Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 7;18(6):e0285084. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285084

An experimental assessment of detection dog ability to locate great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) at distance and through soil

Nicola Jayne Glover 1,2,*, Louise Elizabeth Wilson 3, Amy Leedale 1, Robert Jehle 1
Editor: Christopher Walton4
PMCID: PMC10246828  PMID: 37285345

Abstract

Detection dogs are increasingly used to locate cryptic wildlife species, but their use for amphibians is still rather underexplored. In the present paper we focus on the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus), a European species which is experiencing high conservation concerns across its range, and assess the ability of a trained detection dog to locate individuals during their terrestrial phase. More specifically, we used a series of experiments to document whether a range of distances between target newts and the detection dog (odour channelled through pipes 68 mm in diameter) affects the localisation, and to assess the ability and efficiency of target newt detection in simulated subterranean refugia through 200 mm of two common soil types (clay and sandy soil, both with and without air vents to mimic mammal burrows, a common refuge used by T. cristatus). The detection dog accurately located all individual T. cristatus across the entire range of tested distances (0.25 m– 2.0 m). The substrate trials revealed that the detection dog could locate individuals also through soil. Contrary to existing studies with detection dogs in human forensic contexts, however, detection was generally slower for T. cristatus under sandy soil compared to clay soil, particularly when a vent was absent. Our study provides a general baseline for the use of detection dogs in locating T. cristatus and similar amphibian species during their terrestrial phase.

Introduction

In order to complete their development, many temperate amphibian species combine waterbodies for breeding and larval development with a terrestrial phase for aestivation and hibernation [1]. The aquatic phase is generally rather well documented, as individuals can be recorded with relative ease at high concentration for example in ponds [2, 3]. When individuals disperse over wider areas onto land, however, they often lead a secretive lifestyle and are more difficult to find [4, 5].

The great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) is a urodele amphibian species which occupies parts of central and northern Europe including the United Kingdom, and in most parts of its range is rapidly declining primarily due to the widespread loss of suitable habitat [6]. As a result, T. cristatus is afforded the highest protection under European (Regulation 41 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010; Annex 4 of the Fauna, Flora and Habitat (FFH) Directive) and UK (Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) legislation. It therefore currently experiences a disproportionally high level of attention from conservation practitioners, including for example large-scale management schemes based on data derived from environmental DNA and initiatives for habitat creation in peripheral parts of its range [7, 8]. However, as typical for other amphibians with bi-phasic life cycles, rather little is known about its terrestrial habitat use. While systematic terrestrial hand searches are part of standard protocols for practical conservation measures [9], their efficiency strongly depends on the local habitat and is generally rather low, likely because of the common use of subterraneous refuges which are difficult to reach (e.g. [10]). Approaches such as based on radio- and fluorescent pigment-tracking have revealed important information on local migration distances and refuge use after breeding [1012], but are time-consuming to conduct, restricted to a limited number of individuals whose welfare can be compromised, and can be applied over only limited durations such as days or weeks.

Due to their olfactory capabilities, wildlife detection dogs are increasingly deployed around the world to assist in locating cryptic animal species in their natural environments [1316]. Depending on the breed, a dog’s sense of smell is estimated to be 1,000 to 10,000 times better than that of humans, corresponding to a relative area of the brain for olfactorial processing which is about forty times larger [17]. As a consequence, the performance of trained detection dogs in wildlife searches is generally 4–12 times better than that of experienced human surveyors, which in contrast to dogs predominately rely on visual and/or auditory cues [1824]. The olfactorial capabilities of detection dogs also allow them to find elusive species in a variety of environments where technological devices to locate them are either unavailable or less efficient [24, 25].

Wildlife detection dogs would offer an opportunity to locate individual amphibians during the terrestrial phase of their life, but their use currently remains rather underexplored compared to other taxonomic groups such as reptiles and mammals [2631]. At present, projects involving detection dogs have only been conducted on a small number of amphibian species globally (e.g. North American salamanders: Amystoma californiense, Plethodon neomexicanus; South African giant bull frogs Pyxicephalus adspersus, Australian baw frog Philoria frosti; see [16, 3234]). In Europe, a recent study found that detection dog teams were effective at locating both T. cristatus and smooth newts (Lissotriton vulgaris) in a variety of above ground surface refuges in tall and short grassland, as well as open and dense woodland habitat [35]. The study found that, in an open environment, T. cristatus has a scent profile which is detectable over a range of approximately 0.2 m, although factors such as habitat type, weather, and type of search had an influence on detection probability [35].

Given the current distinct need to increase our understanding on how environmental factors may influence the probability of detection, we here conducted a set of experiments to document whether a detection dog can olfactorily locate individual T. cristatus (i) at a range of distances where odour is allowed to move along a channelled direction through pipes, and (ii) through two different soil types in simulated subterraneous refugia with or without vents to mimic mammal burrows.

Materials and methods

Detection dog/handler team

All experiments were undertaken with an English springer spaniel (“Freya”) born on the 25th of August 2015 and handled by the first author (NG). The dog/handler team has been trained using positive reinforcement since 2017 by Conservation K9 Consultancy (founded by the co-author LEW), receiving annual assessments involving shadowing by LEW during operational searches and undertaking controlled field assessments to determine whether the team is performing to Conservation K9 Consultancy standards. Training to locate individual T. cristatus started in 2018, and a discrimination assessment (conducted in 2020 and as outlined in [36]) confirmed that Freya is able to distinguish between T. cristatus and all other common amphibians native to the UK (Bufo bufo, Rana temporaria, Lissotriton helveticus, L. vulgaris) obtaining a score above the required 80% threshold for successful discriminations. Positive indications are signalled by Freya through lying or sitting down. All experiments were approved through licences issued by Natural England, a UK governing body (licence numbers 2019-39743-SCI-SCI; 2020-45697-SCI-SCI; 2021-51164-SCI-SCI).

Channelled distance perception trials

Sixteen T. cristatus (11 males and five females) were captured from a quarry and used for a range of trials carried out in Westerleigh, South Gloucestershire, England (Ordinance Survey (OS) grid reference: ST695795) between July and September 2020. All individuals were weighed to the nearest 0.1 g. Weights ranged from 7.0 g to 11.0 g. A 0.5 m x 12.5 m rig made of plastic-coated wood was constructed with eight holes spaced 1 m apart to hold plastic guttering pipes with a diameter of 68 mm (Fig 1A). At the end of the pipes, they were connected to a plastic container holding individual T. cristatus fitted with a lid containing fifteen 3 mm air holes at consistent patterns to allow the scent to escape. Planks of wood ensured an upright position of the rig, and a stake was placed behind the containers to prevent them from slipping during the trial (Fig 1B). Pipes ranging from 0.25 m to 2 m in length were used. Two runs across the eight-pipe rig were conducted for each pipe length with a single target newt in one of the eight pipes, successively increasing the length by 0.25 m and resulting in a total of 16 trials. The position of the board was identical for each run. Due to licence restrictions limiting the number of individual newts available for this assessment, we were unable to conduct additional repetitions.

Fig 1. Channelled distance perception rig setup.

Fig 1

(a) Channelled distance perception rig setup viewed from the front. For details see text. (b) View of the rig from the back with detection dog Freya and handler Nikki Glover moving along front of the rig checking each pipe entrance.

The experiment took place on the 20th of August 2020 and involved three testers, the dog/handler team, and an observer, and were undertaken double blind, i.e. the dog/handler team and observer were out of sight when the testers set up each run and the testers were out of sight during the runs. This type of setup is carried out to avoid unconscious signalling from the handler and observer/tester to the detection dog [37]. A random number created in Microsoft Excel was used to determine at which position along the rig the target newt was placed. Following the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) Canine Odour Discrimination Test guidelines [38], Position 1 and 8 of the rig were not used as these locations were likely to yield misses or false indications relating to procedural training issues [39]. Position 1 acts as an overlap and ensures that the detection dog has settled into the search prior to encountering the first potential target, and Position 8 addresses indications given by dogs that have failed to find a target and take the chance of getting rewarded at the last location. Before trials, T. cristatus were sprayed with untreated water to keep the skin moist and placed in separate containers at least 30 minutes prior to the start of the search. The dog/handler team positioned themselves 2–3 m in front of the first pipe before performing a systematic check of all pipes on a lead with the handler asking the dog to check each pipe by signalling with their hand (Fig 1B). The handler then called out the container number when the dog indicated, confirmed with the testers who were out of view. One additional repeat (starting from pipe Location 1) was allowed if the detection dog did not indicate on the first run. If the dog indicated correctly on T. cristatus, then the dog was rewarded and the trial was ended. After the first eight trials covering four pipe lengths (0.25 m– 1 m), a 30-minute break was allowed before continuing with a further set of trials using pipes at length ranging between 1.25 m and 2 m. General weather conditions were noted during each trial run as sunny (0% clouds visible), sunny intervals (cloudy with intermittent sunshine), cloudy (100% cloud coverage with no sun visible), as well as dry (no precipitation), drizzle (light precipitation), rain (moderate precipitation), and heavy rain (torrential precipitation). In addition, air temperature and humidity were measured using a hygrometer thermometer, wind speed was measured via an anemometer using the Beaufort scale and wind direction assessed by scattering baby powder; cloud cover was estimated as percentage of clouds in the sky.

In addition to correct or false indications, general detection dog behaviour was recorded during the trials and included motivation, stamina, focus, cooperation, fatigue, distractibility, and arousal. Handler behaviour was also recorded and included ability to read the dog’s behaviour, cooperation, motivation, focus, stamina and overall interaction with the dog. Fresh vinyl gloves were used to set up each trial to avoid scent contamination. The tester handling the individual T. cristatus was restricted to undertaking this task alone and refrained from touching the outer edge of the container to avoid contamination. The dog/handler team trained for two weeks in advance of the assessment, receiving consultation from Conservation K9 Consultancy.

Soil interference trials

Thirty T. cristatus (16 males and 14 females) were retrieved from a quarry in south Gloucestershire between July and September 2021. All T. cristatus used for the experiments were individually weighed to the nearest 0.1 g and measured from the tip of the snout to the end of the cloaca to the nearest mm (see S1 Fig). Two soil types were used: sandy soil collected from Calne Without, Bowden Hill, Wiltshire, Southwest England (OS grid reference ST954684), and clay soil collected from Broad Lane, Westerleigh Road, Westerleigh, South Gloucestershire, Southwest England (OS grid reference: ST695795). For soil characterisation, three reference samples were obtained from each site using a 200 mm long core and merged into one sealed plastic bag for analysis at the University of Salford. In order to measure the pH, 20 ml of fresh soil was placed into a clean 50 ml beaker. Distilled water was added to the 40 ml mark, and the mixture was left on an automatic stirrer for 15 minutes. The probe of a calibrated pH meter was then placed into the sample and left for 30 seconds for the reading to settle. This was repeated three times for each soil type, with the probe cleaned with distilled water between each reading. To gauge moisture content for each soil type, the soil was weighed, oven dried overnight at 105°C, and re-weighed. The moisture content was obtained by subtracting the dry weight from the wet weight, divided by the dry weight and multiplied by 100. Soil texture was analysed using an LA-960 Slurry Sampler, which uses laser diffraction to measure light scattered from the soil particles as it passes through the measurement cell. The percentage of silt, clay and sand was determined using a soil texture chart.

The soil interference trials were carried out in the same location as the channelled distance perception trials. Four plots measuring 10 m x 4 m were erected 2m apart and demarcated using barrier tape. Each plot had eight holes dug to 250 mm depth and spaced evenly 2 m apart in a 2 x 4 setup (Fig 2A). This was so that all pipes were flush to the ground (Fig 2B). Compartments to house individual T. cristatus were made from a guttering pipe socket (50 mm high, 61 mm in diameter), which was considered to supply enough air to the target newts during the trial. A plastic bung was placed at the base of the compartment to keep individuals in place and to reduce the chance of residual scent being left in the hole following the trial. A fibreglass 4 mm by 4 mm mesh was placed at the top of the compartment, and a 200 mm plastic guttering pipe with 68 mm diameter was slotted over the top of the pipe socket, holding the netting in place (Fig 3A). The pipe was weighed prior to the newt entering the compartment, and assigned to one of four treatments: Sandy Soil Full, Sandy Soil Vented, Clay Soil Full and Clay Soil Vented (Fig 3B). The vented treatments comprised a plastic-coated wire mesh with 4 x 4 mm gaps. The mesh was cut to 200 mm length to sit within the 200 mm long pipe. The mesh was rolled up into a cylindrical shape and secured with cable ties with a diameter of approximately 25 mm to represent small mammal burrows (a common subterraneous refuge of T. cristatus ([11], see also [40] for the closely related Triturus carnifex). The soil was placed into the pipes using a trowel with soil placed around the wire mesh vents to ensure they stayed open (Fig 3B). The pipes containing soil and newts were weighed to provide the weight of the soil by subtracting the pipe weight and the weight of the individual T. cristatus used.

Fig 2. Soil interference trial plot setup.

Fig 2

(a) Location of pipes within a single plot (b) simulated terrestrial subterraneous refuge flush with ground.

Fig 3. Simulated terrestrial subterraneous refuge setup.

Fig 3

(a) diagram displaying pipe setup. For details see text (b) Sandy Soil Full treatment at back, Clay Soil Full in middle and Clay Soil Vent at the front. (c) The detection dog/handler team at work in a designated plot. Detection dog Freya indicating on correct tube with T.cristatus present 200mm below Clay Soil Full treatment type. Handler about to reward detection dog with tennis ball.

Locations of each pipe within the plots were allocated using a random number generated in Microsoft Excel. Pipes with all treatment types and blank compartments served as controls. Two pipes of every treatment type were present in each plot with one soil type (e.g. clay) located to the left of the plot and the other soil type (e.g. sandy) positioned to the right. The location of each soil type changed between each run. Vented and full treatments were positioned alternatively within each plot. Three out of the four plots contained a single T. cristatus with one plot serving as a control. All pipes were placed out 30 minutes prior to the start of the trial to allow the scent to penetrate through the pipe. This was considered enough time to allow the scent to flow through 200 mm of soil whilst also maintaining the welfare of the target newts.

The experiments involved one or two assessors and the dog/handler team. Unlike the channelled distance perception trials, the experiments were undertaken blind as opposed to double blind due to limited numbers of assessors available. The assessor therefore performed the role of the observer and the tester and was present during the test runs. The dog/handler team was not aware of the location of the T. cristatus in each plot. During each trial, the assessor measured weather conditions using same methodology as described for the channelled distance perception trials. Soil temperature and moisture content was measured by placing the probe 50 mm into the soil using a Soil Condition Meter DSMM600, with moisture levels displayed as <5% (Dry+), 5 to 10% (Dry), 10 to 20% (Normal), 20 to 30% (Wet) and >30% (Wet+). Soil moisture measurements were taken once before each 4-plot trial took place to minimise disturbance. It took a maximum of 10 minutes to conduct searches across Plots 1–4, rendering it unlikely for moisture and temperature to change drastically.

The handler positioned the dog at the entrance of the plot, unclipped the lead and asked the detection dog to perform a search of a single plot. The handler maintained position at the entrance of the plot and monitored the detection dog’s behaviour during the search. When the dog indicated (Fig 3C), the handler confirmed the location with the assessor and if correct the dog was rewarded, followed by a two-minute play session. If the dog/handler team was incorrect, then the search in each plot continued, noting down the number and locations of false indications until the correct indication was given. The trial was terminated if the dog/handler team could not locate the correct pipe within 180 seconds and the handler could not determine if the plot was blank. This length of time was considered sufficient given the size of the plot and the time taken to locate correct pipes during the practice sessions. The handler called ‘blank’ before the 180 seconds if she believed the plot did not have a T. cristatus individual present due to no change in behaviour exhibited by the detection dog. Once the dog/handler team had completed a plot search they would move onto the next plot and repeat the above method. A 45-minute break was given between each 4-plot trial. New pipes were used during each trial. Fresh gloves were worn by the assessor when placing newts into the compartments to avoid transferring newt scent onto the outside of pipes. All pipes were moved to new positions between each trial. Each 4-plot trial was repeated four times within one day, and trials were carried out over two consecutive days in four successive weeks (19th August 2021 and 17th September 2021), resulting in a total of 128 single-plot trial runs. Twelve individual T. cristatus were selected at random to be used for the trial day, placed in a labelled container to prevent re-use. Twelve additional individuals were used for the consecutive day, taken from the tanks at random. The dog/handler team trained for three weeks in advance of the soil trial assessment, receiving consultation from Conservation K9 Consultancy. As measures of performance by the dog/handler team, numbers and locations of false negative, false positive, true negative and true positive indications were noted.

Statistical analyses

Due to limited repetitions undertaken for the channelled distance perception trials and a universally high success rate (see below), we refrained from detailed statistical analyses of the data obtained in this experiment.

For the soil interference trials, a chi-square test was conducted to determine whether false indications occurred more frequently in blank plots compared to plots which contained a T. cristatus individual. Within plots containing a T. cristatus individual, the effect of treatment on the frequency of false indications was analysed using a binomial General Linear Mixed Model (GLMM), with correct/false indication (0/1) specified as a response variable. Successful trials were further analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) GLMM with log-transformed time to detection as the response variable. Initial GLMMs included treatment and sex as fixed effects, with weight, air temperature and humidity as random effects. The most suitable GLMMs were subsequently selected based on the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and backwards-stepwise model refinement, in which non-significant terms were sequentially removed. For false indications, the final model included treatment as a fixed effect, with no random effect terms specified. For detection time, the final model included treatment as a fixed effect and air temperature as a random effect. Where a significant effect of treatment was identified, a Tukey HSD test was carried out on the estimated marginal means from the GLMM, to determine pairwise contrasts between all treatments posthoc. All tests were conducted in the software R [41].

Results

Channelled distance perception trials

Trials were carried out between 14:20h and 16:30h. Air temperature ranged between 27.8°C at the start of the trial and 21.6°C at the end of the trial, and air humidity ranged between 43% at the beginning of the trial and 60% by the end of the trial. Wind speed ranged between 3 Beaufort for pipe lengths 0.75 m—1.5 m and 5 Beaufort for pipe length 1.75 m—2 m. The wind remained easterly throughout the trial, and cloud cover varied between 15% and 30% (see S1 Table).

The dog/handler team was able to successfully locate individual T. cristatus across all measured distances, at a total of 87.5% of runs. Two false positive indications at initial runs occurred at lengths of 0.25 m and 0.75 m, with correct indications during second runs. No non-indications took place (see Table 1 for the outcome of all 16 trial runs). False indications were only recorded towards the beginning of the trial. This assessment coincided with the observation that the detection dog/handler team maintained motivation throughout the trial, with stamina and concentration increasing with the ongoing assessment.

Table 1. Results of the channelled distance perception trial.

X indicates the randomised location of a great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). c: correct, fp: false positive.

Distance cm) Pot 1 Pot 2 Pot 3 Pot 4 Pot 5 Pot 6 Pot 7 Pot 8 Attempt 1 Attempt 2
25 X 5 (fp) 6 (Correct)
25 X 7 (c) N/A
50 X 2 (c) N/A
50 X 6 (c) N/A
75 X 6 (fp) 7 (correct)
75 X 4 (c) N/A
100 X 3 (c) N/A
100 X 5 (c) N/A
30-minute break
125 X 3 (c) N/A
125 X 5 (c) N/A
150 X 6 (c) N/A
150 X 7 (c) N/A
175 X 4 (c) N/A
175 X 2 (c) N/A
200 X 6 (c) N/A
200 X 3 (c) N/A

Substrate interference trials

The pH of the sandy and clay soil reference samples was 6.38 and 6.68, respectively. Wet and dry weights for sandy soil were 20.03 g and 18.20 g, respectively, at a moisture content of 10%, with the corresponding values for clay soil being 20.37 g and 15.96 g with a moisture content of 27%. Sandy soil contained 55% sand, 44% silt and 0.81% clay (classified as a loamy sand). Clay soil contained 25% sand, 45% silt and 30% clay (classified as a clay loam).

Air temperature during trials ranged between 14.3 and 26.1°C with an average of 19.6°C. All trials were completed by 1 p.m. Soil temperatures were on average 1°C lower than air temperatures, without temperature differences between clay and sandy soil. Air humidity ranged between 44% and 98% with an average of 70%. Air temperatures were negatively correlated with humidity (linear regression, r = 0.51). Clay soil had moisture content varying between Wet (20–30%) and Wet+ (>30%), and sandy soil had a moisture content of Dry (5–10%) or Dry+ (<5%). Wind speed varied between 0 and 3 Beaufort, at varying wind directions from southwest, west, northwest, northeast or south which however were consistent between single-plot runs in each 4-plot trial. Cloud cover varied between 30% and 100%. Weather conditions between each 4-plot trial run varied from sunny with minimal cloud and dry to 100% cloud and wet ground. No rain occurred during the trials. The weight of Clay Soil Vent varied from 205 g to 583 g, Sandy Soil Vent varied from 224 g to 464 g, Clay Soil Full varied from 421 g to 661 g and Sandy Soil Full varied from 250 g to 575 g. The weight of individual great crested newts varied between 4.0 g and 12.0 g, at a length of 40–90 mm.

Overall detection time ranged between 2 s and 180 s. Out of the 128 trials, the dog/handler team exhibited 88% successfully (blank plots included). False indications (12% of trials) were significantly most commonly associated with blank plots (n = 7; χ2 = 4.25, d.f. = 1, p = 0.04), however also occurring in Sandy Soil Full (n = 4), Sandy Soil Vent (n = 2), Clay Soil Vent (n = 1) and Clay Soil Full (n = 1) treatments where T. cristatus were present. Within occupied plots, treatment had no effect on the frequency of false indications (Table 2). Locations of false indications did not appear to be influenced by wind speed or direction, location within the plot or location of previously placed T. cristatus. Six of the 15 false indications took place on the first day of the trials (19/08/22).

Table 2. Outputs from a binomial GLMM of the effect of soil treatment on frequency of false indications.

Treatment Estimate ± SD z p
Clay Soil Full; Intercept 3.09 ± 1.02 3.02 <0.01
Clay Soil Vent 0.09 ± 1.44 0.06 0.95
Sandy Soil Full -1.48 ± 1.56 -1.28 0.20
Sandy Soil Vent -0.69 ± 1.26 -0.55 0.58

Times for successful detections ranged between 7 s and 180 s for the Sandy Soil Full treatment, between 2 s and 50 s for Clay Soil Full, between 2 s and 62 s for Sandy Soil Vent and between 4 s and 103 s for Clay Soil Vent (Fig 4). Detection time was significantly greater in the Sandy Soil Full treatment compared with all other treatments (GLMM: (log) effect size = 0.59 ± 0.18, d.f. = 76.86, t = 3.26, p <0.01, Table 3). This was supported by posthoc analyses which revealed no significant differences between any of the other treatments (Table 4). The variance explained by the random effect of air temperature was 0.19 ± 0.44; indicating a positive relationship between detection time and air temperature (see S2 Fig)).

Fig 4. Boxplots displaying detection times of T. cristatus in different soil treatment types by a detection dog.

Fig 4

Two outliers (180 s for Sandy Soil Full, and 103 s for Clay Soil Vent) are not shown to improve the graphical presentation. For more details see text.

Table 3. Outputs from a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) GLMM of the effect of soil treatment on detection time, with air temperature specified as a random effect (var. = 0.19 ± 0.44).

Results are given on the log scale.

Treatment Estimate ± SD df t p
Clay Soil Full; Intercept 2.48 ± 0.16 61.04 15.74 <0.001
Clay Soil Vent -0.14 ± 0.18 77.97 -0.79 0.43
Sandy Soil Full 0.59 ± 0.18 76.86 3.26 <0.01
Sandy Soil Vent 0.07 ± 0.18 74.96 0.37 0.71

Table 4. Pairwise comparisons of differences in detection time across treatments.

Post-hoc analyses were performed on the estimated marginal means computed from GLMMs with a log-link. Results are given on the log scale. P-values were adjusted using the Tukey method.

Contrast Estimate ± SD df t ratio p
Clay Soil Full–Clay Soil Vent 0.14 ± 0.18 77.9 0.78 0.86
Clay Soil Full—Sandy Soil Full -0.59 ± 0.18 76.8 -3.24 <0.01
Clay Soil Full—Sandy Soil Vent -0.07 ± 0.18 74.9 -0.37 0.98
Clay Soil Vent—Sandy Soil Full -0.74 ± 0.19 83.0 -3.88 <0.01
Clay Soil Vent—Sandy Soil Vent -0.21 ± 0.18 75.3 -1.18 0.64
Sandy Soil Full—Sandy Soil Vent 0.53 ± 0.19 78.5 2.86 <0.05

Discussion

T. cristatus has been detected successfully on the soil surface by trained detection dogs with a distance perception of approximately 20 cm [35]. The distance at which the scent is perceived can however be influenced by abiotic (e.g. air temperature, habitat type) and biotic factors (e.g. size and sex, [35]). T.cristatus inhabits subterranean shelters in channel-like refuges such as mammal burrows and rocky crevices [10, 11, 42, see also 40 for a closely related species]. We therefore investigated whether distance, when channelled, and soil interference have an influence on detectability as well as accuracy and speed of detection. Detection dogs have successfully been trained to locate different types of odours such as human remains or oil through different types of soil up to 5 m in depth [43, 44]. To the best of our knowledge this is the first wildlife detection dog study which explicitly investigates the influence of two contrasting soil types on the ability to locate urodele amphibians in subterraneous shelters. The most similar study to date [45] assessed whether a detection dog can locate the giant bullfrog Pyxicephalus adspersus. Although P. adspersus is considerably larger than T. cristatus, weighing around 2 kg, this species is also subterraneous, found in around 1 m depth burrows. The study looked at whether the detection dog team could locate P. adspersus in three phases: 1) at the surface in containers 2) diluted target scent and 3) in simulated natural environments such as burrows. The detection dog team was successful at locating the odour in all three phases of the experiment and successfully detected bullfrogs in burrows in the wild.

The channelled distance perception trials concluded that T. cristatus can be detected from up to a minimum of 2 m at temperatures of 21–26°C without substrate interference. These findings differ from a previous study which found that distance perception of T. cristatus was maximally 20 cm above ground when the scent was not channelled [35]. The presence of T.cristatus within a structure such as a mammal burrow could therefore funnel the scent at a greater distance. The pipes used for the experiment were however positioned in direct sunlight and made of heat absorbing material (black plastic), potentially increasing the distance of odour dispersion along the pipe [46]. The results may therefore not be representative of below ground conditions, as subterraneous burrows have a different microclimate [47]. Repeat trials should therefore position pipes below ground, similar to the soil interference trials and [44]. Burrow microclimates (temperature and humidity) as well as gas diffusion is further influenced by vegetation cover, soil type, depth of burrow, length, diameter and shape as well as burrow architecture [47]. Future studies should consider these factors and how they may influence the dispersal of scent within a burrow, in addition to a setup which enables a more rigorous statistical analysis. The two false indications were exhibited at the beginning of the trials, which may have been due to wind moving scent along the rig causing an early indication (as also observed by [45]), and repeating trials in a sheltered environment would control abiotic influences. Manipulating air temperature ranges would also determine whether detection probabilities at given burrow architectures differ for example between warm summer months and during hibernation.

The soil interference trials concluded that the detection dog/handler team achieved a 88% success rate to locate individual T. cristatus at 200 mm depth in different soil treatment types including blank treatments. False indications (12%) were largely exhibited during the first set of trials. The handler noted that the detection dog was in an aroused and distracted state at the start of the trials and therefore modified the length and type of play, including calming prior to the search to keep the dog focused. This resulted in more focused searches and a reduction in false indications for the remainder of the trials. False indications were also noted on empty controls, when the handler did not call “blank” immediately after the dog had searched every container. False indications following a blank search is likely associated to the detection dog failing to find a target and take the chance of getting a reward by displaying a false positive indication on a blank pipe [39]. The handler became more confident at reading the detection dog behaviour as the trials progressed, therefore calling “blank” earlier during the trial. False indications were unrelated to the position of T. cristatus in previous rounds, rendering indications on residual scent unlikely.

The presence of vents yielded a faster response and less false positive indications in comparison to full treatments irrespective of soil type. When T. cristatus was placed in Clay Soil Full, detection speed and accuracy was higher in comparison to Sandy Soil Full. These results contrast with findings derived from studies undertaken on detection dogs trained to find human remains, which were able to locate their target at a shorter time in sandy soil in comparison to clay [43]. Human remains likely emit a stronger scent profile including decomposing gasses which travel through porous media such as sand, reaching the surface more freely [4850]. Alive T. cristatus, on the other hand, likely have a lower scent profile and generally rely on water to transport pheromones during their aquatic breeding phase [51, 52]. Clay soil generally contains a larger amount of water than sandy soil and may therefore transport the scent of amphibians more freely in comparison to sandy soil [46]. Alternatively, the scent from the study individuals may be more tightly retained within the moisture of clay soil in comparison to sandy soil where the scent may evaporate more readily [46]. That the odour penetrated less through sandy soil is also corroborated by our finding that, aside of the empty controls, the largest number of false indications and longest time to locate the correct pipe took place for the Sandy Soil Full treatment. The target odour and how it reacts with the substrate may therefore influence the detectability of T. cristatus during surveys. The detection dogs’ olfaction physiology may have a further influence on how information is absorbed. Olfaction occurs when a dog draws in odorant-laden air into its naval cavity by sniffing, thus transporting odorant molecules from the external environment to olfactory receptor neurons in the sensory region of the nose [53]. Highly soluble odorants are generally deposited in the front of the olfactory recess along the dorsal meatus and nasal septum, whereas insoluble odorants are deposited throughout the entire olfactory recess, thus decreasing odorant loss through absorption on non-olfactory surfaces. Due to the higher moisture content, T cristatus odorant may be more soluble in clay soil in comparison to sandy soil.

Sandy soil moisture levels were below 10% and clay soil moisture levels were around 30%. Dry soils typically absorb large amounts of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) on soil particle surfaces and leave a residue that reduces available scent levels [46]. As the water content increases, water replaces the VOCs absorbed on the soil particle surfaces and releases them for possible transport to the surface and atmosphere. High water content can however have a negative impact on scent movement by replacing gas phase transport with water phase transport [46]. Therefore, surveys of subterranean T. cristatus during heavy downpours may yield poor results. Optimal detection conditions of T. cristatus in subterraneous shelters may therefore be following periods of light rain and when dew is present on the ground. Further studies should manipulate moisture content in both sandy and clay soil to investigate whether this has an influence on the detectability of T. cristatus.

In line with [35], air temperature was negatively related to the speed of T. cristatus detection in all four treatment types and was inversely related to air humidity. Nevertheless, air humidity was unrelated to detection time, contradicting other similar studies [35, 5456]. Whereas [57] also found no correlation between air humidity and detection probability of pointing dogs locating game birds, this study revealed and influence of solar radiation, parameters which are as yet unaccounted for in T. cristatus detection dog studies. Abiotic factors such as wind speed and wind direction did not appear to have an influence on the detection of T. cristatus when located in artificial subterraneous refuge. This may be due to the scent being held within the substrate in comparison to when the scent is within the open environment. Wind speed and direction of the wind was also taken at head height rather than close to the ground.

We found no relationship between detection dog performance and sex or size of T. cristatus. This contradicts another study [35] which found that males had a higher detectability than females for individuals retrieved during their aquatic breeding period and located on the soil surface. Further studies investigating distance perception and detection probability during different stages of the biphasic lifecyle of T. cristatus are recommended.

For our experiments, the detection dog underwent specific training prior to the assessment to learn to indicate to the handler at a distance from the odour without getting within close proximity. This is an important aspect when training dogs to detect wildlife species such as T. cristatus, which are not always directly accessible at the surface [10, 11]. Training of the handler is also important to ensure they are able to detect behavioural changes when diluted sources of the scent are encountered [15, see also 34, 43]. It is however important to ensure that training with diluted scent solutions does not result in indications on residual scent, as during mitigation measures it is vital to locate the individuals only in occupied and not in vacated subterraneous shelters that may have retained the scent. Future studies should determine to what extent detection dogs have the ability to distinguish between residual scent and scent of individuals located at distance.

Locating T. cristatus during their subterranean phase with the use of detection dogs can provide novel insights into their terrestrial habitat preferences, as well as locating them for translocations for example as legally required prior to construction activities. This study highlights how environmental factors such as temperature and soil type can influence the speed and accuracy of a detection dog to locate T. cristatus in subterraneous shelters. These findings are important when working operationally, as the identified factors likely impede or enhance detection probability. A further important consideration is that long periods of training are required for T. cristatus detection dog teams due to the complexity of the target odour, thus constraining the rapid deployment of effective dog/handler teams for given tasks [14, 15]. This study highlights the importance of an awareness of the environmental surroundings by handlers, as abiotic factors can influence the diffusion of scent molecules released from the target odour. Effective handlers should be able to adapt suitable handling techniques and methodologies to enhance the capabilities of detection dogs to increase the probability of successful finds.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. T.cristatus being measured from nose to cloaca.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. The relationship between (log) detection time and air temperature with predicted values + SE from a gamma GLM (log effect size = 0.59 ± 0.09, t = 6.34, p <0.05).

(PDF)

S1 Table. Results of the weather conditions during the channelled distance perception trials.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Hanson Aggregates, Chipping Sodbury, for allowing us to capture T. cristatus from their receptor site and carry out research trials on their land. We are also grateful to research assistants; Jamie Mitchell, Willow West, Gemma Pyke, Rebecca Howell and George Gregory, and to Natural England for issuing the licences which made this research possible (licence numbers 2019-39743-SCI-SCI; 2020-45697-SCI-SCI; 2021-51164-SCI-SCI).

Data Availability

Please use the following link to our raw data on Dryad: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.sf7m0cg9t.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Wells KD. The ecology and behavior of amphibians. Chicago University Press, Chicago; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gunzburger MS. Evaluation of seven aquatic sampling methods for amphibians and other aquatic fauna. Appl. Herpetol. 2007; 4: 47–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Madden N, Jehle R. Farwell to the bottle trap? An evaluation of aquatic funnel traps for great crested newt surveys (Triturus cristatus). Herpetol. J. 2013; 23: 241–244. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Heyer R, Donnelly MA, Foster M, Mcdiarmid R (eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dodd CK. Amphibian ecology and conservation: A handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jehle R, Thiesmeier B, Foster J. The crested newt: A dwindling pond-dweller. Bielefeld: Laurenti; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Biggs J, Ewald N, Valentini A, Gaboriaud C, Dejean T, Griffiths RA, et al. Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Biol. Cons. 2015; 183: 19–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.O’Brien CD, Hall JE, Miro A, O’Brien K, Falaschi M, Jehle R. Reversing a downward trend in threatened peripheral amphibian (Triturus cristatus) populations through interventions combining species, habitat and genetic information. J. Nat. Conserv. 2021; 64: 126077. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Langton TES, Beckett CL, Foster JP. Great crested newt conservation handbook. Froglife; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jehle R. The terrestrial summer habitat of radio-tracked great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) and marbled newts (T. marmoratus). Herpetol. J. 2000; 10: 137–142. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jehle R, Arntzen JW. Post-breeding migrations of newts (Triturus cristatus, T. marmoratus) with contrasting ecological requirements. J. Zool. 2000; 251: 297–306. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Matos C, Petrovan S, Ward AI, Wheeler P. Facilitating permeability of landscapes impacted by roads for protected amphibians: patterns of movement for the great crested newt. Peer J. 2017; 5: e2922. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2922 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Smith DA, Ralls K, Davenport B, Adams B, Maldonado JE. Canine assistants for conservationists. Science. 2001; 291: 435. doi: 10.1126/science.291.5503.435b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bennett EM, Hauser CE, Moore JL. Evaluating conservation dogs in the search for rare species. Cons. Biol. 2020; 34: 314–325. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.DeMatteo KE, Davenport B, Wilson LE. Back to the basics with conservation detection dogs: fundamentals for success. Wildl. Biol. 2019; 2019: 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Grimm-Seyfarth A, Harms W, Berger A. Detection dogs in nature conservation: A database on their world-wide deployment with a review on breeds used and their performance compared to other methods. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2021; 12: 568–579. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Craven BA, Neuberger T, Paterson EG, Webb AG, Josephson EM, Morrison EE, et al. Reconstruction and morphometric analysis of the nasal airway of the dog (Canis familiaris) and implications regarding olfactory airflow. The Anatom. Record. 2007; 290: 1325–1340 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Long RA, Donovan TM, Mackay P, Zielinski WJ, Buzas JS. Comparing scat detection dogs, cameras, and hair snares for surveying carnivores. J. Wildl. Manag. 2007; 71: 2018–2025. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Homan JH, Linz G, Peer BD. Dogs increase recovery of passerine carcasses in dense vegetation. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2001; 29: 292–296. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Arnett EB. A preliminary evaluation on the use of dogs to recover bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2006; 1440–1445. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Paula J, Leal MC, Silva MJ, Mascarenhas R, Costa H, Mascarenhas M. Dogs as a tool to improve bird-strike mortality estimates at wind farms. J. Nature Conserv. 2001; 19: 202–208. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rutter JN, Mynott JH, Howell AA, Stukas JH, Pascoe PC, Bennett NPM. Buzzing with possibilities: Training and olfactory generalization in conservation detection dogs for an endangered stonefly species. Aquat. Cons: Marine Freshw. Ecosyst. 2021; 31: 984–989. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Goodwin KM, Engel RE, and Weaver D.K. Trained dogs outperform human surveyors in detection of rare spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe). Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2010; 3: 113–121. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Karp D. Detecting small and cryptic animals by combining thermography and a wildlife detection dog. Sci. Rep. 2020; 10: 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Duggan JM, Heske EJ, Schooley RL, Hurt A, Whitelaw A. Comparing detection dog and live trapping surveys for a cryptic rodent. J. Wildl. Manag. 2011; 75: 1209–1217. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Engeman RM, Vice DS, York D, Gruver KS. Sustained evaluation of the effectiveness of detector dogs for locating brown tree snakes in cargo outbound from Guam. Internat. Biodeter. Biodegrad, 2002; 49:101–106. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cablk ME, Heaton JS. (2006). Accuracy and reliability of dogs in surveying for desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Ecol. Appl. 2006; 16:1926–1935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Stevenson DJ, Ravenscroft KR, Zappalorti RT, Ravenscroft MD, Weigley SW, Jenkins CL. Using a wildlife detector dog for locating eastern indigo snakes (Drymarchon couperi). Herpetol Rev. 2019; 41: 437–442. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Browne CM, Stafford KJ, Fordham RA. The detection and identification of tuatara and gecko scents by dogs. J. Veterin. Behav. 2015; 10: 496–503. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bearman-Brown LE, Wilson LE, Evans LC, Baker PJ., Comparing non-invasive surveying techniques for elusive, nocturnal mammals: a case study of the West European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). J. Vertebr. Biol. 2020; 69: 20075–1. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Deak G, Katona K., Biro Z. Exploring the use of a carcass detection dog to assess mowing mortality in Hungary. J. Vertebr. Biol. 2020; 69: 20089–1. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shields J, Austin LM. Monitoring invasive and threatened aquatic amphibians, mammals, and birds. In: Richards N. (ed) Using detection dogs to monitor aquatic ecosystem health and protect aquatic resources. Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Powers RM. Detection edogs as ambassadors and field assistants to protect imperiled reptiles and amphibians. In: Richards N. (eds) Using detection dogs to monitor aquatic ecosystem health and protect aquatic resources. Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Matthew EE, Verster R, Weldon C. A case study in canine detection of giant bullfrog scent. J. Vertebr. Biol. 2020; 69: 20043–1. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Environmental Grimm-Seyfarth A. and training factors affect canine detection probabilities for terrestrial newt surveys. J. Veterinary Behav. 2022; 57: 6–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Stanhope K, Sloan V. Proposed method and accreditation of great crested newt detection dogs. CIEEM In Practice. 2019; 105: 36–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lit L., Schweitzer JB, Oberbauer AM. Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes. Anim. Cognition. 2011; 14: 387–394. doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.HM Government, CPNI. Canine Odour Discrimination Test Setup Tool–Software User Instructions. 2018;1: 89154. Available from: Canine detection guidance notes | CPNI
  • 39.Porritt F, Cracknell N, Ratcliffe V, Elliker K, Hutchings B, Irish L, et al. Considerations for testing the capability of operational dogs. Jenny Stanford Publishing; 2022 [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Schabetsberger R, Jehle R, Maletzky A, Pesta J, Sztatecsny M. Migration patterns and shelter use of Italian crested newts (Triturus carnifex) at high altitude: implications for habitat management. Biol. Cons. 2004; 117: 95–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Turbanov IS, Kukushkin OV, Vargovitsh RS. Amphibians and reptiles in the subterranean cavities of the Crimean mountains. Russ. J. Herpetol. 2019; 26: 29–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Alexander MB, Hodges TK, Wescott DJ, Aikenhead-Peterson JA. The effects of soil texture on the ability of human remains detection dogs to detect buried human remains. J. Forensic Sci. 2015; 61: 649–655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Owens E, Bunker P. Canine oil detection: Field trials report. Owens Coastal Consultants, Bainbridge Island, WA; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Matthew E. The use of a sniffer dog for amphibian conservation ecology. MSc thesis, North-West University; 2016.
  • 46.Osterkamp T. Detector dogs and scent movement: How weather, terrain and vegetation influence search strategies; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Burda H, Šumbera R, Begall S. Microclimate in burrows of subterranean rodents—revisited. In Subterranean rodents 2007. (pp. 21–33). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Fujikawa T, Miyazaki T. Effects of bulk density and soil type on the gas diffusion coefficient in repacked and undisturbed soils. Soil Sci. 2005; 170; 892–901. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Skvortsova EB, Utkaeva VF. Soil pore space arrangement as a geometric indicator of soil structure. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2008; 41: 1198–204. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Wilson AS, Janaway RC, Holland AD, Dodson HI, Baran E, Pollard AM. Modelling the buried human body environment in upland climes using three contrasting field sites. Forensic Sci. Int. 2007; 169: 6–18. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.07.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Green AJ. The sexual behaviour of the great crested newt, Triturus cristatus (Amphibia: Salamandridae). Ethology. 1989; 83: 129–153. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Malacarne G, Vellano C. Behavioral evidence of a courtship pheromone in the crested newt, Triturus cristatus carnifex Laurenti. Copeia. 1987; 1987: 245–247. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lawson MJ, Craven BA, Paterson EG, Settles GS. A computational study of odorant transport and deposition in the canine nasal cavity: Implications for olfaction. Chemical Senses. 2021; 37: 553–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Syrotuck WG., Scent and the scenting dog. Barkleigh Productions, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, USA; 1972. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Pearsall MD., and Verbruggen Scent: training to track, search, and rescue. Alpine Publications, Loveland, Colorado, USA; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Reed SE, Bidlack AL, Hurt A, Getz WM. Detection distance and environmental factors in conservation detection dog surveys. J. Wildl. Manag. 2011; 75: 243–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Beaumont SN, Ehlers Smith DA, Ehlers Smith YC, Downs CT. The influence of environmental factors on the detection of gamebirds by pointing dogs in the KwaZulu-Natal Midland grasslands of South Africa. African J. Wildl. Res. 2022; 52: 72–82. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Christopher Walton

2 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-22016An experimental assessment of detection dog ability to locate great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) at distance and through soilPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Glover,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Both reviewers considered that your manuscript has merit and is potentially of great interest to others working in the field. However, both also raised significant questions regarding the statistical handling of the results which must be addressed if it is to go forward for publication and listed numerous minor issues of terminology and presentation which would greatly enhance comprehensibility if they were addressed. Note that one reviewer also requested the inclusion of supplementary information.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 16 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Christopher Walton, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I had the pleasure to review the article "An experimental assessment of detection dog ability to locate great crested newts

(Triturus cristatus) at distance and through soil", which descripes two new testing procedures for a GCN detection dog. This topic is highly relevant due to the global amphibian decline and the limited knowledge we have about the newts' terrestrial phase.

The manuscript is very well written and generally follows a red line. I would like to congratulate the authors to their very creative testing procedures and apparatuses. This is a great accomplishment and will shed light into the secret of newt detection dogs, if not amphibian detection dogs in general. That said, I have a long list of additional information that is necessary to follow the setups entirely and procedures, please see my attached review for details. Regrettably, test 1 only had 2 repetitions for 8 conditions, making comprehensive statistics almost impossible. In contrast, the concept of test 2 seems well thought-through with 4 conditions and 128 repetitions. This gives room for rather sound statistical analyses. However, statistical analyses done afterwards are rather weak. A pairwise comparison of findings that at the same time may (or may not) depend on so many other factors contradicts the test assumptions. Please see my suggestions in the Methods section. Expanding the analyses to the proposed ones would empwer the findings of the article dramatically and would give much more weight to them, especially when comparing them to other studies.

I have some concerns regarding some terms used which can easily be adapted by the authors. This also includes more precise definitions of the weather parameters and a more careful use of the term "detection distance". Nevertheless, these are rather minor points.

Please see my comprehensive review attached.

Reviewer #2: General comments:

The authors present an interesting study on the ability of a detection dog to locate an urodel amphibian in different soil types and at different distances. As an herpetologist and a dog owner myself, I find this emerging practice very interesting and with great potential and wide range of possible applications in the future.

I find the paper generally well written, with clear experimental methods, however, I have some concerns about data analyses.

My main concern is about the analysis of soil data, which are not clear to me. How was the relationship between environmental/experimental variables and time to detection tested? Just with Spearman’s r test (line 206)? In this case, analyses should be performed with glm relating time to detection ~ abiotic + biotic factors. Just using pairwise Spearman’s r means that the authors are completely ignoring joint effect/marginal responses of dependent variables.

I don’t know whether the sample size is enough to include an additional variable; in case, you can test the effect of progressive trial number of detection performance.

I would avoid to state “data not show” and add supplementary instead (I agree that “data not shown” can be fine for the video footage mentioned at line 304).

I can’t find raw data for the soil experiment, even if they should be available given the data availability statement. Maybe they can be added as SI?

Specific comments:

Line 80: “a/one” detection dog, maybe?

L100: “derived” do the authors mean they were captured in a quarry?

L106-107: I would move “T. cristatus” eralier in the sentence, before involing “scent”.

L108-110: Where all the trials conducted in a single day? Is it the same of one of the soil trials or another day?

L118: the comma after [33] should be a dot.

L118-119: Please, add more information on this issue.

L119-120: I’d like more detail also here to understand why water spray is necessary.

L137: OS is extended here and abbreviated at line 101, it should be the opposite.

L229-230: It is not clear to me the meaning of Wet-Wet+ and Dry-Dry+.

L258: Strange sentence construction.

L264-265: “a single wildlife detection dog only”, I would remove “only”.

L271: I would change “mortality” with “enhanched/augmetned/increase in mortality” since mortality in general is a natural phenomenon.

L271-273: “and due to limited battery duration at required small transmitter sizes is presently unable to locate newts over periods longer than a few weeks after breeding” I think something is missing in this sentence.

L275-276: Something is wrong with the punctation, or some word is missing.

L276: I would remove “for example”, same at line 284, 287, 317.

L279: And also useful for monitoring purposes I suppose.

L286: “individuals of”

L288-290: Please rephrase and try to merge the two exapmples.

L294: Maybe better “wide availability”.

L299-301: Strange construction, please rephrase.

L324: Here and above, why “Sandy Soil Full” is capitalized?

L326: And another main point could be to use more dogs to assess the variability of detection dogs’ ability to locate newts.

L478: “B” should not be capitalized.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 7;18(6):e0285084. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285084.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Feb 2023

Comments by Reviewer 1:

Introduction

The introduction is very well written and overall follows a logical flow. My only suggestion would be to start from the ecological point of view (i.e., line 46 – maybe not with a “To”), and once the terrestrial methods for surveying newts are brought up (currently ending line 76), come to the method of detection dogs. This would prevent from this sharp cut that currently exists between paragraph 1 and 2.

We are grateful for this constructive comment. We have re-ordered the Introduction accordingly, starting with the ‘ecological view’ and study species before presenting a section on detection dogs.

line 42: references 6-9: three of the references refer to carcass monitoring. Although this is true, it seems a little less variable to generalize that dogs are generally 4-12 times better than humans. I would suggest that the authors also include papers on other species or their traces.

We added references 22-24 of other example target odours as suggested.

line 49: please give some references on those “easier” sampling methods

Additional references (2 and 3) on amphibian sampling methods are now provided.

line 51: again the addition of some typical sampling methods and their efficiency would help the readers

Further general texts on sampling methods (references 4 and 5) are now provided.

line 62: it is also an annex 4 species of the FFH directive

This information has been added (lines 47-48).

Methods

Generally, I would like to congratulate the authors to their very creative testing procedures and apparatuses. This is a great accomplishment and will shed light into the secret of newt detection dogs, if not amphibian detection dogs in general. That said, I have a long list of additional information that is necessary to follow the setups entirely and procedures.

The description of test 1 was quite good while there were several logical flaws in the description of test 2 (see below). I am also missing some information on how habituated the dog was to the apparatuses and the setups, since mistakes often occurred in the first trials.

In contrast to the writing, the concept of test 2 seems well thought-through with 4 conditions and 128 repetitions. This gives room for rather sound statistical analyses. However, in test 1 there were only 2 repetitions for 8 conditions making further analyses almost impossible. Despite the finding is interesting, the concept is also biased towards learning by the dog as the length used per trial was not randomly chosen but increased systematically, limiting the potential to generalize these findings. This should be explained and taken up in the discussion.

We are grateful for these constructive, detailed and encouraging comments, and have indeed taken them up throughout the revised manuscript.

We are fully aware that the setup of “test 1” (the channelled distance perception trials) is characterised by an ascending (and therefore non-random) order of pipe length, limiting the scope for detailed quantitative analyses. However, the main purpose of this experiment was to demonstrate the ability of our dog to detect the target species at distances of up to 2 m, which was unambiguously demonstrated in the conducted trials (the longest pipes never resulted in non-detection). More rigorous statistical analyses at a more randomised setup would indeed be required at extended pipe lengths which gradually become a limiting factor for detection, but this was beyond the scope of our experiment.

Finally, despite test 2 is following a good concept, statistical analyses done afterwards are rather weak. A pairwise comparison of findings that at the same time may (or may not) depend on so many other factors contradicts the test assumptions. I would suggest a linear regression (linear model or an anova) for these analyses, with the detection time as a response and properties of the individuals (individual measurements, sex) and environmental conditions (weather in this case, as long as weather parameters are not correlated, of course) as explanatory variables. After reading the results, I also figured out that the dog did a lot of false-positive indications. I would thus use a binary coding of whether the dog was able to detect the newt at the first attempt (1) or not (0), neglecting whether or not the dog would have found the individual in any following attempt (because the likelihood of detection is different from the first attempt). This binary coding (i.e., detection probability) would then be used as a response in a glm with Binomial error distribution and all the above-mentioned individual and environmental parameters as explanatory variables.

We have taken these suggestions on board, and present a new set of data analyses based on GLMMs (see Methods and Results sections).

line 87: as experiments were conducted in different year, it may be better to give the year of birth or a reference when the dog was five years old (at the beginning? last test?)

A birth date of the detection dog is now provided (see lines 93 and 94).

lines 89-90: what is meant by “annual assessments”? How is the dog assessed and what for? Is there any standard protocol the authors could refer to?

More details are now provided in lines 94-102. The trainer shadows the detection dog team during operational searches and sets up controlled trials to assess working capabilities. There is no standard protocol that can be referred to, as the assessments were developed and designed by one of the authors at Conservation K9 Consultancy.

line 90: likewise, please define “suitable operating standards”

This section has been rephrased (see above).

line 92: this is a good example of how such an assessment can be cited

We are grateful for this comment.

line 92-93: “Freya is able to distinguish between the target species and all other common amphibians native to the UK” – after having a look at reference 31, it is not clear to me how the authors define “is able to…”. Would the authors consider giving the “score” for Freya? According to ref. 31, it seems that 80% GCN detected and no more than 2 false positives is a “pass”, but 50% or lower GCN detection and 4 or more false positives are a “fail”. That makes it hard for the reader to evaluate the dog performance.

More details are now provided in lines 98-103, to clarify that the detection dog achieved a success rate of over 80% and therefore passed the internal assessment criteria.

line 100-110: I would like to congratulate the authors to such a very smart setup. This is a great idea. I have a few questions: Would the authors consider also sharing a picture of the bottom of a pipe (description lines 103-106), maybe as an inlay to Fig. 1?

Thank you for the compliment! A picture of the bottom of the pipe has been included as an inlay to Figure 1.

Why was the test restricted to two runs per length (which results in very low statistical power)? Was that because 16 individuals were available, and no individual should be used more than once?

The number of trials was limited by the licence issued by our governing body (Natural England), which required to use each individual great crested newt only once to minimise stress. This is now clarified in the manuscript (line 120-122).

And last, I have some concerns with the “successively increasing the length” as this could result in a learning effect, while on operative searches it is more likely that the dog encounters various lengths randomly. Results may be different if a dog is tested with a successively changing situation (which would rather be the approach of a learning protocol than for a test) in comparison to a randomly changing situation (a short pipe run followed by a long and then a medium pipe run etc.).

See our general comments above – we are aware of this limitation, which is now considered in the manuscript (e.g. lines 247-250).

Last, was the position of the board always the same in respect to the pipe length that exceeded the board? So that for the dog the setup always looked identical?

Yes, the set-up always looked identical – this is now clarified in line 120.

line 114: please specify “blind” to “double blind”

Double blind refers to when the dog/handler team and observer are out of sight when the testers set up each run. Alternatively, a blind search is when only the dog handler team are unable to see the test setup, but the observer is aware of the location of the target odour. These types of setups are carried out to avoid unconscious signalling from the handler or observer/tester to the detection dog, and is now clarified in the manuscript (lines 123-126, lines 214-216).

line 115: please insert: “from the handler” or the observer/tester “to the detection dog” (see below for wording confusion)

The wording has been amended.

line 123: “one additional repeat” – backwards or starting again?

This information has been added (the run started again, see line 140-141).

lines 127-129: please specify the parameters taken during the test, e.g. what were the weather conditions and how were they defined, how was temperature / wind speed / humidity measured, what categories existed for the behavior of the dog and handler and how were they defined?

The information is now added (lines 145-160).

line 130: the “tester” is the same person as the “observer”? Then, I would suggest to use a unique name. If they are not the same, I did not understand the tasks of both so far. Please also verify again which of these persons was placing the newt and then went out of sight of the handler, and whether the third person (if there was any) observed the whole procedure. If so, the test is no longer considered as double-blind but single blind.

We apologise for the confusion we have caused. The tester set up the trials and stood out of view from the dog/handler team and observer. The observer did not know the location of the target odour and noted behavioural observations during the assessments. The tester in the soil trial was also an observer therefore the trial was undertaken blind (not double blind). We have amended the terminology to “assessor” and provide more details in the manuscript throughout.

line 156: the setup is not visible in Fig. 2a. Would the authors please consider adding a scheme of the setup?

A scheme of the setup is now provided (Figure 2a).

line 161: this may be a funny question, but how is the 68 mm pipe attached to a 75 mm pipe adaptor? It may just be my version of the pdf, but Fig. 2b is a little too blurry to see it

We are grateful for this comment, and apologise for an error. The pipe socket (the compartment where the experimental individual is housed) has a 61mm diameter. The 20 cm pipe that slots over the top is 68 mm in diameter. See lines 187-199.

line 164: this sentence gave me a hard time to understand the setup. I suppose that the 1x1 cm holes are supposed to be the mesh size? And the mesh has been rolled to a diameter of 3.75 cm? Again, a drawn scheme would be helpful here.

We apologise for these omissions, and have now added all measurements. The fibreglass mesh that was placed between the compartment and the pipe comprised 4 x 4 mm gaps (lines 191-192 and Figure 2a). The vented treatments comprised a plastic-coated wire mesh with 4 x 4 mm gaps. The mesh was cut to 200 mm length to sit within the 200 mm long pipe. . The mesh was rolled up into a cylindrical shape and secured with cable ties with a diameter of approximately 25 mm to represent small mammal burrows (a common subterraneous refuge of T. cristatus (195-199 Figure 2b).

lines 166-170: this part needs some more details to understand the whole setup. As far as I understood it, 8 pipes per plot existed, one was holding a newt (or more?)? And all other soil types could exist? So two pipes per soil type in each plot? Please specify.

More details are now provided in lines 204-213. Two pipes of every treatment type were present in each plot with one soil type (e.g clay) located to the left of the plot and the other soil type (e.g. sandy) was positioned to the right, alternating the location of each soil type between runs. On each side, vented and full treatments were positioned alternatively within each plot. Three out of the four plots contained a single T. cristatus, with one plot serving as a control. Across four trials and four plots, the location of three T. cristatus was allocated to each of the four treatments at random locations, using 12 T. cristatus in total.

line 173: again this my seem to be a funny question, but if the pipe was 20 cm height and the adaptor was 5 cm height, but the hole was just 22 cm depth, the pipe must protrude 3 cm above surface. Was that on purpose? How does that affect the setup?

We are grateful for this comment, and apologise for a wrong measurement. The pipes sat flush with the ground (Figure 2b), and the numbers are now corrected.

lines 175-177: the information about the weighting of the crested newt should go along with line 135 where the newts are mentioned.

The section has been amended accordingly.

lines 178-179: again, please define the parameters properly. Also clarify why you added cloud cover to your set of parameters

This information has been added (lines 145-151).

line 179: is that soil moisture measurement different from the procedure described above, i.e. has it been repeated during the tests?

Soil moisture measurements were taken once before each trial took place to minimise disturbance. It took a maximum of 10 minutes to conduct searches across Plots 1-4, rendering it unlikely for moisture and temperature to change drastically (see lines 220-223 in the revised manuscript).

line 183: this sounds very negative and pessimistic about the dog. I am sure also the true positives were recorded. � Likewise, the number of misses (false negatives) were likely also recorded (or would be, if there were any). I would appreciate a more complete picture in that sentence.

This sentence has been rephrased (lines 248-250). As measures of performance by the dog/handler team, numbers and locations of false negative, false positive, true negative and true positive indications were noted.

line 183-184: again I am getting confused with the tasks for tester and observer. Please clarify their tasks and who was present at the plot and when. Also, it should be mentioned that the test was conducted single-blind (despite you described it in the text that the handler did not know the location, readers my search for blindness in your article).

The text and terminology has been amended accordingly (see also above).

line 186: the dog “undertook a free search” – but actually, Fig. 2a suggests that the dog was working on a long towing leash; please clarify; another upcoming question: how did the dog search? did she deliberately check the 8 tubes? did the handler follow the dog or stood still at the entrance of the plot?

The detection dog was only on a lead when being positioned at the front of the plot, and a different photo is now shown to avoid any confusion (see Figure 2c).

line 186: “dog indicated correctly” – before the handler confirmed with the tester, it is not necessarily correct. Rewrite sentence in more logical order, e.g., dog indicated – handler confirmed with tester – if correct, play session

The sentence has been amended accordingly.

line 187-190: this sentence seems to be a bit miss-placed and would be more in logical flow after line 191. I suggest to change this.

Agreed and amended.

line 188: If I understood the setup correctly, there was always one empty plot among the four plots. Was the handler able to stop the search before the 180 sec and state that she believes that nothing is here? please clarify.

Yes, the handler would call “blank” early if she believed there was no great crested newt present due to no change in dog’s behaviour. This is now clarified in line 232-234.

line 191: and also the number of attempts as well as the time until the dog would find the newt was noted, I guess? please specify

This information is now provided.

line 194: I think I am not yet familiar with what the authors determine as “pipe” and “tube”. While line 192 suggests that new tubes were used during each trial, line 194 states that all pipes were moved to new positions. Please clarify this issue and specify the terms used.

Amended to ‘pipes’.

line 197: how were the 30 newts distributed among the 128 trials (even though some were without newts)? was the selection completely random or pseudo-random (i.e. allowing for a similar number of trials per newt)?

Great crested newts were separated for each trial to avoid their re-use during the same or next trial day to reduce potential stress. Individual newts were taken at random from the tanks. This is now clarified in lines 244-246.

On another note, there is again a wording issue with “trial”, which the authors sometimes use for all four plots together and sometimes for a single plot (at least this is how I understand the 128 trials). Maybe the authors could think of a more appropriate term, or specify (as done sometimes but not throughout the manuscript) as 4-plot and single-plot trials

The terminology has been amended to 4-plot and single plot trials as suggested.

statistical analyses: the statistical part should follow the same order as the field methods part. It would thus be better to start with statistics of test 1; if no statistics for test 1 were done, please at least describe some potential measures for this test; unfortunately, more repetitions would have been helpful for a more comprehensive understanding

The statistical approach of the initial manuscript version has been replaced by a GLMM, and the entire manuscript section was re-written accordingly. The lack of a testing framework for “test 1” is explained in lines 253-255.

line 200: what “data” are the authors talking about? To understand this part, a general context on what the authors aim to analyse would help. For example, differences among detection rates or detection times regarding the soil type etc. Were the detection times checked for normality? Or what else?

See above – a new statistical approach has been adopted and the section re-written.

line 201: I would suggest to delete the part: “and box plots were used to visualize the data” as this is obvious information

This section has been removed.

line 203: medians of what?

This section has been removed.

line 204: differences of what?

This section has been removed.

line 205: aren’t vents/ no vents and sol/clay the four treatments? What is the difference to the KW-Test?

This section (and test) has been removed.

line 206: how do the authors define detection rates? which parameters belong to the abiotic and biotic parameters? The last part can be added to my question above about a more detailed parameter definition

The new statistical model is now described in lines 256-271, and the underlying abiotic parameters are described in lines 145-151.

Results

Results are well written but hard to generalize in their current state. Please consider a more sophisticated statistical approach as the one suggested in the Methods part. Also, original data are missing and the authors should consider uploading them to a repository when publishing the article.

The statistical analyses of the initial manuscript version have indeed become by a GLMM and surrounding procedures. The raw data have been made available on Dryad .

Table 1: I forgot to ask: how long was the dog trained on the setup before? How used was she to search on it? Again, due to the successive increasing of the pipe, a learning effect cannot be excluded here.

The detection dog was trained for two weeks on the setup prior to assessment and had therefore become habituated to the process. This is now included in the Method section (lines 158-160).

line 228: soil surface or somewhere within the soil?

This information is now provided (5 cm within the soil, see line 221).

line 227-232: despite this information is very interesting, it does not tell much without the corresponding outcome. A summary with the outcome data would help, be it detection probability or time to detection

We would prefer to retain this information in the revised manuscript version, as the newly adopted statistical analyses link it more closely to the outcome of the conducted experiments. The outcome data are now provided via Dryad.

line 237: more than 20% indication in blank plots seems quite high and would be difficult in real deployments when only retreats can be found but not the newts themselves. Any ideas why this happened? Could residual odor play a role? Again, also the search strategy would be interesting to know, i.e. whether the dog systematically checked the tubes (by herself or with a handler following).

The increased (but overall still low) frequency of false indications is now described in detail in lines 307-314 (Results) and lines 365-378 (Discussion). The search methodology is explained in lines 226-230.

line 240-241: this statement must be underlined with statistics, otherwise it is too blurry. See my suggestions about a potential statistical analysis in the Method Section

The section has been re-written together with re-analyses of the data.

line 242: as for test 1, I am wondering how familiar the dog was to this setup.

The dog experienced three weeks of training prior to assessment – this is now clarified in the text (lines 247-248).

Figure 3: please add pairwise significant differences to the plot

The data became re-analysed, and the plot became modified accordingly.

lines 244-251: directions (effect sizes) are entirely missing. If things are significantly different, which one was faster/slower?

The section has been re-written together with re-analyses of the data.

lines 251-253: again, please underline the statements with statistical results

The section has been re-written together with re-analyses of the data.

Discussion

General: The discussion is very well written and follows a red line. Unfortunately, discussions of own results are rather short (despite including very nice parts, see below). If the authors would consider a full analysis on detection at first attempt and detection time depending on all parameters measured (as suggested above), results would be much more comprehensive and could directly be compared to more findings from others. In line with that, the authors claimed that they did not detect any differences between sexes or with size, which contradicts recent findings from a different detection dog on GCN (Grimm-Seyfarth 2022). Having a look at the whole models (sometimes parameter influences can only be detected when controlling for other, maybe more important parameters, such as potentially the soil type in this case) and comparing results would be extremely interesting.

A conclusion is missing.

We are grateful for these constructive comments, and now present an extended and modified Discussion. We particularly integrate the additional reference (Grimm-Seyfarth 2022, which was not yet available at the time of writing of the first manuscript version) into the interpretation of our findings.

line 265: and limited to a single amphibian species

This section has been amended.

line 281: careful, the authors did not evaluate what is commonly referred to as detection distance. I typical detection distance would be when an individual / trace is placed and the dog would wind its head and change direction at xx m distance and then move straight to the target. The authors however used a lineup with different pipe lengths, were the smell would not be distributed through the environment but channeled in a pipe, likely coming close to a chimney effect (Osterkamp 2000). The amount of smell through such a pipe is much higher than would be on the surface. Nevertheless I do understand the applicability of these findings when newts are hidden in the ground. Your findings tell us that the dog would find newts in 2 m deep mammal burrows (if they would be straight etc.), which is a very important finding. However, I would strongly recommend that the authors use a proper term for it to not confuse it with typical detection distances.

We agree with this comment. Distance perception has been evaluated through the use of pipes which could have potentially increased distance of scent flow. We have generally re-named these experiments as “channelled distance perception” throughout the manuscript, and cover this issue in the Discussion (lines 342-348).

line 288: careful, reference 39 is talking about detection distances (measured accurately with GPS and in field-like setting), while the authors tested the distance channeled through a pipe. this is not really comparable and should be specified

This section has been amended.

line 290: reference 41 evaluated the distance from a defined transect line that a scat can be detected, thus also not really evaluating detection distance (which would properly be done like in ref. 39); please specify

We have removed the reference.

line 291: it would be helpful to not just know the temperature range exhibited during the test, but also whether hot temperatures occurred at the beginning or end, as temperature may influence the channeling effect of the scent

Temperature was high at the start of the test when false indications occurred (26 degrees) and dropped as trial went on (21 degrees). We have now included temperature in the statistical model, and present the data in Dryad.

line 292: Grimm-Seyfarth 2022 investigated the effect of temperature (among others) on detection probability for T. cristatus, which apparently was also dependent on the habitat; and my suggestion would be to include temperature analyses on test 2 (see my suggestion in methods part)

Temperature is indeed now considered in the statistical model, suggesting a positive relationship with detection time (lines 325-327, and according sections in the Discussion).

lines 298-308: these are important information, thanks for including them! I would appreciate to have some more information in the method section as requested above, as this may clarify some of my points risen above

The respective Methods sections became revised (see above).

line 311: the studies by Matthew are indeed quite comparable to some points and I would suggest to draw some more direct comparisons regarding her and your results

We agree, and now present more detailed comparisons in the Discussion (lines 341-348).

312-326: this is a very nice part of the discussion! I would encourage the authors to include more of that. Comparisons among studies, even if different approaches have been used, and their findings are extremely helpful in this field.

We have included further comparisons as requested.

References

I did not check all the references, but this came to me:

line 415: there seems to be a mistake with the title, see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320703002684?via%3Dihub

This has been corrected.

Grimm-Seyfarth, A. 2022. Environmental and training factors affect canine detection probabilities for terrestrial newt surveys. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 57: 6-15.

Osterkamp, T. 2020. Detector dogs and scent movement. How weather, terrain, and vegetation influence search strategies. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.

We are grateful for these additional references. They are particularly useful and have been added to the manuscript.

Comments by Reviewer 2:

The authors present an interesting study on the ability of a detection dog to locate an urodel amphibian in different soil types and at different distances. As an herpetologist and a dog owner myself, I find this emerging practice very interesting and with great potential and wide range of possible applications in the future.

I find the paper generally well written, with clear experimental methods, however, I have some concerns about data analyses.

My main concern is about the analysis of soil data, which are not clear to me. How was the relationship between environmental/experimental variables and time to detection tested? Just with Spearman’s r test (line 206)? In this case, analyses should be performed with glm relating time to detection ~ abiotic + biotic factors. Just using pairwise Spearman’s r means that the authors are completely ignoring joint effect/marginal responses of dependent variables.

We have taken these suggestions on board, and present a new set of data analyses based on GLMMs in the revised manuscript (see also a range of replies to queries by Reviewer 1 above).

I don’t know whether the sample size is enough to include an additional variable; in case, you can test the effect of progressive trial number of detection performance.

We are grateful for this excellent suggestion, but would prefer to keep such analyses for a future manuscript to specifically focus on dog behaviour (including a comparison between different dogs).

I would avoid to state “data not show” and add supplementary instead (I agree that “data not shown” can be fine for the video footage mentioned at line 304).

This section has been amended, and we now show all data in the Dryad repository.

I can’t find raw data for the soil experiment, even if they should be available given the data availability statement. Maybe they can be added as SI?

All data are now made available via the Dryad repository.

Specific comments:

Line 80: “a/one” detection dog, maybe?

We have amended the phrasing to “a”.

L100: “derived” do the authors mean they were captured in a quarry?

Yes – we have amended the word to “captured”.

L106-107: I would move “T. cristatus” eralier in the sentence, before involing “scent”.

Agreed – we have amended the sentence accordingly (lines 113-115).

L108-110: Where all the trials conducted in a single day? Is it the same of one of the soil trials or another day?

Yes – Line 123 in the revised manuscript explains that “The experiment took place on the 20th August 2020.”

L118: the comma after [33] should be a dot.

This section became amended.

L118-119: Please, add more information on this issue.

More information has been added to the text (lines 129-135).

L119-120: I’d like more detail also here to understand why water spray is necessary.

We have now clarified that water is needed to keep the skin moist (line 135).

L137: OS is extended here and abbreviated at line 101, it should be the opposite.

The section has been amended

L229-230: It is not clear to me the meaning of Wet-Wet+ and Dry-Dry+.

More details are now provided in lines 220-223.

L258: Strange sentence construction.

The sentence has been removed.

L264-265: “a single wildlife detection dog only”, I would remove “only”.

The sentence has been removed during the re-wording of the Discussion.

L271: I would change “mortality” with “enhanched/augmetned/increase in mortality” since mortality in general is a natural phenomenon.

The sentence has been amended during the re-wording of the Discussion.

L271-273: “and due to limited battery duration at required small transmitter sizes is presently unable to locate newts over periods longer than a few weeks after breeding” I think something is missing in this sentence.

The sentence has been amended.

L275-276: Something is wrong with the punctation, or some word is missing.

The sentence has been amended.

L276: I would remove “for example”, same at line 284, 287, 317.

The sentence has been amended.

L279: And also useful for monitoring purposes I suppose.

The sentence has been amended accordingly.

L286: “individuals of”

The section has been removed during the re-wording of the Discussion.

L288-290: Please rephrase and try to merge the two exapmples.

The text has been removed during the re-wording of the Discussion.

L294: Maybe better “wide availability”.

The text has been removed during the re-wording of the Discussion.

L299-301: Strange construction, please rephrase.

The text has been removed during the re-wording of the Discussion.

L324: Here and above, why “Sandy Soil Full” is capitalized?

We capitalised this phrase (and other similar phrases elsewhere) because it refers to the name of a treatment. We are however more than happy to remove the capitals if deemed more appropriate.

L326: And another main point could be to use more dogs to assess the variability of detection dogs’ ability to locate newts.

We are grateful for the constructive and useful comment, but would prefer to address the topic in a future manuscript which will specifically focus on a comparison between different dogs.

L478: “B” should not be capitalized.

This has been amended.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Christopher Walton

16 Apr 2023

An experimental assessment of detection dog ability to locate great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) at distance and through soil

PONE-D-22-22016R1

Dear Dr. Glover,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Christopher Walton, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: General comments:

I am reviewing this manuscript for the second time, and I acknowledge the work of the authors in improving the manuscript following reviewers’ comments.

One last concern is: the authors say that data are available on Dryad, however, I was not able to find any doi/link.

At this point, I only have a few minor concerns:

Line 41: I think that “migrate” is more appropriate than “disperse” here, see 1. Cayuela H, Valenzuela-Sánchez A, Teulier L, Martínez-Solano Í, Léna J-P, Merilä J, et al. Determinants and Consequences of Dispersal in Vertebrates with Complex Life Cycles: A Review of Pond-Breeding Amphibians. Quartely Rev Biol. 2020;95: 1–36. doi:10.1086/707862

L45: And also the introduction of fish (e.g., Denoël M, Perez A, Cornet Y, Ficetola GF. Similar local and landscape processes affect both a common and a rare newt species. PLoS One. 2013;8: e62727. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062727; Falaschi M, Muraro M, Gibertini C, Delle Monache D, Lo Parrino E, Faraci F, et al. Explaining declines of newt abundance in northern Italy. Freshw Biol. 2022;67: 1174–1187. doi:10.1111/FWB.13909;).

L140: “the dog indicated, confirmed with the testers who were out of view.” not clear.

L149: “hygrometer thermometer” thermo-hygrometer?

L243-246: The underlying maths is not very clear here.

L373-377: I think this type of “control” is a very hard challenge for the dog/handler team. This implies that the authors tested dog and handler abilities in the worst-case scenario, possibly inflating false positives. I would stress more, if the authors think it is adequate, that this is a strength more than a weakness of this test.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Christopher Walton

27 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-22016R1

An experimental assessment of detection dog ability to locate great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) at distance and through soil

Dear Dr. Glover:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Christopher Walton

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. T.cristatus being measured from nose to cloaca.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. The relationship between (log) detection time and air temperature with predicted values + SE from a gamma GLM (log effect size = 0.59 ± 0.09, t = 6.34, p <0.05).

    (PDF)

    S1 Table. Results of the weather conditions during the channelled distance perception trials.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Please use the following link to our raw data on Dryad: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.sf7m0cg9t.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES