Context: Wildlife detection dogs have been used globally in environmental monitoring. However, their effectiveness in the Australian context has been only minimally researched. Increased understanding of detection dog accuracy and efficacy is required for their inclusion in survey guidelines used by proponents of referred actions potentially impacting Australia’s threatened mammals. Evaluation of new methods is also important for advancing population monitoring, particularly for threatened species.

Aims: To determine the efficacy of wildlife detection dogs as a survey tool for low-density, cryptic species, using northern (Dasyurus hallucatus) and spotted-tailed (D. maculatus) quolls as subjects. We compared detection dogs, human search effort and camera trapping results, in simulated accuracy and efficacy trials, and field surveys.

Methods: Two wildlife detection dogs’ scores for sensitivity (ability to identify a target species scat) and specificity (ability to distinguish target from non-target species scats) were calculated during accuracy trials. The dogs were tested using 288 samples, of which 32 were targets, where northern and spotted-tailed quoll scat were the targets in separate trials. Survey efficacy was determined following completing 12 simulated surveys (6 per target species) involving a single, randomly placed scat sample in a 1–1.5 ha search area. During the northern quoll simulated surveys the dogs’ survey efficacy was compared with that of a human surveyor. The dogs also undertook field surveys for both northern and spotted-tailed quolls, in conjunction with camera trapping for comparison.

Key results: During accuracy trials the dogs had an average sensitivity and specificity respectively of 100% and 98.4% for northern quoll, and 100% and 98% for spotted-tailed quoll. Their average search time in efficacy trials for northern quoll was 11.07 min (significantly faster than the human surveyor), and 2.98 min for spotted-tailed quoll in the 1–1.5 ha search areas. During field surveys, northern quoll scats were detected at sites where camera trapping failed to determine their presence. No spotted-tailed quoll scat was detected by the dogs during field surveys.

Conclusions: Trained and experienced detection dogs can work very accurately and efficiently, which is vital to their field success. Detection dogs are therefore capable of detecting evidence of species presence where alternative methods may be unsuccessful.

Implications: Our study supports the future use of highly trained detection dogs for wildlife surveys and monitoring in Australia. Our results demonstrate that detection dogs can be highly accurate and are a beneficial stand-alone or complimentary method.

背景：野生动物检测犬已在全球范围内用于环境监测。但是，对它们在澳大利亚范围内的有效性仅进行了很少的研究。需要将对犬的准确性和功效的了解加深，以便将其纳入可能会影响澳大利亚受威胁哺乳动物的相关行动的支持者所使用的调查指南中。对新方法的评估对于推进种群监测，特别是对受威胁物种的监测也很重要。

目的：以北部（Dasyurus hallucatus）和斑尾（D. maculatus）为对象，确定野生动物检测犬作为低密度隐性物种调查工具的功效。我们在模拟的准确性和功效试验以及实地调查中比较了检测犬，人工搜索工作和相机诱捕结果。

方法：在准确性试验中，计算了两只野生动物检测犬的灵敏度（识别目标物种粪便的能力）和特异性（区分目标物种与非目标物种粪便的能力）的分数。使用288个样本对这些狗进行了测试，其中32个是目标，在单独的试验中，北部和点尾的quo粪便是目标。在完成12个模拟调查（每个目标物种6个）后，确定调查效力，这些调查涉及一个随机放置的粪便样本，样本范围为1–1.5公顷。在北半球模拟调查中，将狗的调查功效与人类调查员的功效进行了比较。这些狗还进行了北部和斑点尾的野外野外调查，并进行了相机捕捉以进行比较。

关键结果：在准确性试验中，这些狗对北部猛禽的平均敏感性和特异性分别为100％和98.4％，对斑点尾猛禽的平均敏感性和特异性分别为100％和98％。在功效方面，他们在北部猛禽的平均搜索时间为11.07分钟（明显快于人类调查员），而在1-1.5公顷的搜索区域中，斑尾类猛禽的平均搜索时间为2.98分钟。在野外调查期间，在相机诱捕无法确定其存在的地点，发现了北猫粪便。在实地调查中，这些狗没有发现斑点尾的quo猫粪便。

结论：训练有素，经验丰富的侦察犬可以非常准确，高效地工作，这对于它们的野外成功至关重要。因此，在替代方法可能不成功的情况下，检测犬能够检测物种存在的证据。

启示：我们的研究支持将来将训练有素的侦查犬用于澳大利亚的野生动植物调查和监测。我们的结果表明，检测犬可以高度准确，是一种有益的独立或互补方法。