Observer differences in individual identification of feral cats from camera trap images
Jessica Sparkes A * and Peter J. S. Fleming
B C D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute, Pine Gully Road, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia.
B Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Orange Agricultural Institute, Forest Road, Orange NSW 2800, Australia.
C Ecosystem Management, School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
D Institute for Agriculture and the Environment, Centre for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia.
Australian Mammalogy 45(1) 32-40 https://doi.org/10.1071/AM21030
Submitted: 20 August 2021 Accepted: 22 April 2022 Published: 27 May 2022
© 2023 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Australian Mammal Society.
Abstract
Feral cats are a key threat to many Australian native fauna, with camera traps increasingly used to identify individuals for evaluation of management actions. However, observer bias and camera trap settings can affect individual identification rates. We compared feral cat individual identification by two observers with extremes of experience. Arrays of 39–50 camera traps were deployed continuously for 22 months at four sites in the Western Division of New South Wales. Where possible, feral cats were individually identified from phenotypic characteristics by an expert and naïve lay observer. We obtained 10 465 feral cat images, with 72 cats individually identified across the sites. The experienced observer attributed more feral cat events to a known individual compared with the lay observer (21.3 vs 12.9%, respectively). Forty three percent of cat images were similarly tagged by both observers. Daytime events yielded higher identification rates and match success (28.1 vs 19.5 and 17.9 vs 11.8% for day vs night events for the expert and lay observer, respectively). Lack of congruence between observers, combined with a small number of events where cats could be individually identified, and differences in identification accuracy over time and between sites, makes estimation of detection probabilities and errors difficult.
Keywords: citizen science, conservation, Felis catus, management, monitoring, pelage, pest animal, population estimates, Reconyx.
References
Apps, P. J., and McNutt, J. W. (2018). How camera traps work and how to work them. African Journal of Ecology 56, 702–709.| How camera traps work and how to work them.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ballard, G., Meek, P. D., Doak, S., Fleming, P. J. S., and Sparkes, J. (2014). Camera traps, sand plots and known events: what do camera traps miss? In ‘Camera trapping: wildlife management and research’. (Eds P. Meek, and P. Fleming) pp. 189–202. (CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.)
Bengsen, A., Butler, J., and Masters, P. (2011). Estimating and indexing feral cat population abundances using camera traps. Wildlife Research 38, 732–739.
| Estimating and indexing feral cat population abundances using camera traps.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Braysher, M. (2017). ‘Managing Australia’s pest animals: a guide to strategic planning and effective management.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Clayton South, Victoria, Australia.)
Claridge, A. W., and Paull, D. J. (2014). How long is a piece of string? Camera trapping methodology is question dependent. In ‘Camera trapping: wildlife management and research’. (Eds P. Meek, and P. Fleming) pp. 205–214. (CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.)
Dawson, M. J., and Miller, C. (2008). Aerial mark and recapture estimates of wild horses using natural markings. Wildlife Research 35, 365–370.
| Aerial mark and recapture estimates of wild horses using natural markings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dorning, J., and Harris, S. (2019). The challenges of recognising individuals with few distinguishing features: Identifying red foxes Vulpes vulpes from camera-trap photos. PLoS One 14, e0216531.
| The challenges of recognising individuals with few distinguishing features: Identifying red foxes Vulpes vulpes from camera-trap photos.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31071143PubMed |
Dundas, S. J., Adams, P. J., and Fleming, P. A. (2014). Can camera trap surveys provide reliable population estimates for nondescript species? In ‘Camera trapping: wildlife management and research’. (Eds P. Meek, and P. Fleming) pp. 173–179. (CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.)
Fleming, P. J. S., Ballard, G., Reid, N. C. H., and Tracey, J. P. (2017). Invasive species and their impacts on agri-ecosystems: issues and solutions for restoring ecosystem processes. The Rangeland Journal 39, 523–535.
| Invasive species and their impacts on agri-ecosystems: issues and solutions for restoring ecosystem processes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gibbon, G. E. M., Bindemann, M., and Roberts, D. L. (2015). Factors affecting the identification of individual mountain bongo antelope. Peerj 3, e1303.
| Factors affecting the identification of individual mountain bongo antelope.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Harvey, P. (2015). ExifTool 9.99. Available at www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool [Accessed 26 February 2022]
Haucke, T., Kühl, H. S., Hoyer, J., and Steinhage, V. (2022). Overcoming the distance estimation bottleneck in estimating animal abundance with camera traps. Ecological Informatics 68, 101536.
| Overcoming the distance estimation bottleneck in estimating animal abundance with camera traps.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kearney, S. G., Cawardine, J., Reside, A. E., Fisher, D. O., Maron, M., Doherty, T. S., Legge, S., Silcock, J., Woinarski, J. C. Z., Garnett, S. T., Wintle, B. A., and Watson, J. E. M. (2018). The threats to Australia’s imperilled species and implications for a national conservation response. Pacific Conservation Biology 25, 231–244.
| The threats to Australia’s imperilled species and implications for a national conservation response.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Koivuniemi, M., Auttila, M., Niemi, M., Levanen, R., and Kunnasranta, M. (2016). Photo-ID as a tool for studying and monitoring the endangered Saimaa ringed seal. Endangered Species Research 30, 29–36.
| Photo-ID as a tool for studying and monitoring the endangered Saimaa ringed seal.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kowalski, M., and Kowalski, M. (2013). ExifPro 2.1. Available at www.exifpro.informer.com [Accessed 26 February 2022]
Lazenby, B. T., Mooney, N. J., and Dickman, C. R. (2014). Effects of low-level culling of feral cats in open populations: a case study from the forests of southern Tasmania. Wildlife Research 41, 407–420.
| Effects of low-level culling of feral cats in open populations: a case study from the forests of southern Tasmania.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Legge, S., Murphy, B. P., McGregor, H., Woinarski, J. C. Z., Augusteyn, J., Ballard, G., Baseler, M., Buckmaster, T., Dickman, C. R., Doherty, T., Edwards, G., Eyre, T., Fancourt, B. A., Ferguson, D., Forsyth, D. M., Geary, W. L., Gentle, M., Gillespie, G., Greenwood, L., Hohnen, R., Hume, S., Johnson, C. N., Maxwell, M., McDonald, P. J., Morris, K., Moseby, K., Newsome, T., Nimmo, D., Paltridge, R., Ramsey, D., Read, J., Rendall, A., Rich, M., Ritchie, E., Rowland, J., Short, J., Stokeld, D., Sutherland, D. R., Wayne, A. F., Woodford, L., and Zewe, F. (2017). Enumerating a continental-scale threat: How many feral cats are in Australia? Biological Conservation 206, 293–303.
| Enumerating a continental-scale threat: How many feral cats are in Australia?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Royle, J. A., Pollock, K. H., Bailey, L., and Hines, J. E. (2017). ‘Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence.’ (Academic Press/Elsevier: London.)
McCarthy, M. S., Stephens, C., Dieguez, P., Samuni, L., Despres-Einspenner, M. L., Harder, B., Landsmann, A., Lynn, L. K., Maldonado, N., Rockaiova, Z., Widness, J., Wittig, R. M., Boesch, C., Kuhl, H. S., and Arandjelovic, M. (2021). Chimpanzee identification and social network construction through an online citizen science platform. Ecology and Evolution 11, 1598–1608.
| Chimpanzee identification and social network construction through an online citizen science platform.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 33613992PubMed |
McGregor, H. W., Legge, S., Potts, J., Jones, M. E., and Johnson, C. N. (2015). Density and home range of feral cats in north-western Australia. Wildlife Research 42, 223–231.
| Density and home range of feral cats in north-western Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G. A., and Fleming, P. J. S. (2015). The pitfalls of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia. Australian Mammalogy 37, 13–22.
| The pitfalls of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P., Ballard, G., Fleming, P., and Falzon, G. (2016). Are we getting the full picture? Animal responses to camera traps and implications for predator studies. Ecology and Evolution 6, 3216–3225.
| Are we getting the full picture? Animal responses to camera traps and implications for predator studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27096080PubMed |
Mendoza, E., Martineau, P. R., Brenner, E., and Dirzo, R. (2011). A novel method to improve individual animal identification based on camera-trapping data. Journal of Wildlife Management 75, 973–979.
| A novel method to improve individual animal identification based on camera-trapping data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Monterroso, P., Rich, L. N., Serronha, A., Ferreras, P., and Alves, P. C. (2014). Efficiency of hair snares and camera traps to survey mesocarnivore populations. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60, 279–289.
| Efficiency of hair snares and camera traps to survey mesocarnivore populations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ngoprasert, D., Reed, D. H., Steinmetz, R., and Gale, G. A. (2012). Density estimation of Asian bears using photographic capture-recapture sampling based on chest marks. Ursus 23, 117–133.
| Density estimation of Asian bears using photographic capture-recapture sampling based on chest marks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Petit, E., and Valiere, N. (2006). Estimating Population Size with Noninvasive Capture-Mark-Recapture Data. Conservation Biology 20, 1062–1073.
| Estimating Population Size with Noninvasive Capture-Mark-Recapture Data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16922223PubMed |
Sparkes, J., Ballard, G., Fleming, P. J., van de Ven, R., and Kortner, G. (2016). Contact rates of wild-living and domestic dog populations in Australia: a new approach. Oecologia 182, 1007–1018.
| Contact rates of wild-living and domestic dog populations in Australia: a new approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27660202PubMed |
Sparkes, J., Fleming, P. J. S., McSorley, A., and Mitchell, B. (2020). What are we missing? How the delay-period setting on camera traps affects mesopredator detection. Australian Mammalogy 43, 243–247.
| What are we missing? How the delay-period setting on camera traps affects mesopredator detection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sparkes, J., Fleming, P. J. S., McSorley, A., and Mitchell, B. (2021). How many feral cats can be individually identified from camera trap imags? Population monitoring, ecological utility and camera trap settings. Ecological Management and Restoration 22, 246–255.
| How many feral cats can be individually identified from camera trap imags? Population monitoring, ecological utility and camera trap settings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Lintott, C., Simpson, R., Smith, A., and Packer, C. (2015). Snapshot Serengeti, high-frequency annotated camera trap images of 40 mammalian species in an African savanna. Scientific Data 2, 150026.
| Snapshot Serengeti, high-frequency annotated camera trap images of 40 mammalian species in an African savanna.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26097743PubMed |
Teton, B., Lewis, J. S., Wright, C. T., White, M., and Young, H. (2020). Using Natural Pelt Patterns to Estimate Population Abundance with Mark-Resight Models. Wildlife Society Bulletin 44, 695–704.
| Using Natural Pelt Patterns to Estimate Population Abundance with Mark-Resight Models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thapa, K., and Kelly, M. J. (2017). Density and carrying capacity in the forgotten tigerland: Tigers in the understudied Nepalese Churia. Integrative Zoology 12, 211–227.
| Density and carrying capacity in the forgotten tigerland: Tigers in the understudied Nepalese Churia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27734629PubMed |
Theimer, T. C., Ray, D. T., and Bergman, D. L. (2017). Camera angle and photographic identification of individual striped skunks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41, 146–150.
| Camera angle and photographic identification of individual striped skunks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Torney, C. J., Lloyd-Jones, D. J., Chevallier, M., Moyer, D. C., Maliti, H. T., Mwita, M., Kohi, E. M., and Hopcraft, G. C. (2019). A comparison of deep learning and citizen science techniques for counting wildlife in aerial survey images. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10, 779–787.
| A comparison of deep learning and citizen science techniques for counting wildlife in aerial survey images.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tye, C. A., Greene, D. U., Giuliano, W. M., and McCleery, R. A. (2015). Using camera-trap photographs to identify individual fox squirrels (Sciurus niger) in the southeastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39, 645–650.
| Using camera-trap photographs to identify individual fox squirrels (Sciurus niger) in the southeastern United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Van Horn, R. C., Zug, B., LaCombe, C., Velez-Liendo, X., and Paisley, S. (2014). Human visual identification of individual Andean bears Tremarctos ornatus. Wildlife Biology 20, 291–299.
| Human visual identification of individual Andean bears Tremarctos ornatus.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vine, S. J., Crowther, M. S., Lapidge, S. J., Dickman, C. R., Mooney, N., Piggott, M. P., and English, A. W. (2009). Comparison of methods to detect rare and cryptic species: a case study using the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Wildlife Research 36, 436–446.
| Comparison of methods to detect rare and cryptic species: a case study using the red fox (Vulpes vulpes).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
West, P. (2018). ‘Guide to introduced pest animals of Australia.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Clayton South, Victoria.)
Willi, M., Pitman, R. T., Cardoso, A. W., Locke, C., Swanson, A., Boyer, A., Veldthuis, M., and Fortson, L. (2019). Identifying animal species in camera trap images using deep learning and citizen science. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10, 80–91.
| Identifying animal species in camera trap images using deep learning and citizen science.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Yoshizaki, J., Pollock, K. H., Brownie, C., and Webster, R. A. (2009). Modeling misidentification errors in capture-recapture studies using photographic identification of evolving marks. Ecology 90, 3–9.
| Modeling misidentification errors in capture-recapture studies using photographic identification of evolving marks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19294906PubMed |
Zheng, X., Owen, M. A., Nie, Y., Hu, Y., Swaisgood, R. R., Yan, L., and Wei, F. (2016). Individual identification of wild giant pandas from camera trap photos - a systematic and hierarchical approach. Journal of Zoology 300, 247–256.
| Individual identification of wild giant pandas from camera trap photos - a systematic and hierarchical approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
