Are wild wolves southpaws? Including potential conservation implications

Shannon Barber-Meyer

doi:10.26451/abc.09.01.06.2022

Abstract

Lateralization, or a left-right bias in behavior (e.g., handedness), was originally thought to exclusively exist in humans, but is now known to be widespread. Lateralization can exist at the individual or group level. In dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), tests of paw preference have produced inconsistent results. Because wolves (C. l.) differ genetically, morphologically, and behaviorally from dogs, I was interested in assessing them for lateralization. I examined lateralization (right versus left) of the foot captured (a step test analog) of wild wolves (n = 93) trapped for radiocollaring purposes in the Superior National Forest, Minnesota from 2011 – 2017 and 2019. No support was found for lateralization, and sex and age class were not significant predictors of which foot was captured. Because many mammals demonstrate lateralization, and because population-level lateralization is thought to convey increased social cohesion, it is surprising that wild wolves did not demonstrate population level lateralization. This step test analog may not have been an appropriate measure (as lateralization is task dependent) and / or wolf lateralization may exist at the individual level, but not the population level. Future work on wolf lateralization at both the individual and population levels examining pawedness via multiple tasks while accounting for potential confounding factors (such as different rearing conditions and methods) could provide clarification. Examining potential trade-offs between the costs and benefits of lateralization that these highly social animals may incur would be very interesting in terms of evolution and in comparison with dogs. Furthermore, because lateralization has been connected to emotional functioning and animal welfare, baseline lateralization data from wild wolves may inform captive wolf management and conservation, including the captive breeding programs for endangered Mexican wolves (C. l. baileyi) and red wolves (C. rufus) and other programs (e.g., educational facilities).

Highlights

Lateralization, or a left-right bias in behavior, was originally thought to exclusively exist in humans, but is known to be widespread
Lateralized individual domestic chicks were better at detecting predators while foraging (Rogers et al, 2004). Both cerebral hemispheres are involved in emotional processing, with emotional hemispheric dominance based on whether it is a negatively or positively connotated emotion (Leliveld et al, 2013; Quaranta et al 2007) or whether it is perceived as a stressful stimulus (Rogers, 2010; Siniscalchi et al, 2021)
Laterality has been related to superior task ability, such as in domestic cats (Felis catus) that demonstrated more accurate and faster reactions (Fabre-Thorpe et al, 1993) and in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) that were more successful at foraging for termites (Macrotermes spp.) when using the same hand consistently (McGrew & Marchant, 1999)

Summary

Introduction

Lateralization, or a left-right bias in behavior (e.g., handedness), was originally thought to exclusively exist in humans, but is known to be widespread. While lateralization at the individual level is related to enhanced neural activity and presents advantages in many situations, strong lateralization in one direction at the population level (more than 50% of the group show the same lateral bias in natural behavior, Vallortigara & Rogers, 2005) can be disadvantageous (Halpern et al, 2005; Reddon & Hurd, 2009). The costs to an individual for population-level lateralization (e.g., increased predictability when being attacked or when foraging) are assessed relative to the benefits (e.g., coordinated social behavior, increased neural capacity to the individual), given the strength and direction of lateralization of other individuals in the group (Vallortigara & Rogers, 2005)

Methods

Results

Conclusion