Time-activity budget of urban-adapted free-ranging dogs

Banerjee, Arunita; Bhadra, Anindita

doi:10.1007/s10211-021-00379-6

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 71 publications

(63 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On a later date the experiment was performed on those sites with these randomly pre-selected groups. A group was defined as a cluster of three or more dogs with at least two of them being adults, and that were observed to be either resting together or engaging in affiliative interactions (Banerjee and Bhadra, 2022) with each other. By pre-identifying and randomising the places, groups and dates, we made sure not to repeat the experiment on the same group twice.…”

Section: Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The experimenter had 10 extra seconds post the one-minute window to restrict the dogs' access to the food inside the boxes. This experiment (and the one on solitary dogs) was carried out during those times when the activity level of the dogs was greater than 50% (Banerjee and Bhadra, 2022). We also made sure to keep a buffer of at least 3-4 h between our experiment and the general time around which people in India throw leftovers and garbage (around lunch and dinner hours) to ensure that dogs, both solitary and in groups, had similar motivations to participate in the experiment.…”

Section: Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Eating smart: Free-ranging dogs follow an optimal foraging strategy while scavenging in groups

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foraging and acquiring of food is a delicate balance between managing the costs (both energy and social) and individual preferences. Previous research on solitarily foraging free-ranging dogs showed that they prioritise the nutritionally highest valued food, but do not ignore other less valuable food either, displaying typical scavenger behaviour. We conducted a similar experiment on 136 groups of dogs with the same set-up to see the change in foraging strategies, if any, under the influence of social cost like intra-group competition. We found multiple differences between the strategies of dogs foraging alone versus in groups with competition playing an implicit role in the dogs’ decision making when foraging in groups. Dogs continually assessed and evaluated the available resources in a “patch,” transitioning from random foraging to systematic foraging with time and more information. Dogs in groups used an, “eat first, sample afterwards” strategy whereas individual dogs sampled thoroughly before eating. Additionally, dogs in groups were quicker and more likely to respond to the experimental set-up and eat from it. The dogs adjusted their behaviour in terms of effort and time allocated according to the quality of the “patch.” Foraging in groups also provided benefits of reduced individual vigilance. The various decisions and choices made lend support to the optimal foraging theory wherein the dogs harvested the nutritionally richest patch possible with the least risk and cost involved but were willing to compromise if that was not possible. This underscores the cognitive, quick decision-making abilities and adaptable behaviour of these dogs, which is likely to have influenced the process of dog domestication.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%