Parallel-laser photogrammetry is growing in popularity as a way to collect non-invasive body size data from wild mammals. Despite its many appeals, this method requires researchers to hand-measure (i) the pixel distance between the parallel laser spots (inter-laser distance) to produce a scale within the image, and (ii) the pixel distance between the study subject’s body landmarks (inter-landmark distance). This manual effort is time-consuming and introduces human error: a researcher measuring the same image twice will rarely return the same values both times (resulting in within-observer error), as is also the case when two researchers measure the same image (resulting in between-observer error). Here, we present two independent methods that automate the inter-laser distance measurement of parallel-laser photogrammetry images. One method uses machine learning and image processing techniques in Python, and the other uses image processing techniques in ImageJ. Both of these methods reduce labor and increase precision without sacrificing accuracy. We first introduce the workflow of the two methods. Then, using two parallel-laser datasets of wild mountain gorilla and wild savannah baboon images, we validate the precision of these two automated methods relative to manual measurements and to each other. We also estimate the reduction of variation in final body size estimates in centimeters when adopting these automated methods, as these methods have no human error. Finally, we highlight the strengths of each method, suggest best practices for adopting either of them, and propose future directions for the automation of parallel-laser photogrammetry data.
This is a preview of subscription content,to check access.
Access this article
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
Data are available on Dryad data repository at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.51c59zw7d and on GitHub at http://github.com/ejlevy/Photogrammetry_Coding_InterLaser_Distance.
Code to run the automated methods are available at http://github.com/ejlevy/Photogrammetry_Coding_InterLaser_Distance.
Aleixo F, O’Callaghan SA, Ducla Soares L, Nunes P, Prieto R (2020) AragoJ: A free, open-source software to aid single camera photogrammetry studies. Methods Ecol Evol 11(5):670–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13376
Altmann J, Alberts SC (2005) Growth rates in a wild primate population: ecological influences and maternal effects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57(5):490–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-004-0870-x
Barrickman NL, Schreier AL, Glander KE (2015) Testing parallel laser image scaling for remotely measuring body dimensions on mantled howling monkeys (Alouatta palliata). Am J Primatol 77(8):823–832. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22416
Berger J (2012) Estimation of body-size traits by photogrammetry in large mammals to inform conservation. Conserv Biol 26(5):769–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01896.x
Bergeron P (2007) Parallel lasers for remote measurements of morphological traits. J Wildl Manag 71(1):289–292. https://doi.org/10.2193/2006-290
Berghänel A, Schülke O, Ostner J (2015) Locomotor play drives motor skill acquisition at the expense of growth: A life history trade-off. Sci Adv 1(7):e1500451. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500451
Bevington P, Robinson DK (2002) Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill Education, New York City. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4823194
Breuer T, Robbins MM, Boesch C (2007) Using photogrammetry and color scoring to assess sexual dimorphism in wild Western Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla). Am J Phys Anthropol 134(3):369–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20678
Clapham M, Miller E, Nguyen M, Darimont CT (2020) Automated facial recognition for wildlife that lack unique markings: a deep learning approach for brown bears. Ecol Evol 10(23):12883–12892. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6840
de Palmer Forest A (1912) The theory of measurements. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York City. https://doi.org/10.1038/095342a0
Deakos MH (2010) Paired-laser photogrammetry as a simple and accurate system for measuring the body size of free-ranging manta rays Manta alfredi. Aquat Biol 10(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00258
Durban JW, Parsons KM (2006) Laser-metrics of free-ranging killer whales. Mar Mamm Sci 22(3):735–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00068.x
Durban J, Fearnbach H, Burrows D, Ylitalo G, Pitman R (2017) Morphological and ecological evidence for two sympatric forms of Type B killer whale around the Antarctic Peninsula. Polar Biol 40(1):231–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-016-1942-x
Galbany J, Stoinski TS, Abavandimwe D, Breuer T, Rutkowski W, Batista NV, Ndagijimana F, McFarlin SC (2016) Validation of two independent photogrammetric techniques for determining body measurements of gorillas. Am J Primatol 78(4):418–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22511
Galbany J, Abavandimwe D, Vakiener M, Eckardt W, Mudakikwa A, Ndagijimana F, Stoinski TS, McFarlin SC (2017) Body growth and life history in wild mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) from Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda. Am J Phys Anthropol 163(3):570–590. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23232
Gardner JL, Peters A, Kearney MR, Joseph L, Heinsohn R (2011) Declining body size: a third universal response to warming? Trends Ecol Evol 26(6):285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.005
Jeffreys G, Rowat D, Marshall H, Brooks K (2013) The development of robust morphometric indices from accurate and precise measurements of free-swimming whale sharks using laser photogrammetry. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 93(2):309. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315412001312
Lourie HJ, Hoskins AJ, Arnould JP (2014) Big boys get big girls: Factors influencing pupping site and territory location in Australian fur seals. Mar Mamm Sci 30(2):544–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12056
Lu A, Bergman TJ, McCann C, Stinespring-Harris A, Beehner JC (2016) Growth trajectories in wild geladas (Theropithecus gelada). Am J Primatol 78(7):707–719. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22535
Martınez GH (2019) OpenPose: whole-body pose estimation. Master’s Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University
Mathis A, Mamidanna P, Cury KM, Abe T, Murthy VN, Mathis M, Bethge M (2018) DeepLabCut: markerless pose estimation of user-defined body parts with deep learning. Nat Neurosci 21(9):1281–1289. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y
Rohner C, Richardson A, Marshall A, Weeks S, Pierce S (2011) How large is the world’s largest fish? Measuring whale sharks Rhincodon typus with laser photogrammetry. J Fish Biol 78(1):378–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02861.x
Rothman JM, Chapman CA, Twinomugisha D, Wasserman MD, Lambert JE, Goldberg TL (2008) Measuring physical traits of primates remotely: the use of parallel lasers. Am J Primatol 70(12):1191–1195. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20611
Sanakoyeu A, Khalidov V, McCarthy MS, Vedaldi A, Neverova N (2020) Transferring dense pose to proximal animal classes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 5233–5242. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome/1000147/all-proceedings
Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9(7):671–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089
Swenson JE, Adamič M, Huber D, Stokke S (2007) Brown bear body mass and growth in northern and southern Europe. Oecologia 153(1):37–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0715-1
Tarugara A, Clegg BW, Gandiwa E, Muposhi VK, Wenham CM (2019) Measuring body dimensions of leopards (Panthera pardus) from camera trap photographs. PeerJ 7:e7630. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7630
Vaid S, Cakan C, Bhandari M (2020) Using machine learning to estimate unobserved COVID-19 infections in North America. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.00715
van der Walt S, Schönberger J, Nunez-Iglesias J, Boulogne F, Warner J, Yager N, Gouillart E, Yu T, the scikit-image contributors (2014) scikit-image: image processing in Python. PeerJ 2:e453. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.453
Webster T, Dawson S, Slooten E (2010) A simple laser photogrammetry technique for measuring Hector’s dolphins (Cephalorhynchus hectori) in the field. Mar Mamm Sci 26(2):296–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2009.00326.x
Weisgerber JN, Medill SA, McLoughlin PD (2015) Parallel-laser photogrammetry to estimate body size in free-ranging mammals. Wildl Soc B 39(2):422–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.541
Wijeyamohan S, Sivakumar V, Read B, Schmitt D, Krishnakumar S, Santiapillai C (2012) A simple technique to estimate linear body measurements of elephants. Curr Sci India 102(1):26–28
Wong JB, Auger-Méthé M (2018) Using laser photogrammetry to measure long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas). N S Inst Sci (NSIS) 49(2):269. https://doi.org/10.15273/pnsis.v49i2.8164
Wright E, Galbany J, McFarlin SC, Ndayishimiye E, Stoinski TS, Robbins MM (2019) Male body size, dominance rank and strategic use of aggression in a group-living mammal. Anim Behav 151:87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.03.011
Wright E, Galbany J, McFarlin SC, Ndayishimiye E, Stoinski TS, Robbins MM (2020) Dominance rank but not body size influences female reproductive success in mountain gorillas. PLoS ONE 15(6):e0233235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233235
This paper was a collaboration between researchers associated with the Bwindi Gorilla Research Project and the Amboseli Baboon Research Project. We thank the Uganda Wildlife Authority and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology for permission to conduct research on mountain gorillas in Uganda and for support of this research. We are greatly indebted to the many field assistants who have contributed to this work, and to the Institute for Tropical Forest Conservation for providing logistical support. Particularly, we thank M. Akantorana, D. Musinguzi, J. Mutale, B. Turyananuka, for their long-term contributions to the Bwindi Gorilla Research Project. We also thank Edward Wright for help in the development and training needed for the data collection in Bwindi and Chen Zeng for expertise in developing the method. We thank Anna Lee for collecting baboon images, Elise Malone for measuring baboon images, and Emma Helmich for assisting with the development of the ImageJ method. Particular thanks go to the Amboseli Baboon Research Project directors (J. Altmann, S.C. Alberts, E.A. Archie, J. Tung), and the long-term field team (R.S. Mututua, S. Sayialel, J.K. Warutere, I.L. Siodi). For a complete set of acknowledgments of funding sources, logistical assistance, and data collection and management for the long-term baboon research, please visit http://amboselibaboons.nd.edu/acknowledgements/.
The Bwindi Gorilla Research Project gratefully acknowledges the following funding support for this work: The Wenner-Gren Foundation (ICRG 123), National Science Foundation (NSF BCS 1753651), The George Washington University, The Max Planck Society, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Great Ape Fund and Berggorilla Regenwald Direkthlife. The Amboseli Baboon Research Project gratefully acknowledges the following specific support for this project: the National Science Foundation via a Graduate Research Fellowship to EJL (DGE1644868), the National Institute on Aging (R01AG053308), The Leakey Foundation, the Animal Behavior Society, the Society for the Study of Evolution, and Duke University.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
This research was approved by the IACUC at Duke University and adhered to all the laws and regulation governing research in Kenya and Uganda.
Consent to participate
Consent for publishing
The authors gave consent to publish this paper.
Handling editors: Leszek Karczmarski and Scott Y.S. Chui.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliation'.
This article is a contribution to the special issue on “Individual Identification and Photographic Techniques in Mammalian Ecological and Behavioural Research – Part 1: Methods and Concepts” — Editors: Leszek Karczmarski, Stephen C. Y. Chan, Daniel I. Rubenstein, Scott Y.S. Chui and Elissa Z. Cameron.
Skimage method without machine learning
As noted in ‘Schematics and Workflow for the skimage and ImageJ Methods’, the skimage method can also be performed without the pre-processing step of machine learning to mask the gorilla.
Here we compare the results of the skimage method with machine learning (as presented in the manuscript, Table A1: row 1) to the skimage method using only image processing steps on the full image, not using the machine learning masks, ‘skimage without machine learning’ (Table A1: row 2). This was performed on the original dataset of 100 gorilla images. The image processing takes longer without the machine learning pre-processing step (Table A2). The skimage without machine learning method returned measurements for 100% of images; however, in one image the laser spots were mis-identified (not included in Table A1). Using skimage with and without machine learning produces very similar results on the gorilla dataset (Table A2). Thus, using the skimage method without machine learning may be more suitable for researchers without access to the processing power needed to run the machine learning step, or who are unfamiliar with machine-learning algorithms. However, the image processing code was developed for use with photos of dark animals against green backgrounds. Thus, for researchers who are using images that are distinctly different in color or animal species, implementing the machine learning step on their photographs will almost certainly yield better-quality masking than image processing approaches based on color alone.
Table A3 compares the three methods as in Table 1, but it reports the absolute differences instead of the percent differences. Table A4 compares the three methods as in Table 1, but it provides percent differences as a function of inter-beam distance.
About this article
Cite this article
Richardson, J.L., Levy, E.J., Ranjithkumar, R. et al. Automated, high-throughput image calibration for parallel-laser photogrammetry. Mamm Biol 102, 615–627 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-021-00174-7