Comparing detection dog and livetrapping surveys for a cryptic rodent

Abstract

We compared the effectiveness and cost of distribution surveys using livetrapping to those using detection dog-handler teams for a cryptic rodent (Franklin's ground squirrel [Poliocitellus franklinii]). We livetrapped at 62 sites in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin for Franklin's ground squirrels in 2007-2009 and surveyed 40 of those sites using detection dogs in 2009. Independent surveys of a site by 2 dog-handler teams took <1 hr and yielded detection rates comparable to 2 daily livetrapping surveys (detection rate ¼ 83-84%). However, false presences are a potential problem when detection dogs are trained to scent of a species that leaves little visual sign to confirm its presence. Surveys by 2 dog-handler teams cost >2 daily livetrapping surveys conducted by 2 technicians but more and larger sites can be surveyed by dog-handler teams in a shorter time. For surveys covering large spatial scales or when time is a limiting factor, number of false presences, and study costs can be reduced by employing a 2-stage survey protocol in which livetrapping is conducted only at sites where detection dog surveys indicate presence. We conclude a 2-stage strategy could be used effectively in large-scale surveys for a variety of rare and cryptic species. ß 2011 The Wildlife Society.

Wildlife detector dogs and camera traps: a comparison of techniques for detecting feral cats

“…Detector dogs have been used to search for various species of carnivores (Wasser et al 2004;Smith et al 2005;Gompper et al 2006;Reindl-Thompson et al 2006;Long et al 2007a;Dematteo et al 2009;Brown et al 2011) and rodents (Gsell et al 2010;Duggan et al 2011;Shapira et al 2011). Detection probabilities can vary widely between species (e.g.…”

Identifying suitable detection dogs

“…Motivators which are important during detection dog selection are play-, prey-, and huntdrives (Maejima et al, 2007;Hurt and Smith, 2009;Reed et al, 2011;Beebe et al, 2016;Minhinnick et al, 2016). A dog's play-drive is the desire to be entertained, which ensures the dog values a toy or play reward in exchange for performing a particular behaviour (Cablk and Heaton, 2006;Hurt and Smith, 2009;Duggan et al, 2011). A detection dog will ideally be highly play motivated, to the point of obsession (Rebmann et al, 2000;Hurt and Smith, 2009;Beebe et al, 2016;Minhinnick et al, 2016).…”

Linee Guida per il monitoraggio dei coleotteri saproxilici protetti in Europa

“…Ad esempio, può facilitare la localizzazione delle specie target in microhabitat irraggiungibili o in ambienti difficilmente accessibili (Chambers et al 2015, Hoyer-Tomiczek et al 2016, riducendo il rischio di disturbo ed effettuando campionamenti non distruttivi (Chambers et al 2015), con particolare riferimento alle specie saproxiliche con larve che vivono all'interno degli alberi cavi (Hoyer-Tomiczek et al 2016). Inoltre, l'uso dei cani minimizza lo sforzo di campionamento, in termini di numero di personale coinvolto nel lavoro e di tempo impiegato sul campo (Browne et al 2006, Harrison 2006, Duggan et al 2011, Paula et al 2011) e riduce gli errori nei campionamenti (Wasser et al 2004, Browne et al 2006. Tutte queste caratteristiche si adattano bene al caso-studio di O. eremita.…”