Can volunteers train their pet dogs to detect a novel odor in a controlled environment in under 12 weeks?

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.

Diving in Nose First: The Influence of Unfamiliar Search Scale and Environmental Context on the Search Performance of Volunteer Conservation Detection Dog-Handler Teams

Simple Summary

Conservation detection dogs (CDDs) are trained to locate biological material from plants and animals of interest to conservation efforts and are often more effective and economical than other detection methods. However, the financial costs of developing and appropriately caring for CDDs can make them inaccessible for smaller conservation organizations. Training skilled volunteers to work with suitable pet dogs may help increase accessibility. We sought to further develop the skills of 13 volunteer dog–handler teams that were trained in a previous study to detect myrrh essential oil in controlled laboratory conditions. We recorded the proportion of targets found, false alerts made and search duration of the dog–handler team group through progressive training stages outdoors that increased in size and environmental complexity. First, teams searched various-sized areas before and after 12 weeks of search training on a sports-field. Next, teams searched various-sized areas before and after seven weeks of training in bushland. Overall, teams found approximately 20% fewer targets in each unfamiliar context, compared to performance in familiar contexts. However, teams typically found 10–20% more targets after a period of training compared to baseline searches. Search performance varied between teams, yet six teams found at least 78% of targets after training in bushland. Our results help to validate our stepped approach to training and highlight the need to train volunteer CDD teams to work in various-sized areas and environments.

Abstract

Conservation detection dogs (CDDs) are trained to locate biological material from plants and animals of interest to conservation efforts and are often more effective and economical than other detection methods. However, the financial costs of developing and appropriately caring for CDDs can nonetheless prohibit their use, particularly by smaller conservation organizations. Training skilled volunteers to work with suitable pet dogs may help address this constraint. We sought to further develop the skills of 13 volunteer dog–handler teams that were trained in a previous study to detect myrrh essential oil in controlled laboratory conditions. We assessed search sensitivity, search effort, search precision and false-alert instances through progressive training stages increasing in size and environmental complexity. First, teams searched various-sized areas before and after 12 weeks of search training on a sports-field. Next, teams searched various-sized areas before and after seven weeks of training in bushland. Overall, search sensitivity decreased by approximately 20% in each unfamiliar context, compared to performance in familiar contexts. However, sensitivity typically improved from baseline performance by 10–20% after a period of training. Six teams found at least 78% of targets after training in bushland, yet sensitivity ranged from 29% to 86% between teams. We maintain that the foundational skills developed previously were necessary to prepare volunteer teams for field surveys involving conservation related targets. However, our results highlight the need to also train volunteer CDD teams in search scale and environmental contexts similar to their intended working conditions.