1 / 31

SIMON GADBOIS : DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY, HALIFAX, NS, CANADA

SNIFFER DOGS FOR SURVEY AND DETECTION OF INVASIVE WOOD BORING INSECTS: PRELIMINARY RESULTS WITH THE BROWN SPRUCE LONGHORN BEETLE ( TETROPIUM FUSCUM ). SIMON GADBOIS : DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY, HALIFAX, NS, CANADA RENÉE LAPOINTE : SYLVAR TECHNOLOGIES, FREDERICTON, NB, CANADA

idola
Download Presentation

SIMON GADBOIS : DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY, HALIFAX, NS, CANADA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SNIFFER DOGS FOR SURVEY AND DETECTION OF INVASIVE WOOD BORING INSECTS: PRELIMINARY RESULTS WITH THE BROWN SPRUCE LONGHORN BEETLE (TETROPIUM FUSCUM). • SIMON GADBOIS: DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY, HALIFAX, NS, CANADA • RENÉE LAPOINTE: SYLVAR TECHNOLOGIES, FREDERICTON, NB, CANADA • JON SWEENEY: CANADIAN FOREST SERVICE, FREDERICTON, NB, CANADA • DAVE DAVIES: FOREST PROTECTION LIMITED, FREDERICTON, NB, CANADA

  2. BACKGROUND • Wallner & Ellis (1976): Scientific study • USDA (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service): Asian Longhorn Beetle • Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Working Dogs for Conservation: Emerald Ashborer • New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands & Matt Ayres (Dartmouth College): Emerald Ashborer

  3. HOW IS THIS PROJECT DIFFERENT? • Winter detection of larvae: Challenges • SDT application (more later) • HOW IS THIS TEAM DIFFERENT? • Canid Behaviour Research Team: Integrative ethology (biology, experimental psychology, neuroscience) and applied research • Animal learning theory and psychophysics; olfaction • Non-profit • Investigating other model (biological) detection systems

  4. TRAINABLE PROCESSES • Detection: T. fuscum • Discrimination: T. fuscum vs. T. cinnamopterum • Identification (matching-to-sample) • Scaling: Volume, concentration, quantity; threshold • Trailing • Tracking } SEARCHING

  5. TIMELINE: ~2 VISITS/WEEK • Dog selection: 2 months • Clicker training: 1 week (1-2 visits) • Matching-to-sample (3 choices) ~ Tea: 1 month • Matching-to-sample (3 choices) ~ Larvae: 2-3 weeks • Matching-to-sample (9 choices) ~ Larvae, no distractors: 2-3 weeks • Matching-to-sample (9 choices) ~ Larvae, with distractors: 2-3 weeks • Matching-to-sample (16 choices) ~ Larvae, with distractors: 2 weeks • Go/no-go (9 choices): 1 week • Go/no-go (16 choices): 1 week • Go/no-go (25 choices): 1 week } DISTRACTORS: FIELD RELEVANT STIMULI

  6. THE PROBLEM OF LOW SALIENCY STIMULI • 10 concentrations (in seconds [mins]): above • Plus: 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25% dilution (with water) of the 5s tea • S+ is the dilution, S- is water

  7. TRAINING:

  8. SAMPLE

  9. Training • Tested ability to detect decreasing saliency stimuli 3 X 80%

  10. Training • Tested ability to detect decreasing saliency stimuli 3 X 80%

  11. Training • Tested ability to detect decreasing saliency stimuli 3 X 80%

  12. Training • Tested ability to detect decreasing saliency stimuli 3 X 80%

  13. Training • Tested ability to detect decreasing saliency stimuli 3 X 80% +

  14. MATRICES AND BEYOND Criterion for moving to next step: 3 sessions in a row at 80% or 2 sessions in a row at 100% • Uncovered matrices: • 3x3: 1 target, 8 distractors • 4x4: 1 target, 15 distractors • 5x5: 1 target, 24 distractors • Training “no target”: Blank matrices >>> “sit” • Covered matrices: Test for SDT analysis • Transfer to bolts (3 choices): ongoing • Transfer to the field: Mid-February

  15. MATCHING-TO-SAMPLE: 3 CHOICES

  16. OPEN MATRIX: 3X31) PRESENT, THEN 2) ABSENT

  17. OPEN MATRIX: 3X31) PRESENT, THEN 2) ABSENT

  18. GO/NO-GO: MATRICES: 9, 16, 25

  19. BOLTS: 3 CHOICES

  20. PRELIMINARY DATA

  21. DATA

  22. SIGNAL DETECTION THEORY • Parameters: • d’ (d prime): measure • detectability • discriminability • Accuracy: sensitivity and specificity >>> ROC curves • Criterion or bias: C • Conservative (false alarm tolerant) vs. liberal (false alarm tolerant) dogs • Training can be adjusted

  23. GO/NO-GO DETECTION FLYNN, FIRST 60 TRIALS (INCLUDING PRE-TEST TRIALS!) NOT FINAL! NOTE THAT THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF PERFORMANCE CONSIDERING THAT IT INCLUDES TRAINING AND FAMILIARIZATION TRIALS

  24. SDT: d’ AND C (CRITERION) • d’ calculation: • d' = z(False Alarms) - z(Hits) = 2.061 • (0 = chance, 4= perfect detection) • C value: • -0.023 >>> liberal decision maker • Maximizes hits at the expense of false alarms • THIS CAN BE FIXED WITH FURTHER TRAINING

  25. UPDATE: FEBRUARY 5 • Note that on February 5, 2014, Flynn got: • 100% hits and 100% correct rejections • 0% false alarms and 0% misses • This puts him at a d’ above 4!

  26. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

  27. COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND FUTURE OPERATIONAL PLANS

  28. COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM EVALUATION • Cost of dogs (acquisition, selection, training, etc.) • Human resources: Trainers and handlers • Commuting with canine teams • Considerations: • Remote scenting with dogs (from REST) • Other biological systems (differential conditioning)

  29. THANK YOU TO THE “DAL CANINES” TEAM • Catherine Floyd, PhD candidate • Emma Hoffman, Honours student, lab experiments • Fielding Montgomery, Honours student, field experiments • Maria DeNicola, Research assistant and lab manager • http://www.gadbois.org/simon • https://www.facebook.com/groups/DalCanines/

More Related