Context-Specific Arousal During Resting in Wolves and Dogs: Effects of Domestication?

Hillary Jean-Joseph,Friederike Range,Kurt Kotrschal,Kim Kortekaas

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568199

Hillary Jean-Joseph, Friederike Range + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568199

Copy DOI

Abstract

Due to domestication, dogs differ from wolves in the way they respond to their environment, including to humans. Selection for tameness and the associated changes to the autonomic nervous system (ANS) regulation have been proposed as the primary mechanisms of domestication. To test this idea, we compared two low-arousal states in equally raised and kept wolves and dogs: resting, a state close to being asleep, and inactive wakefulness, which together take up an important part in the time budgets of wolves and dogs. We measured arousal via cardiac output in three conditions: alone, with a familiar human partner, or with pack members (i.e., conspecifics). Specifically, we compared heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) of six wolves and seven dogs. As patterns of resting can vary adaptively, even between closely related species, we predicted that dogs would be generally more aroused than wolves, because living with humans may come with less predictable contexts than living with conspecifics; hence, dogs would need to be responsive at all times. Furthermore, we predicted that due to the effects of domestication, emotional social support by familiar people would reduce arousal more in dogs than in equally human-socialized wolves, leading to more relaxed dogs than wolves when away from the pack. Overall, we found a clear effect of the interactions between species (i.e., wolf versus dog), arousal state (i.e., resting or awake inactive) and test conditions, on both HR and HRV. Wolves and dogs were more aroused when alone (i.e., higher HR and lower HRV) than when in the presence of conspecifics or a familiar human partner. Dogs were more relaxed than wolves when at rest and close to a familiar human but this difference disappeared when awake. In conclusion, instead of the expected distinct overall differences between wolves and dogs in ANS regulation, we rather found subtle context-specific responses, suggesting that such details are important in understanding the domestication process.

Highlights

Domesticated species differ systematically from their wild conspecifics (“domestication syndrome,” Darwin, 1859; Wilkins et al, 2014)
We found that the interaction between species, activity, and condition had an effect on heart rate (HR) (χ2 = 10.60, df = 2, P = 0.005; Table 2) and that the HR differences between dogs and wolves varied depending on the combination of test conditions and activities
The HRs of wolves were lower in proximity to their pack members as compared to being close to a familiar human or alone (Figure 1A)

Summary

Introduction

Domesticated species differ systematically from their wild conspecifics (“domestication syndrome,” Darwin, 1859; Wilkins et al, 2014). Human-socialized wolves and dogs behave relatively similar in experimental situations. They are attentive toward humans (Range and Virányi, 2013) and cooperate with them (Range et al, 2019b), greet familiar and unfamiliar humans (Hall et al, 2015; Ujfalussy et al, 2017), and like in dogs, their salivary cortisol decreases during training sessions (Vasconcellos et al, 2016). Wolves may not depend on humans as much as dogs that are raised and kept in a similar way (Topál et al, 2005) because dogs usually live in human environments (Coppinger and Coppinger, 2001) and may be selected for attaching and strongly to their human caretakers (Palmer and Custance, 2008; Gácsi et al, 2013; Solomon et al, 2019)

Methods

Results

Conclusion