ArticleMovement ecology2026
Of shared homes and pathways: free-ranging dog movement and habitat use in a human-wildlife landscape in India.
Article in Movement ecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFree-ranging dogs are widely considered to negatively impact wildlife in shared landscapes. Understanding their use of these landscapes is therefore essential to develop effective management strategies in wildlife-adjacent regions. In this study, we investigated the movement patterns of free-ranging dogs (FRD) in the protected area matrix of Mudumalai Tiger Reserve (MTR) in Southern India. We hypothesized that increased settlement cover would result in a greater human shield effect, allowing dogs more freedom of movement.
methodsFifteen owned FRD were collared from two adjacent villages with different levels of human habitation. We estimated dog activity ranges and movement patterns using autocorrelated kernel density estimates (AKDE). Large-scale movement was characterized through multiple metrics (intensity of space use and mean distance from the dog’s home) and compared between villages to understand underlying drivers. Lastly, we quantified fine-scale movement and habitat selection using integrated step selection analysis (iSSA).
resultsWe found that FRD in MTR had directionally dependent home-ranging behavior and small activity ranges, with the mean AKDE activity range being 9.88 ± 7.69 ha (median = 6.09 ha, range 3.28–26.16 ha), and primarily utilized the area within 500 m of their homes. None of the movement metrics varied significantly between villages except for intensity of use, suggesting that dogs in the less populated village perceived a greater threat from surrounding wildlife and were more driven to seek refuge inside their activity ranges. iSSA revealed that dogs selected strongly for human settled or human-modified habitats, and moved significantly faster in forest land than any other habitat.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that owned FRD may pose a relatively lower threat to wildlife in MTR than feral dogs. They also support the human shield hypothesis, show that FRD display behavioral plasticity at fine scales of < 5 km, and highlight the role of human land use intensity in shaping the movement of domestic dogs. As humans can thus mediate the potential effects of dogs on wildlife, anthropogenic factors should be taken in consideration when designing management strategies that aim to curb dog movement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.