Can post-capture photographic identification as a wildlife marking technique be undermined by observer error? A case study using King Cobras in northeast Thailand

Max Dolton Jones; Benjamin Michael Marshall; Samantha Nicole Smith; Jack Taylor Christie; Surachit Waengsothorn; Taksin Artchawakom; Pongthep Suwanwaree; Colin Thomas Strine

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242826

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 31, 2020
23 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor PONE-D-20-23862 Can post-capture photographic identification as a wildlife marking technique be undermined by observer error? A case study using king cobras in northeast Thailand. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Strine, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 06 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Bi-Song Yue, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In your Methods section, please include a comment about the state of the animals following this research. Were they euthanized or housed for use in further research? If any animals were sacrificed by the authors, please include the method of euthanasia and describe any efforts that were undertaken to reduce animal suffering. 3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 4. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (i) whether consent will be informed and (ii) what type you will obtain (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it will be documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you will obtain consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent is waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information 6. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This Registered Report Protocol addresses an important question regarding the reliability of using unique markings for individual identification, and the progression of methods that maximise the welfare of the study organism. The methodology is feasible, though the authors may wish to consider the use of resources such as zooniverse for attracting participants. The authors should provide explanation of the acronym SBR in the text (line 140) and there could be improvements to the spelling and language in several places, so I suggest further proofreading prior to final submission. Where the authors mention their coding system, further information on this would be useful. Furthermore, it would be favourable to reference existing ventral coding systems. Similarly, I would recommend the authors reference other studies using unique ventral patterns for individual snake identification (e.g. Carlstrom and Edelstam (1946): Methods of marking reptiles for identification after recapture; Hailey and Davies (1995) `Fingerprinting' snakes: a digital system applied to a population of Natrix maura; Van Roon et. al. (2006). Capture and recapture of Grass snakes near Amsterdam) as this is absent, despite providing text dedicated to natural markings on other parts of the body and in other taxonomic groups. The authors could further develop this paper by expanding the variables considered in order to identify characters from the images and animals themselves that may influence identification success. Reviewer #2: Thanks for the opportunity to review this registered report protocol. The proposed study should be useful for the specific aims of the broader project and also to the wider community of practitioners who could use a similar approach to evaluate the reliability of their own methods. I have only one minor suggestion: you note that that "novel, typically standard, photographic equipment..." is used. But there isn't a lot of detail on how the photographs were actually taken. Were there consistent equipment or lighting protocols or minimum standards for the initial photography? Also, "novel, typically standard" reads as a contradiction, can you clarify? ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242826.r001
Revision 1
7 Nov 2020 Author Response Reviewer #1. The methodology is feasible, though the authors may wish to consider the use of resources such as Zooniverse for attracting participants. Line (New) 199 – 237. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, we had no previous knowledge of such platforms. We created a project on Zooniverse.org to assess its suitability for the project, alongside looking through various other projects and corresponding publications. We decided that this could greatly improve our data collection and have completely re-formatted the “Assessing identification errors” section of the Methods to reflect this new change. We also created a preliminary workflow for the project as it may be seen on the Zooniverse platform, which has now been included as a supplementary figure (S1 Fig). Furthermore, we have now amended our ethics statement to include the use of citizen science data, according to the Zooniverse user agreement. The authors should provide explanation of the acronym SBR in the text (line 140) and there could be improvements to the spelling and language in several places, so I suggest further proofreading prior to final submission. Line 140 (New) 150. We have changed “SBR” to “Sakaerat Biosphere Reserve (SBR)”. We have also carefully proofread the manuscript and made comprehensive grammatical changes, alongside new sentence structure, throughout the manuscript. Where the authors mention their coding system, further information on this would be useful. Furthermore, it would be favourable to reference existing ventral coding systems. Line 151 (New) 162 – 168. We have cited Shine et al., 1988 as a similar coding system to our own, and have now supplied two examples of our subcaudal coding system to hopefully clarify this to the readers: “…, similar (though simplified) to a formula suggested by Shine et al. (1988). For example, an individual which has five undivided subcaudal scales, followed by three divided subcaudals, one more row of undivided scales and the remaining 80 scales are divded, would have a code of 5:3:1:80. However, we always start a count with the number of undivided subcaudal scales (the most common arrangement), therefore, if an individual has two divided scales, followed by six undivided and the remaining 90 are divided, the code would be 0:2:6:90.”. Similarly, I would recommend the authors reference other studies using unique ventral patterns for individual snake identification (e.g. Carlstrom and Edelstam (1946): Methods of marking reptiles for identification after recapture; Hailey and Davies (1995) ‘Fingerprinting’ snakes: a digitial system applied to a population of Natrix maural Van Roon et al. (2006). Capture and recapture of Grass snakes near Amsterdam) as this is absent, despite providing text dedicated to natural markings on other parts of the body and in other taxonomic groups. Line (New) 99 – 104. We have now included these citations, and Zuiderwijk and Wolterman, 1995, into the introduction within the paragraph exploring natural markings in snakes: “Furthermore, Carlström and Edelstam (1946) showed that the black and white patterning on the ventral scales of a Swedish population of grass snakes (Natrix natrix), could be used to monitor individuals throughout their lifespans, which has led to further support and investigations into N. natrix and N. maura (Hailey and Davies, 1985; Zuiderwijk and Wolterman, 1995; van Roon et al., 2006).” The authors could further develop this paper by expanding the variables considered in order to identify characters from the images and animals themselves that may influence identification success. We have found consistent, and reliable, identification using subcaudal pholidosis and ventral hood patterning, and have explored using head scalation to do the same. However, identification using the remaining photos has proven ineffective, and can only bolster identification when prominent scarring or scale blemishes are present. We have therefore opted to focus on the two characteristics which have shown consistent results. Further consideration may cloud inferences as we would need to increase the number of covariates in our models and thereby increase the required sample of participants to infer effects. With Bernoulli trials the corresponding increase in sample size requirements per parameter is considerable. Thus, we prefer to limit the number of features we consider (this is also to provide/refute evidence that this simple and quick method can indeed be a feasible alternative to invasive approaches broadly applied to many non-expert researchers). Reviewer #2. You note that “novel, typically standard, photographic equipment…” is used. But there isn’t a lot of detail on how the photographs were actually taken. Were there consistent equipment or lighting protocols or minimum standards for the initial photography? Also, “novel, typically standard” reads as a contradiction, can you clarify? Line (New) 311 – 312. We understand the contradiction in our statement, and have changed the sentence to read “…snake species of interest and standard photography equipment permits…”. Line (New) 129 – 132. Regarding further explanation on our photography protocols, due to our basic field conditions, we did not have consistent equipment or lighting, and have added the following sentence in the “Sample” heading of the methods: “…; however, we only applied basic photography skills to record scalation and body patterning of individuals, and we were not able to standardise lighting conditions and positioning of animals (simulating actual lab conditions in most locations where King Cobra studies might occur).”. We hope that we have sufficiently addressed all comments and suggestions, and thank you for your consideration of our registered report protocol for PLOS ONE pending these edits and further review. Kind regards, Colin Strine and Max Dolton Jones https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242826.r002
10 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor Can post-capture photographic identification as a wildlife marking technique be undermined by observer error? A case study using king cobras in northeast Thailand. PONE-D-20-23862R1 Dear Dr. Strine, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Bi-Song Yue, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242826.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Nov 2020 Acceptance Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor PONE-D-20-23862R1 Can post-capture photographic identification as a wildlife marking technique be undermined by observer error? A case study using King Cobras in northeast Thailand. Dear Dr. Strine: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Bi-Song Yue Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242826.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .