Of Shared Homes and Pathways: Free-Ranging Dog Movement and Habitat Use in a Human-Wildlife Landscape in India
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Free-ranging dogs are widely considered to have negative impacts on wildlife in shared landscapes. Understanding their use of these landscapes is therefore essential to develop effective management strategies in wildlife-adjacent regions. In this study, we investigated the movement patterns of free-ranging dogs in the protected area matrix of Mudumalai Tiger Reserve (MTR) in Southern India.
Methods
Fifteen owned free-ranging dogs (FRD) were collared from two adjacent villages with different levels of human habitation. We hypothesized that increased settlement cover would provide dogs with a greater human shield effect, allowing them more freedom of movement. We estimated dog activity ranges and movement patterns using autocorrelated kernel density estimates (AKDE). Large-scale movement was characterized through multiple metrics (intensity of space use and mean distance from home) and compared across villages to understand underlying drivers. Lastly, we quantified fine-scale movement and habitat selection using integrated step selection analysis (iSSA).
Results
We found that FRD in MTR had directionally dependent home-ranging behavior and small activity ranges, with the mean AKDE activity range being 9.88 ± 7.69 ha (median = 6.09 ha, range 3.28-26.16 ha), and primarily utilized the area within 500 m of their homes. None of the movement metrics varied significantly between villages, except for intensity of use, which was higher in one village than the other, suggesting that dogs in the less populated village perceived a greater threat from surrounding wildlife and were more driven to seek refuge inside their activity ranges. iSSA revealed that dogs selected strongly for human settled or human- modified habitats, and moved significantly faster in forest land than any other habitat.
Conclusions
Our findings indicate that owned FRD pose a relatively lower threat to wildlife in MTR than feral dogs may. They also support the human shield hypothesis, show that FRD display behavioral plasticity at fine scales of <5km, and highlight the role of human land use intensity in shaping the movement of domestic dogs. As humans can thus mediate potential effects of dogs on wildlife, anthropogenic factors should be taken in consideration when designing management strategies that aim to curb dog movement.
