Reported Agonistic Behaviours in Domestic Horses Cluster According to Context.

Agonistic behaviours are often directed at other animals for self-defence or to increase distance from valued resources, such as food. Examples include aggression and counter-predator behaviours. Contemporary diets may boost the value of food as a resource and create unanticipated associations with the humans who deliver it. At the same time the domestic horse is asked to carry the weight of riders and perform manoeuvres that, ethologically, are out-of-context and may be associated with instances of pain, confusion, or fear. Agonistic responses can endanger personnel and conspecifics. They are traditionally grouped along with so-called vices as being undesirable and worthy of punishment; a response that can often make horses more dangerous. The current study used data from the validated online Equine Behavioural and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ) to explore the agonistic behaviours (as reported by the owners) of 2734 horses. With a focus on ridden horses, the behaviours of interest in the current study ranged from biting and bite threats and kicking and kick threats to tail swishing as an accompaniment to signs of escalating irritation when horses are approached, prepared for ridden work, ridden, and hosed down (e.g., after work). Analysis of the responses according to the context in which they arise included a dendrographic analysis that identified five clusters of agonistic behaviours among certain groups of horses and a principal component analysis that revealed six components, strongly related to the five clusters. Taken together, these results highlight the prospect that the motivation to show these responses differs with context. The clusters with common characteristics were those observed in the context of: locomotion under saddle; saddling; reactions in a familiar environment, inter-specific threats, and intra-specific threats. These findings highlight the potential roles of fear and pain in such unwelcome responses and challenge the simplistic view that the problems lie with the nature of the horses themselves rather than historic or current management practices. Improved understanding of agonistic responses in horses will reduce the inclination of owners to label horses that show such context-specific responses as being generally aggressive.

Extrinsic Inter- and Intraspecific Competition in Parasitoid Wasps.

The diverse ecology of parasitoids is shaped by extrinsic competition, i.e., exploitative or interference competition among adult females and males for hosts and mates. Adult females use an array of morphological, chemical, and behavioral mechanisms to engage in competition that may be either intra- or interspecific. Weaker competitors are often excluded or, if they persist, use alternate host habitats, host developmental stages, or host species. Competition among adult males for mates is almost exclusively intraspecific and involves visual displays, chemical signals, and even physical combat. Extrinsic competition influences community structure through its role in competitive displacement and apparent competition. Finally, anthropogenic changes such as habitat loss and fragmentation, invasive species, pollutants, and climate change result in phenological mismatches and range expansions within host-parasitoid communities with consequent changes to the strength of competitive interactions. Such changes have important ramifications not only for the success of managed agroecosystems, but also for natural ecosystem functioning.

Behavior of Birds of Prey in Managed Care.

Birds of prey are highly complex and intelligent species with many of their activities deeply rooted in modal action patterns, such as foraging, courtship and nest building, migration, bathing, or preening. Raptors in managed care are susceptible to presenting undesired behavior when the environment provides antecedents for these behaviors and consequences to maintain them. This article aims to describe concepts of behavior in birds of prey in managed care, with inferences from their wild counterparts, to assist in understanding the etiologies and management of undesired behaviors.

Abilities of Canine Shelter Behavioral Evaluations and Owner Surrender Profiles to Predict Resource Guarding in Adoptive Homes.

Some shelters in the United States consider dogs identified as food aggressive during behavioral evaluations to be unadoptable. We surveyed adopters of dogs from a New York shelter to examine predictive abilities of shelter behavioral evaluations and owner surrender profiles. Twenty of 139 dogs (14.4%) were assessed as resource guarding in the shelter. We found statistically significant associations between shelter assessment as resource guarding and guarding reported in the adoptive home for three situations: taking away toys, bones or other valued objects; taking away food; and retrieving items or food taken by the dog. Similarly, owner descriptions of resource guarding on surrender profiles significantly predicted guarding in adoptive homes. However, positive predictive values for all analyses were low, and more than half of dogs assessed as resource guarding either in the shelter or by surrendering owners did not show guarding post adoption. All three sources of information regarding resource guarding status (surrender profile, shelter behavioral evaluation, and adopter report) were available for 44 dogs; measures of agreement were in the fair range. Thus, reports of resource guarding by surrendering owners and detection of guarding during shelter behavioral evaluations should be interpreted with caution because neither source of information consistently signaled guarding would occur in adoptive homes.

Are Underweight Shelter Dogs More Likely to Display Food Aggression toward Humans?

It is commonly believed that underweight or emaciated dogs are predisposed to food aggression toward humans. Each year, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) receives hundreds of dogs from criminal cruelty cases. The dogs range from emaciated to overweight. We analyzed existing data from 900 such dogs to examine the relationship between body condition score and food and chew item aggression toward humans. Across all types of cruelty cases, 9.2% of dogs were aggressive over the food, chew, or both, which is a lower prevalence than that previously reported among shelter dogs. Dogs from cruelty cases originating in New York City were more likely to show aggression over food (z = 3.91, p < 0.001) and chew items (z = 2.61, p = 0.01) than dogs from large-scale cruelty cases, although it is unclear why. Female dogs were less likely to show food (z = -3.75, p < 0.001) and chew item (z = -2.25, p = 0.02) aggression compared to males. Underweight dogs were not more likely to display food aggression, but when they did, the aggression was no more severe than that of normal-weight dogs (Fisher's exact tests = 0.41 and 0.15 for the Food Bowl and Chew Item scenarios, respectively). Breed type was not a significant predictor of aggression. Canine food aggression does not appear to be an aberrant behavior caused by a history of food scarcity but may be related to biological factors such as sex. These findings could prove useful for animal behavior subject matter experts testifying in court or consulting on cruelty cases, as they could speak with scientific validity to the question of whether there is a link between previous food scarcity and the likelihood of food aggression in dogs.

Characteristics and Adoption Success of Shelter Dogs Assessed as Resource Guarders.

Some domestic dogs aggressively guard resources. Canine resource guarding impacts public health through dog bites and affects dog welfare through adoption and euthanasia policies at animal shelters. However, little is known about the demographic characteristics and adoption success of dogs assessed as resource guarders during shelter behavioral evaluations. I reviewed nearly five years of records from a New York (NY) SPCA and categorized 1016 dogs by sex; age; size; reproductive status; and resource guarding. I then examined how these characteristics influenced the returns of dogs by adopters. The prevalence of resource guarding in this shelter dog population was 15%. Resource guarding was more common in adult and senior dogs than in juvenile dogs; and it was more common in small and large dogs than medium-sized dogs. Spayed females were more likely than intact females to guard food; neutered males and intact males did not differ in their likelihood of food guarding. Most dogs identified as resource guarders showed mild to moderate guarding. Severe guarders were more likely to be returned by adopters; although almost all were eventually re-adopted and not returned to the shelter. Data presented here provide the most comprehensive description of resource guarders in a shelter dog population and show the successful re-homing of most.

Defining and Clarifying the Terms Canine Possessive Aggression and Resource Guarding: A Study of Expert Opinion.

The terms possessive aggression and resource guarding are often used interchangeably to describe behavior patterns used by a dog to control primary access to a perceived valuable item. The use of inconsistent terminology may impact the effectiveness of communication between dog owners and clinicians, affect treatment and management success for the behavior, and inhibit research progress. The aim of this study was to explore the opinions of canine behavior experts on the meaning of and preference for the terms possessive aggression and resource guarding, as well as to develop and propose an operational ethological definition for the preferential term identified. Eighty-five individuals met the inclusion criteria and were invited to participate in a two-stage online survey. Results from the two-stage survey found that the majority of participants preferred the term resource guarding. Detailed exploration of meaning and definitions required in-depth discussion beyond traditional survey methods, therefore, respondents from the second stage of the survey were invited to participate in an online discussion board. Following content analysis of the data from the discussion board, we conclude that the majority of participants preferred the term resource guarding. Considering 100% consensus was not reached regarding terminology among experts in the field, future authors and clinicians should provide clear definitions where terms are applied to ensure effective communication between all parties and to ensure consistency in canine behavior research. Based on expert contributions, we define resource guarding as "the use of avoidance, threatening, or aggressive behaviors by a dog to retain control of food or non-food items in the presence of a person or other animal."

Factors associated with canine resource guarding behaviour in the presence of people: A cross-sectional survey of dog owners.

Resource guarding (RG) involves the use of specific behaviour patterns to control access to an item of potential "value" to the dog. Of particular concern are patterns involving aggression, due to safety concerns, but other patterns of RG behaviour are prevalent and include avoidance (i.e., positioning of the head or body to maintain item control, or location change with the item) and rapid ingestion (i.e., rapid ingestion of a consumable item). Current research has not investigated the etiology of RG aggression in depth, nor have the additional patterns of resource guarding been considered. Dog owners (n=3068) were recruited through social media to answer questions regarding dog- and household-related factors, as well as their dog's current and past behaviour around resources in the presence of people. Participants were screened for their ability to identify different forms of resource guarding from video, and were removed from the study if they incorrectly identified any of the videos provided. This resulted in a final sample of 2207 participants representing information for 3589 dogs. Multiple multi-level logistic regression models were developed to determine the association between independent variables of interest and each pattern of resource guarding. Dogs with higher levels of impulsivity were more likely to display avoidance, rapid ingestion and aggressive RG (p<0.001), and dogs with higher levels of fearfulness were also more likely to display RG aggression (p<0.001). Neutered males (p<0.01) and mixed breeds (p<0.05) were more likely to be RG aggressive compared to dogs of other sexes, neuter statuses, and breeds. Teaching dogs to reliably "drop" items when requested was associated with a reduced likelihood of RG aggression (p<0.01) and avoidance (p<0.001). Furthermore, the addition of palatable bits of food during mealtime was associated with an increased likelihood of less severe RG behaviour (p<0.01), whereas removal of the food dish during mealtime was associated with an increased likelihood of expressing more severe or frequent RG behaviours (p<0.05). Relationships between the three types of RG patterns were varied, suggesting that RG behaviour patterns are flexible when humans are involved. The results highlight various factors that might predispose dogs to RG behaviour and potential methods for prevention of RG aggression, and can serve as a basis for future longitudinal RG research to establish causation.

Factors associated with canine resource guarding behaviour in the presence of dogs: A cross-sectional survey of dog owners.

Resource guarding (RG) involves the use of specific behaviour patterns to control access to an item of potential "value" (as perceived by the dog), and can be expressed in the presence of various animals, including other dogs. The current study aimed to identify factors associated with RG patterns expressed around other dogs. Dog owners (n=3068) were recruited through social media to answer questions regarding dog- and household-related factors, as well as their dog's current and past behaviour around resources in the presence of other dogs. Participants were screened for their ability to identify different forms of resource guarding from video, and were removed from the study if they incorrectly identified any of the videos provided. This resulted in a final sample of 2207 participants (n=3589 dogs). Multiple multi-level logistic regression models were developed to determine the association between independent variables of interest and RG patterns (i.e., RG aggression, avoidance, and rapid ingestion) when in the presence of other dogs. Namely, dogs living in multi-dog households were more likely to display RG aggression, avoidance, and rapid ingestion (p<0.01) compared to dogs that live without other dogs. Dogs with higher levels of impulsivity and fear were more likely to display RG aggression (p<0.001). Neutered males (p<0.01) were more likely to be RG aggressive compared to dogs of other sexes and neuter statuses. Teaching dogs to reliably "drop" items when requested was associated with a reduced likelihood of biting RG aggression (p<0.05). Distinct associative relationships between the patterns of RG in the presence of other dogs were identified. Dogs that express RG aggression were less likely to express RG avoidance or RG rapid ingestion; however, the latter two types were likely to co-occur, perhaps dependent on the type of resource involved. This suggests that dogs may be relatively more fixed in their action around items in the presence of dogs. However, a longitudinal study is important to determine the exact nature of relationships between RG patterns. The results identified in this study can be used as a basis for further investigation on factors influencing RG behaviour in the presence of other dogs.