Training of a dog for the monitoring of Osmoderma eremita

Conservation detection dogs: A critical review of efficacy and methodology

Conservation detection dogs (CDD) use their exceptional olfactory abilities to assist a wide range of conservation projects through the detection of target specimens or species. CDD are generally quicker, can cover wider areas and find more samples than humans and other analytical tools. However, their efficacy varies between studies; methodological and procedural standardisation in the field is lacking. Considering the cost of deploying a CDD team and the limited financial resources within conservation, it is vital that their performance is quantified and reliable. This review aims to summarise what is currently known about the use of scent detection dogs in conservation and elucidate which factors affect efficacy. We describe the efficacy of CDD across species and situational contexts like training and fieldwork. Reported sensitivities (i.e. the proportion of target samples found out of total available) ranged from 23.8% to 100% and precision rates (i.e. proportion of alerts that are true positives) from 27% to 100%. CDD are consistently shown to be better than other techniques, but performance varies substantially across the literature. There is no consistent difference in efficacy between training, testing and fieldwork, hence we need to understand the factors affecting this. We highlight the key variables that can alter CDD performance. External effects include target odour, training methods, sample management, search methodology, environment and the CDD handler. Internal effects include dog breed, personality, diet, age and health. Unfortunately, much of the research fails to provide adequate information on the dogs, handlers, training, experience and samples. This results in an inability to determine precisely why an individual study has high or low efficacy. It is clear that CDDs can be effective and applied to possibly limitless conservation scenarios, but moving forward researchers must provide more consistent and detailed methodologies so that comparisons can be conducted, results are more easily replicated and progress can be made in standardising CDD work.

Alien Invasive Pathogens and Pests Harming Trees, Forests, and Plantations: Pathways, Global Consequences and Management

Forest health worldwide is impacted by many invasive alien pathogens and pests (IAPPs) that cause significant harm, with severe economic losses and environmental alterations. Destructive tree pathogens and pests have in the past devastated our forests, natural landscapes and cityscapes and still continue to represent a serious threat. The main driver of pathogen and pest invasions is human activities, above all global trade, which allows these invasive species to overstep their natural distribution ranges. While natural transport occurs according to a regular, expected colonization pattern (based on the dispersive capacity of the organism), human-mediated transport takes place on a larger, unpredictable scale. In order for a pathogen or pest species to become invasive in a new territory it must overcome distinct stages (barriers) that strongly affect the outcome of the invasion. Early detection is crucial to enabling successful eradication and containment. Although sophisticated diagnostic techniques are now available for disease and pest surveillance and monitoring, few control and mitigation options are usable in forestry; of these, biological control is one of the most frequently adopted. Since invasion by pathogens and pests is an economic and ecological problem of supranational relevance, governments should endorse all necessary preventive and corrective actions. To this end, establishing and harmonizing measures among countries is essential, both for preventing new introductions and for diminishing the eventual range expansion of IAPPs present at a local scale. Research is fundamental for: (i) developing effective and rapid diagnostic tools; (ii) investigating the epidemiology and ecology of IAPPs in newly introduced areas; and (iii) supporting policymakers in the implementation of quarantine regulations.

Pest detection dogs for wood boring longhorn beetles

Invasive alien species are increasing due to globalization. Their spread has resulted in global economic losses. Asian [Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky)] (ALB) and citrus [A. chinensis (Forster)] (CLB) longhorn beetles are two introduced wood borers which contribute to these economic losses e.g. the destruction of tree plantations. Early detection is key to reduce the ecological influence alongside the detrimental and expensive eradication. Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) can detect these insects, potentially at an early stage. We trained two privately owned dogs to investigate their use as detection tools. We tested the dog's ability to discriminate ALB and CLB from native wood borers by carrying out double-blind and randomized experiments in three search conditions; (1) laboratory, (2) semi-field and (3) standardized field. For condition one, a mean sensitivity of 80%, specificity of 95% and accuracy of 92% were achieved. For condition two and three, a mean sensitivity of 88% and 95%, specificity of 94% and 92% and accuracy of 92% and 93% were achieved. We conclude that dogs can detect all types of traces and remains of ALB and CLB and discriminate them from native wood borers and uninfested wood, but further tests on live insects should be initiated.

Olfactory Generalization in Detector Dogs

Simple Summary

Dogs are valued for their odor detection capabilities in a vast range of fields. They help to find hidden and elusive targets, such as explosives, narcotics, missing persons, and invasive or endangered species, amongst an extensive list. In all these roles, dogs are required to find real target odors that vary somewhat from those with which they were trained. For example, dogs might be trained with an explosive mixture or certain explosive compounds, and then must be able to find homemade explosives of differing compositions or manufacturing processes. This ability, to respond to similar odors in the same way as they would respond to the originally trained odor, is known as generalization. A failure to generalize can result in dogs missing targets in working scenarios. Although generalization is usually desired to some extent, dogs must also discriminate against related odors that are not targets. Therefore, research that investigates factors that can influence dogs’ tendency to generalize, and conversely to discriminate, can inform training strategies to improve detection outcomes. However, this field requires further research with greater application to practical training.

Abstract

Generalizing to target odor variations while retaining specificity against non-targets is crucial to the success of detector dogs under working conditions. As such, the importance of generalization should be considered in the formulation of effective training strategies. Research investigating olfactory generalization from pure singular compounds to more complex odor mixtures helps to elucidate animals’ olfactory generalization tendencies and inform ways to alter the generalization gradient by broadening or narrowing the range of stimuli to which dogs will respond. Olfactory generalization depends upon both intrinsic factors of the odors, such as concentration, as well as behavioral and cognitive factors related to training and previous experience. Based on the current research, some training factors may influence generalization. For example, using multiple target exemplars appears to be the most effective way to promote elemental processing and broaden the generalization gradient, whereas increasing the number of training instances with fewer exemplars can narrow the gradient, thereby increasing discrimination. Overall, this research area requires further attention and study to increase our understanding of olfactory generalization in dogs, particularly detector dogs, to improve training and detection outcomes.

The LIFE Project “Monitoring of insects with public participation” (MIPP): aims, methods and conclusions

The Life Project “Monitoring of insects with public participation” (LIFE11 NAT/IT/000252) had as the main objective to develop and test methods for the monitoring of five beetle species listed in the Annexes of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC): Osmodermaeremita (hermit beetle, Scarabaeidae), Lucanuscervus (European stag beetle, Lucanidae), Cerambyxcerdo (great capricorn beetle, Cerambycidae), Rosaliaalpina (rosalia longicorn, Cerambycidae) and Morimusasper/funereus (morimus longicorn, Cerambycidae). The data gathered represent an important contribution to the monitoring of these target species in Italy. The methods developed for monitoring of the target species are intended for use by the local management authorities and staff of protected areas. These developed methods are the result of extensive fieldwork and ensure scientific validity, ease of execution and limited labour costs. The detailed description of methods and the results for each species are published in separate articles of this special issue of Nature Conservation. A second objective of the project was to gather faunistic data with a Citizen Science approach, using the web and a mobile application software (app) specifically built for mobile devices. The validation of the records collected by the citizens was carried out by experts, based on photographs, which were obligatory for all records. Dissemination activities represented the principal way to contact and engage citizens for the data collection and also offered the possibility of providing information on topics such as Natura 2000, the Habitats Directive, the role of monitoring in nature conservation, the importance of forest ecosystems and the ecological role of the saproxylic insects. An innovative method tested during the project was the training of a dog for searching and monitoring the elusive hermit beetle; the trained dog also added a “curiosity” factor to attract public attention towards this rare insect and the issues mentioned above.