Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28725102›Full record

ArticleBehavioral ecology and sociobiology

The influence of social relationship on food tolerance in wolves and dogs.

Rachel Dale, Friederike Range, Laura Stott, Kurt Kotrschal, Sarah Marshall-Pescini

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral ecology and sociobiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Anterior Cingulate Cortex and Prosocial Behavior toward Others in Negative State.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Interaction and ostension: the myth of 4th-order intentionality.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rachel DaleComparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, 1 Veterinaerplatz, 1210 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-7930-1030
Friederike RangeComparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, 1 Veterinaerplatz, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Laura StottWolf Science Center, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Kurt KotrschalWolf Science Center, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Sarah Marshall-PesciniComparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, 1 Veterinaerplatz, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · ATUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

European Research Council 311870
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractFood sharing is relatively widespread across the animal kingdom, but research into the socio-ecological factors affecting this activity has predominantly focused on primates. These studies do suggest though that food tolerance is linked to the social relationship with potential partners. Therefore, the current study aimed to assess the social factors which influence food tolerance in two canids: wolves and dogs. We presented wolves and dogs with two paradigms: dyadic tolerance tests and group carcass feedings. In the dyadic setting, the affiliative relationship with a partner was the most important factor, with a strong bond promoting more sharing in both species. In the group setting, however, rank was the primary factor determining feeding behavior. Although the dominant individuals of both species defended the carcass more than subordinates, in the dogs, the subordinates mostly stayed away from the resource and the most dominant individual monopolized the food. In the wolves, the subordinates spent as much time as dominant individuals in proximity to, and feeding from, the carcass. Furthermore, subordinate wolves were more able to use persistence strategies than the dogs were. Feeding interactions in the wolves, but not dogs, were also modulated by whether the carcass was on the ground or hanging from a tree. Overall, the social relationship with a partner is important in food distribution in wolves and dogs, but the precise effects are dependent on species and feeding context. We consider how the different socio-ecologies of the two species may be linked to these findings. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Despite the fact that food sharing is relatively widespread in the animal kingdom, the specific factors underlying whether an animal will share with a specific individual are little understood. When it comes to decisions about food sharing in wolves and dogs, friendship is the deciding factor if it is just two of you, but in a bigger group rank position decides your access to the spoils. What is more, it seems that rank positioning is even more important in dogs than wolves as dominant dogs keep the food for themselves while each wolf pack member has a chance to eat. This is the first evidence that the importance of the social relationship in food sharing is dependent on the feeding context in canids.

Indexed as

CanidFeeding contextFood toleranceSocial relationship

Identifiers

PMID28725102
PMCPMC5493712
OpenAlexW2728470681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.