Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:50:11.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Variation in dog society: Between resource dispersion and social fl ux

from PART IV - LIFE ON THE MARGINS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2016

By
David W. MacDonald  and
Geoffrey M. Carr
Edited by
James Serpell
David W. MacDonald
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Recanati- Kaplan Centre, Oxford, UK
Geoffrey M. Carr
Affiliation:
The Economist, London, UK
James Serpell
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Domestic dogs, Canis familiaris, live in various degrees of association with people. Extremes of this continuum range from the lap dog to those living in uninhabited areas (Young et al., 2011) or islands (e.g. Kruuk & Snell, 1981). Dogs that are not strictly controlled by their owners might be expected to modify their behavior to match their ecological circumstances according to the same principles that affect wild Carnivora (e.g. Kruuk, 1975; MacDonald, 1983; MacDonald & Sillero-Zubiri, 2004) and free-ranging domestic ones such as cats, Felis catus (e.g. Daniels et al., 2001; Liberg et al., 2000; MacDonald et al., 1987). Therefore, we would expect that free-roaming dogs studied under different conditions would behave differently, and that these differences would be adaptive (in so far as artificial selection had not compromised the traits in question). This prediction, however, has not been formally tested (three studies explored variation in behavior amongst different free-roaming dogs – Bonanni et al., 2010a, 2010b; Mangalam & Singh, 2013). Studies of feral dogs in urban areas have tended to conclude that they form amorphous, and probably ephemeral associations (e.g. Beck, 1973; Daniels & Bekoff, 1989a). Furthermore, the questions of whether these associations are adapted to ecological circumstances and whether membership of groups has functional consequences have received little attention. Such questions have both theoretical and practical importance. The abundance, accessibility and potential manipulability of free-roaming dogs, combined with background knowledge of the genetic and physiological differences between breeds, make them strong candidates for testing ideas about canid socioecology. In addition, an understanding of dog behavior should help the design of control programs intended to counteract their potential as pests – whether as predators of stock or game, vectors of disease (e.g. rabies, distemper and Echinococcus; Bhunu, 2011; WHO, 1988), or as genetic contaminators of wild canid populations (see Boitani, 1983; Ginsberg & MacDonald, 1990; Hughes et al., Chapter 18). Finally, free-roaming dog behavior is interesting because of the opportunity it affords for comparison between breeds and with the ancestral wolf (Boitani & Ciucci, 1995), Canis lupus, and as part of the study of domestication (Driscoll et al., 2009; Scott & Fuller, 1965; Zimen, 1972).

We therefore compared the behavior of free-roaming dogs in contrasting ecological conditions in order to observe whether their social organization differed, and to determine whether their behavior matched predictions based on their ecology.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Domestic Dog
Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People
 , pp. 319 - 341
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, A. M. (1973). The Ecology of Stray Dogs: A Study of Free-Ranging Urban Animals. Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Bekoff, M. & Wells, M. C. (1980). The social ecology of coyotes. Scientific American, 242: 130–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M. & Wells, M. C. (1986). Social ecology and behavior of coyotes. Advances in the Study of Behavior 16: 251–338.Google Scholar
Belaev, D. K. & Trut, L. N. (1975). Some genetic and endocrine effects of selection for domestication in silver foxes. In The Wild Canids, ed. Fox, M. W.. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 416–26.Google Scholar
Berman, M. & Dunbar, I. (1983). The social behavior of free-ranging suburban dogs. Applied Animal Ethology, 10: 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhunu, C. P. (2011). Impact of culling stray dogs and vaccination on the control of human rabies: a mathematical modeling approach. International Journal of Biomathematics, 4: 379–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bino, G., Dolev, A., Yosha, D., Guter, A., King, R., Saltz, D. & Kark, S. (2010). Abrupt spatial and numerical responses of overabundant foxes to a reduction in anthropogenic resources. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47: 1262–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, P. & Bacon, P. J. (1993). A critique of the territory inheritance hypothesis. Animal Behaviour, 46: 821–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boitani, L. (1983). Wolf and dog competition in Italy. Acta Zoologica Fennica, 174: 259–64.Google Scholar
Boitani, L. & Ciucci, P. (1995). Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 7: 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boitani, L. & Fabbri, M. L. (1983). Censimento dei cani in Italia con particulari reguardo al fenomeno del randagismo. Ricerche di Biologia delta Selvaggina (INBS, Bologna), 73: 1–51.Google Scholar
Bonanni, R., Cafazzo, S., Valsecchi, P. & Natoli, E. (2010a). Effect of affiliative and agonistic relationships on leadership behaviour in free-ranging dogs. Animal Behaviour, 79: 981–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonanni, R., Valsecchi, P. & Natoli, E. (2010b). Pattern of individual participation and cheating in conflicts between groups of free-ranging dogs. Animal Behaviour, 79: 957–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camenzind, F. (1978). Behavioral ecology of the coyote in the national Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming. In Coyotes: Biology, Behavior and Management, ed. Bekoff, M.. New York: Academic Press, pp. 267–94.Google Scholar
Carr, G. M. & Macdonald, D. W. (1986). The sociality of solitary foragers: a model based on resource dispersion. Animal Behaviour, 35: 1540–9.Google Scholar
Cooper, S. M. (1991). Optimal hunting group-size – the need for lions to defend their kills against loss to spotted hyaenas. African Journal of Ecology, 29: 130–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppinger, R. P. & Schneider, R. A. (1995). Evolution of working dogs. In The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People, ed. Serpell, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–47.Google Scholar
Creel, S., Creel, N. M., Mills, M. G. L. & Monfort, S. L. (1997). Rank and reproduction in cooperatively breeding African wild dogs: Behavioral and endocrine correlates. Behavioral Ecology, 8: 298–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, M. J., Beaumont, M. A., Johnson, P. J., Balharry, D., Macdonald, D. W. & Barratt, E. (2001). Ecology and genetics of wild-living cats in the north-east of Scotland and the implications for the conservation of the wildcat. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55: 263–72.Google Scholar
Daniels, T. J. (1983a). The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs. I: Non-estrous social behavior. Applied Animal Ethology, 10: 341–63.Google Scholar
Daniels, T. J. (1983b). The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs. II: Estrous groups and the mating system. Applied Animal Ethology, 10: 365–73.Google Scholar
Daniels, T. J. & Bekoff, M. (1989a). Spatial and temporal resource use by feral and abandoned dogs. Ethology, 81: 300–12.Google Scholar
Daniels, T. J. & Bekoff, M. (1989b). Population and social biology of free-ranging dogs, Canis familiaris. Journal of Mammalogy, 70: 754–62.Google Scholar
Dayan, T., Simberloff, D., Tchernov, E. & Yomtov, Y. (1992). Canine carnassials – character displacement in the wolves, jackals and foxes of Israel. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 45: 315–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayan, T., Tchernov, E., Yom-Tov, Y. & Simberloff, D. (1989). Ecological character displacement in Saharo-Arabian Vulpes: outfoxing Bergmann's rule. Oikos, 38: 146–61.Google Scholar
Doncaster, C. P. & Macdonald, D. W. (1991). Drifting territoriality in the red fox, Vulpes vulpes. Journal of Animal Ecology, 60: 423–39.Google Scholar
Driscoll, C. A., Macdonald, D. W. & O'Brien, S. J. (2009). From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106: 9971–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanshawe, J. H. & Fitzgibbon, C. D. (1993). Factors influencing the hunting success of an African wild dog pack. Animal Behaviour, 45: 479–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsberg, J. & Macdonald, D. W. (1990). Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs: Action Plan for the Conservation of Canids. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Publications.Google Scholar
Gittleman, J. L. (1989). Carnivore group living: comparative trends. In Carnivore Behaviour, Ecology, and Evolution, ed. Gittleman, J. L.. London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 183–207.Google Scholar
Harrington, F. H., Paquet, P. C, Ryon, J. & Fentress, J. C. (1982). Monogamy in wolves: a review of the evidence. In Wolves of the World, Perspectives of Behavior, Ecology and Conservation, eds. Harrington, F. H. & Paquet, P. C.. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Publications, pp. 209–22.Google Scholar
Hersteinsson, P. & Macdonald, D. W. (1992). Interspecific competition and the geographic distribution of red and arctic foxes (Vulpes vulpes and Alopex lagopus). Oikos, 58: 505–15.Google Scholar
Jennions, M. D. & Macdonald, D. W. (1994). Cooperative breeding in mammals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 9: 89–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, D. D. P. (2003). Sentenced without trial: reviling and revamping the Resource Dispersion Hypothesis. Oikos, 101: 433–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. D. P., Jetz, W. & Macdonald, D. W. (2002). Environmental correlates of badger social spacing across Europe. Journal of Biogeography, 29: 411–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerby, G. & Macdonald, D. W. (1988). Social behaviour of farm cats. In The Domestic Cat: The Biology of its Behaviour, eds. Turner, D. & Bateson, P.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–81.Google Scholar
Kleiman, D. G. & Malcom, J. R. (1981). The evolution of male parental investment in mammals. In Parental Care in Mammals, eds. Gubernik, D. J. & Klopfer, P. H.. New York: Plenum, pp. 347–87.Google Scholar
Kruuk, H. (1972). The Spotted Hyaena: a Study of Predation and Social Behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kruuk, H. (1975). Functional aspects of social hunting by carnivores. In Function and Evolution in Behaviour, eds. Baerends, G., Beer, C. & Manning, A.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 119–41.Google Scholar
Kruuk, H. & Macdonald, D. W. (1985). Group territories of carnivores: empires and enclaves. In Behavioural Ecology: Ecological Consequences of Adaptive Behaviour, eds. Sibley, R. & Smith, R.. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 521–36.Google Scholar
Kruuk, H. & Snell, H. (1981). Prey selection by feral dogs from a population of marine iguanas (Amblyrhynchus cristatus). Journal of Applied Ecology, 18: 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamprecht, J. (1978). The relationship between food competition and foraging group size in some larger carnivores. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 46: 337–43.Google Scholar
Lehman, N., Clarkson, P., Mech, L. D., Meier, T. H. & Wayne, R. (1992). A study of genetic relationships within and among wolf packs using DNA fingerprinting and mitochondrial DNA. Behavioural Ecology & Sociobiology, 30: 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberg, O., Sandell, M., Pontier, D. & Natoli, E. (2000). Density, spatial organisation and reproductive tactics in the domestic cat and other felids. In The Domestic Cat: The Biology of its Behaviour, eds. Turner, D. C. & Bateson, P. P. G. B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–47.Google Scholar
Lindstrom, E. (1986). Territory inheritance and the evolution of group living in carnivores. Animal Behaviour, 34: 1825–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loveridge, A. J., Valeix, M., Davidson, Z., Murindagomo, F., Fritz, H. & Macdonald, D. W. (2009). Changes in home range size of African lions in relation to pride size and prey biomass in a semi-arid savanna. Ecography, 32: 953–62.Google Scholar
Macdonald, D. W. (1979). Flexibility of the social organization of the golden jackal, Canis aureus . Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 5: 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, D. W. (1981). Resource dispersion and the social organisation of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). In Worldwide Furbearer Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2, eds. Chapman, J. & Pursley, D.. Frostburg, MD: R.R. Donnelley, pp. 918–49.Google Scholar
Macdonald, D. W. (1983). The ecology of carnivore social behaviour. Nature, 301: 379–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, D. W. (1987). Running with the Fox. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Macdonald, D. W. (1992). The Velvet Claw: A Natural History of the Carnivores. London: BBC Books.Google Scholar
Macdonald, D. W. & Amlaner, C. J. (1980). A practical guide to radio tracking. In A Handbook on Biotelemetry and Radio Tracking, eds. Amlaner, C. J. Jr & Macdonald, D. W.. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 143–59.Google Scholar
Macdonald, D. W., Apps, P. J., Carr, G. & Kerby, G. (1987). Social behaviour, nursing coalitions and infanticide in a colony of farm cats. Advances in Ethology, 28: 1–66.Google Scholar
Macdonald, D. W., Ball, F. & Hough, N. G. (1980a). The evaluation of home range size and configuration using radio-tracking data. In A Handbook on Biotelemetry and Radio Tracking, eds. Amlaner, C. J. Jr & Macdonald, D. W.. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 405–24.Google Scholar
Macdonald, D. W., Barasso, P. & Boitani, L. (1980b). Foxes, wolves and conservation in the Abruzzo Mts., Italy. In The Red Fox, Behaviour and Ecology, ed. Ziman, E.. The Hague: W. Junk, pp. 223–35.Google Scholar
Macdonald, D. W. & Carr, G. M. (1989). Food security and the rewards of tolerance. In Comparative Socioecology: the Behavioural Ecology of Humans and other Mammals, eds. Standen, V. & Foley, R. A.. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 75–99.Google Scholar
Macdonald, D. W., Courtenay, O., Forbes, S. & Mathews, F. (1999). The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in Saudi Arabia: loose-knit groupings in the absence of territoriality. Journal of Zoology, 249: 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, D. W., Loveridge, A. J. & Nowell, K. (2010). Dramatis personae: an introduction to the wild felids. In Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids, eds. Macdonald, D. W. & Loveridge, A.J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–58.Google Scholar
Macdonald, D. W. & Moehlman, P. D. (1982). Cooperation, altruism and restraint in the reproduction of carnivores. In Perspectives in Ethology, Vol. 5, eds. Bateson, P. P. G. & Klopfer, P.. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 443–67.Google Scholar
Macdonald, D. W. & Sillero-Zubiri, C. (2004). Dramatis personae. In Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids, eds. Macdonald, D. W. & Sillero-Zubiri, C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangalam, M. & Singh, M. (2013). Differential foraging strategies: motivation, perception and implementation in urban free-ranging dogs, Canis familiaris . Animal Behaviour, 85: 763–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mela, J. S. & Weber, J. M. (1996). Social organization of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in the Swiss Jura mountains. Zeitschrift Fur Saugetierkunde-International Journal of Mammalian Biology, 61: 257–68.Google Scholar
Mills, M. G. L. (1990). Kalahari Hyaenas: The Comparative Behavioural Ecology of Two Species. London: Unwin Hyman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moehlman, P. D. (1989). Intraspecific variation in canid social systems. In Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution, ed. Gittleman, J. L.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 164–82.Google Scholar
Nesbitt, W. H. (1975). Ecology of a feral dog pack on a wildlife refuge. In The Wild Canids, ed. Fox, M. W.. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 391–5.Google Scholar
Newman, C., Zhou, Y. B., Buesching, C. D., Kaneko, Y. & Macdonald, D. W. (2011). Contrasting sociality in two widespread, generalist, mustelid genera, Meles and Martes . Mammal Study, 36: 169–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pal, S. K. (2001). Population ecology of free-ranging urban dogs in West Bengal, India. Acta Theriologica, 46: 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pal, S. K. (2003). Reproductive behaviour of free-ranging rural dogs in West Bengal, India. Acta Theriologica, 48: 271–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pal, S. K., Ghosh, B. & Roy, S. (1998). Dispersal behaviour of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in relation to age, sex, season and dispersal distance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 61: 123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paquet, P. C. (1992). Prey use strategies of sympatric wolves and coyotes in Riding-Mountain-National-Park, Manitoba. Journal of Mammalogy, 73: 337–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulle, M. L., Artois, M. & Roeder, J. J. (1994). Dynamics of spatial relationships among members of a fox group (Vulpes vulpes, Mammalia, Carnivora). Journal of Zoology, 233: 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ralls, K., Pilgrim, K. L., White, P. J., Paxinos, E. E., Schwartz, M. K. & Fleischer, R. C. (2001). Kinship social relationships, and den sharing in kit foxes. Journal of Mammalogy, 82: 858–66.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rood, J. (1987). Dispersal and intergroup transfer in the dwarf mongoose. In Mammalian Dispersal Patterns: the Effects of Social Structure on Population Genetics, eds. Chepko-Sade, B. D. & Halpin, Z. T.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 85–103.Google Scholar
Sargeant, A. B. & Allen, S. H. (1989). Observed interactions between coyotes and red foxes. Journal of Mammalogy, 70: 631–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. P. & Fuller, J. L. (1965). Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scott, M. D. & Causey, K. (1973). Ecology of feral dogs in Alabama. Journal of Wildlife Management, 37: 253–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starling, M. J., Branson, N., Thomson, P. C. & Mcgreevy, P. D. (2013). “Boldness” in the domestic dog differs among breeds and breed groups. Behavioural Processes, 97: 53–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tallents, L. A., Randall, D. A., Williams, S. D. & Macdonald, D. W. (2012). Territory quality determines social group composition in Ethiopian wolves, Canis simensis. Journal of Animal Ecology, 81: 24–35.Google ScholarPubMed
Tannerfeldt, M., Elmhagen, B. & Angerbjorn, A. (2002). Exclusion by interference competition? The relationship between red and arctic foxes. Oecologia, 132: 213–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Ballenberghe, V. (1983). Two litters raised in one year by a wolf pack. Journal of Mammalogy, 64: 171–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, D. R. & Earle, B. D. (1983). Avoidance of coyotes by red fox families. Journal of Wildlife Management, 47: 852–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiren, A., Gunnarsson, U., Andersson, L. & Jensen, P. (2009). Domestication-related genetic effects on social behavior in chickens – Effects of genotype at a major growth quantitative trait locus. Poultry Science, 88: 1162–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodroffe, R. & Macdonald, D. W. (1993). Badger sociality – models of spatial grouping. Proceedings of the Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 65: 145–69.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) (1988). Report of WHO Consultation on Dog Ecology Studies Related to Rabies Control. WHO/Rabies Research 88.25.
Young, J. K., Olson, K. A., Reading, R. P., Amgalanbaatar, S. & Berger, J. (2011). Is wildlife going to the dogs? Impacts of feral and free-roaming dogs on wildlife populations. Bioscience, 61: 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabel, C. J. (1986). Reproductive behavior of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes): a longitudinal study of an island population. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, CA, USA.
Zimen, E. (1972). Wolfe und Königspudel – Vergleichende Verhaltensbeobachtungen. Munich: R. Piper Verlag.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×