|Appears in Collections:||Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles|
|Title:||Humans versus dogs; a comparison of methods for the detection of bumble bee nests|
|Citation:||O'Connor S, Park K & Goulson D (2012) Humans versus dogs; a comparison of methods for the detection of bumble bee nests, Journal of Apicultural Research, 51 (2), pp. 204-211.|
|Abstract:||This study investigates alternative approaches to locating bumble bee nests for scientific research. We present results from three trials designed to assess: 1. The comparative efficiency of two detection dogs; 2. The ability of a dog to locate nests when carrying out repeat searches of agricultural habitats through the season; 3. The efficiency of a dog compared with human volunteers at finding nests in woodland, with the human volunteers using two methods: ‘fixed searches’ and ‘free searches’. The two dogs varied in their efficiency in finding buried portions of bumble bee nest material (62.5% and 100% correct indications). Searching for real nests in rural habitats, a detection dog located nine nests of four bumble bee species, in a range of habitats, at a rate of one nest for 19 h 24 min of searching time. A comparison of ‘free searches’ using human volunteers and the dog in woodland found that they located nests at similar rates, one nest for 1 h 20 min of searching time. Fixed searches located nests more slowly (one nest for 3 h 18 min of searching time), but probably provide a reliable estimate of nest density. Experienced volunteers performed no better than novices. Given the investment required to train and maintain a detection dog, we conclude that this is not a cost effective method for locating bumble bee nests. If the aim is to estimate density, then fixed searches are appropriate, whereas if the aim is to find many nests, free searches using volunteers provide the most cost effective method|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|OConnor2012.pdf||622.91 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Permanent Embargo Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.