Range of Detection and Naturalistic Search Performance for Spotted Lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) egg masses


Abstract

The spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula, SLF) poses a significant threat to U.S. agriculture, particularly vineyards, hops, and ornamental plants. Early detection of SLF egg masses is critical for limiting spread, yet current strategies are constrained by the availability of trained personnel and are extremely time-consuming. Detection dogs have shown strong potential for locating SLF egg masses with high accuracy, and training can be completed using devitalized samples, eliminating the risk of accidental release of this invasive insect. In a prior study, we demonstrated that participatory science teams, volunteer handlers with scent detection experience, could successfully train their companion dogs to detect devitalized SLF egg masses. This follow-up study evaluated whether selected teams from the original cohorts could perform under more complex, operationally relevant conditions. Specifically, we assessed detection accuracy and field performance across two experimental settings: (1) a range of detection (RoD) tests to estimate reliable detection distance, and (2) a naturalistic field search in previously unsurveyed areas with unknown target presence, allowing comparison with human surveyors. In the RoD trials, dogs demonstrated the highest sensitivity (0.52) at 0–5 m, declining to 0.06 at 10–15 m, with overall precision ranging from 0.61 to 0.92 across distance bands where detections occurred. Several dogs also successfully generalized from devitalized training aids to naturally occurring, previously undetected SLF egg masses. In naturalistic searches, canine teams located more confirmed SLF egg mass sites than trained human searchers, highlighting their ability to detect cryptic targets under real-world conditions. Although not all canine alerts could be confirmed, the results indicate that trained community detection teams can effectively complement or enhance traditional survey methods. Overall, these findings support the operational feasibility of participatory science detection teams for SLF surveillance. Despite range limitations, trained community dog–handler teams can successfully detect SLF egg masses and, in some cases, outperform human searchers, offering a scalable, biosecure, and cost-effective approach to invasive species detection.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].