‘The bone is mine’: affective and referential aspects of dog growls

A number of species are considered to use functionally referential signals such as alarm calls or food-related vocalizations. However, this particular function of communicative interaction has not previously been found in canids. We provide the first experimental indication that domestic dogs, Canis familiaris, rely on context-dependent signals during interspecific agonistic encounters. We recorded several sequences of growls from dogs in three different contexts: during play, guarding a bone from another dog, and reacting to a threatening stranger. We analysed the acoustic structure of the growls and additionally performed playback tests in a seminatural food-guarding situation. We found that play growls differed acoustically from the other two (agonistic) types of growls, mainly in their fundamental frequencies and formant dispersions. Results of the playback experiment showed that food-guarding growls deterred other dogs from taking away a seemingly unattended bone more effectively than growls recorded in the threatening stranger situation. We ruled out an effect of the signaller's body weight on the subjects' responses. These results provide the first evidence of context specificity of agonistic vocalizations in the dog. We discuss the possible aspects of honesty and deception through acoustic modulation of growls.

[1]  K. Zuberbühler,et al.  Diana monkey long-distance calls: messages for conspecifics and predators , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[2]  David Reby,et al.  Human listeners attend to size information in domestic dog growls. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Roger Mundry,et al.  Discriminant function analysis with nonindependent data: consequences and an alternative , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[4]  Kenneth Webb,et al.  Evolution of Communication Simulation of Adaptive Behavior – Project Report , 2004 .

[5]  K. Slocombe,et al.  Agonistic screams in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) vary as a function of social role. , 2005, Journal of comparative psychology.

[6]  R. Hinde,et al.  Growing Points in Ethology , 1976 .

[7]  Á. Miklósi,et al.  Dogs discriminate between barks: The effect of context and identity of the caller , 2009, Behavioural Processes.

[8]  B. McCowan,et al.  Barking in domestic dogs: context specificity and individual identification , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  Seong Chan Yeon,et al.  The vocal communication of canines , 2007 .

[10]  P. Marler,et al.  Food-associated calls in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta): I. Socioecological factors , 1993 .

[11]  D. Rendall,et al.  An Affect-Conditioning Model of Nonhuman Primate Vocal Signaling , 1997 .

[12]  Isao Tokuda,et al.  Characterizing noise in nonhuman vocalizations: Acoustic analysis and human perception of barks by coyotes and dogs. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[14]  Christopher S. Evans,et al.  Chicken food calls are functionally referential , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[15]  M. Fox,et al.  Vocalizations in wild canids and possible effects of domestication , 1976, Behavioural Processes.

[16]  Robert M. Seyfarth,et al.  Suricate alarm calls signal predator class and urgency , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  Brian Hare,et al.  Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind, Dorothy L. Cheney, Robert M. Seyfarth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2007), Pp. x+348. Price $27.50 paperback , 2008 .

[18]  T. Riede,et al.  Vocal tract length and acoustics of vocalization in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). , 1999, The Journal of experimental biology.

[19]  W. Tecumseh Fitch,et al.  The Phonetic Potential of Nonhuman Vocal Tracts: Comparative Cineradiographic Observations of Vocalizing Animals , 2000, Phonetica.

[20]  R. Seyfarth,et al.  The acoustic features of vervet monkey grunts. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Á. Miklósi,et al.  Dogs can discriminate barks from different situations , 2008 .

[22]  R. Seyfarth,et al.  Signalers and receivers in animal communication. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[23]  J. Macedonia,et al.  What is Communicated in the Antipredator Calls of Lemurs: Evidence from Playback Experiments with Ringtailed and Ruffed Lemurs , 2010 .

[24]  D. Rendall,et al.  The meaning and function of grunt variants in baboons , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[25]  Márta Gácsi,et al.  A friend or an enemy? Dogs' reaction to an unfamiliar person showing behavioural cues of threat and friendliness at different times , 2005 .

[26]  D. U. Feddersen-Petersen,et al.  Vocalization of European wolves ( Canis lupus lupus L.) and various dog breeds ( Canis lupus f. fam.) , 2000 .

[27]  Günter Tembrock Canid vocalizations , 1976, Behavioural Processes.

[28]  J. Fischer Barbary macaques categorize shrill barks into two call types , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[29]  Ádám Miklósi,et al.  Acoustic parameters of dog barks carry emotional information for humans , 2006 .

[30]  P. Lehner Coyote vocalizations: A lexicon and comparisons with other canids , 1978, Animal Behaviour.

[31]  D. Reby,et al.  The descended larynx is not uniquely human , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  Péter Pongrácz,et al.  Human listeners are able to classify dog (Canis familiaris) barks recorded in different situations. , 2005, Journal of comparative psychology.

[33]  C. Boesch,et al.  Context-specific calls in wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus: analysis of barks , 2003, Animal Behaviour.

[34]  M. Hauser,et al.  Functional referents and acoustic similarity: field playback experiments with rhesus monkeys , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[35]  Klaus Zuberbühler,et al.  Functionally Referential Communication in a Chimpanzee , 2005, Current Biology.