A deep learning approach to photo–identification demonstrates high performance on two dozen cetacean species

We thank the countless individuals who collected and/or processed the nearly 85,000 images used in this study and those who assisted, particularly those who sorted these images from the millions that did not end up in the catalogues. Additionally, we thank the other Kaggle competitors who helped develop the ideas, models and data used here, particularly those who released their datasets to the public. The graduate assistantship for Philip T. Patton was funded by the NOAA Fisheries QUEST Fellowship. This paper represents HIMB and SOEST contribution numbers 1932 and 11679, respectively. The technical support and advanced computing resources from University of Hawaii Information Technology Services—Cyberinfrastructure, funded in part by the National Science Foundation CC* awards # 2201428 and # 2232862 are gratefully acknowledged. Every photo–identification image was collected under permits according to relevant national guidelines, regulation and legislation.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Supplementary materials - Figures S1-4, Tables S1-24 from Dolphin social phenotypes vary in response to food availability but not atmospheric conditions

A word file containing four supplementary figures (histograms of the number of encounters per year and per month, and graphs of the variation in the enviornmnetla variables over time) , 12 tables giving the full results of the 12 models presented in the main text, and 12 tables giving those same results but with a lower threshold of three observatios per individua

Bottlenose dolphins in the Netherlands come from two sides : across the North Sea and through the English Channel

Acknowledgements. Many thanks to Jasper Rautenberg, Bert de Haan, Nick van der Ham and Nils van Duivendijk for sharing the initial 2019 sightings through Observation.org, to Steve Truluck (WDC), Charlie Philips (WDC), Wouter Jan Strietman and SOS Dolfijn for rapidly sharing this information, to Tobias Brügging and Het Sop for providing additional images of these sightings, to Rogier Kruger, Bram Fey and Sophie Brasseur for providing additional images of the 2004 sightings, to Guido Keijl (Walvisstrandingen.nl) for his help summarizing the recent strandings, to Lonneke IJsseldijk for providing additional information on the necropsies, to Hans Verdaat (Observation.org), to Geert Aarts for the map of North Holland and to Pauline Gauffier for her help with matching ‘Zafar’. Finally, we thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their many constructive and insightful comments and suggestions. Financial support. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. JH was funded by NWO (project ALWPP.2017.003).Peer reviewedPostprin

Data from: Can the camera lie? A nonpermanent nick in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

No description availabl

Figure 1A

Photograph of individual 1121 taken on June 20th 2011. Image 1A taken at 0942am (GMT) showing multiple nicks on trailing edge of fin. Image 1A is considered a high quality shot. Images 1A, 1B and 1C clearly show the same fin shape, the teeth rakes and white skin lesions that show a convincing match despite the nicks

Figure S1C

Photograph of individual 1121 showing matches between years - S1A, B C and D. Fin shape and large white horizontal scratches on side of dorsal fin (orange ellipse) fade but remain constant. Scratches on body (red ellipse) fade with progression through time, but are still evident in each photograph. S1A and S1B from June 2011, S1C from July 2012, S1D from June 2013. In 2012 the individual picked up a nick in the trailing edge of its fin (S1C) This nick was different to that seen in the anomalous photograph (Figure 1A) from 2011 but it remained consistent when this animal was re-sighted again in 2013 (S1D)

Figure S1B

Photograph of individual 1121 showing matches between years - S1A, B C and D. Fin shape and large white horizontal scratches on side of dorsal fin (orange ellipse) fade but remain constant. Scratches on body (red ellipse) fade with progression through time, but are still evident in each photograph. S1A and S1B from June 2011, S1C from July 2012, S1D from June 2013. In 2012 the individual picked up a nick in the trailing edge of its fin (S1C) This nick was different to that seen in the anomalous photograph (Figure 1A) from 2011 but it remained consistent when this animal was re-sighted again in 2013 (S1D)

Figure S1D

Photograph of individual 1121 showing matches between years - S1A, B C and D. Fin shape and large white horizontal scratches on side of dorsal fin (orange ellipse) fade but remain constant. Scratches on body (red ellipse) fade with progression through time, but are still evident in each photograph. S1A and S1B from June 2011, S1C from July 2012, S1D from June 2013. In 2012 the individual picked up a nick in the trailing edge of its fin (S1C) This nick was different to that seen in the anomalous photograph (Figure 1A) from 2011 but it remained consistent when this animal was re-sighted again in 2013 (S1D)