Volume 75, Issue 5 p. 1209-1217
Research Article

Comparing detection dog and livetrapping surveys for a cryptic rodent

Jennifer M. Duggan

Corresponding Author

Jennifer M. Duggan

Department of Animal Biology, University of Illinois, 505 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

Department of Animal Biology, University of Illinois, 505 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.Search for more papers by this author
Edward J. Heske

Edward J. Heske

Illinois Natural History Survey, 1816 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Robert L. Schooley

Robert L. Schooley

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Aimee Hurt

Aimee Hurt

Working Dogs for Conservation, 52 Eustis, Three Forks, MT 59752, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Alice Whitelaw

Alice Whitelaw

Working Dogs for Conservation, 52 Eustis, Three Forks, MT 59752, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 21 April 2011
Citations: 25

Associate Editor: Jeff Bowman

Abstract

We compared the effectiveness and cost of distribution surveys using livetrapping to those using detection dog-handler teams for a cryptic rodent (Franklin's ground squirrel [Poliocitellus franklinii]). We livetrapped at 62 sites in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin for Franklin's ground squirrels in 2007–2009 and surveyed 40 of those sites using detection dogs in 2009. Independent surveys of a site by 2 dog-handler teams took <1 hr and yielded detection rates comparable to 2 daily livetrapping surveys (detection rate = 83–84%). However, false presences are a potential problem when detection dogs are trained to scent of a species that leaves little visual sign to confirm its presence. Surveys by 2 dog-handler teams cost >2 daily livetrapping surveys conducted by 2 technicians but more and larger sites can be surveyed by dog-handler teams in a shorter time. For surveys covering large spatial scales or when time is a limiting factor, number of false presences, and study costs can be reduced by employing a 2-stage survey protocol in which livetrapping is conducted only at sites where detection dog surveys indicate presence. We conclude a 2-stage strategy could be used effectively in large-scale surveys for a variety of rare and cryptic species. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.