How guardian dogs protect livestock from predators: territorial enforcement by Maremma sheepdogs
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 5, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia.
B Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: linda.vanbommel@anu.edu.au
Wildlife Research 41(8) 662-672 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14190
Submitted: 17 September 2014 Accepted: 2 February 2015 Published: 7 April 2015
Abstract
Context: Livestock guardian dogs (LGDs, Canis familiaris) can be highly effective in protecting livestock from predators; however, how they accomplish this, is poorly understood. Whereas it is clear that these dogs spend a high proportion of their time accompanying livestock, and confront predators that approach closely, it is unknown whether they also maintain territories around the areas used by their livestock and exclude predators from those territories.
Aims: We aimed to determine whether LGD behaviour towards predators is consistent with defence of a larger territory that encompasses the stock, or is based on repelling predators that closely approach livestock.
Methods: We used audio playbacks and scent placements to simulate incursions by dingoes (Canis dingo) at different locations with the LGD ranges, and used GPS tracking and automatic cameras to monitor responses to these incursions.
Key results: The LGD responses depended on location of the incursion. When simulated incursions were a significant distance inside the range (about the 50th kernel isopleth), they responded by vocalising, leaving their livestock, and travelling up to 570 m away from the stock to approach the incursion point and display challenging behaviour; when incursions were at the boundary of the range (at or beyond the 90th kernel isopleth), they vocalised but did not approach the incursion point, regardless of the location of the sheep. The LGDs in this study worked in groups. Group members responded differently to simulated incursions, some moving to challenge, whereas others remained close to the sheep.
Conclusions: Our results showed that protection by LGDs extends beyond the immediate vicinity of livestock, and is consistent with the defence of a larger territory.
Implications: If predators are excluded from this territory, LGDs enforce a spatial separation of predators and livestock. This would reduce risk of attack, but also prevents the disturbance and stress to livestock that would be caused by frequent approaches of predators. Where possible, training and management of LGDs should allow them to range freely over large areas so that they can develop and exhibit territorial behaviour, and they should be deployed in groups so that group members can assume complementary roles.
Additional keywords: dingo, human–wildlife conflict, LGD, LPD, predator incursion, territoriality, wild dog.
References
Allen, L. (2012). Livestock guardian dog/wild dog interaction study: Final report. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Brisbane.Arnold, J., Soulsbury, C., and Harris, S. (2011). Spatial and behavioral changes by red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in response to artificial territory intrusion. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89, 808–815.
| Spatial and behavioral changes by red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in response to artificial territory intrusion.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bekoff, M., and Wells, M. C. (1986). Social ecology and behavior of coyotes. Advances in the Study of Behavior 16, 251–338.
| Social ecology and behavior of coyotes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Berger, K., and Gese, E. (2007). Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance of coyotes? Journal of Animal Ecology 76, 1075–1085.
| Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance of coyotes?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17922704PubMed |
Beyer, H. L. (2012). ‘Geospatial Modelling Environment (Version 0.7.2.0).’ Available at http://www.spatialecology.com/gme. [Verified 25 February 2015]
Bradshaw, J. W. S., and Nott, H. M. R. (1995). Social and communication behaviour of companion dogs. In ‘The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People’. (Ed. J. Serpell.) pp. 115–130. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.)
Burnham, K. P., and Anderson, D. R. (2002). ‘Model Selection and Multi-model Inference: a Practical Information-theoretic Approach.’ 2nd edn. (Springer: New York.)
Burt, W. H. (1943). Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 24, 346–352.
| Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Coppinger, R., and Coppinger, L. (2001). ‘Dogs: a New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behaviour and Evolution.’ (University of Chicago Press: New York.)
Coppinger, L., and Coppinger, R. (2007). Dogs for herding and guarding livestock. In ‘Livestock Handling and Transport’. 3rd edn. (Ed. T. Granding.) pp. 199–213. (CABI International: Oxford, UK.)
Coppinger, R., and Schneider, R. (1995). Evolution of working dogs. In ‘The Domestic Dog’. (Ed. J. Serpell.) pp. 21–47. (Cambridge University Press. Cambridge)
Coppinger, R., Coppinger, L., Langeloh, G., Gettler, L., and Lorenz, J. (1988). A decade of use of livestock guarding dogs. In ‘Proceedings of the Thirteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds A. C. Crabb and R. E. Marsh.) pp. 209–214. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Corbett, L. (2001) ‘The Dingo in Australia and Asia.’ (J. B. Books: Marleston, SA.)
De Solla, S., Bonduriansky, R., and Brooks, R. (1999). Eliminating autocorrelation reduces biological relevance of home range estimates. Journal of Animal Ecology 68, 221–234.
| Eliminating autocorrelation reduces biological relevance of home range estimates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
ESRI (2011). ‘ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.’ (Environmental Systems Research Institute: Redlands, CA.)
Fieberg, J. (2007). Kernel density estimators of home range: smoothing and the autocorrelation red herring. Ecology 88, 1059–1066.
| Kernel density estimators of home range: smoothing and the autocorrelation red herring.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17536721PubMed |
Frommolt, K. H., Goltsman, M. E., and Macdonald, D. W. (2003). Barking foxes, Alopex lagopus: field experiments in individual recognition in a territorial mammal. Animal Behaviour 65, 509–518.
| Barking foxes, Alopex lagopus: field experiments in individual recognition in a territorial mammal.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fuller, T. K. (1989). Population dynamics of wolves in north-central Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs 105, 1–41.
Gese, E. M. (2001). Territorial defense by coyotes (Canis latrans) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: who, how, where, when, and why. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79, 980–987.
| Territorial defense by coyotes (Canis latrans) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: who, how, where, when, and why.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gese, E. M., and Ruff, R. L. (1998). Howling by coyotes (Canis latrans): variation among social classes, seasons, and pack sizes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76, 1037–1043.
| Howling by coyotes (Canis latrans): variation among social classes, seasons, and pack sizes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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 |
Jacques, C., Jenks, J., and Klaver, R. (2009). Seasonal movements and home-range use by female pronghorns in sagebrush-steppe communities of western South Dakota. Journal of Mammalogy 90, 433–441.
| Seasonal movements and home-range use by female pronghorns in sagebrush-steppe communities of western South Dakota.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kie, J., Matthiopoulos, J., Fieberg, J., Powell, R., Cagnacci, F., Mitchell, M., Gaillard, J., and Moorcroft, P. (2010). The home-range concept: are traditional estimators still relevant with modern telemetry technology? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 365, 2221–2231.
| The home-range concept: are traditional estimators still relevant with modern telemetry technology?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20566499PubMed |
Landry, J. M. (1999). The use of guard dogs in the Swiss Alps: a first analysis. KORA (Coordinated Research Projects for the Protection and Management of Carnivores in Switzerland) Report no 2, Muri, Switzerland.
Lorenz, J. R., and Coppinger, L. (1986). ‘Raising and Training a Livestock-guarding Dog.’ (Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR.)
Marker, L. L., Dickman, A. J., and Macdonald, D. W. (2005a). 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 |
Marker, L. L., Dickman, A. J., and Macdonald, D. W. (2005b). Survivorship and causes of mortality of livestock-guarding dogs on Namibian rangeland. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58, 337–343.
| Survivorship and causes of mortality of livestock-guarding dogs on Namibian rangeland.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 |
Mech, L. D. (1993). Details of a confrontation between two wild wolves. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71, 1900–1903.
| Details of a confrontation between two wild wolves.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mech, L. D. (1994). Buffer zones of territories of gray wolves as regions of intraspecific strife. Journal of Mammalogy 75, 199–202.
| Buffer zones of territories of gray wolves as regions of intraspecific strife.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mech, L. D., and Boitani, L. (2003). Wolf social ecology. In ‘Wolves: Behaviour, Ecology and Conservation’. (Eds LD Mech and L Boitani.) pp. 1–34 (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.)
Mech, L. D., and Boitani, L. (2010). ‘Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.’ (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.)
Messier, F. (1985). Solitary living and extraterritorial movements of wolves in relation to social status and prey abundance. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63, 239–245.
| Solitary living and extraterritorial movements of wolves in relation to social status and prey abundance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Parker M (2010). ‘Territoriality and Scent Marking Behavior of African Wild Dogs in Northern Botswana.’ (University of Montana: Missoula, MT.)
Peterson, R. O., Woolington, J. D., and Bailey, T. N. (1984). Wolves of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 88, 1–52.
Recio, M. R., Mathieu, R., Denys, P., Sirguey, P., and Seddon, P. J. (2011). Lightweight GPS-tags, one giant leap for wildlife tracking? An assessment approach. PLoS ONE 6, e28225.
| Lightweight GPS-tags, one giant leap for wildlife tracking? An assessment approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3MXhs1Khu7nK&md5=fbb1a23b2039cebb31a1bf6f841201f9CAS | 22163286PubMed |
Reynolds, T. D., and Laundre, J. W. (1990). Time intervals for estimating pronghorn and coyote home ranges and daily movements. The Journal of Wildlife Management 54, 316–322.
| Time intervals for estimating pronghorn and coyote home ranges and daily movements.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rigg, R. (2001). ‘Livestock Guarding Dogs: Their Current Use World Wide.’ (IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group.) Available at http://www.canids.org/occasionalpapers/ [Verified March 2012]
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 |
Robley, A, Gormley, A., Forsyth, D. M., Wilton, A. N., and Stephens, D. (2010). Movements and habitat selection by wild dogs in eastern Victoria. Australian Mammalogy 32, 23–32.
| Movements and habitat selection by wild dogs in eastern Victoria.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 |
Sacks, B. N., Jaeger, M. M., Neale, J. C. C., and McCullough, D. R. (1999). Territoriality and breeding status of coyotes relative to sheep predation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 63, 593–605.
| Territoriality and breeding status of coyotes relative to sheep predation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shivik, J. A., Jaeger, M. M., and Barrett, R. H. (1996). Coyote movements in relation to the spatial distribution of sheep. The Journal of Wildlife Management 60, 422–430.
| Coyote movements in relation to the spatial distribution of sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Skeoch, A., and Koschak, S. (2007). An evening in the Australian bush. Available at www.listeningearth.com.au. [Verified March 2013]
SPSS Inc. (2009) ‘PASW Statistics for Windows, Version 18.0. Released 2009.’ (SPSS Inc: Chicago, IL).
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 |
Thomson, P. C., Rose, K., and Kok, N. E. (1992). The behavioural ecology of dingoes in north-western Australia. V. Population dynamics and variation in the social system. Wildlife Research 19, 565–584.
| The behavioural ecology of dingoes in north-western Australia. V. Population dynamics and variation in the social system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Urbigkit, C., and Urbigkit, J. (2010). A review: the use of livestock protection dogs in association with large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Sheep & Goat Research Journal 25, 1–8.
van Bommel, L. (2010). ‘Guardian Dogs: Best Practice Manual for the use of Livestock Guardian Dogs.’ (Invasive Animals CRC: Canberra.)
van Bommel, L., and Johnson, C. (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 |
Worton, B. J. (1989). Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70, 164–168.
| Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
