1
|
Snelleman M, Wessel M, Schoon A. Investigating individual learning behaviour of dogs during a yes/no detection task. Behav Processes 2024; 217:105030. [PMID: 38636131 DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2024.105030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2024] [Revised: 04/09/2024] [Accepted: 04/15/2024] [Indexed: 04/20/2024]
Abstract
Detection dogs are frequently tested for their ability to detect a variety of targets. It is crucial to comprehend the processes for odour learning and the consequences of training on an expanding set of target scents on performance. To properly evaluate their ability to identify the target, the only true measure is the dogs' initial response to novel sources, since this excludes learning effects. In this study, we evaluated the individual learning processes of three detection dogs that were pre-trained to differentially respond to a faecal sample of a mare in oestrus (S+) and a faecal sample of the same mare in di-oestrus (S-). After reaching criterion during a test with known training samples, the dogs were tested for generalization to a novel source. Average responses to S+ and S- were calculated as a function of presentation sequence, and Signal Detection Theory was used to further analyse characteristic differences in learning. The results of this study suggest that the ability of individual scent detection dogs to learn within an olfactory discrimination test varies considerably. The information obtained in this study could be helpful for mitigation training. We show that through careful monitoring of individual learning processes, the strategy each dog followed becomes apparent: especially the observations on the dogs' responses to first encounters with novel sample sources. This provides us with more detailed information than the more traditional sensitivity and specificity measures and allows us to better predict the dog's capabilities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Myrthe Wessel
- Specialistische Voortplantingspraktijk, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Adee Schoon
- Animal Detection Consultancy, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
McKeague B, Finlay C, Rooney N. Conservation detection dogs: A critical review of efficacy and methodology. Ecol Evol 2024; 14:e10866. [PMID: 38371867 PMCID: PMC10869951 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.10866] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2023] [Revised: 11/09/2023] [Accepted: 12/02/2023] [Indexed: 02/20/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beth McKeague
- School of Biological SciencesQueen's University BelfastBelfastUK
| | | | - Nicola Rooney
- Bristol Veterinary SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
van Rees CB, Hand BK, Carter SC, Bargeron C, Cline TJ, Daniel W, Ferrante JA, Gaddis K, Hunter ME, Jarnevich CS, McGeoch MA, Morisette JT, Neilson ME, Roy HE, Rozance MA, Sepulveda A, Wallace RD, Whited D, Wilcox T, Kimball JS, Luikart G. A framework to integrate innovations in invasion science for proactive management. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2022; 97:1712-1735. [PMID: 35451197 DOI: 10.1111/brv.12859] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2021] [Revised: 03/29/2022] [Accepted: 03/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Invasive alien species (IAS) are a rising threat to biodiversity, national security, and regional economies, with impacts in the hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars annually. Proactive or predictive approaches guided by scientific knowledge are essential to keeping pace with growing impacts of invasions under climate change. Although the rapid development of diverse technologies and approaches has produced tools with the potential to greatly accelerate invasion research and management, innovation has far outpaced implementation and coordination. Technological and methodological syntheses are urgently needed to close the growing implementation gap and facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and synergy among evolving disciplines. A broad review is necessary to demonstrate the utility and relevance of work in diverse fields to generate actionable science for the ongoing invasion crisis. Here, we review such advances in relevant fields including remote sensing, epidemiology, big data analytics, environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling, genomics, and others, and present a generalized framework for distilling existing and emerging data into products for proactive IAS research and management. This integrated workflow provides a pathway for scientists and practitioners in diverse disciplines to contribute to applied invasion biology in a coordinated, synergistic, and scalable manner.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles B van Rees
- Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT, 59860, U.S.A
| | - Brian K Hand
- Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT, 59860, U.S.A
| | - Sean C Carter
- Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana, ISB 415, Missoula, MT, 59812, U.S.A
| | - Chuck Bargeron
- Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, University of Georgia, 4601 Research Way, Tifton, GA, 31793, U.S.A
| | - Timothy J Cline
- U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, 2327 University Way STE 2, Bozeman MT 59717 & 320 Grinnel Drive, West Glacier, MT, 59936, U.S.A
| | - Wesley Daniel
- U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL, 32653, U.S.A
| | - Jason A Ferrante
- U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL, 32653, U.S.A
| | - Keith Gaddis
- NASA Biological Diversity and Ecological Forecasting Programs, 300 E St. SW, Washington, DC, 20546, U.S.A
| | - Margaret E Hunter
- U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL, 32653, U.S.A
| | - Catherine S Jarnevich
- U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, 2150 Centre Avenue Bldg C, Fort Collins, CO, 80526, U.S.A
| | - Melodie A McGeoch
- Department of Environment and Genetics, La Trobe University, Plenty Road & Kingsbury Drive, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086, Australia
| | - Jeffrey T Morisette
- U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, 26 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, 59804, MT, U.S.A
| | - Matthew E Neilson
- U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL, 32653, U.S.A
| | - Helen E Roy
- UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, MacLean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, OX10 8BB, U.K
| | - Mary Ann Rozance
- Northwest Climate Adaptation Science Center, University of Washington, Box 355674, Seattle, WA, 98195, U.S.A
| | - Adam Sepulveda
- U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, 26 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, 59804, MT, U.S.A
| | - Rebekah D Wallace
- Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, University of Georgia, 4601 Research Way, Tifton, GA, 31793, U.S.A
| | - Diane Whited
- Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT, 59860, U.S.A
| | - Taylor Wilcox
- U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, 26 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, 59804, MT, U.S.A
| | - John S Kimball
- Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana, ISB 415, Missoula, MT, 59812, U.S.A
| | - Gordon Luikart
- Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT, 59860, U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lai FY, Lin YC, Ding ST, Chang CS, Chao WL, Wang PH. Development of novel microsatellite markers to analyze the genetic structure of dog populations in Taiwan. Anim Biosci 2022; 35:1314-1326. [PMID: 35240021 PMCID: PMC9449399 DOI: 10.5713/ab.21.0519] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2021] [Accepted: 02/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective Alongside the rise of animal-protection awareness in Taiwan, the public has been paying more attention to dog genetic deficiencies due to inbreeding in the pet market. The goal of this study was to isolate novel microsatellite markers for monitoring the genetic structure of domestic dog populations in Taiwan. Methods A total of 113 DNA samples from three dog breeds - beagles (BEs), bichons (BIs), and schnauzers (SCs) - were used in subsequent polymorphic tests applying the 14 novel microsatellite markers that were isolated in this study. Results The results showed that the high level of genetic diversity observed in these novel microsatellite markers provided strong discriminatory power. The estimated probability of identity (P(ID)) and the probability of identity among sibs (P(ID)sib) for the 14 novel microsatellite markers were 1.7×10-12 and 1.6×10-5, respectively. Furthermore, the power of exclusion (PE) for the 14 novel microsatellite markers was 99.98%. The neighbor-joining (NJ) trees constructed among the three breeds indicated that the 14 sets of novel microsatellite markers were sufficient to correctly cluster the BEs, BIs, and SCs. The principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) plot showed that the dogs could be accurately separated by these 14 loci baled on different breeds; moreover, the Beagles from different sources were also distinguished. The first, the second, and the third principal coordinates could be used to explain 44.15, 26.35 and 19.97% of the genetic variation. Conclusion The results of this study could enable powerful monitoring of the genetic structure of domestic dog populations in Taiwan.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fang-Yu Lai
- Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Bioresources, Department of Animal Science and Technology, College of Bioresources and Agriculture, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10672, Taiwan
| | - Yu-Chen Lin
- Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Bioresources, Department of Animal Science and Technology, College of Bioresources and Agriculture, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10672, Taiwan
| | - Shih-Torng Ding
- Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Bioresources, Department of Animal Science and Technology, College of Bioresources and Agriculture, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10672, Taiwan
| | - Chi-Sheng Chang
- Department of Animal Science, Chinese Culture University. No. 55, Hwa-Kang Rd., Yang-Ming-Shan, Taipei City 11114, Taiwan
| | - Wi-Lin Chao
- Department of Animal Industry, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan. No. 37, Nanhai Rd., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei City 100212., Taiwan
| | - Pei-Hwa Wang
- Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Bioresources, Department of Animal Science and Technology, College of Bioresources and Agriculture, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10672, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|