Spacing and social organization: Urban stray dogs revisited
References (32)
- et al.
The social behaviour of free-ranging suburban dogs
Appl. Anim. Ethol.
(1983) The size and demographic composition of social groups of wild orang-utans
Anim. Behav.
(1975)The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs. I. Non-estrous social behavior
Appl. Anim. Ethol.
(1983)The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs. II. Estrous groups and the mating system
Appl. Anim. Ethol.
(1983)- et al.
Behavior and ecology of a small group of urban dogs (Canis familiaris)
Appl. Anim. Ethol.
(1975) - et al.
Some aspects of the sexual behaviour of stray dogs, Canis familiaris
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(1984) - et al.
Comparisons of canid and felid social systems from an evolutionary perspective
Anim. Behav.
(1973) - et al.
Selected parameters of the Fort Collins, Colorado, dog population, 1979–80
Appl. Anim. Ethol.
(1983) - et al.
Certain behavioral features in the pariah dog (Canis familiaris) in West Bengal
Appl. Anim. Ethol.
(1975) - et al.
Eliminatory behaviour of domestic dogs in an urban environment
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(1984)
Ecological behavior of free-ranging urban pet dogs
Appl. Anim. Ethol.
Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods
Behaviour
Baboons, space, time, and energy
Am. Zool.
The life and times of Shag, a feral dog in Baltimore
Nat. Hist.
The ecology of “feral” and free-roving dogs in Baltimore
Cited by (46)
Size, skull shape and age influence the temperament of domestic dogs
2022, Behavioural ProcessesDogs' (Canis lupus familiaris) behavioral adaptations to a human-dominated niche: A review and novel hypothesis
2021, Advances in the Study of BehaviorCitation Excerpt :It is particularly noteworthy that dominance-related temperament traits have been identified even though current tests of dog temperament or personality include little or no assessment of dog-to-dog social interactions (e.g., Flack & De Waal, 2004; Svartberg & Forkman, 2002). Hierarchical social structures and dominance signaling have been observed in free-living dogs in Italy by Bonanni, Cafazzo, Valsecchi, and Natoli (2010), Bonanni et al. (2017), Silk, Cant, Cafazzo, Natoli, and McDonald (2019) and Cafazzo, Valsecchi, Bonanni, and Natoli (2010); in Spain (Font, 1987) and India (Pal, Ghosh, & Roy, 1998; Sen Majumder et al., 2014); at a U.S. dog day-care center (Trisko & Smuts, 2015); in group housed dogs in the Netherlands (van der Borg, Schilder, Vinke, & de Vries, 2015) and in pet dogs playing at a dog park in the U.S.A. (Bauer & Smuts, 2007). In free-living dogs, dominant individuals are more likely to lead group movements (Bonanni et al., 2010), and have higher copulatory access (Cafazzo et al., 2014)—which is consistent with the concept of dominance as applied to other species (e.g., Flack & De Waal, 2010).
Pup rearing: The role of mothers and allomothers in free-ranging domestic dogs
2021, Applied Animal Behaviour ScienceCitation Excerpt :Many authors have stressed that domestication seems to have caused a reduction in cooperative tendencies in dogs, particularly because cooperative breeding and hunting seem to be greatly reduced in dogs relative to wolves (Boitani and Ciucci, 1995; Coppinger and Coppinger, 2001; Kubinyi et al., 2007; Miklósi, 2007; Range et al., 2009; Bräuer et al., 2013). Although group-living free-ranging dogs seem to show an overall reduction in cooperative breeding and hunting relative to wolves, they frequently engage in cooperative defence of territory and food resources against rival dogs (Fox, 1975; Font, 1987; Daniels and Bekoff, 1989; Macdonald and Carr, 1995; Boitani et al., 1995; Pal et al., 1998). Like most carnivores, domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are born in a semi-altricial state (e.g., Ewer, 1973; Poole, 1985), and are essentially deaf, blind and immobile at birth (Pal, 2005, 2008).
Movement patterns of free-roaming dogs on heterogeneous urban landscapes: Implications for rabies control
2020, Preventive Veterinary MedicineCitation Excerpt :In many areas of Latin America, including Arequipa, owned dogs commonly have access to the street without owner supervision (Castillo-Neyra et al., 2019); these dogs receive varying degrees of feed and veterinary care (Acosta-Jamett et al., 2010; Cortez-Aguirre et al., 2018; Flores-Ibarra and Estrella-Valenzuela, 2004; Guilloux et al., 2018; Jackman and Rowan, 2007; Vigilato et al., 2013). Populations of free-roaming dogs without owners (strays) are believed to be small due in part to the high mortality of stray dogs (Belo et al., 2017; Font, 1987). There is some evidence that Arequipa’s landscape may affect free-roaming dog movement and ecology.
Social Behaviour among Companion Dogs with an Emphasis on Play
2014, The Social Dog: Behavior and CognitionThe Social Organisation of a Population of Free-Ranging Dogs in a Suburban Area of Rome: A Reassessment of the Effects of Domestication on Dogs' Behaviour
2014, The Social Dog: Behavior and Cognition
- 1
Present address: Department of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0810, U.S.A.