- Email: [email protected]
Competitive foraging in the domestic dog
106 2-choice test with mother and littermates as choices, which would the puppy choose? Our sample consisted of 56 puppies from 14 litters of varied breeds. Our 10 m2 experimental room was divided into 9 identical areas and included a line of 3 identical cages. The bitch and the litter were kept in the 2 end cages. The Preference test consisted of 2 periods of 1 minute each, during which the tested puppy remained in the room: it was free during the first period, then isolated during 10 seconds in a dark transport cage, before being put back into the enclosure for the second period. The location of the puppy in this enclosure and its orientation toward the mother or the litter were recorded every 5 seconds. We analyzed the preference of the puppy for its mother or littermates, according to its proximity and orientation to the 2 cages. Our results suggest that puppies did not display a significant preference for their mother. There is a large interlitter variability. According to these results, the nature of the mother–puppy relationship in dogs might be re-evaluated, using concepts more suited to altricial species. Key words: altricial species; mother–litter relationship; dog; ‘‘attachment.’’
References: Prato-Previde, E., Custance, D.M., Spiezio, C., Sabatini, F., 2003. Is the dog-human relationship an attachment bond? An observational study using Ainsworth’s strange situation. Behaviour 140, 225–254. ´ ., Csa´nyi, V., Do´ka, A., 1998. Attachment behavior in Topa´l, J., Miklo´si, A dogs (Canis familiaris): a new application of Ainsworth‘s (1969) strange situation test. J. Comp. Psychol. 112, 219–229.
Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 4, No 2, March/April 2009 only one dog. In the second phase, food was presented in 2 adjacent buckets, only one of which could be monopolized at a time. Informed dogs typically chose the baited bucket first. The mean time to find food was reduced significantly when the dogs were informed (3.89 s) compared with when they were uninformed (10.76 s). When paired with an informed dog, the uninformed dominant dog did not follow or supplant the subordinate from the bucket. On informed trials the subordinate dog was highly successful in obtaining all the food in the bucket (96.2% when informed; 50.0% when uninformed). Even when twice the amount of food was available in 2 adjacent buckets, the uninformed dog did not take possession of the unattended bucket. Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no evidence that dogs exploit others’ knowledge of the location of hidden food. When informed, the dogs made no effort to disguise their intentionsdthey ran directly toward the location of the food. Clearly, the uninformed partners could detect the purposeful behavior yet they did not alter their search of the remaining buckets. Moreover, unlike the pigs in the Held et al. study, the dominant dogs in this experiment were unwilling to approach and supplant subordinates from the food source. We wondered if it was too risky for a dog to attempt to supplant another from a food bucket that could be monopolized, so we gave the dogs experience finding 2 adjacent baited buckets. Even when the subordinate dog could only ‘‘possess’’ one of the buckets, the dominant dog rarely attempted to cash in on the other bucket. It seems that for dogs, finders keepers is the rule. Key words: foraging; social cognition; dominant–subordinate relations
104 COMPETITIVE FORAGING IN THE DOMESTIC DOG Pamela J. Reid*, Kristen A. Collins, Carmen C. Buitrago Animal Behavior Center, American Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, United States *Corresponding author: [email protected] The dog is a social species that, when given the opportunity, lives in stable groups or loose aggregates of familiar individuals. Feral dogs typically forage together, scavenging in refuse dumps and on village streets. Given the social nature of dogs and their reliance on competitive opportunistic feeding, it makes evolutionary sense for them to possess the ability to exploit others’ knowledge of food sources. We investigated the behavior of pairs of dogs foraging in a room where food was hidden. The experimental setup was similar to that of (Held et al., 2000). We studied each dyad of a 3-dog group with a clear competitive dominance hierarchy. On ‘‘uninformed’’ trials, both dogs lacked knowledge of the food location. On ‘‘informed’’ trials, the subordinate dog of the pair was first shown the location of the food. In the first phase of the experiment, we presented food in one bucket that could be monopolized by
Reference: Held, S., Mendl, M., Devereux, C., Byrne, R.W., 2000. Social tactics of pigs in a competitive foraging task: the ‘informed forager’ paradigm. Anim. Behav. 59, 569–576.
105 INQUIRY ON BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS IN DOGS Cinzia Stefanini1,*, Simona Normando2 1 Associazione Vita da Cani-Arese, Arese, Italy 2 Dipartimento di Scienze Sperimentali Veterinarie, Padua University, Padua, Italy *Corresponding author: [email protected] In recent times much attention has been paid to the prevalence of behavioral problems in dogs. However, other characteristics of a behavioral case, such as owners’ perception of the problem or the latency in referring to a specialist after the problem has appeared, have received less attention.
References: Prato-Previde, E., Custance, D.M., Spiezio, C., Sabatini, F., 2003. Is the dog-human relationship an attachment bond? An observational study using Ainsworth’s strange situation. Behaviour 140, 225–254. ´ ., Csa´nyi, V., Do´ka, A., 1998. Attachment behavior in Topa´l, J., Miklo´si, A dogs (Canis familiaris): a new application of Ainsworth‘s (1969) strange situation test. J. Comp. Psychol. 112, 219–229.
Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 4, No 2, March/April 2009 only one dog. In the second phase, food was presented in 2 adjacent buckets, only one of which could be monopolized at a time. Informed dogs typically chose the baited bucket first. The mean time to find food was reduced significantly when the dogs were informed (3.89 s) compared with when they were uninformed (10.76 s). When paired with an informed dog, the uninformed dominant dog did not follow or supplant the subordinate from the bucket. On informed trials the subordinate dog was highly successful in obtaining all the food in the bucket (96.2% when informed; 50.0% when uninformed). Even when twice the amount of food was available in 2 adjacent buckets, the uninformed dog did not take possession of the unattended bucket. Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no evidence that dogs exploit others’ knowledge of the location of hidden food. When informed, the dogs made no effort to disguise their intentionsdthey ran directly toward the location of the food. Clearly, the uninformed partners could detect the purposeful behavior yet they did not alter their search of the remaining buckets. Moreover, unlike the pigs in the Held et al. study, the dominant dogs in this experiment were unwilling to approach and supplant subordinates from the food source. We wondered if it was too risky for a dog to attempt to supplant another from a food bucket that could be monopolized, so we gave the dogs experience finding 2 adjacent baited buckets. Even when the subordinate dog could only ‘‘possess’’ one of the buckets, the dominant dog rarely attempted to cash in on the other bucket. It seems that for dogs, finders keepers is the rule. Key words: foraging; social cognition; dominant–subordinate relations
104 COMPETITIVE FORAGING IN THE DOMESTIC DOG Pamela J. Reid*, Kristen A. Collins, Carmen C. Buitrago Animal Behavior Center, American Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, United States *Corresponding author: [email protected] The dog is a social species that, when given the opportunity, lives in stable groups or loose aggregates of familiar individuals. Feral dogs typically forage together, scavenging in refuse dumps and on village streets. Given the social nature of dogs and their reliance on competitive opportunistic feeding, it makes evolutionary sense for them to possess the ability to exploit others’ knowledge of food sources. We investigated the behavior of pairs of dogs foraging in a room where food was hidden. The experimental setup was similar to that of (Held et al., 2000). We studied each dyad of a 3-dog group with a clear competitive dominance hierarchy. On ‘‘uninformed’’ trials, both dogs lacked knowledge of the food location. On ‘‘informed’’ trials, the subordinate dog of the pair was first shown the location of the food. In the first phase of the experiment, we presented food in one bucket that could be monopolized by
Reference: Held, S., Mendl, M., Devereux, C., Byrne, R.W., 2000. Social tactics of pigs in a competitive foraging task: the ‘informed forager’ paradigm. Anim. Behav. 59, 569–576.
105 INQUIRY ON BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS IN DOGS Cinzia Stefanini1,*, Simona Normando2 1 Associazione Vita da Cani-Arese, Arese, Italy 2 Dipartimento di Scienze Sperimentali Veterinarie, Padua University, Padua, Italy *Corresponding author: [email protected] In recent times much attention has been paid to the prevalence of behavioral problems in dogs. However, other characteristics of a behavioral case, such as owners’ perception of the problem or the latency in referring to a specialist after the problem has appeared, have received less attention.