Olfactory communication to protect livestock: dingo response to urine marks of livestock guardian dogs
Linda van Bommel A B C and Chris N. Johnson A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 55, Hobart, Tas 7001, Australia.
B Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: linda.vanbommel@anu.edu.au
Australian Mammalogy 39(2) 219-226 https://doi.org/10.1071/AM15049
Submitted: 24 November 2015 Accepted: 2 December 2016 Published: 3 February 2017
Abstract
The behavioural mechanisms by which livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) protect livestock from wild predators are not yet fully understood. LGD urine could play a part, as scent-marking the boundaries of a territory could signal occupation of the area to predators. Past selection for dogs that were most effective in deterring predators could have resulted in LGDs that produce urine with predator-deterrent properties. In this research, 28 captive dingoes (14 male and 14 female) were tested for their response to urine marks of LGDs (Maremma sheepdogs), herding dogs (Border Collies) and other dingoes, with distilled water used as a control. The response of the dingoes to the scents was measured using eight variables. For most variables, the response to the test scents was not statistically different from the response to the control. Test minus control was calculated for each test scent category, and used to compare responses between different test scents. The response to Maremma urine was similar to the response to Border Collie urine, and resembled a reaction to a conspecific. We found no evidence of predator-repellent properties of LGD urine. Our results suggest that dingoes readily engage in olfactory communication with Maremmas. It therefore seems likely that they would recognise territorial boundaries created by working Maremmas.
Additional keywords: deterrent, LGD, LPD, scent marking, territoriality.
References
Allen, J. J., Bekoff, M., and Crabtree, R. L. (1999). An observational study of coyote (Canis latrans) scent-marking and territoriality in Yellowstone National Park. Ethology 105, 289–302.| An observational study of coyote (Canis latrans) scent-marking and territoriality in Yellowstone National Park.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Apfelbach, R., Blanchard, C. D., Blanchard, R. J., Hayes, R. A., and McGregor, I. S. (2005). The effects of predator odors in mammalian prey species: a review of field and laboratory studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 29, 1123–1144.
| The effects of predator odors in mammalian prey species: a review of field and laboratory studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Asa, C. S., Mech, L. D., and Seal, U. S. (1985). The use of urine, faeces, and anal-gland secretions in scent-marking by a captive wolf (Canis lupus) pack. Animal Behaviour 33, 1034–1036.
| The use of urine, faeces, and anal-gland secretions in scent-marking by a captive wolf (Canis lupus) pack.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2014). ‘lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-6. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
Black, H. L., and Green, J. S. (1985). Navajo use of mixed-breed dogs for management of predators. Journal of Range Management 38, 11–15.
| Navajo use of mixed-breed dogs for management of predators.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brown, D. S., and Johnston, R. E. (1982). Individual discrimination on the basis of urine in dogs and wolves. In ‘Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 3’. (Eds D. Muller-Schwarze and R. M. Silverstein.) pp. 343–346. (Plenum Press: New York.)
Coppinger, R., and Coppinger, L. (2001). ‘Dogs: A New Understaning of Canine Origin, Behaviour and Evolution.’ (University of Chicago Press: New York.)
Corbett, L. (2001). ‘The Dingo in Australia and Asia.’ (J.B. Books Pty Ltd: Adelaide.)
Daniels, T. J. (1983). The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs. II. Estrous groups and the mating system. Applied Animal Ethology 10, 365–373.
| The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs. II. Estrous groups and the mating system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dunbar, I., and Carmichael, M. (1981). The response of male dogs to urine from other males. Behavioral and Neural Biology 31, 465–470.
| The response of male dogs to urine from other males.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Epple, G., Mason, J. R., Nolte, D. L., and Campbell, D. L. (1993). Effects of predator odors on feeding in the mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa). Journal of Mammalogy 74, 715–722.
| Effects of predator odors on feeding in the mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fleming, P. J., Allen, B. L., Allen, L. R., Ballard, G., Bengsen, A., Gentle, M. N., McLeod, L. J., Meek, P. D., and Saunders, G. R. (2014). Management of wild canids in Australia: free-ranging dogs and red foxes. In ‘Carnivores of Australia: Past, Present and Future’. (Eds A. S. Glen and C. R. Dickman.) pp. 107–152. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)
Font, E. (1987). Spacing and social organization: urban stray dogs revisited. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17, 319–328.
| Spacing and social organization: urban stray dogs revisited.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gehring, T., VerCauteren, K., Provost, M., and Cellar, A. (2010). Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farms. Wildlife Research 37, 715–721.
| Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gese, E. M., and Ruff, R. L. (1997). Scent-marking by coyotes, Canis latrans: the influence of social and ecological factors. Animal Behaviour 54, 1155–1166.
| Scent-marking by coyotes, Canis latrans: the influence of social and ecological factors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC2sjns1Onuw%3D%3D&md5=33c874d342ba097a81ca97dd2fe34356CAS |
Gong, W., Sinden, J., Braysher, M., Jones, R., and Wales, N. S. (2009). ‘The Economic Impacts of Vertebrate Pests in Australia.’ (Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre: Canberra.)
Green, J. S., and Woodruff, R. A. (1983). The use of three breeds of dog to protect rangeland sheep from predators. Applied Animal Ethology 11, 141–161.
| The use of three breeds of dog to protect rangeland sheep from predators.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hansen, I., and Bakken, M. (1999). Livestock-guarding dogs in Norway: Part I. Interactions. Journal of Range Management 52, 2–6.
| Livestock-guarding dogs in Norway: Part I. Interactions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hansen, I., Staaland, T., and Ringsø, A. (2002). Patrolling with livestock guard dogs: a potential method to reduce predation on sheep. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 52, 43–48.
Harrington, F. H., and Mech, L. D. (1979). Wolf howling and its role in territory maintenance. Behaviour 68, 207–249.
| Wolf howling and its role in territory maintenance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Harris, C. E., and Knowlton, F. F. (2001). Differential responses of coyotes to novel stimuli in familiar and unfamiliar settings. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79, 2005–2013.
| Differential responses of coyotes to novel stimuli in familiar and unfamiliar settings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Johnson, R. P. (1973). Scent marking in mammals. Animal Behaviour 21, 521–535.
| Scent marking in mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kleiman, D. (1966). Scent marking in the Canidae. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 18, 167–177.
Linhart, S. B., Sterner, R. T., Carrigan, T. C., and Henne, D. R. (1979). Komondor guard dogs reduce sheep losses to coyotes: a preliminary evaluation. Journal of Range Management 32, 238–241.
| Komondor guard dogs reduce sheep losses to coyotes: a preliminary evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lorenz, J. R., and Coppinger, L. (1986). ‘Raising and Training a Livestock-guarding Dog.’ (Oregon State University.)
Macdonald, D. W., and Sillero-Zubiri, C. (2004). ‘Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids.’ (Oxford University Press: New York.)
Marker, L. L., Dickman, A. J., and Macdonald, D. W. (2005). Perceived effectiveness of livestock-guarding dogs placed on Namibian farms. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58, 329–336.
| Perceived effectiveness of livestock-guarding dogs placed on Namibian farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McGrew, J. C., and Blakesley, C. S. (1982). How Komondor dogs reduce sheep losses to coyotes. Journal of Range Management 35, 693–696.
| How Komondor dogs reduce sheep losses to coyotes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Otstavel, T., Vuoric, K., Simsd, D., Valrosa, A., Vainioe, O., and Saloniemia, H. (2009). The first experience of livestock guarding dogs preventing large carnivore damages in Finland. Estonian Journal of Ecology 58, 216–224.
| The first experience of livestock guarding dogs preventing large carnivore damages in Finland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pal, S. K. (2003). Urine marking by free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in relation to sex, season, place and posture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 45–59.
| Urine marking by free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in relation to sex, season, place and posture.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Paquet, P. C. (1991). Scent-marking behavior of sympatric wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans) in Riding Mountain National Park. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69, 1721–1727.
| Scent-marking behavior of sympatric wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans) in Riding Mountain National Park.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Parsons, M. H., and Blumstein, D. T. (2010a). Familiarity breeds contempt: kangaroos persistently avoid areas with experimentally deployed dingo scents. PLoSOne 5, e10403.
| Familiarity breeds contempt: kangaroos persistently avoid areas with experimentally deployed dingo scents.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Parsons, M. H., and Blumstein, D. T. (2010b). Feeling vulnerable? Indirect risk cues differently influence how two marsupials respond to novel dingo urine. Ethology 116, 972–980.
| Feeling vulnerable? Indirect risk cues differently influence how two marsupials respond to novel dingo urine.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Parsons, M. H., Lamont, B. B., Kovacs, B. R., and Davies, S. J. J. F. (2007). Effects of novel and historic predator urines on semi‐wild western grey kangaroos. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 1225–1228.
| Effects of novel and historic predator urines on semi‐wild western grey kangaroos.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Peters, R. P., and Mech, L. D. (1975). Scent-marking in wolves. American Scientist 63, 628–637.
| 1:STN:280:DyaE28%2Fos1Wruw%3D%3D&md5=a6a1eb010457dd261ca16efa3ea0b7b8CAS |
R Development Core Team (2008). ‘R: A language and environment for statistical computing.’ R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: http://www.R-project.org
Rigg, R. (2001). ‘Livestock Guarding Dogs: their Current Use World Wide.’ (IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group.)
Rigg, R., Findo, S., Wechselberger, M., Gorman, M. L., Sillero-Zubiri, C., and Macdonald, D. W. (2011). Mitigating carnivore–livestock conflict in Europe: lessons from Slovakia. Oryx 45, 272–280.
| Mitigating carnivore–livestock conflict in Europe: lessons from Slovakia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rothman, R. J., and Mech, L. D. (1979). Scent-marking in lone wolves and newly formed pairs. Animal Behaviour 27, 750–760.
| Scent-marking in lone wolves and newly formed pairs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Scheinin, S., Yom-Tov, Y., Motro, U., and Geffen, E. (2006). Behavioural responses of red foxes to an increase in the presence of golden jackals: a field experiment. Animal Behaviour 71, 577–584.
| Behavioural responses of red foxes to an increase in the presence of golden jackals: a field experiment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sillero-Zubiri, C., and Macdonald, D. W. (1998). Scent-marking and territorial behaviour of Ethiopian wolves Canis simensis. Journal of Zoology 245, 351–361.
| Scent-marking and territorial behaviour of Ethiopian wolves Canis simensis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Symonds, M. R. E., and Moussalli, A. (2011). A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65, 13–21.
| A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thomson, P. C. (1992). The behavioural ecology of dingoes in north-western Australia. IV. Social and spatial organisation, and movements. Wildlife Research 19, 543–563.
| The behavioural ecology of dingoes in north-western Australia. IV. Social and spatial organisation, and movements.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Travaini, A., Vassallo, A. I., García, G. O., Echeverría, A. I., Zapata, S. C., and Nielsen, S. (2013). Evaluation of neophobia and its potential impact upon predator control techniques: a study on two sympatric foxes in southern Patagonia. Behavioural Processes 92, 79–87.
| Evaluation of neophobia and its potential impact upon predator control techniques: a study on two sympatric foxes in southern Patagonia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Bommel, L., and Johnson, C. N. (2012). Good dog! Using livestock guardian dogs to protect livestock from predators in Australia’s extensive grazing systems. Wildlife Research 39, 220–229.
| Good dog! Using livestock guardian dogs to protect livestock from predators in Australia’s extensive grazing systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Bommel, L., and Johnson, C. N. (2014a). Protecting livestock while conserving ecosystem function: non-lethal management of wild predators. In ‘Carnivores of Australia: Past, Present and Future’. (Eds A. S. Glen and C. R. Dickman.) pp. 323–354. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)
van Bommel, L., and Johnson, C. N. (2014b). Where do livestock guardian dogs go? Movement patterns of free-ranging Maremma sheepdogs. PLoS One 9, e111444.
| Where do livestock guardian dogs go? Movement patterns of free-ranging Maremma sheepdogs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Bommel, L., and Johnson, C. N. (2014c). How guardian dogs protect livestock from predators: territorial enforcement by Maremma sheepdogs. Wildlife Research 41, 662–672.
| How guardian dogs protect livestock from predators: territorial enforcement by Maremma sheepdogs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wells, M. C., and Bekoff, M. (1981). An observational study of scent-marking in coyotes, Canis latrans. Animal Behaviour 29, 332–350.
| An observational study of scent-marking in coyotes, Canis latrans.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilton, A. N. (2001). DNA methods of assessing dingo purity. In ‘A Symposium on the Dingo’. (Eds C. R. Dickman and D. Lunney.) pp. 49–56. (Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Sydney.)
Woolhouse, A., and Morgan, D. (1995). An evaluation of repellents to suppress browsing by possums. Journal of Chemical Ecology 21, 1571–1583.
| An evaluation of repellents to suppress browsing by possums.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK2MXps1yjt7s%3D&md5=5db2f61e99d60c782b6475459b7e50f0CAS |
