Using Nose Scars , 2007 .

[10]  G. Wilkinson.  12. Social and Vocal Complexity in Bats , 2003 .

[11]  Roger Mundry,et al.  Discriminant function analysis with nonindependent data: consequences and an alternative , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[12]  I. Charrier,et al.  Potential for individual recognition in acoustic signals: a comparative study of two gulls with different nesting patterns. , 2003, Comptes rendus biologies.

[13]  Gordon Luikart,et al.  Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[14]  S. Harris,et al.  Allelic dropout from a high-quality DNA source , 2007, Conservation Genetics.

[15]  Melissa J. Reynolds-Hogland,et al.  An Evaluation of Long-term Capture Effects in Ursids: Implications for Wildlife Welfare and Research , 2008 .

[16]  Peter K. McGregor,et al.  Discrimination of individually characteristic electric organ discharges by a weakly electric fish , 1992, Animal Behaviour.

[17]  D. Blumstein,et al.  Individual, age and sex-specific information is contained in yellow-bellied marmot alarm calls , 2005, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  Ken W. Smith,et al.  Individuality in Corncrake Crex crex vocalizations , 2008 .

[19]  K. Nekaris,et al.  Vocalizations as a conservation tool: an auditory survey of the Andean titi monkey Callicebus oenanthe Thomas, 1924 (Mammalia: Primates: Pitheciidae) at Tarangue, Northern Peru , 2008 .

[20]  M. D. Beecher.  Kin recognition: Successes and failures of parent–offspring recognition in animals , 1991 .

[21]  Darryl N. Jones,et al.  Vocalisations of the Marbled Frogmouth II: An Assessment of Vocal Individuality as a Potential Census Technique , 1997 .

[22]  Michael D. Beecher,et al.  Signature Systems and Kin Recognition , 1982 .

[23]  M. Conroy,et al.  Analysis and Management of Animal Populations , 2002 .

[24]  B. Würsig,et al.  DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY IMPROVES EFFICIENCY OF INDIVIDUAL DOLPHIN IDENTIFICATION , 2003 .

[25]  K. Otter,et al.  Using vocal individuality to monitor Queen Charlotte Saw-whet owls (Aegolius acadicus brooksi) , 2005 .

[26]  J. Nichols,et al.  Monitoring for conservation. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[27]  Bruce C. Lubow,et al.  Validating Aerial Photographic Mark–Recapture for Naturally Marked Feral Horses , 2009 .

[28]  Peter G. H. Evans,et al.  Monitoring cetaceans in European waters , 2004 .

[29]  Carlos J. R. Anderson,et al.  Can whisker spot patterns be used to identify individual polar bears , 2007 .

[30]  Michael K. Schwartz,et al.  ESTIMATING ANIMAL ABUNDANCE USING NONINVASIVE DNA SAMPLING: PROMISE AND PITFALLS , 2000 .

[31]  Los Angeles,et al.  Causes and Consequences of Sociality: Time Allocation, Individuality, and the Evolution of Group Size in Mammals , 2009 .

[32]  Tim D. Smith,et al.  MEASUREMENT OF PHOTOGRAPHIC QUALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTIVENESS FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION OF HUMPBACK WHALES, MEGAPTERA NOVAEANGLIAE , 2000 .

[33]  Estrban Fernández-Juricic,et al.  Identification of Individual and Population-Level Variation in Vocalizations of the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus) , 2009 .

[34]  D. Saunders,et al.  Consistent individuality of voice in birds as a management tool , 1988 .

[35]  M. Thiel,et al.  INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFICATION OF DECAPOD CRUSTACEANS I: COLOR PATTERNS IN ROCK SHRIMP (RHYNCHOCINETES TYPUS) , 2007 .

[36]  Simone Hartwig,et al.  INDIVIDUAL ACOUSTIC IDENTIFICATION AS A NON-INVASIVE CONSERVATION TOOL: AN APPROACH TO THE CONSERVATION OF THE AFRICAN WILD DOG LYCAON PICTUS (TEMMINCK, 1820) , 2005 .

[37]  K. Otter,et al.  Vocal individuality as a potential long-term monitoring tool for Western Screech-owls, Megascops kennicottii , 2006 .

[38]  M. D. Beecher.  Signalling systems for individual recognition: an information theory approach , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[39]  P. Stoddard,et al.  Signals for parent-offspring recognition: a comparative analysis of the begging calls of cliff swallows and barn swallows , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[40]  E. Tibbetts,et al.  Complex social behaviour can select for variability in visual features: a case study in Polistes wasps , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[41]  Peter K. McGregor,et al.  A COMPARISON OF SOME TECHNIQUES USED TO ASSESS VOCAL INDIVIDUALITY , 2001 .