Using Morphometric Measurements to Calculate the Weight of Florida Manatees

(Trichechus manatus latirostris)

Kane J. Rigney1* and Mark Flint2,3
1Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St Petersburg, Florida, 33711, USA
2University of Florida, Aquatic Animal Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, 32610, USA
3The University of Queensland, Veterinary‐Marine Animal Research, Teaching and Investigation unit, School of Veterinary Science, Gatton, Queensland, 4343, Australia

Abstract Methods Results

Using morphometric data (body lengths, girths and weights) from 110
healthy Florida manatees ranging in size from 98 cm to 379 cm and
captured for health assessments from 3 locations around Florida, we
compared multiple combinations of straight and curved line lengths
with girths at the axilla, umbilicus, anus and peduncle to devise a
linear regression algorithm to predict the weight of an animal.
Estimated weight (EW [kg]) was determined as the girth at the
umbilicus (GU [cm]) squared multiplied by straight length (SL [cm])
giving a correlation coefficient of 0.97 when compared with actual
weight.
Equation 1: GU2 x SL x 3.778x10-5
Morphometric data (body length, girths and weights) was collected Accurate estimated weight (EW [kg]) was determined as the girth at the umbilicus (GU [cm]) squared; multiplied by straight
from 110 healthy Florida manatees ranging in size from 98 cm to 379 length (SL [cm]) multiplied by a conversion factor of 3.778 x 10‐5 giving a correlation coefficient of 0.985 when compared with
cm and captured for health assessments from 3 locations around actual weight (Eqn 1, Table 1). On average, this algorithm overestimated weight by 1.2% (4.6/390.8; SD 0.1). Using the same
Florida (Map 1.). Using this data we compared multiple method for girth at the peduncle (R2 = 0.93), axilla (R2 = 0.69) and anus (R2 = 0.85), weight could be estimated, but with a
combinations of straight and curved line lengths with girths at the reduced accuracy.
axilla, umbilicus, anus and peduncle to devise a linear regression
algorithm to predict the weight of an animal. Equation 1: GU2 x SL x 3.778 x 10‐5= EW
800.00
y = 0.9715x + 2.9085
R² = 0.9857
700.00

The use of this formula will benefit biologists and veterinarians by Map 1:
Sample sites
allowing for calculation of weight without endangering handlers or for collection 600.00
animals, and expedite field based health assessments to quickly return of manatee Table 1:
morphometric Blind-test of
the animal to the water. data estimated
weights using
the algorithm 500.00
against

Actual Weight (kg)

animals with
known weights
400.00

Weight (kg) Linear (Weight (kg))

300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Estimated Weight (kg)

Introduction
The endangered Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) has
received considerable conservation efforts over the last few decades.
As our understanding of their biology, physiology and diseases
increases, a focus of conservation has been to produce baseline
biological and medical data of healthy manatees to monitor threats to
the population.
One piece of information required to assess health is weight. This is
difficult to obtain in any aquatic species, especially those which can
weigh >1000kg. Current practices rely on capturing the manatees and
loading them into slings suspended from scales. This requires special
equipment, prolongs restraint time, and is potentially dangerous to the
manatees and their handlers.
Weight predictions using body measurements have been used in
various species of animals (Mutua et al, 2011). The objective of this
study is to develop an equation to estimate weight in Florida
manatees for instances where physical weight cannot be obtained.
Biologists and veterinarians collecting total length of a manatee during a routine health
assessment (above).
Biologists and veterinarian rolling a manatee on its side to mark umbilicus and anus landmarks
for girth measurements (below).
Conclusion
This formula will benefit biologists and veterinarians by allowing calculation of weight without the need for slings or weighing
equipment. Further, use of this method removes the risk of injury to handlers or animals encountered when weighing animals
by manual methods, and will expedite field based health assessments to quickly return the animal to the water.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Bob Bonde, Cathy Beck, Susan Butler and Jim Reed with USGS and Dr. Ray Ball and staff
from Lowry Park Zoo for allowing us to collect data during health assessments. We would also like to thank Dr. Chip Deutsch
and Margie Barlas with FWC-FWRI and staff at the FWC-FWRI Marine Mammal Pathobiology Laboratory for assistance in
collection of data. All USGS data collected from field work was conducted under USGS permit MA791721-4. All FWC data
was collected under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
References
Mutua F.K, C.E. Dewey and S.M. Arimi, et al. Prediction of live body weight using length and girth measurements for pigs in
rural Western Kenya. J Swine Health Prod. 2011;19(1):26–33.