Data from: Comparison of photo-matching algorithms commonly used for photographic capture-recapture studies
Photographic capture–recapture is a valuable tool for obtaining demographic information on wildlife populations due to its noninvasive nature and cost-effectiveness. Recently, several computer-aided photo-matching algorithms have been developed to more efficiently match images of unique individuals...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Dataset |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Photographic capture–recapture is a valuable tool for obtaining
demographic information on wildlife populations due to its noninvasive
nature and cost-effectiveness. Recently, several computer-aided
photo-matching algorithms have been developed to more efficiently match
images of unique individuals in databases with thousands of images.
However, the identification accuracy of these algorithms can severely bias
estimates of vital rates and population size. Therefore, it is important
to understand the performance and limitations of state-of-the-art
photo-matching algorithms prior to implementation in capture–recapture
studies involving possibly thousands of images. Here, we compared the
performance of four photo-matching algorithms; Wild-ID, I3S Pattern+,
APHIS, and AmphIdent using multiple amphibian databases of varying image
quality. We measured the performance of each algorithm and evaluated the
performance in relation to database size and the number of matching images
in the database. We found that algorithm performance differed greatly by
algorithm and image database, with recognition rates ranging from 100% to
22.6% when limiting the review to the 10 highest ranking images. We found
that recognition rate degraded marginally with increased database size and
could be improved considerably with a higher number of matching images in
the database. In our study, the pixel-based algorithm of AmphIdent
exhibited superior recognition rates compared to the other approaches. We
recommend carefully evaluating algorithm performance prior to using it to
match a complete database. By choosing a suitable matching algorithm,
databases of sizes that are unfeasible to match “by eye” can be easily
translated to accurate individual capture histories necessary for robust
demographic estimates. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.5061/dryad.4f0bh |