{"title":"Behavioural differences and similarities between dog breeds: proposing an ecologically valid approach for canine behavioural research.","authors":"Péter Pongrácz, Petra Dobos","doi":"10.1111/brv.13128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The behaviour of dogs holds great relevance for not only scientists from fundamental and applied research areas, but also due to the widespread roles of dogs in our societies as companions and working animals; their behaviour is also an important factor in animal and human welfare. A large proportion of dogs currently under human supervision belong to one of roughly 400 recognised breeds. Dog breeds can be characterised by distinctive, predictable and reproducible features, including some of their behavioural traits. To the scientist, the comparative analysis of the behaviour of dog breeds provides an opportunity for investigating an array of intriguing phenomena within an easily accessible model organism created from natural and human-driven evolutionary processes. There are many ways to design and conduct breed-related behavioural investigations, but such endeavours should always be based around biologically relevant research questions and lead to ecologically valid conclusions. In this review, we surveyed recent research efforts that included dog behaviour-related comparisons and applied a critical evaluation according to their methods of breed choice and the subsequent research design. Our aim was to assess whether these two fundamentally important components of experimental design provide a solid basis to reach valid conclusions. Based on 97 publications that fulfilled our selection criteria, we identified three primary methods used by researchers to select breeds for their investigations: (i) convenience sampling; (ii) hypothesis-driven, ancestry-based sampling; and (iii) hypothesis-driven, functional sampling. By using the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) evaluation system, we highlight each of these techniques' merits and shortcomings. We identify when particular methods may be inherently unable to produce biologically meaningful results due to a mismatch between breed choice and the initial research goals. We hope that our evaluation will help researchers adopt best practices in experimental design regarding future dog breed comparisons.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13128","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The behaviour of dogs holds great relevance for not only scientists from fundamental and applied research areas, but also due to the widespread roles of dogs in our societies as companions and working animals; their behaviour is also an important factor in animal and human welfare. A large proportion of dogs currently under human supervision belong to one of roughly 400 recognised breeds. Dog breeds can be characterised by distinctive, predictable and reproducible features, including some of their behavioural traits. To the scientist, the comparative analysis of the behaviour of dog breeds provides an opportunity for investigating an array of intriguing phenomena within an easily accessible model organism created from natural and human-driven evolutionary processes. There are many ways to design and conduct breed-related behavioural investigations, but such endeavours should always be based around biologically relevant research questions and lead to ecologically valid conclusions. In this review, we surveyed recent research efforts that included dog behaviour-related comparisons and applied a critical evaluation according to their methods of breed choice and the subsequent research design. Our aim was to assess whether these two fundamentally important components of experimental design provide a solid basis to reach valid conclusions. Based on 97 publications that fulfilled our selection criteria, we identified three primary methods used by researchers to select breeds for their investigations: (i) convenience sampling; (ii) hypothesis-driven, ancestry-based sampling; and (iii) hypothesis-driven, functional sampling. By using the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) evaluation system, we highlight each of these techniques' merits and shortcomings. We identify when particular methods may be inherently unable to produce biologically meaningful results due to a mismatch between breed choice and the initial research goals. We hope that our evaluation will help researchers adopt best practices in experimental design regarding future dog breed comparisons.
期刊介绍:
Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly.
The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions.
The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field.
Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.