犬种之间的行为差异和相似性:为犬类行为研究提出一种生态学上有效的方法。

IF 11 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Péter Pongrácz, Petra Dobos
{"title":"犬种之间的行为差异和相似性:为犬类行为研究提出一种生态学上有效的方法。","authors":"Péter Pongrácz, Petra Dobos","doi":"10.1111/brv.13128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The behaviour of dogs holds great relevance for not only scientists from fundamental and applied research areas, but also due to the widespread roles of dogs in our societies as companions and working animals; their behaviour is also an important factor in animal and human welfare. A large proportion of dogs currently under human supervision belong to one of roughly 400 recognised breeds. Dog breeds can be characterised by distinctive, predictable and reproducible features, including some of their behavioural traits. To the scientist, the comparative analysis of the behaviour of dog breeds provides an opportunity for investigating an array of intriguing phenomena within an easily accessible model organism created from natural and human-driven evolutionary processes. There are many ways to design and conduct breed-related behavioural investigations, but such endeavours should always be based around biologically relevant research questions and lead to ecologically valid conclusions. In this review, we surveyed recent research efforts that included dog behaviour-related comparisons and applied a critical evaluation according to their methods of breed choice and the subsequent research design. Our aim was to assess whether these two fundamentally important components of experimental design provide a solid basis to reach valid conclusions. Based on 97 publications that fulfilled our selection criteria, we identified three primary methods used by researchers to select breeds for their investigations: (i) convenience sampling; (ii) hypothesis-driven, ancestry-based sampling; and (iii) hypothesis-driven, functional sampling. By using the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) evaluation system, we highlight each of these techniques' merits and shortcomings. We identify when particular methods may be inherently unable to produce biologically meaningful results due to a mismatch between breed choice and the initial research goals. We hope that our evaluation will help researchers adopt best practices in experimental design regarding future dog breed comparisons.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Behavioural differences and similarities between dog breeds: proposing an ecologically valid approach for canine behavioural research.\",\"authors\":\"Péter Pongrácz, Petra Dobos\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/brv.13128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The behaviour of dogs holds great relevance for not only scientists from fundamental and applied research areas, but also due to the widespread roles of dogs in our societies as companions and working animals; their behaviour is also an important factor in animal and human welfare. A large proportion of dogs currently under human supervision belong to one of roughly 400 recognised breeds. Dog breeds can be characterised by distinctive, predictable and reproducible features, including some of their behavioural traits. To the scientist, the comparative analysis of the behaviour of dog breeds provides an opportunity for investigating an array of intriguing phenomena within an easily accessible model organism created from natural and human-driven evolutionary processes. There are many ways to design and conduct breed-related behavioural investigations, but such endeavours should always be based around biologically relevant research questions and lead to ecologically valid conclusions. In this review, we surveyed recent research efforts that included dog behaviour-related comparisons and applied a critical evaluation according to their methods of breed choice and the subsequent research design. Our aim was to assess whether these two fundamentally important components of experimental design provide a solid basis to reach valid conclusions. Based on 97 publications that fulfilled our selection criteria, we identified three primary methods used by researchers to select breeds for their investigations: (i) convenience sampling; (ii) hypothesis-driven, ancestry-based sampling; and (iii) hypothesis-driven, functional sampling. By using the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) evaluation system, we highlight each of these techniques' merits and shortcomings. We identify when particular methods may be inherently unable to produce biologically meaningful results due to a mismatch between breed choice and the initial research goals. We hope that our evaluation will help researchers adopt best practices in experimental design regarding future dog breed comparisons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":133,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biological Reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biological Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13128\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13128","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

狗的行为不仅与基础研究和应用研究领域的科学家息息相关,而且由于狗在我们的社会中广泛扮演着伴侣和工作动物的角色;它们的行为也是动物和人类福利的一个重要因素。目前在人类监管下的大部分狗都属于大约 400 个公认的品种之一。狗的品种可以通过独特、可预测和可复制的特征来描述,包括它们的一些行为特征。对于科学家来说,对狗品种的行为进行比较分析为研究一系列有趣的现象提供了机会,而这些现象又是在自然和人类驱动的进化过程中创造出来的、易于获得的模型生物体。设计和进行与犬种相关的行为调查的方法有很多,但这些工作应始终围绕与生物学相关的研究问题进行,并得出生态学上有效的结论。在这篇综述中,我们调查了最近开展的与狗的行为有关的比较研究,并根据其品种选择方法和随后的研究设计进行了批判性评估。我们的目的是评估实验设计的这两个基本重要组成部分是否为得出有效结论提供了坚实的基础。根据符合我们选择标准的 97 篇出版物,我们确定了研究人员用于选择研究品种的三种主要方法:(i) 方便抽样;(ii) 假设驱动、基于祖先的抽样;以及 (iii) 假设驱动、功能性抽样。通过使用 SWOT(优势、劣势、机会、威胁)评估系统,我们强调了每种技术的优点和缺点。我们确定了特定方法何时会因品种选择与最初研究目标不匹配而无法产生具有生物学意义的结果。我们希望我们的评估能够帮助研究人员在未来的犬种比较中采用最佳的实验设计方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Behavioural differences and similarities between dog breeds: proposing an ecologically valid approach for canine behavioural research.

The behaviour of dogs holds great relevance for not only scientists from fundamental and applied research areas, but also due to the widespread roles of dogs in our societies as companions and working animals; their behaviour is also an important factor in animal and human welfare. A large proportion of dogs currently under human supervision belong to one of roughly 400 recognised breeds. Dog breeds can be characterised by distinctive, predictable and reproducible features, including some of their behavioural traits. To the scientist, the comparative analysis of the behaviour of dog breeds provides an opportunity for investigating an array of intriguing phenomena within an easily accessible model organism created from natural and human-driven evolutionary processes. There are many ways to design and conduct breed-related behavioural investigations, but such endeavours should always be based around biologically relevant research questions and lead to ecologically valid conclusions. In this review, we surveyed recent research efforts that included dog behaviour-related comparisons and applied a critical evaluation according to their methods of breed choice and the subsequent research design. Our aim was to assess whether these two fundamentally important components of experimental design provide a solid basis to reach valid conclusions. Based on 97 publications that fulfilled our selection criteria, we identified three primary methods used by researchers to select breeds for their investigations: (i) convenience sampling; (ii) hypothesis-driven, ancestry-based sampling; and (iii) hypothesis-driven, functional sampling. By using the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) evaluation system, we highlight each of these techniques' merits and shortcomings. We identify when particular methods may be inherently unable to produce biologically meaningful results due to a mismatch between breed choice and the initial research goals. We hope that our evaluation will help researchers adopt best practices in experimental design regarding future dog breed comparisons.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biological Reviews
Biological Reviews 生物-生物学
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly. The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions. The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field. Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信