4.7 Article

The activity patterns of nonworking and working sled dogs

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-11635-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [RGPIN-2020-04159, RGPIN-2020-05942]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the combined effects of biological, environmental, and human factors on the activity of sled dogs. The results showed that different factors had varying impacts on the daytime and nighttime activity of working and nonworking dogs, with human activity being the most influential factor on the activity of working dogs.
There are limited studies investigating the combined effects of biological, environmental, and human factors on the activity of the domestic dog. Sled dogs offer a unique opportunity to examine these factors due to their close relationship with handlers and exposure to the outdoors. Here, we used accelerometers to measure the activity of 52 sled dogs over 30 days from two locations in Canada. The two locations differ in the working demands of dogs, therefore we used linear mixed effects models to assess how different factors impact daytime and nighttime activity of working versus nonworking dogs. During the daytime, we found that males were more active than females among nonworking dogs and younger dogs were more active than older dogs among working dogs. Alaskan huskies had higher activity levels than non-Alaskan husky breeds in working sled dogs during the day. Nonworking dogs were slightly more active during colder weather, but temperature had no effect on working dogs' activity. The strongest predictor of daytime activity in working dogs was work schedule. These results indicate that the influence of biological factors on activity varied depending on dogs' physical demands and human activity was the most powerful driver of activity in working dogs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available