Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorProp, Jouke
dc.contributor.authorStaverløkk, Arnstein
dc.contributor.authorMoe, Børge
dc.coverage.spatialSvalbardnb_NO
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-05T09:56:52Z
dc.date.available2020-03-05T09:56:52Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2645425
dc.description.abstractThe need to recognise individuals in population and behavioural studies has stimulated the development of various identification methods. A commonly used method is to employ natural markers to distinguish individuals. In particular, the automated processing of photographs of study animals has gained interest due to the speed of processing and the ability to handle a high volume of records. However, automated processing requires high-quality photographs, which means that they need to be taken from a specific angle or at close distances. Polar bears Ursus maritimus, for example, may be identified by automated analysis of whisker spot patterns. However, to obtain photographs of adequate quality, the animals need to be closer than is usually possible without risk to animal or observer. In this study we tested the accuracy of an alternative method to identify polar bears at further distances. This method is based on distinguishing a set of physiognomic characteristics, which can be recognised from photographs taken in the field at distances of up to 400 m. During five trials, sets of photographs of 15 polar bears from six zoos, with each individual bear portrayed on different dates, were presented for identification to ten test observers. Among observers the repeatability of the assessments was 0.68 (SE 0.011). Observers with previous training in photogrammetric techniques performed better than observers without training. Experience with observing polar bears in the wild did not improve skills to identify individuals on photographs. Among the observers with photogrammetric experience, the rate of erroneous assessment was on average 0.13 (SE 0.020). For the inexperienced group this was 0.72 (SE 0.018). Error rates obtained with automated whisker spot analysis were intermediate (0.26–0.58). We suggest that wildlife studies will benefit from applying several identification techniques to collect data under different conditions.engelsk
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleIdentifying individual polar bears at safe distances: A test with captive animalsnb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionnb_NO
dc.rights.holder© 2020 Prop et al.nb_NO
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480nb_NO
dc.source.volume15nb_NO
dc.source.journalPLOS ONEnb_NO
dc.source.issue2nb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal. pone.0228991
dc.identifier.cristin1798432


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal