Refine your search
Collections
Journals
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Bhadra, Anindita
- Response: Science Threatened by Subjectivity
Abstract Views :277 |
PDF Views:88
Authors
Affiliations
1 Behaviour and Ecology Lab, Department of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research – Kolkata Mohanpur Campus, Mohanpur, Nadia 741 246, IN
1 Behaviour and Ecology Lab, Department of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research – Kolkata Mohanpur Campus, Mohanpur, Nadia 741 246, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 107, No 3 (2014), Pagination: 343-345Abstract
No Abstract.Full Text
- A Dog's Day with Humans - Time Activity Budget of Free-Ranging Dogs in India
Abstract Views :282 |
PDF Views:103
Authors
Affiliations
1 Behaviour and Ecology Lab, Department of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, Mohanpur, Nadia 741 252, IN
1 Behaviour and Ecology Lab, Department of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, Mohanpur, Nadia 741 252, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 106, No 6 (2014), Pagination: 874-878Abstract
Free-ranging dogs, Canis lupus familiaris, are an integral part of the human environment in India and many other countries. They can serve as the perfect model system for understanding the process of development of the human-dog relationship that led to the domestication of the wilder ancestors of the dogs and created 'man's best friend'. Yet, very little is known about the ecoethology of these animals and all our understanding of dog behaviour is based on studies of pets reared by humans. The free-ranging dogs lead a scavenging life, depending on human excesses for their survival, and rarely hunt. They are often considered as a menace by many people, as dirty animals that bark, bite and spread rabies. These notions are often founded on personal biases and little scientific data exist to either support or refute such claims. As part of an extended study on the behavioural ecology of free-ranging dogs in India, we carried out random sampling of dog behaviour through censuses in two cities and one township of India. We used our data from 1941 sightings to draw up a time activity budget of dogs during the part of the day when they share the streets with humans. Our analysis reveals that dogs are generally lazy and friendly animals, and their rare interactions with humans are typically submissive. Thus dogs do not usually pose a threat to human wellbeing, and proper management of our refuse and a tolerant, if not friendly attitude towards dogs can ensure their peaceful co-existence with us.Keywords
Census, Free-Ranging Dogs, Time Activity Budget, Scavengers.Full Text
- The More the Merrier:Dogs can Assess Quantities in Food-Choice Tasks
Abstract Views :213 |
PDF Views:72
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, Mohanpur 741 246, IN
1 Department of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, Mohanpur 741 246, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 117, No 6 (2019), Pagination: 1095-1100Abstract
Animals in their natural environment often face situa-tions where it may be advantageous for them to be able to make decisions based on numerical or quantity discrimination. Canids like pet dogs, wolves and coy-otes have been known to have a preliminary sense of number. We tested 303 unique free-ranging dogs for seven food-choice tasks, skewed in terms of stimulus: olfactory, visual and reward obtained. The dogs pri-marily used olfactory cues in the decision-making process, rather than visual cues, to discriminate between different quantities in a context-dependent manner.Keywords
Food-Choice Task, Free-Ranging Dogs, Numerical Cognition, Quantity Discrimination, Stimulus.Full Text
References
- Gelman, R. and Cordes, S., Counting in animals and humans. In Language, Brain, and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler, The MIT Press, 2001, pp. 279–301.
- Merritt, D. J., DeWind, N. K. and Brannon, E. M., Comparative cognition of number representation. Oxf. Handb. Comp. Cogn., 2012; doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392661.013.0024.
- Gordon, P., Numerical cognition without words: evidence from Amazonia. Science, 2004, 306, 496–499.
- Beran, M. J. and Rumbaugh, D. M., Enumeration by chimpanzees on a computerized task. Anim. Cogn., 2001, 4, 81–89.
- Beran, M. J. and Beran, M. M., Chimpanzees remember the results of one-by-one addition of food items to sets over extended time periods. Psychol. Sci., 2004, 15, 94–99.
- Evans, T. A., Beran, M. J., Harris, E. H. and Rice, D. F., Quantity judgments of sequentially presented food items by capuchin mon-keys (Cebus apella). Anim. Cogn., 2009, 12, 97–105.
- Agrillo, C., Piffer, L. and Bisazza, A., Number versus continuous quantity in numerosity judgments by fish. Cognition, 2011, 119, 281–287.
- Lucon-Xiccato, T., Gatto, E. and Bisazza, A., Quantity discrimina-tion by treefrogs. Anim. Behav., 2018, 139, 61–69.
- Vonk, J. and Beran, M. J., Bears ‘count’ too: quantity estimation and comparison in black bears, Ursus americanus. Anim. Behav., 2012, 84, 231–238.
- Perdue, B. M., Talbot, C. F., Stone, A. M. and Beran, M. J., Put-ting the elephant back in the herd: elephant relative quantity judgments match those of other species. Anim. Cogn., 2012, 15, 955–961.
- Dacke, M. and Srinivasan, M. V., Evidence for counting in insects. Anim. Cogn., 2008, 11, 683–689.
- Pepperberg, I. M., Cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey parrots. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 2006, 100, 77–86.
- Ward, C. and Smuts, B. B., Quantity-based judgments in the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim. Cogn., 2006, 10, 71–80.
- West, R. E. and Young, R. J., Do domestic dogs show any evi-dence of being able to count? Anim. Cogn., 2002, 5, 183–186.
- Utrata, E., Virányi, Z. and Range, F., Quantity discrimination in wolves (Canis lupus). Front. Psychol., 2012, 3, 505.
- Baker, J. M., Shivik, J. and Jordan, K. E., Tracking of food quanti-ty by coyotes (Canis latrans). Behav. Process., 2011, 88, 72–75.
- Range, F., Jenikejew, J., Schröder, I. and Virányi, Z., Difference in quantity discrimination in dogs and wolves. Front. Psychol., 2014, 5, 1299.
- Lampe, M., Bräuer, J., Kaminski, J. and Virányi, Z., The effects of domestication and ontogeny on cognition in dogs and wolves. Sci. Rep., 2017, 7, 11690.
- Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C. and Tomasello, M., The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science, 2002, 298, 1634–1636.
- Weber, M. and Schneider, L., Marginal utility theory and the fun-damental law of psychophysics. Soc. Sci. Q., 1975, 56, 21–36.
- Macpherson, K. and Roberts, W. A., Can dogs count? Learn. Motiv., 2013, 44, 241–251.
- Bhadra, A. et al., The meat of the matter: a rule of thumb for scavenging dogs? Ethol. Ecol. Evol., 2016, 28, 427–440.
- Team R. Core. R: A language and environment for statistical com-puting, 2003, p. 201.
- Davis, H. and Pérusse, R., Numerical competence in animals: definitional issues, current evidence, and a new research agenda. Behav. Brain Sci., 1988, 11, 561.
- Paul, M., Sen Majumder, S., Nandi, A. K. and Bhadra, A., Selfish mothers indeed! Resource-dependent conflict over extended parental care in free-ranging dogs. Open Sci., 2015, 2, 150580.
- Bhadra, A. and Bhadra, A., Preference for meat is not innate in dogs. J. Ethol., 2014, 32, 15–22.
- Darwin, C., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, D. Appleton, 1896, vol. 1.
- Shettleworth, S. J., Clever animals and killjoy explanations in comparative psychology. Trends Cogn. Sci., 2010, 14, 477– 481.
- Thorndike, E. L., 1911. Edward Lee Thorndike. Anim. Intell., 1874, 1949.
- Thomas, R. K., Investigating cognitive abilities in animals: unreal-ized potential. Cogn. Brain Res., 1996, 3, 157–166.
- Zentall, T. R., Wasserman, E. A., Lazareva, O. F., Thompson, R. K. R. and Rattermann, M. J., Concept learning in animals. Comp. Cogn. Behav. Rev., 2008, 3, 13–45.
- Gallistel, C. R. and Gelman, R., Non-verbal numerical cognition: from reals to integers. Trends Cogn. Sci., 2000, 4, 59–65.
- Harrington, F. H. and Mech, L. D., Wolf howling and its role in territory maintenance. Behaviour, 1979, 68, 207–249.
- Sillero-Zubiri, C. and Macdonald, D. W., Scent-marking and terri-torial behaviour of Ethiopian wolves Canis simensis. J. Zool., 1998, 245, 351–361.
- Experiments in Animal Behaviour: Cutting-edge Research at Trifling Cost. Raghavendra Gadagkar
Abstract Views :161 |
PDF Views:88
Authors
Affiliations
1 Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research Kolkata, Mohanpur, Nadia 741 246, IN
1 Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research Kolkata, Mohanpur, Nadia 741 246, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 122, No 6 (2022), Pagination: 742-743Abstract
No Abstract.Keywords
No keywordsFull Text