Wildlife detection dogs effectively survey a terrestrial amphibian, but differ among individuals, weather and habitat
Abstract The endangered natterjack toad (Epidalea calamita) faces ongoing habitat loss, requiring effective conservation measures. Field surveys must therefore address its highly variable detectability in terrestrial habitats. We investigated the factors influencing capture success comparing two met...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2025-04-01
|
| Series: | Ecological Solutions and Evidence |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.70062 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1839640632581160960 |
|---|---|
| author | Veronika Paulina Koch Leonard Bolte Wiebke Harms Klaus Henle Annegret Grimm‐Seyfarth |
| author_facet | Veronika Paulina Koch Leonard Bolte Wiebke Harms Klaus Henle Annegret Grimm‐Seyfarth |
| author_sort | Veronika Paulina Koch |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract The endangered natterjack toad (Epidalea calamita) faces ongoing habitat loss, requiring effective conservation measures. Field surveys must therefore address its highly variable detectability in terrestrial habitats. We investigated the factors influencing capture success comparing two methods: artificial cover boards (ACBs) and wildlife detection dogs (WDDs). We first analysed environmental and training factors influencing toad detectability for four detection dogs with varying experience using a binomial generalized linear model (GLM). Then, we compared capture success of ACBs and WDD transects (deploying two dogs) considering weather and habitat type using negative binomial GLMs. Across 200 tests, each detection dog displayed a unique learning curve, with performance influenced mainly by dog behaviour, wind, test blindness and insect presence. Detection rates across dogs levelled off at 87.2% (75.7%–94.8%). Capture success of both methods under real‐deployment conditions was separately analysed for juvenile and (sub‐)adult toads by calculating a success rate. For juvenile toads, capture success was primarily influenced by capture method, habitat type and study year, while adult toads capture success mainly depended on habitat type and precipitation. Overall, WDDs (mean rate juvenile toads = 4.15, mean rate adult toads = 5.61) showed higher success rates than ACBs (mean rate juvenile toads = 0.51, mean rate adult toads = 4.73), particularly in dense and versatile habitats. Practical implication. This study provides practical guidance for the selection and implementation of survey methods for E. calamita, identifying critical factors to consider when designing a study to maximize survey success. Dog handlers should be able to adapt search and training strategies to their dogs' individual pace and limitations and keep environmental influences in mind. Both ACBs and WDDs are suitable methods for detecting E. calamita in terrestrial habitats; however, detection dogs are particularly useful in densely vegetated areas, for finding juveniles and for covering larger regions more efficiently. Success rates for adult toads increase in favourable habitat and climatic conditions, such as warmer temperatures and sufficient moisture. Our findings provide a framework that may be extended to the monitoring and conservation of other amphibian species. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-e4b0eea1e49b4556a3016d0d14d44236 |
| institution | Matheson Library |
| issn | 2688-8319 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-04-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecological Solutions and Evidence |
| spelling | doaj-art-e4b0eea1e49b4556a3016d0d14d442362025-07-03T10:36:41ZengWileyEcological Solutions and Evidence2688-83192025-04-0162n/an/a10.1002/2688-8319.70062Wildlife detection dogs effectively survey a terrestrial amphibian, but differ among individuals, weather and habitatVeronika Paulina Koch0Leonard Bolte1Wiebke Harms2Klaus Henle3Annegret Grimm‐Seyfarth4Department of Conservation Biology UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig GermanyDepartment of Conservation Biology UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig GermanyDepartment of Conservation Biology UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig GermanyDepartment of Conservation Biology UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig GermanyDepartment of Conservation Biology UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig GermanyAbstract The endangered natterjack toad (Epidalea calamita) faces ongoing habitat loss, requiring effective conservation measures. Field surveys must therefore address its highly variable detectability in terrestrial habitats. We investigated the factors influencing capture success comparing two methods: artificial cover boards (ACBs) and wildlife detection dogs (WDDs). We first analysed environmental and training factors influencing toad detectability for four detection dogs with varying experience using a binomial generalized linear model (GLM). Then, we compared capture success of ACBs and WDD transects (deploying two dogs) considering weather and habitat type using negative binomial GLMs. Across 200 tests, each detection dog displayed a unique learning curve, with performance influenced mainly by dog behaviour, wind, test blindness and insect presence. Detection rates across dogs levelled off at 87.2% (75.7%–94.8%). Capture success of both methods under real‐deployment conditions was separately analysed for juvenile and (sub‐)adult toads by calculating a success rate. For juvenile toads, capture success was primarily influenced by capture method, habitat type and study year, while adult toads capture success mainly depended on habitat type and precipitation. Overall, WDDs (mean rate juvenile toads = 4.15, mean rate adult toads = 5.61) showed higher success rates than ACBs (mean rate juvenile toads = 0.51, mean rate adult toads = 4.73), particularly in dense and versatile habitats. Practical implication. This study provides practical guidance for the selection and implementation of survey methods for E. calamita, identifying critical factors to consider when designing a study to maximize survey success. Dog handlers should be able to adapt search and training strategies to their dogs' individual pace and limitations and keep environmental influences in mind. Both ACBs and WDDs are suitable methods for detecting E. calamita in terrestrial habitats; however, detection dogs are particularly useful in densely vegetated areas, for finding juveniles and for covering larger regions more efficiently. Success rates for adult toads increase in favourable habitat and climatic conditions, such as warmer temperatures and sufficient moisture. Our findings provide a framework that may be extended to the monitoring and conservation of other amphibian species.https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.70062amphibianartificial cover boardsconservation dogsEpidalea calamitamethod comparisonspecies conservation |
| spellingShingle | Veronika Paulina Koch Leonard Bolte Wiebke Harms Klaus Henle Annegret Grimm‐Seyfarth Wildlife detection dogs effectively survey a terrestrial amphibian, but differ among individuals, weather and habitat Ecological Solutions and Evidence amphibian artificial cover boards conservation dogs Epidalea calamita method comparison species conservation |
| title | Wildlife detection dogs effectively survey a terrestrial amphibian, but differ among individuals, weather and habitat |
| title_full | Wildlife detection dogs effectively survey a terrestrial amphibian, but differ among individuals, weather and habitat |
| title_fullStr | Wildlife detection dogs effectively survey a terrestrial amphibian, but differ among individuals, weather and habitat |
| title_full_unstemmed | Wildlife detection dogs effectively survey a terrestrial amphibian, but differ among individuals, weather and habitat |
| title_short | Wildlife detection dogs effectively survey a terrestrial amphibian, but differ among individuals, weather and habitat |
| title_sort | wildlife detection dogs effectively survey a terrestrial amphibian but differ among individuals weather and habitat |
| topic | amphibian artificial cover boards conservation dogs Epidalea calamita method comparison species conservation |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.70062 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT veronikapaulinakoch wildlifedetectiondogseffectivelysurveyaterrestrialamphibianbutdifferamongindividualsweatherandhabitat AT leonardbolte wildlifedetectiondogseffectivelysurveyaterrestrialamphibianbutdifferamongindividualsweatherandhabitat AT wiebkeharms wildlifedetectiondogseffectivelysurveyaterrestrialamphibianbutdifferamongindividualsweatherandhabitat AT klaushenle wildlifedetectiondogseffectivelysurveyaterrestrialamphibianbutdifferamongindividualsweatherandhabitat AT annegretgrimmseyfarth wildlifedetectiondogseffectivelysurveyaterrestrialamphibianbutdifferamongindividualsweatherandhabitat |