AI helps tell snow leopards apart, improving population counts for these majestic mountain predators
Travel writer Peter Matthiessen spent two months in 1973 searching the Tibetan plateau for them and wrote a 300-page book about the effort. He never saw one. Forty years later, Peter's son Alex retraced his father's steps – and didn't see one either.
Researchers have struggled to come up with a figure for the global population. In 2017, the International Union for Conservation of Nature reclassified the snow leopard from endangered to vulnerable, citing estimates of between 2,500 and 10,000 adults in the wild. However, the group also warned that numbers continue to decline in many areas due to habitat loss, poaching and human-wildlife conflict. Those who study these animals want to help protect the species and their habitat – if only we can determine exactly where they live and how many there are.
Traditional tracking methods – searching for footprints, droppings and other signs – have their limits. Instead of waiting for a lucky face-to-face encounter, conservationists from the Wildlife Conservation Society, led by experts including Stéphane Ostrowski and Sorosh Poya Faryabi, began deploying automated camera traps in Afghanistan. These devices snap photos whenever movement is detected, capturing thousands of images over months, all in hopes of obtaining a rare glimpse of a snow leopard.
But capturing images is only half the battle. The next, even harder task is telling one snow leopard apart from another.
At first glance, it might sound simple: Each snow leopard has a unique pattern of black rosettes on its coat, like a fingerprint or a face in a crowd. Yet in practice, identifying individuals by these patterns is slow, subjective and prone to error. Photos may be taken at odd angles, under poor lighting, or with parts of the animal obscured – making matches tricky.
A common mistake happens when photos from different cameras are marked as depicting different animals when they actually show the same individual, inflating population estimates. Worse, camera trap images can get mixed up or misfiled, splitting encounters of one cat across multiple batches and identities.
I am a data analyst working with Wildlife Conservation Society and other partners at Wild Me. My work and others' has found that even trained experts can misidentify animals, failing to recognize repeat visitors at locations monitored by motion-sensing cameras and counting the same animal more than once. One study found that the snow leopard population was overestimated by more than 30% because of these human errors.
To avoid these pitfalls, researchers follow camera sorting guidelines: At least three clear pattern differences or similarities must be confirmed between two images to declare them the same or different cats. Images too blurry, too dark or taken from difficult angles may have to be discarded. Identification efforts range from easy cases with clear, full-body shots to ambiguous ones needing collaboration and debate. Despite these efforts, variability remains, and more experienced observers tend to be more accurate.
Now people trying to count snow leopards are getting help from artificial intelligence systems, in two ways.
Modern AI tools are revolutionizing how we process these large photo libraries. First, AI can rapidly sort through thousands of images, flagging those that contain snow leopards and ignoring irrelevant ones such as those that depict blue sheep, gray-and-white mountain terrain, or shadows.
AI can identify individual snow leopards by analyzing their unique rosette patterns, even when poses or lighting vary. Each snow leopard encounter is compared with a catalog of previously identified photos and assigned a known ID if there is a match, or entered as a new individual if not.
In a recent study, several colleagues and I evaluated two AI algorithms, both separately and in tandem.
The first algorithm, called HotSpotter, identifies individual snow leopards by comparing key visual features such as coat patterns, highlighting distinctive 'hot spots' with a yellow marker.
The second is a newer method called pose invariant embeddings, which operates similar to facial recognition technology: It recognizes layers of abstract features in the data, identifying the same animal regardless of how it is positioned in the photo or what kind of lighting there may be.
We trained these systems using a curated dataset of photos of snow leopards from zoos in the U.S., Europe and Tajikistan, and with images from the wild, including in Afghanistan.
Alone, each model worked about 74% of the time, correctly identifying the cat from a large photo library. But when combined, the two systems together were correct 85% of the time.
These algorithms were integrated into Wildbook, an open-source, web-based software platform developed by the nonprofit organization Wild Me and now adopted by ConservationX. We deployed the combined system on a free website, Whiskerbook.org, where researchers can upload images, seek matches using the algorithms, and confirm those matches with side-by-side comparisons. This site is among a growing family of AI-powered wildlife platforms that are helping conservation biologists work more efficiently and more effectively at protecting species and their habitats.
These AI systems aren't error-proof. AI quickly narrows down candidates and flags likely matches, but expert validation ensures accuracy, especially with tricky or ambiguous photos.
Another study we conducted pitted AI-assisted groups of experts and novices against each other. Each was given a set of three to 10 images of 34 known captive snow leopards and asked to use the Whiskerbook platform to identify them. They were also asked to estimate how many individual animals were in the set of photos.
The experts accurately matched about 90% of the images and delivered population estimates within about 3% of the true number. In contrast, the novices identified only 73% of the cats and underestimated the total number, sometimes by 25% or more, incorrectly merging two individuals into one.
Both sets of results were better than when experts or novices did not use any software.
The takeaway is clear: Human expertise remains important, and combining it with AI support leads to the most accurate results. My colleagues and I hope that by using tools like Whiskerbook and the AI systems embedded in them, researchers will be able to more quickly and more confidently study these elusive animals.
With AI tools like Whiskerbook illuminating the mysteries of these mountain ghosts, we have another way to safeguard snow leopards – but success depends on continued commitment to protecting their fragile mountain homes.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Eve Bohnett, University of Florida
Read more:
In protecting land for wildlife, size matters – here's what it takes to conserve very large areas
Grizzly bear conservation is as much about human relationships as it is the animals
I run 'facial recognition' on buildings to unlock architectural secrets
Eve Bohnett receives funding from San Diego State Research Foundation and Wildlife Conservation Society. She is affiliated with University of Florida.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
Video from a bat cave in Africa offers clues on how viruses leap between species
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Through a mixture of what he called 'curiosity and luck,' he filmed far more than leopards. Hundreds of nights of footage revealed a steady procession of 13 additional predator species, among them large-spotted genets, African civets, African fish eagles, African rock pythons, L'Hoest's monkeys and baboons. Python Cave is home to as many as 50,000 Egyptian fruit bats, and the predators emerged from the cave with a winged snack, which they either hunted or scavenged, in their mouths. Advertisement 'It was amazing how many animals come to eat bats at that specific spot,' Atukwatse said. He added, 'It's basically a free meal for everybody in the area.' That is significant in part because the fruit bats, including in the area's caves, are known to be a natural reservoir for infectious diseases, including the deadly Marburg virus. Advertisement 'It's a really important observation, because we think speculatively about how wildlife comes into contact with each other, but we rarely ever observe it,' said Jonathan Epstein, a public health researcher with expertise in viral zoonoses and founder of One Health Science who was not involved in the study. 'It helps us paint the picture.' While the Marburg virus does not need an intermediate host en route to infecting humans, other novel viruses could follow such a path of first passing from bat to predator where it mutates into a form that infects humans. Although Atukwatse observed 'how these predators timed themselves in a way that they didn't encounter and disturb each other,' they were, he said, 'actively taking pieces of the bat and dispersing them.' He continued, 'These animals interact with other animals elsewhere in the park.' In a forest full of wildlife, 'there are hundreds of thousands of viruses in there being shared all across the animal spectrum, and they're shedding, eating each other, pooping on each other, sharing saliva,' said Chris Walzer, executive director of health at the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York. 'The interface that is shown here contributes, like thousands of other interfaces in the forest, to a viral exchange or pathogen exchange.' He added, 'It's a cool example of what's happening all the time and has been for eons.' Epstein said that 'spillover requires a lot of things to line up.' Seeing the direct contact between bats and other predators is valuable because 'that's often something we don't understand very well.' Advertisement 'It is important to understand what other wildlife get exposed,' he continued, 'and the baboons are probably the most interesting here because we know that primates are susceptible to viruses.' He described a scenario in which perhaps a significant baboon die-off in the forest was linked to Marburg virus. 'This observation becomes important because we can look back and see that these baboons are hunting these bats and that explains how they would be infected,' he said. Alex Braczkowski, scientific director of the Kyambura Lion Project and a co-author with Atukwatse, compared it to stumbling upon a crime scene. 'We know we've found something,' he said. 'We are not claiming to know what it means. We just know that it's a portal to somewhere.' This article originally appeared in

Engadget
27-06-2025
- Engadget
Peter Thiel is utterly wrong about Alzheimer's
The New York Times ran a lengthy interview this morning between columnist Ross Douthat and venture capitalist and PayPal founder Peter Thiel. There's a reason it was published in the opinion section. Thiel, a Trump booster whose allies — including Vice President JD Vance — now litter the White House, was given free reign to discuss a variety of topics across over an hour of softball questions. Is Greta Thunberg the literal antichrist? Are the three predominant ideological schools in Europe environmentalism, "Islamic Shariah law" and "Chinese Communist totalitarian takeover"? Is AI "woke" and capable of following Elon Musk to Mars? Peter seems to think so! Perhaps the "just asking questions" school of journalism could add " hey, what the fuck are you talking about " to its repertoire. Admittedly, many of these assertions fall squarely into the realm of things that exist within Thiel's mind palace rather than verifiable facts, with at least one notable exception. Relatively early in their chat, Peter tells Ross the following [emphasis ours]: If we look at biotech, something like dementia, Alzheimer's — we've made zero progress in 40 to 50 years. People are completely stuck on beta amyloids. It's obviously not working. It's just some kind of a stupid racket where the people are just reinforcing themselves. It's a pretty bold claim! It's also completely untrue. "There was no treatment 40 or 50 years ago for Alzheimer's disease," Sterling Johnson, a professor of Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, told Engadget. "What we've been able to do in the last 20 years has been actually pretty extraordinary. We've developed markers that help us identify when this disease starts, using the using amyloid markers and tau biomarkers, we know that the disease actually begins 20 years before the symptoms do, and that is a critical thing to know if we are going to prevent this disease." At the moment, Alzheimer's remains incurable. But the absence of a miracle cure does not negate the accomplishments thus far in detection and prevention. "The first treatments were these window dressing treatments. It's like treating the symptoms like you would treat a cold [...] The first generation of amyloid therapy was that kind of approach where it just addressed the symptoms by amping up the neurons and increasing the neurotransmitters available to the to the brain cells." Johnson, whose team runs one of the largest and longest studies on people at risk for developing Alzheimer's diseases, added, "Now we have opportunities to actually modify the disease biology through the amyloid pathway, but also we're focused on the other proteinopathy — which is tau — and there's clinical trials underway." Thiel, a well-known advocate for advancements in radical life extension (including a reported interest in injecting himself with the blood of young people) sees the state of scientific research in this area as sluggish and risk averse. But the groundbreaking work is happening at this moment. Professor Johnson pointed to a monoclonal antibody called gantenerumab. In an early test of 73 participants with inherited mutations that would cause them to overproduce amyloid in the brain, it cut the number of participants who developed Alzheimer's symptoms practically in half. "The big phase three prevention trials [of gantenerumab] are happening right now," For someone who fashions himself as a heterodox thinker, Thiel certainly seems to have stumbled on a remarkably similar talking point to current Trump administration FDA head Robert F Kennedy Jr. "Alzheimer's is a very, very good example of how [National Institute of Health] has gone off the rails over the past 20 years ago with research on amyloid plaques" Kennedy said at a Department of Health budgetary hearing last month. He claimed the NIH was "cutting off any other hypothesis" due to "corruption." Unsurprisingly, the Alzheimer's Association has called this "demonstrably false." "In reality, over the most recent 10 years available (2014-2023), less than 14% of new National Institutes of Health (NIH) Alzheimer's projects focused on amyloid beta as the therapeutic target," the organization wrote, "As of September 2024, the National Institute on Aging was investing in 495 pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials. To state that Alzheimer's research is focused on amyloid to the exclusion of other targets is clearly wrong." If I, personally, wanted more robust medical research and a chance an eternal life (I don't), greasing the wheels of an administration broadly gutting funding for science would be a strange way to make that happen. But this is the sort of incoherence we've come to expect from tech oligarchs: they say what benefits them, even if it's nonsense on its face, even if a moment's reflection reveals it to be patently false. What's embarrassing is the paper of record giving them free reign to do it.


Miami Herald
24-06-2025
- Miami Herald
Hidden cliffside nest of the world's largest flying bird discovered in Peru Andes
For just the fourth time ever, researchers on an expedition in the Andes Mountains have recorded the Andean condor — the world's largest flying bird — nesting in Peru. The team spent about six hours a day for several days in August 2024 scouring rough terrain on foot, using binoculars and spotting scopes to record sightings of the threatened species. It took a drone, however, to discover a hidden nest with two adults and one chick on a cliff in the Junin region of Peru, according to a study published June 24 in the journal Check List. The sighting marks not only the fourth record in the country, but the second record in the Peruvian Andes and the first record in the Paccha district, according to researchers. The Andean condor lays an average of one egg every two years. Both parents incubate the egg for about 60 days and feed their offspring for six months, according to the study. Researchers said the species is listed as vulnerable on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red list, and given Endangered status by the Peruvian National Service of Forestry and Wildlife. It faces threats including 'lead poisoning, collisions with electrical and telecommunications infrastructure, illegal use in folklore events, illegal wildlife trade, and competition with feral dogs.' Andean condor nesting sites in Peru have all been recorded in the last 40 years, with the first seen in 1988, a third in 2016, and the most recent, marking the first in the Peruvian Andes, was found in 2023, according to the study. The research team recorded 11 individual Andean condors during their expedition, not including the three at the nest, the study said. Researchers said the areas where the nest was found and where individuals of the species were recorded for the first time should receive protection and conservation priority. The research team included Henry Tinoco-Vega, Luis Castillo-Roque, Matt T. Herbert, John Azua and Roberto Elias-Piperis.