Abstract

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.

Highlights

  • Our findings statistically support previous suggestions that specific breeds have been preferably used for specific tasks and targets (Dahlgren et al, 2012), but contradict the assumption that specific breeds are generally better suited for detection tasks

  • wildlife detection dogs (WDD) performed better in almost 90% of all cases that compared them to other monitoring methods

  • WDD in conservation, wildlife research and management have been employed for a long time, but gained particular attention over recent decades

Read more

Summary

Methods

Together with advances in other more recent technologies, such as GPS and DNA extraction from small traces of a species, wildlife detection dogs (WDD) are one method for monitoring species of all kingdoms that could otherwise not or hardly be studied (Bennett et al, 2019; Dahlgren et al, 2012; MacKay et al, 2008). Zwickel (1969) has provided a first small review of conservation dogs, a synonym frequently used for WDD He suggested the following tasks for WDD: (a) locating and (b) collecting wildlife, (c) studying wildlife behaviour, (d) protecting property from wildlife and (e) facilitating the proper harvest of species (Zwickel, 1969). This literature review compiles the use of detection dogs in nature conservation, wildlife research and management from past to present, demonstrating the potential of this method. If WDD did not outperform other monitoring methods, we compiled limitations in using WDD for species monitoring

| Literature review
Findings
| DISCUSSION
| CONCLUSIONS
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call