Content uploaded by Nobuyo Ohtani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nobuyo Ohtani on Jan 18, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
The dilution hypothesis provides an alternative
framework with which to explain observations of
the apparent recalcitrance of DOC and lends a
physiological meaning to the operationally de-
fined “semi-labile”and “semi-refractory”fractions
(16,17). We hypothesize that under the dilution
hypothesis, very heterogeneous mixtures of labile
compounds appear semirefractory, whereas in-
creasingly less diverse DOM assemblages con-
taining larger concentrations of some substrates
will present higher microbial growth and DOC
turnover rates, resulting in increasing degrees of
apparent lability. The microbial generation of ap-
parently recalcitrant material (18) from labile
substrates in a process recently dubbed the “mi-
crobial carbon pump”(19) can also be explained
with the dilution hypothesis. Microbial utilization
of abundant, labile compounds results in hundreds
of different metabolites (20), which are subse-
quently consumed down to the lowest utilizable
concentration. This mechanism explains observa-
tions of relatively concentrated, labile materials
being transformed into apparently recalcitrant
matter through microbial consumption (18)but
does not necessarily imply the formation of struc-
turally recalcitrant molecules. Indeed, “recalcitrant”
DOC is not defined structurally, but operationally,
as the DOC pool remaining after long experimen-
tal incubations or as the fraction transported in
an apparently conservative manner with the
ocean circulation (1). Thus, the dilution hypothesis
severely limits the feasibility of geoengineering
efforts to enhance carbon storage in the deep
ocean (21)byusingthemicrobialcarbonpump.
FT-ICR-MS characterization of DOC from dif-
ferent oceans (13,14,22,23)andalsofromthis
study (fig. S5) shows no indication of prevalent,
intrinsically recalcitrant compounds accumulat-
ing in substantial amounts. Conversely, FT-ICR-
MS data show that oceanic DOC is a complex
mixture of minute quantities of thousands of or-
ganic molecules, which is in good agreement with
the dilution hypothesis. Mean radiocarbon ages
of deep oceanic DOC in the range of 4000 to 6000
years have been considered as evidence for its re-
calcitrant nature (24,25). However, these are aver-
age ages of a pool containing a mixture of very
old molecules >12,000 years old but also featuring
a large proportion of contemporary materials (26).
Moreover, elevated radiocarbon ages only dem-
onstrate that these old molecules are not being
newly produced at any appreciable rate—because
that would lower their isotopic age—but does not
necessarily imply that they are structurally recal-
citrant. Furthermore, it is unlikely that natural
organic molecules can accumulate in the ocean in
substantial concentrations and remain recalcitrant
or be preserved for millennia when degradation
pathways for novel synthetic pollutants evolve soon
after these compounds are released in nature (27).
Although there might be a truly recalcitrant com-
ponent in deep oceanic DOC, our results clearly
show that the concentration of individual labile
molecules is a major factor limiting the utiliza-
tion of a substantial fraction of deep oceanic DOC.
These results provide, therefore, a robust and
parsimonious explanation for the long-term pre-
servation of labile DOC into one of the largest
reservoirs of organic carbon on Earth, opening a
new avenue in our understanding of the global
carbon cycle.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. D. A. Hansell, Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 5, 421–445 (2013).
2. E. B. Kujawinski, Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 3, 567–599 (2011).
3. H. W. Jannasch, Limnol. Oceanogr. 12, 264–271 (1967).
4. H. W. Jannasch, Global Planet. Change 9,289–295
(1994).
5. R. T. Barber, Nature 220, 274–275 (1968).
6. Materials and methods are available as supplementary
materials on Science Online.
7. T. Dittmar, B. Koch, N. Hertkorn, G. Kattner, Limnol. Oceanogr.
Methods 6, 230–235 (2008).
8. D. L. Kirchman, X. A. G. Morán, H. Ducklow, Nat. Rev. Microbiol.
7, 451–459 (2009).
9. T. Reinthaler et al., Limnol. Oceanogr. 51,1262–1273
(2006).
10. A. Nebbioso, A. Piccolo, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 405,109–124
(2013).
11. D. A. Hansell, C. A. Carlson, D. J. Repeta, R. Schlitzer,
Oceanography (Wash. D.C.) 22, 202–211 (2009).
12. A. Konopka, Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 3, 244–247 (2000).
13. G. Kattner, M. Simon, B. Koch, in Microbial Carbon Pump in the
Ocean, N. Jiao, F. Azam, S Sanders, Eds. (Science/AAAS,
Washington, DC, 2011), pp. 60–61.
14. T. Dittmar, J. Paeng, Nat. Geosci. 2,175–179 (2009).
15. M. V. Zubkov, P. H. Burkill, J. N. Topping, J. Plankton Res. 29,
79–86 (2007).
16. C. A. Carlson, H. W. Ducklow, A. F. Michaels, Nature 371,
405–408 (1994).
17. J. H. Sharp et al., Estuaries Coasts 32,1023–1043
(2009).
18. H. Ogawa, Y. Amagai, I. Koike, K. Kaiser, R. Benner, Science
292,917–920 (2001).
19. N. Jiao et al., Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 593–599 (2010).
20. R. P. Maharjan, S. Seeto, T. Ferenci, J. Bacteriol. 189,
2350–2358 (2007).
21. R. Stone, Science 328, 1476–1477 (2010).
22. R. Flerus et al., Biogeosciences 9, 1935–1955 (2012).
23. O. J. Lechtenfeld et al., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 126,
321–337 (2014).
24. P. M. Williams, E. R. M. Druffel, Nature 330,246–248
(1987).
25. J. E. Bauer, in Biogeochemistry of Marine Dissolved Organic
Matter, D. A. Hansell, C. A. Carlson, Eds. (Academic Press, San
Diego, CA, 2002), pp. 405–453.
26. C. L. Follett, D. J. Repeta, D. H. Rothman, L. Xu, C. Santinelli,
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 16706–16711 (2014).
27. S. D. Copley, Trends Biochem. Sci. 25, 261–265 (2000).
ACKNO WLED GME NTS
This is a contribution to the Malaspina 2010 Expedition project,
funded by the CONSOLIDER-Ingenio 2010 program of the from
the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Ref.
CSD2008-00077). J.M.A. was supported by a “Ramón y Cajal”
research fellowship from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness. E.M. was supported by a fellowship from the Junta
para la Ampliación de Estudios program of CSIC. G.J.H. and R.L.H.
were supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) projects I486-
B09 and P23234-B11 and by the European Research Council (ERC)
under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme
(FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement 268595 (MEDEA project).
We thank A. Dorsett for assistance with DOC analyses, participants in
the Malaspina Expedition and the crews of the BIO Hespérides, and
RV Pelagia and the personnel of the Marine Technology Unit of CSIC
for their invaluable support. Original data sets are available online at
http://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/111563. J.M.A. designed the
experimental setup, carried out part of the experiments, measured
prokaryotic abundance, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript.
E.M. carried out part of the experiments and data analysis. C.M.D.
designed the Malaspina 2010 Expedition, was responsible for DOC
analyses, and together with G.J.H. contributed to the design of the
experiments and discussion of results. R.L.H. and T.D. analyzed the
FT-ICR-MS samples. All authors discussed the results and contributed
to the manuscript.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/331/suppl/DC1
Materials and Methods
Figs. S1 to S9
Tables S1 and S2
References (28–35)
18 July 2014; accepted 4 March 2015
Published online 19 March 2015;
10.1126/science.1258955
SOCIAL EVOLUTION
Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the
coevolution of human-dog bonds
Miho Nagasawa,
1,2
Shouhei Mitsui,
1
Shiori En,
1
Nobuyo Ohtani,
1
Mitsuaki Ohta,
1
Yasuo Sakuma,
3
Tatsushi Onaka,
2
Kazutaka Mogi,
1
Takefumi Kikusui
1
*
Human-like modes of communication, including mutual gaze, in dogs may have been
acquired during domestication with humans. We show that gazing behavior from dogs,
but not wolves, increased urinary oxytocin concentrations in owners, which consequently
facilitated owners’affiliation and increased oxytocin concentration in dogs. Further, nasally
administered oxytocin increased gazing behavior in dogs, which in turn increased urinary
oxytocin concentrations in owners. These findings support the existence of an interspecies
oxytocin-mediated positive loop facilitated and modulated by gazing, which may have
supported the coevolution of human-dog bonding by engaging common modes of
communicating social attachment.
Dogs are more skillful than wolves and
chimpanzees, the closest respective rel-
atives of dogs and humans, at using human
social communicative behaviors (1). More
specifically, dogs are able to use mutual
gaze as a communication tool in the context of
needs of affiliative help from others (2). Conver-
gent evolution between humans and dogs may
have led to the acquisition of human-like com-
munication modes in dogs, possibly as a by-
product of temperament changes, such as reduced
fear and aggression (1). This idea yields interesting
implications that dogs were domesticated by
coopting social cognitive systems in humans that
SCIENCE sciencemag.org 17 APRIL 201 5 •VOL 348 ISSUE 6232 333
RESEARCH |REPORTS
Corrected 12 June 2015; see full text.
are involved in social attachment. The devel-
opment of human-unique social cognitive modes
may depend on specific temperament and social
affiliation changes and may have consequently
evolved differently from those of chimpanzees
and bonobos (3). Thus, although humans and
dogs exist on different branches of the evolu-
tionary tree, both may have independently ac-
quired tolerance of one another because of
alterations in neural systems that mediate af-
filiation (1). These alterations may be related
to paedomorphic characteristics in dogs, which
enabled them to retain a degree of social flexi-
bility and tolerance similar to that of humans
(4,5); therefore, it is plausible that a specific af-
filiative relationship developed between humans
and dogs despite interspecies differences. This
common social relationship change may have
enabled cohabitation between humans and dogs
and the eventual development of human-like
modes of social communication in dogs.
Gaze plays an important role in human com-
munication. Gaze not only facilitates the under-
standing of another’s intention but also the
establishment of affiliative relationships with
others. In humans, “mutual gaze”is the most
fundamental manifestation of social attachment
between a mother and infant (6), and maternal
oxytocin is positively associated with the dura-
tion of mother-to-infant gaze (7). Oxytocin plays
a primary role in regulating social bonding be-
tween mother and infants and between sexual
partners in monogamous species (8,9). More-
over, activation of the oxytocin system enhances
social reward (10) and inhibits stress-induced
activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal
axis (11). It has therefore been suggested that
these functions may facilitate dyadic interaction,
such as an oxytocin-mediated positive loop of
attachment and maternal behaviors between
mother and infant (12,13): Maternal nurturing
activates the oxytocinergic system in the infant,
thus enhancing attachment; this attachment then
stimulates oxytocinergic activity in the mother,
which facilitates further maternal behavior (9).
Because the establishment of such an oxytocin-
mediated positive loop requires the sharing of
social cues and recognition of a particular part-
ner, the study of oxytocin-mediated bonding has
been restricted to intraspecies relationships.
The human-dog relationship is exceptional
because it is an interspecies form of attachment.
Dogs can discriminate individual humans (14,15).
Furthermore, dogs show distinctly different be-
havior toward caregivers as compared with hand-
raised wolves (14), and interaction with dogs
confers a social buffering effect to humans. Like-
wise, dogs also receive more social buffering
effects from interacting with humans than from
conspecifics (16). Tactile interaction between
humans and dogs increases peripheral oxytocin
concentrations in both humans and dogs (17,18).
Further, social interaction initiated by a dog’sgaze
increases urinary oxytocin in the owner, whereas
obstruction of the dog’sgazeinhibitsthisincrease
(19). These results demonstrate that the acquisi-
tion of human-like social communication improves
the quality of human-dog affiliative interactions,
leading to the establishment of a human-dog
bond that is similar to a mother-infant relation-
ship. We hypothesized that an oxytocin-mediated
positive loop, which originated in the intraspe-
cies exchange of social affiliation cues, acts on
both humans and dogs, is coevolved in humans
and dogs, and facilitates human-dog bonding.
However, it is not known whether an oxytocin-
mediated positive loop exists between humans
and dogs as has been postulated between mother
and infants, and whether this positive loop emerged
during domestication.
We tested the hypothesis that an oxytocin-
mediated positive loop exists between humans
anddogsthatismediatedbygaze.First,we
examined whether a dog’s gazing behavior af-
fected urinary oxytocin concentrations in dogs
and owners during a 30-min interaction. We
also conducted the same experiment using hand-
raised wolves, in order to determine whether this
positive loop has been acquired by coevolution
with humans. Second, we determined whether
manipulating oxytocin in dogs through intra-
nasal administration would enhance their gazing
behavior toward their owners and whether this
gazing behavior affected oxytocin concentrations
in owners.
In experiment 1, urine was collected from the
dogs and owners right before and 30 min after
the interaction, and the duration of the follow-
ing behaviors was measured during the interac-
tion: “dog’s gaze at owner (dog-to-owner gaze),”
“owner’s talking to dog (dog-talking),”and “own-
er’s touching of dog (dog-touching).”Dog owners
were assigned to one of two groups: long gaze
or short gaze (fig. S1). Wolves were tested with
thesameprocedureandwerecomparedwith
thetwodoggroups.Dogsinthelong-gazegroup
gazed most at their owners among the three
groups. In contrast, wolves rarely showed mutual
gazing to their owners (Fig. 1A and fig. S2). After
a 30-min interaction, only owners in the long-
gaze group showed a significant increase in
urinary oxytocin concentrations and the highest
change ratio of oxytocin (Fig. 1, B and C). The
oxytocin change ratio in owners correlated sig-
nificantly with that of dogs, the duration of dog-
to-owner gaze, and dog-touching. Moreover, the
duration of the dog-to-owner gaze correlated
with dog-talking and dog-touching (table S2A);
however, through multiple linear regression anal-
ysis, we found that only the duration of dog-to-
owner gaze significantly explained the oxytocin
changeratioinowners.Thedurationofdog-
touching showed a trend toward explaining
oxytocin concentrations in owners (Table 1A).
Similarly, a significantly higher oxytocin change
ratio was observed in the dogs of the long-gaze
group than in those of the short-gaze group
(Fig. 1, D and E). The duration of dog-to-owner
gaze also significantly explained the oxytocin
change ratio in dogs, and the duration of dog-
touching showed a trend toward explaining
oxytocin concentrations in dogs by multiple lin-
ear regression analysis (Table 1A). In wolves, in
contrast, the duration of wolf-to-owner gaze did
334 17 APRIL 2015 •VOL 348 ISSUE 6232 sciencemag.org SCIENCE
Duration (s)
120
140
100
80
60
40
20
0
Dog or wolf-
to-owner gaze
Dog or wolf-
touching
Dog or wolf-
talking
***
**
*
***
***
Owner’s oxytocin (pg/mg)
60
40
20
0
Pre Post
**
Dog or wolf ’s oxytocin (pg/mg)
300
200
100
0
Pre Post
*** ***
LG SG Wolf
The change ratio of dog or wolf (%)
200
150
100
50
0
**
The change ratio of owner (%)
LG SG Wolf
500
400
300
200
100
0
**
Fig. 1. Comparisons of behavior and uri-
nary oxytocin change among long gaze
dogs (LG, n= 8, black bars and circles),
short gaze dogs (SG, n= 22, white bars
and circles), and wolves (wolf, n= 11, gray bars and square).(A) Behavior during the first 5-min
interaction. (B)and(D) Changes of urinary oxytocin concentrations after a 30-min interaction.
Urinary oxytocin concentrations in owners (B) and dogs or wolves (D) collected before and after a
30-min interaction are shown. (C)and(E) Comparisons of the change ratio of urinary oxytocin
among LG, SG, and wolf for owners (C) and dogs or wolves (E). The results of (A), (B), and (D) are
expressed as mean TSE. (C) and (E) reflect median Tquartile. ***P< 0.001, **P< 0.01, *P< 0.05.
1
Department of Animal Science and Biotechnology, Azabu
University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan.
2
Department of
Physiology, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, Japan.
3
University of Tokyo Health Sciences, Tama, Tokyo, Japan.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: kikusui@azabu-u.ac.jp
RESEARCH |REPORTS
Corrected 12 June 2015; see full text.
not correlate with the oxytocin change ratio in
either owners or wolves, and wolf-to-owner gaze
did not explain the oxytocin change ratio in
owners and wolves (tables S2B and S3). These
results suggest that wolves do not use mutual
gaze as a form of social communication with
humans, which might be expected because wolves
tend to use eye contact as a threat among con-
specifics (20) and avoid human eye contact (21).
Thus, dog-to-owner gaze as a form of social com-
munications probably evolved during domesti-
cation and triggers oxytocin release in the owner,
facilitating mutual interaction and affiliative
communication and consequently activation of
oxytocin systems in both humans and dogs in a
positive loop.
In experiment 2, we evaluated the direct evi-
dence of whether oxytocin administration en-
hanced dog gazing behavior and the subsequent
increase in urinary oxytocin concentration in
owners. This experiment involved 27 volunteers
and their dogs, and participants unfamiliar to
the dogs. A solution containing oxytocin or saline
was administered to the dog and the dog then
entered the experimental room, where the owner
and two unfamiliar people were seated (fig. S4).
Human behavior toward dogs was restricted to
prevent the influence of extraneous stimuli on dog
behavior and/or urinary oxytocin concentration.
They were forbidden to talk to each other or to
touch the dog voluntarily. Urine samples from
the owner and the dog were collected before and
after the interaction and were later compared.
The total amount of time that the dog gazed at,
touched, and was close to the owner and the
unfamiliar participants was also measured.
Oxytocin administration to dogs significantly
increased the duration that the dog gazed at the
owner in female dogs but not male dogs (Fig.
2A). Further, urinary oxytocin concentration sig-
nificantly increased in the owners of female dogs
that received oxytocin versus saline, even though
oxytocin was not administered to the owners (Fig.
2D). No significant effect of oxytocin administra-
tion was observed in the other measured dog
behaviors (Fig. 2, B and C). Furthermore, multi-
ple linear regression analysis revealed that the
duration of gazing behavior significantly ex-
plained the oxytocin change ratio in owners
(Table 1B). Thus, oxytocin administration en-
hances the gazing behavior of female dogs, which
stimulates oxytocin secretion in their owners.
Conversely, when interaction from humans was
limited, no significant difference in urinary oxy-
tocin concentrations in dogs was observed after
the interaction in either the oxytocin or the
saline conditions, and no significant oxytocin
change ratio was found in dogs (Fig. 2, F and
G). These results thus suggest that, although
oxytocin administration may enhance dog gazing
behavior and lead to an oxytocin increase in
owners, limited owner-to-dog interaction may
prevent the increased oxytocin secretion in dogs
by breaking the oxytocin-mediated positive loop.
SCIENCE sciencemag.org 17 APRIL 2015 •VOL 348 ISSUE 6232 335
Owners of female dogs / oxytocin
Owners of female dogs / saline
Owners of male dogs / oxytocin
Owners of male dogs / saline
Female dog / oxytocin
Female dog / saline
Male dog / oxytocin
Male dog / saline
Owner’s oxytocin (pg/mg)
80
60
40
20
0
Pre Post
***
*** ***
*
The change ratio of owner (%)
Owners of
male dogs Owners of
female dogs
400
300
200
100
0
Male do
g
s Female do
g
s
The change ratio of dog (%)
200
150
100
50
0
Dog’s oxytocin (pg/mg)
150
100
50
0
Pre Post
Duration of Gaze (sec)
Duration of Touch (sec)
Duration of Proximity (sec)
400
200
300
100
0
OW UP OW UP OW UP OW UP OW UP OW UP
Male dogs Female dogs
** ***
**
**
150
100
50
0
Male dogs Female dogs
1500
1000
500
0
Male dogs Female dogs
Fig. 2. Comparisons of behavior and urinary oxytocin between oxytocin and saline treatment
conditions. (A) to (C) The effects of oxytocin administration on dog behaviors. Panels show the mean
duration of dogs’gaze at participants (A), touching participants (B), and time spent in the proximity of
less than 1 m from each participant (C). Black and white bars indicate, respectively, oxytocin- and saline
treatment conditions. OW, owner; UP, unfamiliar person. (D) to (G) Change in urinary oxytocin con-
centrations after a 30-min interaction after oxytocin or saline administration. Urinary oxytocin con-
centrations of owners (D)anddogs(F) before and after a 30-min interaction are shown for oxytocin and
saline groups. The change ratio of urinary oxytocin in owners (E)anddogs(G) is compared between
male and female dogs. ***P< 0.001, **P<0.01,*P< 0.05. The results of (A) to (D) and (F) are
expressed as mean TSE. (E) and (G) reflect median Tquartile.
RESEARCH |REPORTS
Table 1. Results of multiple linear regression
analysis of oxytocin change ratio and behav-
ioral variables in owners and dogs.*P< 0.05,
†
P<0.1;R, multiple correlation coefficient;
**, P<0.01.
(A) Experiment 1
Oxytocin change ratio
Owners Dogs
Owner talking
to dog –0.107 –0.264
Owner
touching dog 0.321
†
0.335
†
Dog-to-owner gaze 0.458* 0.388*
R0.619 0.575
Adjusted R
2
0.306 0.247
P0.008 0.020
(B) Experiment 2
Oxytocin change ratio
Owners Dogs
Dog’s sex 0.090 0.138
Oxytocin
administration 0.202 0.234
Dog-to-owner gaze 0.458** 0.030
Dog touching owner –0.040 –0.054
Proximity to owner 0.048 –0.023
R0.574 0.275
Adjusted R
2
0.248 –0.046
P0.005 0.686
Sex: Female = 1, male = 0; oxytocin administration:
oxytocin = 1, saline = 0.
Corrected 12 June 2015; see full text.
Interestingly, oxytocin administration only
increased mutual gaze duration in female dogs,
whereas sex differences were not observed in
experiment 1, which did not include unfamiliar
individuals. Sex differences in the effects of in-
tranasal oxytocin have been reported in humans
as well (22), and it is possible that females are
more sensitive to the affiliative effects of oxytocin
or that exogenous oxytocin may also be activat-
ing the vasopressin receptor system preferentially
in males. Oxytocin and the structurally related
vasopressin affect social bonding and aggression
in sexually dimorphic manners in monogamous
voles (8,9), and oxytocin possibly increases ag-
gression (23,24). Therefore, the results of experi-
ment 2 may indicate that male dogs were attending
to both their owners and to unfamiliar people
as a form of vigilance. The current study, despite
its small sample size, implies a complicated role
for oxytocin in social roles and contexts in dogs.
In human infants, mutual gaze represents
healthy attachment behavior (25). Human func-
tional magnetic resonance imaging studies show
that the presentation of human and canine fam-
ily members’faces activated the anterior cin-
gulate cortex, a region strongly acted upon by
oxytocin systems (26). Urinary oxytocin varia-
tionindogownersishighlycorrelatedwiththe
frequency of behavioral exchanges initiated by
the dogs’gaze (19). These results suggest that
humans may feel affection for their companion
dogs similar to that felt toward human family
members and that dog-associated visual stimuli,
such as eye-gaze contact, from their dogs activate
oxytocin systems. Thus, during dog domestica-
tion, neural systems implementing gaze communi -
cations evolved that activate the humans’oxytocin
attachment system, as did gaze-mediated oxyto-
cin release, resulting in an interspecies oxytocin-
mediated positive loop to facilitate human-dog
bonding. This system is not present in the closest
living relative of the domesticated dog.
In the present study, urinary oxytocin concen-
trations in owners and dogs were affected by the
dog’sgazeandthedurationofdog-touching.In
contrast, mutual gaze between hand-raised wolves
and their owners was not detected, nor was there
an increase of urinary oxytocin in either wolves or
their owners after a 30-min experimental interac-
tion (experiment 1). Moreover, the nasal adminis-
tration of oxytocin increased the total amount of
time that female dogs gazed at their owners and,
in turn, urinary oxytocin concentrations in owners
(experiment 2). We examined the association be-
tween our results and early-life experience with
humans in dogs and wolves in order to test the
possibility that our results were due to differences
in early-life experience with humans. The results
did not indicate a significant association between
the animals’early-life experiences with humans
and the findings of the current study (see the
supplementary methods). Moreover, there were
no significant differences between dogs in the
long-gaze group and wolves in either the duration
of dog/wolf-touching and dog/wolf-talking, sug-
gesting that the shorter gaze of the wolves was
not due to an unstable relationship. These re-
sul ts support the existence of a self-perpetuating
oxytocin-mediated positive loop in human-dog
relationships that is similar to that of human
mother-infant relations. Human-dog interaction
by dogs’human-like gazing behavior brought on
social rewarding effects due to oxytocin release
in both humans and dogs and followed the
deepening of mutual relationships, which led to
interspecies bonding.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. B. Hare, M. Tomasello, Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 439–444
(2005).
2. A. Miklósi et al., Curr. Biol. 13, 763–766 (2003).
3. A.P.Melis,B.Hare,M.Tomasello,Science 311,1297–1300
(2006).
4. R. Coppinger et al., Ethology 75,89–108 (1987).
5. M. Somel et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 5743–5748
(2009).
6. S. Dickstein, R. A. Thompson, D. Estes, C. Malkin, M. E. Lamb,
Infant Behav. Dev. 7, 507–516 (1984).
7. S. Kim, P. Fonagy, O. Koos, K. Dorsett, L. Strathearn, Brain Res.
1580,133–142 (2014).
8. L. J. Young, Z. Wang, Nat. Neurosci. 7, 1048–1054 (2004).
9. H. E. Ross, L. J. Young, Front. Neuroendocrinol. 30, 534–547
(2009).
10. G. Dölen, A. Darvishzadeh, K. W. Huang, R. C. Malenka, Nature
501,179–184 (2013).
11. I. D. Neumann, Prog. Brain Res. 139,147–162 (2002).
12. M. Nagasawa, S. Okabe, K. Mogi, T. Kikusui, Front. Hum.
Neurosci. 6, 31 (2012).
13. J. K. Rilling, L. J. Young, Science 345, 771–776 (2014).
14. J. Topál et al., Anim. Behav. 70, 1367–1375 (2005).
15. M. Nagasawa, K. Mogi, T. Kikusui, Jpn. Psychol. Res. 51,
209–221 (2009).
16. D. S. Tuber, S. Sanders, M. B. Hennessy, J. A. Miller, J. Comp.
Psychol. 110, 103–108 (1996).
17. J. S. Odendaal, R. A. Meintjes, Vet. J. 165,296–301
(2003).
18. S. Mitsui et al., Horm. Behav. 60, 239–243 (2011).
19. M. Nagasawa, T. Kikusui, T. Onaka, M. Ohta, Horm. Behav. 55,
434–441 (2009).
20. M. W. Fox, The Soul of the Wolf (Burford Books, New York,
1997).
21. M. Gácsi, J. Vas, J. Topál, Á. Miklósi, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
145,109–122 (2013).
22. J. K. Rilling et al., Psychoneuroendocrinology 39, 237–248
(2014).
23. I. D. Neumann, J. Neuroendocrinol. 20, 858–865 (2008).
24. C. K. De Dreu et al., Science 328, 1408–1411 (2010).
25. E. Meins, Security of Attachment and the Social Development of
Cognition (Psychology Press, Philadelphia, 1997).
26. J. Shinozaki, T. Hanakawa, H. Fukuyama, Neuroreport 18,
993–997 (2007).
ACKNO WLED GME NTS
This study was supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research on Innovative Areas (No. 4501) from the Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science, in Japan. We thank all human and canine
participants, Howlin' Ks Nature School, U.S. Kennel, R. Ooyama and
N. Yoshida-Tsuchihashi from Azabu University, and Drs. Kato and
Takeda from University of Tokyo Health Sciences. We are also grateful
to Cody and Charley for their significant contributions. The analyzed
data are included in the supplementary materials.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/333/suppl/DC1
Materials and Methods
Figs. S1 to S5
Tables S1 to S4
References (27 –30)
Movies S1 to S3
Data Tables 1 and 2
9 September 2014; accepted 3 March 2015
10.1126/science.1261022
PLANT ECOLOGY
Anthropogenic environmental
changes affect ecosystem
stability via biodiversity
Yann Hautier,
1,2,3
*David Tilman,
2,4
Forest Isbell,
2
Eric W. Seabloom,
2
Elizabeth T. Borer,
2
Peter B. Reich
5,6
Human-driven environmental changes may simultaneously affect the biodiversity, productivity,
and stability of Earth’s ecosystems, but there is no consensus on the causal relationships
linking these variables. Data from 12 multiyear experiments that manipulate important
anthropogenic drivers, including plant diversity, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, fire, herbivory, and
water, show that each driver influences ecosystem productivity. However, the stability of
ecosystem productivity is only changed by those drivers that alter biodiversity, with a given
decrease in plant species numbers leading to a quantitatively similar decrease in ecosystem
stability regardless of which driver caused the biodiversity loss. These results suggest
that changes in biodiversity caused by drivers of environmental change may be a major factor
determining how global environmental changes affect ecosystem stability.
Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems,
especially conversion of about half of the
Earth’s ice-free terrestrial ecosystems into
cropland and pasture, is simplifying eco-
systems via the local loss of biodiversity
(1,2). Other major global anthropogenic changes
include nutrient eutrophication, fire suppression
and elevated fire frequencies, predator decima-
tion, climate warming, and drought, which likely
affect many aspects of ecosystem functioning,
especially ecosystem productivity, stability, and
biodiversity (1,3–7). However, to date there has
been little evidence showing whether or how these
three ecosystem responses may be mechanistically
336 17 APRIL 2015 •VOL 348 ISSUE 6232 sciencemag.org SCIENCE
RESEARCH |REPORTS
Corrected 12 June 2015; see full text.