Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:56:40.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trained Dogs Outperform Human Surveyors in the Detection of Rare Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kim M. Goodwin ,
Rick E. Engel  and
David K. Weaver
Kim M. Goodwin*
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Rick E. Engel
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
David K. Weaver
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Invasive plants have devastating effects on ecosystems and biodiversity that early intervention can prevent. Eradication or containment of new invasions is difficult to achieve because of constraints posed by the low density and detectability of individuals. Domestic dogs trained to cue on distinctive scents might provide an effective method to detect spotted knapweed. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy and detection distances of dogs to humans in locating new spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) invasions. Three dogs, trained to detect knapweed using scent discrimination and tracking techniques, were compared with human surveyors. Seven sampling units (0.5 ha [1.2 ac]) were delineated in a grazed dryland pasture. Dogs, with their handlers, and human surveyors performed line-transect surveys in fall 2005 and spring, summer, and fall 2006. Dog accuracy for large-size knapweed targets (infestations 0.52 m3 [18.4 ft3]) was similar to human accuracy and better than humans (94 vs. 78%) for medium-size targets (infestations 0.13m3). Dog accuracy (67%) was greater (> 81% probability) than humans (34%) for small targets (plants; 0.02 m3). Overall dog accuracy (81%) and F-measure scores (86%) were better than human scores, 59% and 74%, respectively. Human precision was greater (100%) than dogs at 94%. Dogs detected a larger percentage of small targets (80%) at distances greater than 7.9 m (26 ft) compared with humans at only 20%. Our results indicate dogs are more accurate than humans are, especially at critical detection of small spotted knapweed plants, and from greater distances. Invasive plant monitoring using detection dogs can provide greater overall accuracy of plant detection.

Keywords

Domestic dogs, Canis familiaris L.spotted knapweed, Centaurea stoebe L.Weedsrangelanderadicationrare plant monitoringvapor detectionsearch dog
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , August 2010 , pp. 113 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, D. R., Laake, J. L., Crain, B. R., and Burnham, K. P. 1979. Guidelines for line transect sampling of biological populations. J. Wild. Manag 43:70–78.Google Scholar
Bach, H. and Phelan, J. 2003. Canine-assisted detection. Pages 285–299. in MacDonald, J., Lockwood, J. R., McFee, J., et al. eds. Alternatives for Landmine Detection. Santa Monica, CA RAND Institute. 336.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, R. W., Lonsdale, W. M., and Estbergs, J. A. 1989. Alien vegetation and native biota in tropical Australia: the impact of Mimosa pigra . Biol. Conserv 48:189–210.Google Scholar
Buck, L. 1996. Information coding in the vertebrate olfactory system. Ann. Rev. Neurosci 19:517–544.Google Scholar
Buck, L. and Axel, R. 1991. A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: a molecular basis for odor recognition. Cell 65:175–187.Google Scholar
Cablk, M. E. and Heaton, J. S. 2006. Accuracy and reliability of dogs in surveying for desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Ecol. Appl 16:1926–1935.Google Scholar
Cablk, M. E., Sagebiel, J. C., Heaton, J. S., and Valentin, C. 2008. Olfaction-based detection distance: a quantitative analysis of how far away dogs recognize tortoise odor and follow it to source. Sensors 8:2208–2222.Google Scholar
Cain, W. S. and Drexler, M. 1974. Scope and evaluation of odor counteraction and masking. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci 237:427–439.Google Scholar
Callaway, R. M. and Vivanco, J. M. 2007. Invasion of plants into native communities using the underground information superhighway. Allelopath. J 19:143–152.Google Scholar
Dukes, J. S. and Mooney, H. A. 2004. Disruption of ecosystem processes in western North America by invasive species. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat 77:411–437.Google Scholar
Egan, J. P. 1975. Signal Detection Theory and ROC-Analysis. New York Academic.Google Scholar
Fawcett, T. 2006. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit. Lett 27:861–874.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J. 1997. What is rarity? 30–47. in Kunin, W. E. and Gaston, K. J. eds. The Biology of Rarity: Causes and Consequences of Rare–Common Differences. London Chapman and Hall. 280.Google Scholar
Good, P. I. 2005. Permutation, Parametric and Bootstrap Tests of Hypotheses. 3rd ed. New York Springer. 58–61.Google Scholar
Green, D. M. and Swets, J. A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York Wiley. 455.Google Scholar
Grzymala-Busse, J. W. 2002. Discretization of numerical attributes. Pages 218–225. in Klösgen, W. and Zytkow, J. eds. Handbook of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. New York Oxford University Press. 980.Google Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. J. 1990. Minimizing dog-induced biases in game bird research. Wildl. Soc. Bull 18:351–356.Google Scholar
Han, J. and Kamber, M. 2006. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. 2nd ed. San Francisco Morgan Kaufmann. 614–628.Google Scholar
Higgins, S. I., Richardson, D. M., and Cowling, R. M. 2000. Using a dynamic landscape model for planning the management of alien plant invasions. Ecol. Appl 10:1833–1848.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Humphries, S. E. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conserv. Biol 9:761–770.Google Scholar
Killam, E. W. 1990. The Detection of Human Remains. Springfield, IL Charles C. Thomas. 263.Google Scholar
Laurent, G. 1999. A systems perspective on early olfactory coding. Science 286:723–728.Google Scholar
Liberman, D. A. 1999. Learning: Behavior and Cognition. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA Wadsworth. 624.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Royle, J. A., and Langtimm, C. A. 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A. and Creelman, C. D. 2005. Detection Theory: A User's Guide. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum. 492.Google Scholar
McLean, I. G. 2003. Mine Detection Dogs: Training, Operations and Odour Detection. Geneva, Switzerland International Centre for Humanitarian Demining.Google Scholar
Mombaerts, P., Wang, F., Dulac, C., Chao, S. K., Nemes, A., Mendelsohn, M., Edmondson, J., and Axel, R. 1996. Visualizing an olfactory sensory map. Cell 87:675–686.Google Scholar
Moody, M. E. and Mack, R. N. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of nascent foci. J. Appl. Ecol 25:1009–1021.Google Scholar
Musil, C. F. 1993. Effect of invasive Australian acacias on the regeneration, growth and nutrient chemistry of South African lowland fynbos. J. Appl. Ecol 30:361–371.Google Scholar
O'Connell, R. J. and Akers, R. P. 1989. Responses of insect olfactory receptor neurons to biologically relevant mixtures. Pages 49–64. in Laing, D. G., Cain, W. S., McBriode, R. L., and Ache, B. W. eds. Perception of Complex Smells and Tastes. Sydney Academic.Google Scholar
Palmer, M. E. 1987. A critical look at rare plant monitoring in the United States. Biol. Conserv 39:113–127.Google Scholar
Panetta, F. D. 2007. Evaluation of weed eradication programs: containment and extirpation. Divers Distrib 13:33–41.Google Scholar
Panetta, F. D. and Timmins, S. M. 2004. Evaluating the feasibility of eradication for terrestrial weed incursions. Plant. Protect. Q 19:5–11.Google Scholar
Phelan, J. M. and Webb, S. W. 2003. Chemical sensing for buried landmines: fundamental processes influencing trace chemical detection. Pages 209–285. in McLean, I. G. ed. Mine Detection Dogs: Training, Operations and Odour Detection. Geneva, Switzerland International Centre for Humanitarian Demining.Google Scholar
Rebmann, A., David, E., and Sorg, M. H. 2000. Cadaver Dog Handbook: Forensic Training and Tactics for the Recovery of Human Remains. Boca Raton, FL CRC. 232.Google Scholar
Reindl-Thompson, S. A., Shivik, J. A., Whitelaw, A., Hurt, A., and Higgins, K. F. 2006. Efficacy of scent dogs in detecting black-footed ferrets at a reintroduction site in South Dakota. Wildl. Soc. Bull 34:1435–1439.Google Scholar
Rinberg, D., Koulakov, A., and Gelperin, A. 2006. Speed-accuracy tradeoff in olfaction. Neuron 51:351–358.Google Scholar
Smith, D. A., Ralls, K., Hurt, A., Adams, B., Parker, M., Davenport, B., Smith, M. C., and Maldonado, J. E. 2003. Detection and accuracy rates of dogs trained to find scats of San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Anim. Conserv 6:339–346.Google Scholar
Syrotuck, W. G. 1972. Scent and the Scenting Dog. Rome, NY Arner.Google Scholar
Tanner, W. P. and Swets, J. A. 1954. A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychol. Rev 61:401–409.Google Scholar
Tomley, A. J. and Panetta, F. D. 2002. Eradication of the exotic weeds Helenium amarum (Rafin) H. L. and Eupatorium serotinum Michx. from south-eastern Queensland. Pages 293–296. in Spafford Jacob, H., Dodd, J., and Moore, J. H. eds. Proceedings of the 13th Australian Weeds Conference. Perth, Australia Plant Protection Society of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Tou, J. and Gonzalez, R. 1974. Pattern Recognition Principles. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley. 94–97.Google Scholar
Waggoner, L. P., Jones, M., Williams, M., Johnston, J. M., Edge, C., and Petrousky, J. A. 1998. Effects of extraneous odors on canine detection. Pages 355–362. in DePersia, A. T. and Pennella, J. J. eds. Proceedings of the Conference on Enforcement and Security Technologies. Volume 3575. Bellingham, WA SPIE.Google Scholar
Williams, M. and Johnston, J. M. 2002. Training and maintaining the performance of dogs (Canis familiaris) on an increasing number of odor discriminations in a controlled setting. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci 78:55–65.Google Scholar