Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33082433›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Conspecific recognition of pedal scent in domestic dogs.

Kari McClanahan, Frank Rosell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kari McClanahanDepartment of Natural Sciences and Environmental Health, Faculty of Technology, Natural Sciences and Maritime Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Bø in Telemark, Norway.
Frank RosellDepartment of Natural Sciences and Environmental Health, Faculty of Technology, Natural Sciences and Maritime Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Bø in Telemark, Norway. frank.rosell@usn.no.
University of South-Eastern Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carnivores rely heavily on scent to communicate with conspecifics. Scent glands located on the underside of the feet provide an especially efficient way of leaving a scent trail. Although domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are well-known for their olfactory abilities and scent marking behaviours, their use of pedal scent for communication remains unknown. We studied the reaction of intact dogs of both sexes to male and female pedal scent as well as a control sample of scent taken from the ground, using sniffing time and nostril usage as an indicator of interest level and emotional valence. In male subjects, only the sniffing duration for other males differed from the control samples, with no clear difference detected between male and female scent. Females showed no difference in the sniffing duration for any sample type. Conversely, male nostril use did not differ between the sample types, whereas females demonstrated a right nostril bias when sniffing the scent from other females and a left nostril bias when sniffing the control. We have shown that dogs recognize scent taken from the pedal glands from other dogs, although the extent to which they use this information to determine the sex of the scent depositor remains unclear.

Indexed as

FootOdorantsAnimal CommunicationAnimalsAnimals, DomesticDogsFemaleMaleSmell

Identifiers

PMID33082433
PMCPMC7576167
OpenAlexW3094454169

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.