Detection dogs in nature conservation: A database on their world‐wide deployment with a review on breeds used and their performance compared to other methods

Abstract

Over the last century, dogs have been increasingly used to detect rare and elusive species or traces of them. The use of wildlife detection dogs (WDD) is particularly well‐established in North America, Europe and Oceania, and projects deploying them have increased world‐wide. However, if they are to make a significant contribution to conservation and management, their strengths, abilities and limitations should be fully identified. We reviewed the use of WDD with particular focus on the breeds used in different countries and for various targets, as well as their overall performance compared to other methods, by developing and analysing a database of 1,220 publications, including 916 scientific ones, covering 2,464 individual cases—most of them (1,840) scientific. With the world‐wide increase in the use of WDD, associated tasks have changed and become much more diverse. Since 1930, reports exist for 62 countries and 408 animal, 42 plant, 26 fungi and six bacteria species. Altogether, 108 FCI‐classified and 20 non‐FCI‐classified breeds have worked as WDD. While certain breeds have been preferred on different continents and for specific tasks and targets, they were not generally better suited for detection tasks than others. Overall, WDD usually worked more effectively than other monitoring methods. For each species group, regardless of breed, detection dogs were better than other methods in 88.71% of all cases and only worse in 0.98%. It was only for arthropods that Pinshers and Schnauzers performed worse than other breeds. For mono‐ and dicotyledons, detection dogs did less often outperform other methods. Although every breed can be trained as a WDD, choosing the most suitable dog for the task and target may speed up training and increase the chance of success. Albeit selection of the most appropriate WDD is important, excellent training, knowledge about the target density and suitability, and a proper study design all appeared to have the highest impact on performance. Moreover, an appropriate area, habitat and weather are crucial for detection dog work. When these factors are taken into consideration, WDD can be an outstanding monitoring method.

Functionally analogous body- and animacy-responsive areas in the dog (Canis familiaris) and human occipito-temporal lobe

“…However, the link between cognition and olfaction remains speculative since behavioural studies using olfactory cues so far mainly explored dogs' odour and disease detection abilities (e.g., [81][82][83][84][85]), while dog imaging studies on olfaction focused on reward-processing [86,87] or general sensory abilities [88][89][90]. However, a recent behavioural study investigating dog cognition using olfactory cues showed first evidence that dogs form representations of their owners when smelling their tracks [91].…”

A framework to integrate innovations in invasion science for proactive management

“…(7) Conservation detection dogs Domestic dogs trained for chemical detection are increasingly employed for ecological and conservation applications (Grimm-Seyfarth, Harms & Berger, 2021). These wildlife or conservation detection dogs (hereafter CDDs) can detect organic compounds associated with a variety of organisms and possible physiological states (Bennett, Hauser & Moore, 2020), sometimes at concentrations on the order of hundreds of parts per trillion (Johnston, 1999).…”

“…Conservation applications of CDDs began with the detection of cryptic endangered species, especially by scat (covered in greater depth in Martinez et al ., 2020), but have broadened considerably as training techniques and awareness of these methods has advanced (Whitehouse‐Tedd, Richards & Parker, 2021). The performance of CDDs across a variety of applications is remarkably high; a recent meta‐analysis showed CDDs outperforming other conventional methods of species detection in nearly 90% of >600 research studies (Grimm‐Seyfarth et al ., 2021).…”

“…The application of CDDs for invasion research and management has risen rapidly in the last decade, although with a significant geographical bias around North America and Oceania (Martinez et al ., 2020; Grimm‐Seyfarth et al ., 2021). CDDs are considered especially valuable in the context of biosurveillance, monitoring and early detection, since organisms are harder to detect at low concentrations and abundances (Hoyer‐Tomiczek & Hoch, 2020).…”

Field quantifications of probability of detection and search patterns to form protocols for the use of detector dogs for eradication assessments

“…The use of detector dogs within environmental programs has increased greatly over the past few decades because of their general superiority for detection and cost‐effectiveness compared to humans or other methods (Ballouard et al, 2019 ; Cristescu et al, 2015 ; Grimm‐Seyfarth et al, 2021 ; Orkin et al, 2016 ), especially when targets are at very low densities (Cheyne, 2011 ; Russell et al, 2008 ). But despite the acknowledgment of superior dog abilities to find many target species, background science quantifying the efficacy and limitations of detector dogs to detect the broad array of taxa is lacking, search methods as well as research methods to determine efficacy and limitations are not standardized, and variation in dog performance remains not well quantified or understood (Bennett et al, 2020 ; Johnen et al, 2017 ).…”