Study of Behavioural Traits in Can de Palleiro (Galician Shepherd Dog)
1
Servicio de Etología y Medicina de Comportamiento Animal, Hospital Veterinario Universitario Rof Codina, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain
2
Departamento de Anatomía, Producción Animal y Ciencias Clínicas Veterinarias, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain
3
Bom Jesus Veterinary Hospital, 4715-380 Braga, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2021, 11(11), 3198; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113198
Received: 30 September 2021
/
Revised: 28 October 2021
/
Accepted: 4 November 2021
/
Published: 9 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Competitiveness of Spanish Local Breeds)
Abstract
:Simple Summary
The Can de Palleiro or Galician shepherd is a canine breed that was in danger of extinction but is currently growing rapidly in popularity. In this study, different behavioural traits of the breed were evaluated in order to assess breeds, select the best breeding animals and identify behaviour problems. This is the first study carried out in the Can de Palleiro breed using different scientifically validated tests. Questionnaires filled by the owners (C_BARQ) were collected, and a behavioural test (SAB) was conducted to evaluate the response of the dogs to a specific stimulus at a certain time and in a certain environment. In addition, the results from the Can de Palleiro breed were compared with those obtained from the general canine population of Galicia. Thereby, the Can de Palleiro breed showed less owner-directed aggression, dog-directed fear, excitability, non-social fear and separation-related problems and better trainability.
Abstract
The Can de Palleiro (CP) is an autochthonous canine breed from Galicia (NW Spain). Interestingly, no previous research has been published about the behaviour of this breed. Thus, the aim of the present study was to obtain a deeper understanding of CP behavioural and temperamental traits and detect any potentially problematic behaviour by using the Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ) and the Socially Acceptable Behaviour (SAB) test. Behavioural information was obtained from 377 dogs—177 CPs and 200 general population (GP) dogs—using the C-BARQ. Additionally, 32 dogs were enrolled to perform the SAB test (19 CPs and 13 GP dogs) in order to directly evaluate their temperament. Our results indicated that CP dogs had a lower tendency to show aggressiveness towards their owners (0.18 times lower, p = 0.033) and less fear of other dogs (by 0.43 times, p = 0.001), as well as higher trainability levels (2.56 times higher, p < 0.001) when compared to GP dogs. CP dogs also had increased odds of showing chasing behaviour (3.81 times higher, p < 0.001). Conversely, CPs had reduced odds of non-social fear, separation-related problems and excitability (by 0.42, 0.35 and 0.48 times, respectively; p < 0.001, p < 0.001 and p = 0.002). The current research represents a starting point for the study of the behaviour of CPs, which appear to be a working breed, with guarding and, especially, herding characteristics.
1. Introduction
Can de Palleiro (CP) is an autochthonous canine breed from Galicia (NW Spain), also known as the Galician Shepherd. The CP is of Indo-European descent, which is evident from its rustic characteristics, with its ancestors likely being native to Galicia, having been imported by Galicians during the Palaeolithic era while expanding from the British Isles and European continent. The breed shares some of its origin story with German Shepherds, Belgian Shepherds, Dutch Shepherds and the Portuguese Castro Laboreiro.
The CP is a rustic and lupine-type dog with a straight profile which is eumetric and mesodolichomorphic; it is of medium size, with a height of about 60–62 cm at the withers, harmonic proportions, a strong constitution, and fairly wide (‘thick-set’) bones. Females are somewhat shorter and lighter in appearance. In general, CPs are considered to have a strong and reticent character with strangers but usually show great loyalty to their owners with whom they are docile and calm [1,2,3].
The breed was traditionally employed in the rural areas of Galicia as herding dogs and as guard dogs at farmers’ houses where they would sleep in the hayloft, or palleiro. However, since the middle of the 20th century, a significant reduction in the rural population of CPs and the introduction of foreign breeds has put CPs in danger of becoming extinct [1,4].
At the very end of the 1990s, the regional government in Galicia decided to study the possibility of reviving the breed and started by searching for surviving specimens. Thus, an official breed standard was described, which allowed a recovery project aimed at increasing the number of CP individuals. In addition, the CP club was created, which has been guardian of the breed since 2002 by overseeing all the official offspring and by organising adoptions to help revive the Galician Shepherd [3,4]. Nonetheless, CP remains a particularly vulnerable dog, with only 1775 specimens currently registered in the herd book (unpublished data). Moreover, in addition to its characteristic shepherd function, its employment in activities related to police or rescue services units is now being contemplated.
Although the breed standard refers to the temperament and behaviour of CPs, to date, no studies have used validated tools to evaluate these traits [3]. Gathering scientific knowledge on the behavioural characteristics of dog breeds has both scientific and applied purposes [5]. Behaviour is driven by a complex interaction between endocrine and neuroendocrine factors [6]. In turn, these factors are influenced by both genetics and the environment. In fact, it was shown that several behavioural problems such as fear or aggression have a genetic component [7,8,9]. Thus, it is important to carefully choose breeding individuals to try to avoid undesirable behaviours in future generations. In this sense, understanding the behaviour of a breed is likely the first step for promoting more responsible breeding.
Several standardised tests to evaluate dog behaviour and temperament have already been developed and validated. In general, a sample of dogs is subjected to the same or similar stimuli as part of these tests, while human observers attempt to measure several behaviours [10,11,12,13,14]. Although the Socially Acceptable Behaviour (SAB) test was originally developed as a test of aggression toward unfamiliar people, this tool has also been validated to assess aggressive and fearful behaviours in dogs by analysing their response to 16 standardised subtests [10,14,15,16,17].
Indeed, it has also been shown that the SAB test can help to reduce unwanted behaviours in dog populations when used to direct breeding policies [18]. Nonetheless, although this test is comprehensive, it is often difficult to conduct, and the possibility that the experimental setting itself could result in the emergence of novel behaviours cannot be excluded [19].
Other methods focus on the assessment of day-to-day behaviour using a questionnaire for dog owners. They are often used as a means of validating behavioural tests and typically provide detailed information about a given dog’s tendency to display different behaviours because owners can observe their animals in a variety of situations over an extended period. In this sense, a widely used questionnaire is the canine behavioural assessment and research questionnaire (C-BARQ). The C-BARQ contains questions regarding aggression, fear and anxiety, trainability, excitability, separation-related behaviour, attachment, attention seeking, and chasing [20,21,22]. It has been used with different purposes, including the comparison of the behavioural profile of different breeds [19,22], to study civilian working dogs [23], military working dogs [24], drug detection dogs [25] and guide and service dogs [26].
Based on the above, the aim of this present article was to use the C-BARQ and SAB tests to assess the behavioural traits of CP and to compare the results with those obtained for the general canine population.
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Surveyed Animals
This study was carried out at the Rof Codina Veterinary Teaching Hospital (VTHRC) that is part of the Veterinary Faculty of Lugo and is the referral centre for veterinary clinics in Northwest Spain. We included 377 dogs, 177 (46.9%) of which were CPs. The CP dogs were recruited through the Can de Palleiro Club with which the VTHRC has a collaboration agreement. The remaining 200 general population (GP) dogs (53.1%) were recruited through social media networks such as Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn and by sharing an e-mail chain, starting with our personal contacts. The GP dogs were dogs of different breeds (except CP) and were used as a representative sample of the general Galician canine population (Table 1).
2.2. Behaviour Assessment and Data Collection
Behavioural information about the 377 dogs was obtained using the C-BARQ, a validated questionnaire developed by Hsu and Serpell (2003) [18]. Additionally, a randomly selected sample of 32 dogs from the overall population (19 CPs and 13 GPs, including 1 miniature Pinscher, 1 Dachshund, 1 Poodle, 1 German Shepherd, 1 Podenco and 8 mixed-breed dogs of different morphotypes) completed the SAB test [10] to directly evaluate the temperament of these animals. Descriptive statistics summarising the characteristics of the 377 dogs, as well as the results from the 32 dogs that undertook the SAB test, are presented in Table 2.
The C-BARQ was filled in by the owners via an online platform. The owners were able to contact one of the veterinarians responsible for the ethology service at the HCVRC to discuss and solve any possible doubt or misunderstanding they had regarding the C-BARQ. This questionnaire comprises 100 questions which describe different ways in which dogs typically respond to common events, situations, and stimuli in their environment. The responses are grouped into 14 behavioural traits as follows: stranger-directed aggression, owner-directed aggression, dog-directed aggression, dog-directed fear, familiar dog aggression, trainability, chasing, stranger-directed fear, non-social fear, separation-related problems, touch sensitivity, attachment/attention seeking, excitability and energy [20,21,22] (Appendix A Table A1). All the traits are expressed on a 0 to 4 scale, in which 0 indicates no sign of the behaviour in question, and 4 indicates the presence of a severe form of the behaviour.
The SAB test was set up by following the procedure described by Planta and De Meester (2007) [10] and was performed at the HCVRC by one of the authors (S.M.M.). The test comprises 16 subtests which analyse posture and behavioural responses to different stimuli which are displayed in a fixed order [10,15,16,17] (Appendix A Table A2). Thus, posture and behavioural strategy scores (Appendix A Table A3 and Table A4) were recorded according to De Meester et al. (2011) [15]. The neutral position was defined as the posture adopted in an active but relaxed mood according to the breed standard.
2.3. Statistical Analysis
All the statistical tests were performed using SPSS 15.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The effect of breed (GP vs. CP) on the C-BARQ scores for the different behavioural traits was examined by applying the Kruskal–Wallis test. The effect of breed on the responses observed through the SAB test was assessed using the Fisher exact test. In this test, to assess the agreement between observers in the positions and strategies shown by the dogs for each subtest, the kappa (κ) index was used.
Afterwards, ordinal regression models were fitted to assess the effect of breed (CP vs. GP) on the C-BARQ score for the different traits (given that data from all 377 dogs were available for this test). Likewise, the following explanatory variables were considered in the models fitted as control variables: gender, age, age at the time of acquisition, neutered vs. unneutered, dog activity pattern (if the dog displayed any exceptional activities or not, i.e., bike, walking, herding) and whether the owner had previously owned other dogs.
One model was tested for each of the following C-BARQ traits: stranger-directed aggression, owner-directed aggression, dog-directed aggression, dog-directed fear, familiar dog aggression, trainability, chasing, stranger-directed fear, non-social fear, separation-related problems, touch sensitivity, attachment/attention seeking, excitability and energy.
The scores obtained for each of the traits were divided into five categories [27]:
- -
- 0: C-BARQ score = 0.
- -
- 1: C-BARQ score >0 to 1.
- -
- 2: C-BARQ score >1 to 2.
- -
- 3: C-BARQ score >2 to 3.
- -
- 4: C-BARQ score >3 to 4.
Therefore, the following odds were modelled [27]:
- -
- C-BARQ score 0, 1, 2, 3 vs. 4
- -
- C-BARQ score 0, 1, 2 vs. 3, 4
- -
- C-BARQ score 0, 1 vs. 2, 3, 4
- -
- C-BARQ score 0 vs. 1, 2, 3, 4
The ordinal regression model provided the odds ratios for higher levels of the C-BARQ score (relative to being in or below a given score). When a variable changed the effect of the remaining coefficients by 10% or more, it was considered a confounder, and we retained it in the model, regardless of its level of significance [27].
The parallel line test was used to assess the hypothesis of proportionality. Ordered logistic regression assumes that the coefficients that describe the relationship between the lowest versus the highest response variable categories are the same as those that describe the relationship between the next lowest category and all the higher categories [28].
3. Results
3.1. Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire Results
The mean and median C-BARQ scores (along with quartiles) obtained for the CP and their counterparts for the GP are provided in Table 3. Differences between groups (CP vs. GP dogs) were significant except for familiar dog aggression and attachment/attention seeking. Compared to GP dogs, CPs showed significantly higher scores for stranger-directed aggression, dog-directed aggression, trainability, chasing and energy, as well as significantly lower owner-directed aggression, dog-directed fear, stranger-directed fear, non-social fear, separation-related problems, excitability and touch sensitivity.
3.2. Socially Acceptable Behaviour Results
Two CP out of the 32 CP dogs for which the test was performed presented extreme fear during the test, and so the SAB was interrupted and cancelled for animal welfare reasons.
The kappa values to assess the agreement between the observers for the different postures and strategies displayed by the dogs for each subtest showed values >0.85 except for posture 7 in subtest 3 (κ = 0.74) and posture 3 in subtest 10 (κ = 0.78).
The following results from the SAB test were statistically significant. When the dogs were exposed to an unfamiliar sound, 69.2% of the GP dogs showed strategy 3, while only 26.3% of the CPs showed this behaviour. Additionally, 23.0% of the GP dogs showed postures compatible with extreme fear (score = 6) when they were approached by unfamiliar people who were staring at the dog, while none of the CPs (0%) showed this behaviour. Finally, when the owner tried to pet the dog with a doll, 100% of the GP dogs showed slight signs of stress (strategy 1), while only 70.6% of the CPs did.
3.3. Regression Models
According to the regression models, no relationship was found between the groups (CP vs. GP) for stranger-directed aggression, dog-directed aggression, familiar-dog aggression, stranger-directed fear, attachment/attention seeking, touch sensitivity or energy after correcting for the control variables.
Regarding owner-directed aggression, the ordinal model indicated that CPs had a C-BARQ score 0.18 times lower than the GP dogs (p = 0.033) for this factor. The factors of age and having previously owned other dogs were retained in the model because their exclusion modified the coefficients by more than 10%. The remaining control variables (i.e., gender, neutered vs. unneutered, dog activity pattern and age at the time of acquisition), being non-significant, were excluded from the model, since their elimination did not modify the remaining coefficients by more than 10%. The same procedure was followed in the subsequent models (Table 4).
Ordinal regression also indicated that CP dogs had a 3.0-fold lower score for dog-directed fear (p = 0.001) and a 2.56 times higher score for trainability (p < 0.001) than GP dogs. Trainability was also influenced by the neutering status, having previously owned other dogs, and the dog activity pattern (Table 4).
CP dogs had an increased odds ratio of a higher chasing score by a factor of 3.81 (p < 0.001). Conversely, CPs had reduced odds of non-social fear (0.42-fold, p < 0.001), separation-related problems (0.35-fold, p < 0.001) and excitability (0.48-fold, p = 0.002). Age had also a significant effect on non-social fear. The parallel line test, non-significant in the models fitted, confirmed the suitability of the ordinal regression models.
4. Discussion
The CP dog breed is rapidly growing in popularity as a breed of working and companion animals. However, scientific evidence of the behavioural characteristics of CPs is still very limited; therefore, to the best of our knowledge, this current study is the first investigative research on the behavioural profile of CPs.
To assess dog behaviour and tackle possible behavioural problems, it can be effective to obtain information about individual dogs from their owners, who usually best understand the typical behaviours of their dogs. Serpell and Hsu (2001) developed the C-BARQ instrument to measure behavioural traits in pet dogs [29]. The C-BARQ is a useful and validated resource for investigating dogs’ behaviour, and several studies have used it to examine and compare breed differences in behavioural traits, with previous findings [16,21,22,30].
In this research, C-BARQ was distributed between CP and GP owners. GP dogs included breeds of all the Federation Cynologique Internationale groups, as well as mixed-breed dogs of different morphotypes.
The Kruskal–Wallis test showed significant differences between the CP and the GP groups for stranger-directed aggression, dog-directed aggression, trainability, chasing, energy, owner-directed aggression, dog-directed fear, stranger-directed fear, non-social fear, separation-related problems, excitability and touch sensitivity. Nevertheless, when the breed was assessed in a multivariate model with other control variables that could also be risk factors for these behavioural problems (i.e., age, age at acquisition, sex, neutering, having previously owned other dogs and activity pattern [31,32,33,34,35], no differences were found for stranger-directed aggression, dog-directed aggression, familiar-dog aggression, stranger-directed fear, attachment/attention seeking, touch sensitivity or energy. However, one possible limitation of this study is that, given its limited sample size, multivariate models were not applied in the case of the SAB test.
According to the ordinal model, CP dogs had a significantly lower C-BARQ owner-directed aggression factor score than GP dogs. Similar results have also been found for other shepherd breeds [19,36] with which CPs share a common origin. Indeed, the breed standard [3] also reports that CPs are loyal and docile dogs with their owners. Like other shepherd and guarding breeds (i.e., Australian Shepherds or Rottweilers) [36], CPs tend to show less dog-directed fear and higher levels of trainability.
Interestingly, lower scores for excitability, non-social fear and separation-related problems were found for CP dogs, with these lower scores corresponding to a steady temperament as defined in the breed standard [3].
The C-BARQ chasing factor refers to the tendency of some dogs to display predatory chasing of cats, squirrels, birds and/or other small animals when given the opportunity. In this work, CPs obtained higher chasing scores than GP dogs. Nevertheless, most herding breeds strongly express predatory motor patterns such as stalking, while more advanced aspects of the canine hunting sequence (grabbing) are differentially developed among herding dogs. For instance, herding breeds such as the Australian cattle dog (which is used to working with typically stubborn cattle) strongly express grab-biting behaviours [37,38].
Even though only a few animals from the overall cohort performed the SAB test in this work, its results coincided with some of the C-BARQ findings. Thus, the GP group but not the CP group showed stronger avoidance behaviour towards unfamiliar sounds, which also matches with the differences in non-social fear found with the C-BARQ. Of note, CP dogs showed less fear when their owner tried to pet their dog with a doll than GP dogs; correspondingly, in the C-BARQ, CPs showed less aggression toward family members than GP dogs. However, the combination of an unfamiliar stimulus (the doll) with the owner, who is most likely associated with a positive emotional state in the dog, might have decreased the novelty effect of the doll, thereby increasing the dog’s capacity to maintain emotional homeostasis [39,40].
However, the SAB test showed significant differences between the groups for extreme fear when the dogs were approached by unfamiliar people staring at them, although no differences between the groups were found in the ordinal model for social fear using the C-BARQ. A possible explanation could be that this subtest was performed in the absence of the owner. The behaviour of both confident and fearful dogs can change when their owner is not present; both confident and fearful dogs can experience an increase in the posture score (lower postures), but either group may also react in the same way as if the owner were present. Therefore, it is impossible to predict a given dog’s behaviour in the absence or presence of its owner [15].
Control variables included in the ordinal models are considered risk factors for behaviour problems in dogs. Thereby, some research revealed that males have a higher risk for behavioural problems than females [20,31,32,41,42]. Nevertheless, in the present study, only excitability was influenced by sex. Controversial results were found in previous studies. In fact, Takeuchi et al. [43] and Bradshaw et al. [44] showed that males are more excitable than females, whereas other surveys found that females tend to be more excitable [45,46]. The role of gonadectomy on behavior is complex; indeed, it was used to treat some behaviour problems, such as urine marking, mounting, roaming and intrasexual aggression in male dogs [47,48,49]. However, similar to our results, some studies revealed neutering as a risk factor for fear, anxiety, aggression and even some cognitive alterations [35,50,51,52,53]. It has been suggested that these behaviour problems in neutered dogs are related to the continuous elevation of luteinizing hormone at supraphysiologic concentrations occurring in gonadectomized animals [54].
One limitation of this study is that the CP dogs in the SAB test were heavily female-skewed, and overall the dogs subjected to the SAB were skewed towards not neutered dogs; this could have influenced the results. More studies are necessary, with a higher and more homogeneous sample of dogs taking the SAB, to obtain more accurate results.
5. Conclusions
This current research represents a starting point for the study of CP behaviour. According to the differences in behavioural traits between CPs and the GP dogs we measured in this study, CPs seem to be a working breed with guarding and, especially, herding characteristics. As such, CPs exhibited lower scores for owner-directed aggression, dog-directed fear, excitability, non-social fear and separation-related anxiety and higher scores for chasing and trainability.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, Á.G.-M. and S.M.d.M.; methodology, Á.G.-M., F.J.D. and S.M.d.M.; software, F.J.D. and Á.G.-M.; validation, Á.G.-M., S.M.d.M. and F.J.D.; formal analysis, F.J.D. and Á.G.-M.; investigation, S.M.d.M., Á.G.-M., B.P.F.-M., S.M.d.M., J.P.d.S.-M.; resources, S.M.d.M., Á.G.-M. and F.J.D.; data curation, F.J.D. and Á.G.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, F.J.D. and Á.G.-M.; writing—review and editing, F.J.D., Á.G.-M. and S.M.d.M. visualization, S.M.d.M. and Á.G.-M.; supervision, Á.G.-M.; project administration, Á.G.-M. and F.J.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Dogs were treated according to the European and Spanish legislation on animal protection (Directive 86/609/EEC, Real Decreto1201/2005).
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank James Serpell and the University of Pennsylvania (C-BARQ authors).
Conflicts of Interest
S.M.d.M. is partially supported by a grant from the Can de Palleiro Breed Club. None of the other authors has a financial or personal relationship with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Behavioural traits included in the Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire, including their definitions.
Table A1.
Behavioural traits included in the Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire, including their definitions.
| Behavioural Traits | Definition |
|---|---|
| Stranger-directed aggression | Dog shows threatening or aggressive responses towards strangers approaching or invading their own or their owner’s personal space, territory or home range. |
| Owner-directed aggression | Dog shows threatening or aggressive responses toward its owner or other members of the household when challenged, manhandled, stared at, stepped over or approached while in the possession of food or objects. |
| Dog-directed aggression | Dog shows threatening or aggressive responses when approached directly by unfamiliar dogs. |
| Dog-directed fear | Dog shows fearful or wary responses when approached directly by unfamiliar dogs. |
| Familiar dog aggression | Dog shows aggressive or threatening responses towards other familiar dogs in the same household. |
| Trainability | Dog shows a willingness to listen to the owner and obey simple commands. Dog is not easily distracted, tends to be a fast learner, responds positively to correction and will fetch or retrieve objects. |
| Chasing | Dog chases cats, birds and/or other small animals if given the opportunity. |
| Stranger-directed fear | Dog shows fearful or wary responses when approached directly by strangers. |
| Non-social fear | Dog shows fearful or wary responses towards sudden or loud noises, traffic and unfamiliar objects or situations. |
| Separation-related problems | Dog vocalises and/or is destructive when separated from the owner, which is often accompanied or preceded by behavioural and autonomic signs of anxiety. |
| Attachment/attention seeking | Dog stays close to its owner or other members of the household, solicits affection or attention and displays excitation when the owner gives attention to third parties. |
| Excitability | Dog displays a strong reaction to potentially exciting or arousing events such as going for walks, car trips, doorbells, etc.; the animal has difficulty calming down after such events. |
| Energy | Dog is energetic, “always on the go” and/or playful. |
| Touch sensitivity | Dog shows fearful or wary responses to potentially painful or uncomfortable procedures, including bathing, grooming, nail-clipping and veterinary examinations. |
Modified from Hsu and Serpell (2003) and Duffy and Serpell (2012).
Table A2.
The main characteristics and order of the 16 spelled-out subtests in the Socially Acceptable Behaviour test.
Table A2.
The main characteristics and order of the 16 spelled-out subtests in the Socially Acceptable Behaviour test.
| Subtests | Description | Presence of the Owner |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Friendly approach by one person who tries to pet the dog with an artificial hand. | Yes |
| 2 | Exposure to an unfamiliar visual stimulus (flapping blanket). | Yes |
| 3 | Exposure to an unfamiliar visual stimulus (silhouette of a giant cat that suddenly appears from behind a screen). | Yes |
| 4 | Exposure to an unfamiliar sound (horn). | Yes |
| 5 | Exposure to an unfamiliar sound (metal cans behind a screen). | Yes |
| 6 | Neutral approach by three persons in a normal way. | Yes |
| 7 | Neutral approach by three persons in an accelerated way approach. | Yes |
| 8 | Approach by an unfamiliar dog of the same size, different breed and same sex. | No |
| 9 | Friendly approach by one person who tries to pet the dog with an artificial hand. | No |
| 10 | Exposure to an unfamiliar sound (bell). | No |
| 11 | Exposure to an unfamiliar visual stimulus (umbrella that is opened and closed rapidly) | No |
| 12 | Exposure to an unfamiliar visual stimulus (doll in a sledge that is pulled towards the dog). | No |
| 13 | Friendly approach by one person who tries to pet the dog with a doll. | No |
| 14 | Approach by a person who is staring at the dog. | No |
| 15 | Friendly approach by this same person, who then tries to pet the dog with an artificial hand. | No |
| 16 | Friendly approach by the owner, who tries to pet the dog with a doll | Yes |
Table A3.
Criteria for scoring the posture of the dogs after exposure to different stimuli while applying the Socially Acceptable Behaviour test.
Table A3.
Criteria for scoring the posture of the dogs after exposure to different stimuli while applying the Socially Acceptable Behaviour test.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 1 | Tail high, ears high, corners of the mouth forward, trunk high, extended legs. |
| 2 | Like 1, but one element is missing (tail height is essentially between neutral and high). |
| 3 | Neutral: see breed standard, posture adopted in a neutral situation. |
| 4 | Tail lower than in 3, but higher than half the difference between the neutral position and a complete hang-down. Ears may be directed forward if the dog is focused on the stimulus, but then they mostly go backward. Trunk a little lower than in the neutral position. |
| 5 | Tail completely hanging down, ears lower or as in 4, corners of the mouth backward. |
| 6 | Tail between the hind legs, ears lower or as in 4, corners of the mouth backward. |
| 7 | The dog is lying on its back, ears lower or as in 4, corners of the mouth backward. |
Table A4.
Criteria for scoring the different behavioural strategies of the dogs after undergoing different stimuli while carrying out the Socially Acceptable Behavioural test.
Table A4.
Criteria for scoring the different behavioural strategies of the dogs after undergoing different stimuli while carrying out the Socially Acceptable Behavioural test.
| Strategy | Description of the Behavioural Elements of the SAB |
|---|---|
| 1 | Eye blinking, ear twisting, tongue flicking, swallowing, lip licking and yawning. |
| 2 | Raising leg, shaking, looking away, crouching, restless eye and head movements. |
| 3 | Shrinking back quickly or slowly, walking away, recoiling or retreating. |
| 4 | Fleeing in >50% of the subtest. |
| 5 | Short hard barking, piloerection, staring, snarling, growling, wagging a stiff tail, showing teeth and stiffening. |
| 6 | Biting, snapping or lunging (without signals of play behaviour). |
| 7 | Looking at the owner, moving closer next to or behind the owner in a lower position. |
Abbreviations: SAB = Socially Acceptable Behaviour test.
References
- Fernández, R.M.; Rivero, C.G.; Alonso, T.M.; Rivero, M.C.J.; Pose, N.H.; Justo, F.J.R.; Adán, B.S.; Díaz, R.R.; Rois, L.D.; Carril, G.-B.J.A. Razas Autóctonas de Galicia en Peligro de Extinción; Xunta de Galicia: Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 2001.
- Moreno, C.G.R.; Alonso, M.; Fernández, E.; Saavedra, C. Razas: Raza can de Palleiro. AE Rev. Agroecol. Divulg 2015, 19, 59. [Google Scholar]
- Xunta de Galicia. ORDEN de 26 de Abril de 2001 por la que se Hace Público el Estándar Racial del Can de Palleiro y se Crea el Libro Genealógico de la Raza. DOG Nº 91; Xunta de Galicia: Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Alonso, M.; Fernández, M. Plan de recuperación de las razas caninas autóctonas de Galicia (España). Arch. Zootec. 2001, 50, 187–197. [Google Scholar]
- Svartberg, K.; Forkman, B. Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 79, 133–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Nelson, R.J. An Introduction to Behavioral Endocrinology, 3rd ed.; Sinauer Associates Inc.: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Ilska, J.; Haskell, M.J.; Blott, S.C.; Sánchez-Molano, E.; Polgar, Z.; Lofgren, S.E.; Clements, D.N.; Wyener, P. Genetic characterization of dog personality traits. Genetics 2017, 206, 1101–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Waaij, E.H.; Wilsson, E.; Strandberg, E. Genetic analysis of results of a Swedish behavior test on German Shepherd Dogs and Labrador Retrievers1. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 2853–2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zapata, I.; Serpell, J.A.; Alvarez, C.E. Genetic mapping of canine fear and aggression. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Planta, J.U.D.; De Meester, R. Validity of the Socially Acceptable Behavior (SAB) test as a measure of aggression in dogs towards non-familiar humans. Vlaams Diergeneeskd. Tijdschr. 2007, 76, 359–368. [Google Scholar]
- Ley, J.M.; McGreevy, P.; Bennett, P.C. Inter-rater and test–retest reliability of the Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire-Revised (MCPQ-R). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 119, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klausz, B.; Kis, A.; Persa, E.; Miklósi, Á.; Gácsi, M. A quick assessment tool for human-directed aggression in pet dogs. Aggress. Behav. 2014, 40, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, S.L.; Weng, H.Y.; Walker, S.L.; Placer, M.; Litster, A. Comparison of SAFER behavior assessment results in shelter dogs at intake and after a 3-day acclimation period. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2015, 18, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Meester, R.H.; De Bacquer, D.; Peremans, K.; Vermeire, S.; Planta, D.J.; Coopman, F.; Audenaert, K. A preliminary study on the use of the Socially Acceptable Behavior test as a test for shyness/confidence in the temperament of dogs. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2008, 3, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Meester, R.H.; Pluijmakers, J.; Vermeire, S.; Laevens, H. The use of the socially acceptable behavior test in the study of temperament of dogs. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2011, 6, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Borg, J.A.M.; Beerda, B.; Ooms, M.; de Souza, A.S.; van Hagen, M.; Kemp, B. Evaluation of behaviour testing for human directed aggression in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 128, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villa, P.D.; Barnard, S.; Di Nardo, A.; Iannetti, L.; Vulpiani, M.P.; Trentini, R.; Serpell, J.A.; Siracusa, C. Validazione del Socially Acceptable Behaviour (SAB) test su una popolazione di cani di proprietà del centro Italia. Vet. Ital. 2017, 53, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van der Borg, J.A.M.; Graat, E.A.M.; Beerda, B. Behavioural testing based breeding policy reduces the prevalence of fear and aggression related behaviour in Rottweilers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 195, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sommese, A.; Valsecchi, P.; Pelosi, A.; Prato-Previde, E. Comparing behavioural characteristics of Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs, German shepherds and Labrador retrievers in Italy and the Czech Republic. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021, 237, 105300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, Y.; Serpell, J.A. Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring behavior and temperament traits in pet dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2003, 223, 1293–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Serpell, J.A.; Hsu, Y. Effects of breed, sex, and neuter status on train- ability in dogs. Anthrozoös 2005, 18, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Duffy, D.L.; Hsu, Y.; Serpell, J.A. Breed differences in canine aggression. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 114, 441–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, L.T.; Gosling, S.D. Temperament and personality in working dogs. In Canine Ergonomics: The Science of Working Dogs; Helton, W.S., Ed.; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 63–81. [Google Scholar]
- Haverbeke, A.; De Smet, A.; Depiereux, E.; Giffroy, J.M.; Diederich, C. Assessing undesired aggression in military working dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 117, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maejima, M.; Inoue-Murayama, M.; Tonosaki, K.; Matsuura, N.; Kato, S.; Saito, Y.; Weiss, A.; Murayama, Y.; Ito, S.I. Traits and genotypes may predict the successful training of drug detection dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 107, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duffy, D.L.; Serpell, J.A. Predictive validity of a method for evaluating temperament in young guide and service dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 138, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Martínez, Á.; Martínez, M.F.; Rosado, B.; Luño, I.; Santamarina, G.; Suárez, M.L.; de la Cruz, L.; Diéguez, F.J. Association between puppy classes and adulthood behavior of the dog. J. Vet. Behav. 2019, 32, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erkan, A.; Yildiz, Z. Parallel lines assumption in ordinal logistic regression and analysis approaches. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2014, 1, 8–23. [Google Scholar]
- Serpell, J.A.; Hsu, Y. Development and validation of a novel method for evaluating behavior and temperament in guide dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001, 72, 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duffy, D.L.; Kruger, K.A.; Serpell, J.A. Evaluation of a behavioral assessment tool for dogs relinquished to shelters. Prev. Vet. Med. 2014, 117, 601–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinwoodie, I.R.; Dwyer, B.; Zottola, V.; Gleason, D.; Dodman, N.H. Demographics and comorbidity of behavior problems in dogs. J. Vet. Behav. 2019, 32, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, Á.G.; Santamarina, G.; Diéguez, F.J.; Suárez, M.L.; De la Cruz, L.F. Risk factors associated with behavioral problems in dogs. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2011, 6, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierantoni, L.; Albertini, M.; Pirrone, F. Prevalence of owner-reported behaviours in dogs separated from the litter at two different ages. Vet. Rec. 2011, 169, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puurunen, J.; Hakanen, E.; Salonen, M.K.; Mikkola, S.; Sulkama, S.; Araujo, C.; Lohi, H. Inadequate socialisation, inactivity, and urban living environment are associated with social fearfulness in pet dogs. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Zink, M.C.; Farhoody, P.; Elser, S.E.; Ruffini, L.D.; Gibbons, T.A.; Rieger, R.H. Evaluation of the risk and age of onset of cancer and behavioral disorders in gonadectomized Vizslas. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2014, 244, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Serpell, J.A.; Duffy, D.L. Dog breeds and their behavior. In Domestic Dog Cognition and Behavior; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 31–57. [Google Scholar]
- Coppinger, R.; Scheider, R. Evolution of working dogs. In The Domestic Dog, Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995; pp. 21–50. [Google Scholar]
- Spady, T.C.; Ostrander, E.A. Canine Behavioral Genetics: Pointing Out the Phenotypes and Herding up the Genes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2008, 82, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Cairns, R.B. Attachment and dependency: A psychobiological and social learning synthesis. In Attachment and Dependency; Gewirtz, J.L., Ed.; V.H. Winston: Washington, DC, USA, 1972; pp. 29–80. [Google Scholar]
- Appleby, D.; Pluijmakers, J. Separation anxiety in dogs: The function of homeostasis in its development and treatment. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2003, 33, 321–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, J.C.; Nesselrote, M.S. Classification of behaviour problems in dogs: Distributions of age, breed, sex and reproductive status. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1987, 19, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landsberg, G.M. The distribution of canine behaviour cases at three behaviour referral practices. Vet. Med. 1991, 86, 1081–1089. [Google Scholar]
- Takeuchi, Y.; Mori, Y. A comparison of the behavioural profiles of purebred dogs in Japan to profiles of those in the United States and the United Kingdom. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2006, 8, 789–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bradshaw, J.W.; Goodwin, D.; Lea, A.M.; Whitehead, S.L. A survey of the behavioural characteristics of pure-bred dogs in the United Kingdom. Vet. Rec. 1996, 19, 465–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goddard, M.E.; Beilharz, R.G. Genetic and environmental factors affecting the suitability of dogs as guide dogs for the blind. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1982, 62, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goddard, M.E.; Beilharz, R.G. Genetics of traits which determine the suitability of dogs as guide-dogs for the blind. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1983, 9, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopkins, S.G.A.; Schubert, T. Hart, B.L. Castration of adult male dogs: Effects on roaming, aggression, urine marking, and mounting. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1976, 168, 1108–1110. [Google Scholar]
- Neilson, J.C.; Eckstein, R.A.; Hart, B.L. Effects of castration on problem behaviors in male dogs with reference to age and duration of behavior. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1997, 211, 180–182. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Maarschalkerweerd, R.J.; Endenburg, N.; Kirpensteijn, J.; Knol, B.W. Influence of orchiectomy on canine behaviour. Vet. Rec. 1997, 140, 617–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, H.H.; Yeon, S.C.; Houpt, K.A.; Lee, H.C.; Chang, H.H.; Lee, H.J. Effects of ovariohysterectomy on reactivity in German Shepherd dogs. Vet. J. 2006, 172, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borchelt, P.L. Aggressive behavior of dogs kept as companion animals: Classification and influence of sex, reproductive status and breed. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1983, 10, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Balogh, O.; Borruat, N.; Andrea Meier, A.; Hartnack, S.; Reichler, I.M. The influence of spaying and its timing relative to the onset of puberty on urinary and general behaviour in Labrador Retrievers. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2018, 53, 1184–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mongillo, P.; Scandurra, A.; D’Aniello, B.; Marinelli, L. Effect of sex and gonadectomy on dogs’ spatial performance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 191, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutzler, M.A. Possible Relationship between Long-Term Adverse Health Effects of Gonad-Removing Surgical Sterilization and Luteinizing Hormone in Dogs. Animals 2020, 10, 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
Table 1.
Distribution of breeds in the sample deemed as the general Galician canine population.
| Breed Group (FCI) | Breed | n | % | % Per Group |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1: Sheepdogs and Cattle dogs (except Swiss Cattle dogs) | Pastor Vasco * | 7 | 3.5 | 12 |
| White Swiss Shepherd Dog | 4 | 2 | ||
| German Shepherd dog | 5 | 2.5 | ||
| Border Collie | 6 | 3 | ||
| Belgian Shepherd dog | 2 | 1 | ||
| Group 2: Pinscher and Schnauzer–Molossoid and Swiss Mountain and Cattle dogs | Boxer | 16 | 8 | 12 |
| French Bulldog | 3 | 1.5 | ||
| Shar Pei | 1 | 0.5 | ||
| Miniature Pinscher | 1 | 0.5 | ||
| St. Bernard | 1 | 0,5 | ||
| Spanish Mastiff | 2 | 1 | ||
| Group 3: Terriers | Yorkshire Terrier | 15 | 7.5 | 15.5 |
| Bodeguero Andaluz * | 8 | 4 | ||
| American Staffordshire Terrier | 4 | 2 | ||
| West Highland White Terrier | 2 | 1 | ||
| Staffordshire Bull Terrier | 1 | 0.5 | ||
| Bull Terrier | 1 | 0.5 | ||
| Group 4: Dachshunds | Dachshund | 3 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| Group 5: Spitz and primitive types | Siberian Husky | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Group 6: Scent hounds and related breeds | Beagle | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Group 7: Pointing dogs | Brittany Spaniel | 2 | 1 | 4.5 |
| Saint Germain Pointer | 1 | 0.5 | ||
| English Setter | 6 | 3 | ||
| Group 8: Retrievers, Flushing Dogs, Water Dogs | Labrador Retriever | 6 | 3 | 9 |
| Golden Retriever | 4 | 2 | ||
| Spanish Water dog | 2 | 1 | ||
| English Cocker Spaniel | 6 | 3 | ||
| Group 9: Companion and toy dogs | Shih Tzu | 2 | 1 | 8.5 |
| Maltese | 8 | 4 | ||
| Lhasa Apso | 3 | 1.5 | ||
| Poodle | 2 | 1 | ||
| Pug | 1 | 0.5 | ||
| Bichon Frise | 1 | 0.5 | ||
| Group 10: Sighthounds | Spanish Greyhound | 3 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| Mixed-breed dogs | 67 | 33.5 | 33.5 |
* Breed recognized by the Canine Real Society of Spain, but not by the FCI.
Table 2.
Descriptive analysis of the studied dog population.
| Variable | C-BARQ (n = 377) | SAB (n = 32) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GP | CP | GP | CP | |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 115 (52.5%) | 79 (44.6%) | 5 (38.5%) | 5 (26.3%) |
| Female | 85 (47.5%) | 98 (55.4%) | 8 (61.5%) | 14 (73.7%) |
| Mean age (months) | 65.6 (S.D. = 49.2) | 38.8 (S.D. = 32.0) | 57.2 (S.D. = 28.0) | 38.2 (S.D. = 35.3) |
| Mean age at acquisition (months) | 5.98 (S.D. = 14.1) | 5.56 (S.D. = 13.6) | 13.1 (S.D. = 19.5) | 7.07 (S.D. = 20.4) |
| Neutered | ||||
| Yes | 63 (31.5%) | 24 (13.6%) | 9 (69.2%) | 5 (26.3%) |
| No | 137 (68.5%) | 153 (86.4%) | 4 (30.8%) | 14 (73.7%) |
| Activity pattern | ||||
| No activity | 189 (94.5%) | 140 (79.1%) | 12 (92.3%) | 15 (78.9%) |
| Agility/bike/walking/herding | 11 (5.5%) | 37 (20.9%) | 1 (7.7%) | 4 (21.1%) |
| Owner had more dogs | ||||
| No | 69 (34.5%) | 21 (11.9%) | 7 (53.8%) | 4 (21%) |
| One or more | 131 (65.5%) | 156 (88.1%) | 6 (46.15%) | 15 (78.9%) |
Abbreviations: GP = general population; CP = Can de Palleiro breed; C-BARQ = Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire; SAB = Socially Acceptable Behaviour test.
Table 3.
Mean (with 95% confidence interval) scores obtained for general population (GP) dogs and Can de Palleiro breed (CP) for the different traits considered in the Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire.
Table 3.
Mean (with 95% confidence interval) scores obtained for general population (GP) dogs and Can de Palleiro breed (CP) for the different traits considered in the Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire.
| C-BARQ Traits | GP | CP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (Median, Q25–Q75) | 95% CI | Mean (Median, Q25–Q75) | 95% CI | |||
| Stranger-directed aggression * | 0.54 (0.40, 0–0.80) | 0.44 | 0.63 | 0.72 (0.70, 0.20–1.10) | 0.59 | 0.85 |
| Owner-directed aggression * | 0.30 (0.15, 0.20–0.37) | 0.23 | 0.38 | 0.06 (0, 0–0) | 0.01 | 0.12 |
| Dog-directed aggression * | 1.03 (0.75, 0.25–1.50) | 0.89 | 1.17 | 1.30 (1.00, 0.50–1.75) | 1.11 | 1.49 |
| Dog-directed fear * | 0.95 (0.75, 0.25–1.50) | 0.83 | 1.07 | 0.51 (0.15, 0–1.25) | 0.39 | 0.64 |
| Familiar dog aggression | 0.45 (0, 0–0.50) | 0.34 | 0.56 | 0.53 (0.25, 0–1.00) | 0.39 | 0.67 |
| Trainability * | 2.59 (2.60, 2.25–3.00) | 2.51 | 2.67 | 2.87 (2.90, 2.50–3.40) | 2.76 | 2.97 |
| Chasing * | 1.40 (1.25, 0.50–2.00) | 1.23 | 1.56 | 2.32 (2.12, 1.62–3.12) | 2.11 | 2.52 |
| Stranger-directed fear * | 0.56 (0.2, 0.32–1.00) | 0.44 | 0.68 | 0.33 (0, 0–0.75) | 0.23 | 0.44 |
| Nons-ocial fear * | 1.13 (1.00, 0.50,1.70) | 1.02 | 1.25 | 0.70 (0.50, 0.17–1.00) | 0.59 | 0.82 |
| Separation-related problems * | 0.80 (0.62, 0.25–1.37) | 0.71 | 0.89 | 0.49 (0.38, 0–0.86) | 0.40 | 0.59 |
| Attachment/attention seeking | 2.16 (2.06, 1.67–2.67) | 2.05 | 2.27 | 2.03 (1.93, 1.50–2.67) | 1.86 | 2.20 |
| Excitability * | 1.91 (2.00, 1.17–2.67) | 1.79 | 2.03 | 1.45 (1.50, 1.00–2.00) | 1.31 | 1.59 |
| Energy * | 2.25 (2.15, 1.50–3.00) | 2.08 | 2.41 | 2.52 (2.50, 2.00, 3.00) | 2.33 | 2.70 |
| Touch sensitivity * | 0.81 (0.50, 0–1.25) | 0.68 | 0.94 | 0.58 (0.29, 0–0.81) | 0.45 | 0.71 |
Abbreviations: C-BARQ = Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire; GP = general population; CP = Can de palleiro breed. * p < 0.05 when comparing GP and CP groups.
Table 4.
Results of an ordinal regression model for the effect of the breed (Can de Palleiro [CP] breed versus the general population [GP] of dogs) on behavioural traits, as measured by the Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire.
Table 4.
Results of an ordinal regression model for the effect of the breed (Can de Palleiro [CP] breed versus the general population [GP] of dogs) on behavioural traits, as measured by the Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire.
| Variables | Owner-Directed Aggression | Dog-Directed Fear | Trainability | Chasing | Non-Social Fear | Separation-Related Problems | Excitability | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient (95% CI) | p-Value | Coefficient (95% CI) | p-Value | Coefficient (95% CI) | p-Value | Coefficient (95% CI) | p-Value | Coefficient (95% CI) | p-Value | Coefficient (95% CI) | p-Value | Coefficient (95% CI) | p-Value | |
| Breed CP * | 0.18 (0.04–0.87) | 0.033 | 0.43 (0.27–0.70) | 0.001 | 2.56 (1.54–4.24) | <0.001 | 3.81 (2.45–5.93) | <0.001 | 0.42 (0.26–0.66) | <0.001 | 0.35 (0.20–0.59) | <0.001 | 0.48 (0.30–0.76) | 0.002 |
| Gender Male ** | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1.28 (0.84–1.96) | 0.246 |
| Neutered Yes *** | - | - | 0.63 (0.37–1.97) | 0.091 | 1.69 (1.01–2.84) | 0.043 | 0.69 (0.43–1.11) | 0.130 | - | - | 0.66 (0.37–1.15) | 0.145 | - | - |
| Age | 0.99 (0.98–1.01) | 0.095 | - | - | - | - | 1.00 (0.99–1.01) | 0.360 | 0.99 (0.99–0.99) | 0.014 | - | - | - | - |
| Age at acquisition | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.98 (0.97–1.00) | 0.063 |
| First dog Yes **** | 0.45 (0.12–1.66) | 0.234 | - | - | 2.59 (1.54–4.44) | 0.001 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Activity Agility/bike/walking/ Herding ***** | - | - | - | - | 3.80 (1.74–8.29) | 0.001 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.57 (0.28–1.17) | 0.129 |
* GP was the base, ** Female was the base, ***/**** No was the base, ***** No activity was the base.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Muñiz de Miguel, S.; Diéguez, F.J.; da Silva-Monteiro, J.P.; Ferreiro-Mazón, B.P.; González-Martínez, Á. Study of Behavioural Traits in Can de Palleiro (Galician Shepherd Dog). Animals 2021, 11, 3198. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113198
AMA Style
Muñiz de Miguel S, Diéguez FJ, da Silva-Monteiro JP, Ferreiro-Mazón BP, González-Martínez Á. Study of Behavioural Traits in Can de Palleiro (Galician Shepherd Dog). Animals. 2021; 11(11):3198. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113198
Chicago/Turabian StyleMuñiz de Miguel, Susana, Francisco Javier Diéguez, Joao Pedro da Silva-Monteiro, Beatriz Parra Ferreiro-Mazón, and Ángela González-Martínez. 2021. "Study of Behavioural Traits in Can de Palleiro (Galician Shepherd Dog)" Animals 11, no. 11: 3198. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113198
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
