Table 4 - uploaded by Sunil Kumar Pal
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Fourteen females belonging to five groups were selected for the study of mating system in free-ranging domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) All the matings occurred between August and December with a peak in late monsoon months (September to November). Both males and females differed in their degree of attractiveness to the opposite sex. The duration o...
Context in source publication
Citations
... The penis is then turned 180 degrees laterally. Ejaculation takes place at this time, and the female's reproductive system gradually enters metoestrus (Pal, 2011). The male and female separate only when the vaginal muscles relax and the bulbus glandis contracts. ...
The article contains a literature review of facts and views on the strategies of sexual behaviour in mammals, taking into account the role of the animal’s species, sex, and position in the herd. The role of the senses, brain, and hormones in the expression of animals’ sexual behaviour is discussed, as well as the role of induction of the coitus reflex and social behaviour in the reproduction of present-day wild and domesticated animals. The analysis shows that the predominant strategy of sexual behaviour in females is to attract multiple potential partners to acquire the best male. The predominant strategies in the sexual behaviour of males of most mammalian species are aimed at fertilizing as many females as possible. Expression of sexual behaviour requires the generation of a set of characteristic sexual reflexes that indicate readiness to copulate and are sexually stimulating. Animals are differ in expressing their sexual behaviour. Some individuals react quickly and dynamically to sexual stimuli and immediately begin coitus, while others require longer preparation for successful coitus. Sexual behaviour influences the status of individuals in some species. Wild mammals with high expression of the sexual behaviour typical of a given species usually occupy a dominant position, which gives them an advantage in the search for breeding partners, access to food, and the expression of preferred social behaviour. Expression of sexual behaviour is stimulated by stimuli from potential sexual partners, which induce copulatory reflexes. These reflexes have been described in numerous animal species. They should be generated in the proper order and proceed without disruption for successful coitus and fertilization to occur.
... The attempted investigation and mounting frequencies of the male dogs are really remarkable. In support of this findings, it has been reported that male domestic dogs show higher rate of mounting behavior in response to estrus urine than non-estrus urine [27,28], and buffaloes showed frequent mounting behavior in response to estrus urine as opposed to non-estrus urine [25]. Further, the frequency of attempted investigation was significantly high during pro-estrus; thus, this behavior could be considered as a sign of early estrus in the Rajapalayam dog. ...
... In dog, urine is one of the major sources of pheromones, involving scent or territorial marking and conveys various signals such as sex attraction and aggression. [28,29]. In the present study, the 30 volatile compounds, identified across the three phases of estrous cycle, were qualitatively different between the phases. ...
... For males, mating with more than one female has the advantage of increasing fitness and since mating usually does not come with high costs, this is the best strategy for them. Accordingly, males compete for access to females engaging in aggressive interactions with other males, interrupting matings (Cafazzo et al. 2010;Daniels 1983;Pal 2003a;Pal et al. 1999), building up affiliative relations with certain females , which might buy them mating opportunities later, or even coercing females into mating (Ghosh et al. 1984;Pal 2003a;Pal 2011;Pal et al. 1999). However, mate choice in dogs is still relatively understudied. ...
... He found that females tended to show a preference for mating with known rather than stranger dogs. In a series of studies on the mating behaivour of Indian free-ranging dogs, Pal found that over the course of the 6 peak days of their receptive period, oestrous females attracted between 6 and 60 males, and in any given observed association, the female may have between 1 and 10 males simultaneously courting her (Pal 2005;Pal 2011;Pal et al. 1999). Most females showed some selectivity in their mating preferences, in that they did not indiscriminately mate with all available mates but rather mated on average with between 38 and 57% of the courting males. ...
... Most females showed some selectivity in their mating preferences, in that they did not indiscriminately mate with all available mates but rather mated on average with between 38 and 57% of the courting males. However, in all studies some females mated with all available males, and in two studies (Pal 2005;Pal 2011), a number of females (4 and 2 females respectively) mated with a single courting male. ...
Dogs, together with humans, are one of the most successful species on the planet. In the Western world, dogs usually live as companions and often take on important roles for their human partners. However, a larger proportion of dogs worldwide are free-ranging – living in the human environment, but otherwise making their own decisions. In this chapter we summarize the various aspects of the socio-ecology of these dogs. The discordant reports, going from solitary to structured packs, likely reflect the flexibility and adaptability of this species as well as possible genetic differences between populations of FRDs. The high variation in sociality begs the question of which socio-ecological factors, such as food distribution and abundance, interdependence, closeness to humans, etc., may be affecting the dogs’ social structure. Where packs do form, the internal structure remains still scarcely understood. It appears that, in most cases, groups are composed of multiple males and females, but mostly due to the absence of genetic data and/or long-term studies, it remains unclear whether the pack members are related with each other or not. Both males and females are largely promiscuous, and parental care seems to be mostly provided by the mother, with varying support from putative fathers and other (related?) females. Dog packs collectively defend established territories, marking and engaging in defensive aggression against other packs.
... FRDs display flexible social organization and can form social groups (packs) of varying sizes and stability of membership . While a typical pack of gray wolves (Canis lupus) consists of a single monogamous breeding pair and their offspring from multiple breeding seasons (Mech and Boitani 2003), FRD packs can include multiple breeding individuals of both sexes (Daniels 1983;Boitani and Ciucci 1995;Boitani et al. 2016;Pal 2011;Bonanni and Cafazzo 2014). Behavioral studies on FRDs frequently report a promiscuous mating system, but monogamous pairs have also been observed (Daniels 1983;Gipson 1983;Pal 2005Pal , 2011Cafazzo et al. 2014), and males seem to vary considerably in their degree of parental investment (Pal 2005;Paul and Bhadra 2018). ...
... While a typical pack of gray wolves (Canis lupus) consists of a single monogamous breeding pair and their offspring from multiple breeding seasons (Mech and Boitani 2003), FRD packs can include multiple breeding individuals of both sexes (Daniels 1983;Boitani and Ciucci 1995;Boitani et al. 2016;Pal 2011;Bonanni and Cafazzo 2014). Behavioral studies on FRDs frequently report a promiscuous mating system, but monogamous pairs have also been observed (Daniels 1983;Gipson 1983;Pal 2005Pal , 2011Cafazzo et al. 2014), and males seem to vary considerably in their degree of parental investment (Pal 2005;Paul and Bhadra 2018). Studies on Indian FRDs showed considerable variation in male copulation success (Pal et al. 1999), and a study of a large FRD pack in Italy showed that both male copulation success and female reproductive success varied considerably among breeding individuals and were significantly affected by interrelated variables, such as dominance rank, age, leadership, and earlier affiliative interactions between males and females . ...
... Furthermore, to our knowledge, we have detected the first genetically documented case of multiple paternity within a litter of FRDs. These results are consistent with behavioral data collected in this ) and other populations of FRDs (Daniels 1983;Gosh et al. 1984;Pal et al. 1999;Pal 2005Pal , 2011, suggesting that their mating system is characterized by polygynandry. However, it cannot be ruled out that some females mated with only one partner, given that all puppies from two litters were sired by a single male. ...
Domestication has greatly changed the social and reproductive behavior of dogs relative to that of wild members of the genus Canis, which typically exhibit social monogamy and extended parental care. Unlike a typical gray wolf pack that consists of a single breeding pair and their offspring from multiple seasons, a group of free-ranging dogs (FRDs) can include multiple breeding individuals of both sexes. To understand the consequences of this shift in reproductive behavior, we reconstructed the genetic pedigree of an FRD population and assessed the kinship patterns in social groups, based on genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes. Consistent with behavioral observations, the mating system of the study population was characterized by polygynandry. Instead of the discreet family units observed in wolves, FRDs were linked by a network of kinship relationships that spread across packs. However, we also observed reproduction of the same male–female pairs in multiple seasons, retention of adult offspring in natal packs, and dispersal between neighboring packs—patterns in common with wolves. Although monogamy is the predominant mating system in wolves, polygyny and polyandry are occasionally observed in response to increased food availability. Thus, polygynandry of domestic dogs was likely influenced by the shift in ecological niche from an apex predator to a human commensal.
... Only one litter is produced per year. Weaning usually begins around 5 weeks old and is completed around 11 weeks old (Pal, 2005;Pal, 2008). At the 5 weeks stage of the puppies' lives the mother provides them with regurgitated food along with milk. ...
Background: The Indian kennel club has determined the weight and height characteristics of adult Indian free-ranging dogs but not for the puppies despite the dogs existing in India for centuries. The formation of a growth chart for these dogs may help veterinarians to be better able to determine the age and health status of the rescued puppies.Methods: In this study, the weekly weight gains and monthly total length increases of a female Indian free-ranging puppy were observed from 5th - 22nd week of the puppy’s life in order to form a growth chart. The puppy’s life during observation was divided into three phases-pre-weaned, weaned and scavenge by itself. The mother’s monthly weight gain was measured.Result: The puppy showed 0.71+0.30 kg in the first, 0.45+0.48 kg in the second and 0.38 +0.40 kg increase in the third phase of the observation period. No significant difference in weight gain was observed in the three phases. The monthly weight gain and length increase were 1.95+0.587 kg and 21.25+19.05 cm respectively. No correlation was observed between them. No correlation between months after birth and mother’s weight gain were observed.
... 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(Pal, , 2008. Therefore, the young must be cared for their survival, and the mother provides at least a minimum amount of care to her infants (e.g., Martins, 1949;Scott and Marston, 1950;Rheingold, 1963;Kleiman and Malcolm, 1981;Malm, 1995;Malm and Jensen, 1996;Pal, 2005;Paul et al., 2014;Paul and Bhadra, 2018;Santos et al., 2020). ...
... 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(Pal, , 2008. Therefore, the young must be cared for their survival, and the mother provides at least a minimum amount of care to her infants (e.g., Martins, 1949;Scott and Marston, 1950;Rheingold, 1963;Kleiman and Malcolm, 1981;Malm, 1995;Malm and Jensen, 1996;Pal, 2005;Paul et al., 2014;Paul and Bhadra, 2018;Santos et al., 2020). Though care is most often provided by the mother alone in domestic dogs (Kleiman and Malcolm, 1981;Boitani and Ciucci, 1995), paternal and alloparental care have also been reported in free-ranging domestic dogs (Hart, 1980;Pal, 2005;Paul et al., 2014;Paul and Bhadra, 2018;Pongrácz and Sztruhala (2019), but their role and occurrence are less well understood. ...
... Therefore, the young must be cared for their survival, and the mother provides at least a minimum amount of care to her infants (e.g., Martins, 1949;Scott and Marston, 1950;Rheingold, 1963;Kleiman and Malcolm, 1981;Malm, 1995;Malm and Jensen, 1996;Pal, 2005;Paul et al., 2014;Paul and Bhadra, 2018;Santos et al., 2020). Though care is most often provided by the mother alone in domestic dogs (Kleiman and Malcolm, 1981;Boitani and Ciucci, 1995), paternal and alloparental care have also been reported in free-ranging domestic dogs (Hart, 1980;Pal, 2005;Paul et al., 2014;Paul and Bhadra, 2018;Pongrácz and Sztruhala (2019), but their role and occurrence are less well understood. ...
Allomaternal care (AMC) is provided to the offspring by individuals other than the genetic mother, including several seemingly altruistic behaviors such as babysitting, carrying, nursing, crèching, or huddling for thermoregulation. To determine whether there is any allomaternal care among free-ranging domestic dogs, from March 2015 to May 2019 a total of eight dog groups consisting of 19 adult females (range 2–3 females per group) that were matrilineal relatives, i.e., maternal grandmothers, aunts, daughters, sisters were observed during pup-rearing period (1st to 13 weeks of pups’ life). During the first two weeks, lactating bitches were observed to spend the most time with their own pups and suckled for almost the entire observation period (30 min). Lactating mothers started to venture out of their dens for short foraging trips when the pups were 1 week old, but it was more frequent at 3 weeks of age. From the 3rd week of kin-related pups’ life the lactating mothers were observed to wean, with a parallel shift of nursing and regurgitation for the pups done by other kin-related females showing the evidence of allonursing. The occurrence of all types of nursing activities i.e., duration of contact, nursing, feeding by regurgitation, and protection of pups was higher among the mothers than among the allomothers. In the case of biological mothers, the frequency and duration of contact, nursing and feeding by regurgitation decreased as the puppies aged, meanwhile in the case of allomothers, the frequency and duration of contact, nursing and feeding by regurgitation increased until 6 weeks of age, before switching to a decreasing trend. Allonursing in free-ranging domestic dogs was more common among older bitches i.e., maternal grandmothers. We propose four possible reasons of allonursing in the case of free-ranging dogs- 1) having excess milk perhaps due to high pup mortality allonursing may evolve as low cost behavior in free-ranging dogs, 2) allonursing may provide substantial benefits to pups regarding growth, survival, and the transfer of immune compounds, 3) insufficiency of own mother’s milk may be one of the causes of allonursing, and 4) free-ranging domestic dogs nurse each other’s pups perhaps to promote a set of affiliating and permissive relationships among the group members. As the studied groups contained matrilineal related female dogs that helped each other with allonursing, this study strongly suggests the kin selection theory especially as allonursing is highly prevalent in other, closely related, gregarious wild canids (gray wolves, golden jackals).
... Free-living dogs generally exhibit a promiscuous mating system with no breeding hierarchy (Lord et al., 2013), though they can exhibit a range of mating systems (Pal, 2011). All adults can have the opportunity to breed and thus dog social groups can contain multiple lactating females with litters, in addition to other male and female group members (Macdonald and Carr, 1995;Pal, 2011;Paul et al., 2014). ...
... Free-living dogs generally exhibit a promiscuous mating system with no breeding hierarchy (Lord et al., 2013), though they can exhibit a range of mating systems (Pal, 2011). All adults can have the opportunity to breed and thus dog social groups can contain multiple lactating females with litters, in addition to other male and female group members (Macdonald and Carr, 1995;Pal, 2011;Paul et al., 2014). Though freeliving dogs often live in groups, they do not always form a structured pack (Macdonald and Carr, 1995;Kamler et al., 2003a;Majumder et al., 2014). ...
The Canidae are successful, being a widespread, abundant, speciose, and adaptable family. Several canids in particular have recently experienced rapid expansions in range and abundance, with similar situations mirrored on several continents by different species. Despite extreme behavioral diversity between and within species, monogamy is a common denominator in canid societies. In this review, we ask why canids are monogamous and how monogamy is related to their success. We begin with an overview of canid social monogamy, describing the pair bonding, paternal care, and often alloparental care that is characteristic of the family, and discuss theories on the evolution of mammalian social monogamy. We discuss why and how monogamy is maintained in canids, either voluntarily or enforced, and how ecological conditions influence either the functional advantages of monogamy or ability for enforcement and thus whether social monogamy is maintained. Social monogamy does not necessitate exclusive mating and many canids exhibit extra-pair paternity. We consider the costs and benefits of extra-pair mating for male and female canids and how ecological conditions can shift this cost/benefit balance and thus affect its prevalence. Monogamy may be responsible for many of the unusual canid reproductive characteristics through facilitating alloparental care and monogamy enforcement, and the domestic dogs' departure from monogamy supports our interpretation that it is an adaptation to resource availability. In asking whether monogamy is responsible, at least in part, for their success, we propose the monogamy as pro-cooperative hypothesis, suggesting four characteristics have contributed to canid success: (1) ecological flexibility, (2) high mobility, (3) high reproductive rates, and (4) sociality/cooperation, with the latter two being consequences of monogamy. These four interconnected traits enhance one another and it is their combination, with monogamy at its foundation enabling cooperative sociality and thereby enhanced reproduction and survival, that together comprise the formula of canid success.
... In contrast, domestic dogs and village dogs can reproduce twice a year (at any time/season of the year), generally coming into oestrus every 6-9 months (Boitani et al. 2006, Majumder & Bhadra 2015. In some cases, village dogs breed only once a year, although the mating period is long (up to 5 months) compared to wild canids (Pal 2001(Pal , 2011. Studies of village dogs indicate that male and female dogs breed in their first year ; however, this can vary depending on size of the dog (Lord et al. 2013). ...
The taxonomic status and systematic nomenclature of the Australian dingo remain contentious, resulting in decades of inconsistent applications in the scientific literature and in policy. Prompted by a recent publication calling for dingoes to be considered taxonomically as domestic dogs (Jackson et al. 2017, Zootaxa 4317, 201-224), we review the issues of the taxonomy applied to canids, and summarise the main differences between dingoes and other canids. We conclude that (1) the Australian dingo is a geographically isolated (allopatric) species from all other Canis, and is genetically, phenotypically, ecologically, and behaviourally distinct; and (2) the dingo appears largely devoid of many of the signs of domestication, including surviving largely as a wild animal in Australia for millennia. The case of defining dingo taxonomy provides a quintessential example of the disagreements between species concepts (e.g., biological, phylogenetic, ecological, morphological). Applying the biological species concept sensu stricto to the dingo as suggested by Jackson et al. (2017) and consistently across the Canidae would lead to an aggregation of all Canis populations, implying for example that dogs and wolves are the same species. Such an aggregation would have substantial implications for taxonomic clarity, biological research, and wildlife conservation. Any changes to the current nomen of the dingo (currently Canis dingo Meyer, 1793), must therefore offer a strong, evidence-based argument in favour of it being recognised as a subspecies of
Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758, or as Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, and a successful application to the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature - neither of which can be adequately supported. Although there are many species concepts, the sum of the evidence presented in this paper affirms the classification of the dingo as a distinct taxon, namely Canis dingo.
... Free-ranging dogs in India have a promiscuous mating system, with multiple males and females mating within a group in a given season [27,28]. Their group dynamics greatly depend on their mating and denning seasons [24], and often multiple females of a group give birth in neighbouring dens. ...
Cooperative breeding is an excellent example of cooperation in social groups. Domestic dogs have evolved from cooperatively hunting and breeding ancestors but have adapted to a facultatively social scavenging lifestyle on streets, and solitary living in human homes. Pets typically breed and reproduce under human supervision, but free-ranging dogs can provide insights into the natural breeding ecology of dogs. We conducted a five year-long field based behavioural study on parental care of free-ranging dogs in India. 23 mother-litter units, belonging to 15 groups were observed, which revealed the presence of widespread allo-parenting by both adult males and females. While all the females were known to be related to the pups receiving care, the relatedness with the males could not be determined. Hence, we coined the term “putative father” for caregiving males. Allomothers provided significantly less care than the mothers, but the putative fathers showed comparable levels of care with the mothers. Mothers invested more effort in nursing and allogrooming, while the putative fathers played and protected more. Our observations provide support for both the “benefit-of-philopatry” and “assured fitness returns” hypotheses. Free-ranging dogs are not cooperative breeders like wolves but are rather communal breeders; their breeding biology bearing interesting similarities with the human joint family system. This breeding strategy is likely to have played an important role in increasing pup survival in a stochastic environment and helping to adapt to living among humans during the domestication of dogs.
... Africa[20]; South and Central Asia,[21]; Eurasia,[22]but[23]). These populations are not, as is often thought, made up of ex-pet dogs (which represent the minority), but rather they are self-sustaining populations of 'free-breeding' animals that independently choose their mates[24,25]and whose existence is affected by dispersal patterns, food abundance, mate choice as well as human activities[15,26]. Hence in the remaining part of this review we aim to (1) highlight the differences in the feeding ecology of wolves and free-ranging dogs and, likely as a consequence, (2) in their social organisations; and (3) suggest that to fully explain the behavioural differences between dogs and wolves, their respective social ecologies need to be taken into account. ...
Whereas studies in comparative cognition normally invoke ecology and social organization to account for differences in social behaviour and cognition across species, dog–wolf differences have so far been explained mostly as a result of direct human selection for desirable traits (e.g., tameness, attention to humans, sociability). Yet, as will be reviewed in this paper, dogs and wolves also differ considerably in both their feeding niche and social organization (which together we refer to as ‘social ecology’). We suggest that observed wolf–dog differences especially in their interaction with the environment (e.g., neophobia, persistence, risk taking) and conspecifics (e.g., tolerance, cooperation, communication) need to be considered also in regard to their social ecology. We propose that social ecology alongside human selection should be recognized as a potentially important factor affecting dogs’ behaviour, and suggest a number of potential avenues for future research, which can more directly test the relative importance of these selection forces.
