Published October 12, 2026 | Version v1

Iris pattern recognition as a non-invasive method for individual identification in Osteocephalus oophagus (Hylidae)

  • 1. Division of Behavioural Ecology, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Bern, Hinterkappelen, Switzerland
  • 2. Division of Behavioural Ecology, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Bern, Hinterkappelen, Switzerland|Unaffiliated, Basse Goulaine, France
  • 3. Division of Behavioural Ecology, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Bern, Hinterkappelen, Switzerland|Institute of Electronic Music and Acoustics, University of Music and Performing Arts, Graz, Austria

Description

Reliable individual identification is fundamental to ecological and behavioural studies, yet many marking techniques are invasive and may affect animal behaviour or survival. Biometric identification approaches offer a non-invasive alternative for individual recognition using phenotypic traits. In amphibians, body patterns, especially colouration, have been used to identify individuals, but species lacking permanent body patterns require alternative traits. This study evaluated whether iris patterns could serve as a marker for individual recognition in the treefrog Osteocephalus oophagus. A capture-recapture study was conducted over three breeding seasons (2021–2023) in French Guiana. At each encounter, eye photographs were compared with an image library to identify individuals without handling. Manual identifications were independently verified using Wild-ID software. Across 392 capture events involving 103 individuals, iris patterns were highly distinctive among individuals and enabled repeated identification across encounters. Within-season recapture rates ranged from 56% to 80%, indicating that iris patterns remained sufficiently stable for short-term monitoring. However, only three individuals were re-identified across years, preventing a robust assessment of long-term pattern stability. As these individuals showed no substantial alteration in iris patterns, the low interannual recapture rate was more likely explained by population turnover or emigration than by changes in iris morphology. The findings suggest that iris recognition provides an effective, non-invasive method for short-term individual identification in O. oophagus, reducing the need for repeated handling and supporting ethical wildlife research. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term stability of iris patterns and evaluate the applicability of this method to other amphibian species.

Files

Herpetozoa_article_208000.pdf

Files (3.0 MB)

Name Size
md5:5e27bd54abfd93cf57f0a1b2e22d97a4
2.9 MB Preview Download
md5:37b6289c303ea5bf24716002c5974039
59.7 kB Preview Download

Linked records

Additional details

References

  • ASAB [ASAB Ethical Committee/ABS Animal Care Committee] (2024) Guidelines for the ethical treatment of nonhuman animals in behavioural research and teaching. Animal Behaviour, 207, I–XI. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-3472(23)00317-2
  • Bello RW, Olubummo DA, Seiyaboh Z, Enuma OC, Talib AZ, Mohamed ASA (2020) Cattle identification: the history of nose prints approach in brief. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 594: 012026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/594/1/012026
  • Bolger DT, Morrison TA, Vance B, Lee D, Farid H (2012) A computer-assisted system for photographic mark–recapture analysis. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3: 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00212.x
  • Bongers F, Charles-Dominique P, Forget P-M, Théry M (2001) Nouragues: Dynamics and plant-animal interactions in a neotropical rainforest. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 451 pp.
  • Bugge CE, Burkhardt J, Dugstad KS, Berge Enger T, Kasprzycka M, Kleinauskas A, Myhre M, Scheffler K, Ström S, Vetlesen S (2011) Biometric methods of animal identification. Course notes Laboratory Animal Science. Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo (Norway), 1–6.
  • Caorsi VZ, Santos RR, Grant T (2012) Clip or snap? An evaluation of toe-clipping and photo-identification methods for identifying individual Southern Red-Bellied toads, Melanophryniscus cambaraensis. South American Journal of Herpetology 7: 79–84. https://doi.org/10.2994/057.007.0210
  • Caplan RM (1990) How fingerprints came into use for personal identification. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 23: 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/0190-9622(90)70194-M
  • Carafa M, Biondi M (2004) Application of a method for individual photographic identification during a study on Salamandra salamandra gigliolii in central Italy. Italian Journal of Zoology 71: 181–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/11250000409356631
  • Cervino NG, Elias-Costa AJ, Pereyra MO, Faivovich J (2021) A closer look at pupil diversity and evolution in frogs and toads. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 288: 20211402. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.1402
  • Daugman J, Downing C (2001) Epigenetic randomness, complexity and singularity of human iris patterns. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268: 1737–1740. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1696
  • De P, Ghoshal D (2016) Recognition of non circular iris pattern of the goat by structural, statistical and Fourier descriptors. Procedia Computer Science 89: 845–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.06.070
  • De P, Chakrabarti S (2025) Classification of various iris patterns of amphibians using geometric and color features. In: Dhar S, Goswami S, Unni Krishnan DK, Bose I, Dubey R, Mazumdar C (Eds) Analytics, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 104–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-75157-8_8
  • Domeier ML, Nasby-Lucas N (2007) Annual re-sightings of photographically identified white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) at an eastern Pacific aggregation site (Guadalupe Island, Mexico). Marine Biology 150: 977–984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-006-0380-7
  • Donnelly MA, Guyer C, Juterbock JE, Alford RA (1994) Techniques for marking amphibians. In: Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek L-AC, Foster MS (Eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 277–284.
  • Drechsler A, Helling T, Steinfartz S (2015) Genetic fingerprinting proves cross-correlated automatic photo-identification of individuals as highly efficient in large capture–mark–recapture studies. Ecology and Evolution 5: 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1340
  • Foldvik A, Jakobsen F, Ulvan EM (2020) Individual recognition of Atlantic salmon using iris biometry. Ichthyology & Herpetology 108: 767–771. https://doi.org/10.1643/CI2020035
  • Ghoshal D, De P, Saha B (2012) Identification of tigers for census by the method of tiger iris pattern matching and recognition. International Journal of Computer Applications 49: 19–23. https://doi.org/10.5120/7600-0316
  • Hiby L, Lovell P, Patil N, Kumar NS, Gopalaswamy AM, Karanth KU (2009) A tiger cannot change its stripes: using a three-dimensional model to match images of living tigers and tiger skins. Biology Letters 5: 383–386. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0028
  • Jungfer K-H, Weygoldt P (1999) Biparental care in the tadpole-feeding Amazonian treefrog Osteocephalus oophagus. Amphibia-Reptilia 20: 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853899X00277
  • Jungfer K-H, Schiesari LC (1995) Description of a central Amazonian and Guianan tree frog, genus Osteocephalus (Anura, Hylidae), with oophagous tadpoles. Alytes: International Journal of Batrachology 13: 1–13.
  • Kühl HS, Burghardt T (2013) Animal biometrics: quantifying and detecting phenotypic appearance. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.02.013
  • Lahiri M, Tantipathananandh C, Warungu R, Rubenstein DI, Berger-Wolf TY (2011) Biometric animal databases from field photographs: identification of individual zebra in the wild. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, Trento (Italy), 2011: 695–703. https://doi.org/10.1145/1991996.1992002
  • Lebreton J-D, Burnham KP, Clobert J, Anderson DR (1992) Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. Ecological Monographs 62: 67–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937171
  • Lu Y, He X, Wen Y, Wang PSP (2014) A new cow identification system based on iris analysis and recognition. International Journal of Biometrics 6: 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBM.2014.059639
  • Nichols JD (1992) Capture-recapture models. BioScience 42: 94–102. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311650
  • Nietfeld MT, Barrett MW, Silvy NJ (1994) Wildlife marking techniques. In: Bookhout TA (Ed) Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, 140–168.
  • Petso T, Jamisola RS, Mpoeleng D (2021) Review on methods used for wildlife species and individual identification. European Journal of Wildlife Research 68: 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-021-01549-4
  • Pradel R (1996) Utilization of capture-mark-recapture for the study of recruitment and population growth rate. Biometrics 52: 703–709. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532908
  • Ribeiro J, Rebelo R (2011) Survival of Alytes cisternasii tadpoles in stream pools: a capture-recapture study using photo-identification. Amphibia-Reptilia 32: 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1163/017353711X584186
  • Ringler E, Mangione R, Ringler M (2015) Where have all the tadpoles gone? Individual genetic tracking of amphibian larvae until adulthood. Molecular Ecology Resources 15: 737–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12345
  • Ringler M, Mangione R, Pašukonis A, Rainer G, Gyimesi K, Felling J, Kronaus H, Réjou-Méchain M, Chave J, Reiter K, Ringler E (2016) High-resolution forest mapping for behavioural studies in the Nature Reserve 'Les Nouragues', French Guiana. Journal of Maps 12: 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2014.972995
  • Rocha R, Carrilho T, Rebelo R (2013) Iris photo-identification: A new methodology for the individual recognition of Tarentola geckos. Amphibia-Reptilia 34: 590–596. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002918
  • Silveira M, Monteiro A (2009) Automatic recognition and measurement of butterfly eyespot patterns. Biosystems 95: 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2008.09.004
  • Silvy NJ (2020) The wildlife techniques manual: Volume 1: Research. Volume 2: Management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA, 1401 pp.
  • Thomas KN, Rich C, Quock RC, Streicher JW, Gower DJ, Schott RK, Fujita MK, Douglas RH, Bell RC (2022) Diversity and evolution of amphibian pupil shapes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 137: 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blac095
  • Turk M, Pentland A (1991) Eigenfaces for recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3: 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1991.3.1.71
  • Wildes RP (1997) Iris recognition: an emerging biometric technology. Proceedings of the IEEE 85: 1348–1363. https://doi.org/10.1109/5.628669