Can Sleep and Resting Behaviours Be Used as Indicators of Welfare in Shelter Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris)?

Abstract

Previous research on humans and animals suggests that the analysis of sleep patterns may reliably inform us about welfare status, but little research of this kind has been carried out for non-human animals in an applied context. This study explored the use of sleep and resting behaviour as indicators of welfare by describing the activity patterns of dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) housed in rescue shelters, and comparing their sleep patterns to other behavioural and cognitive measures of welfare. Sleep and activity patterns were observed over five non-consecutive days in a population of 15 dogs. Subsequently, the characteristics of sleep and resting behaviour were described and the impact of activity on patterns of sleep and resting behaviour analysed. Shelter dogs slept for 2.8% of the day, 14.3% less than previously reported and experienced less sleep fragmentation at night (32 sleep bouts). There were no statistically significant relationships between behaviours exhibited during the day and sleep behaviour. A higher proportion of daytime resting behaviour was significantly associated with a positive judgement bias, less repetitive behaviour and increased time spent coded as ‘relaxed’ across days by shelter staff. These results suggest that, in the context of a busy shelter environment, the ability to rest more during the day could be a sign of improved welfare. Considering the non-linear relationship between sleep and welfare in humans, the relationship between sleep and behavioural indicators of welfare, including judgement bias, in shelter dogs may be more complex than this study could detect.

Sleep monitoring of an Asian elephant Elephas maximus calf at Night Safari, Singapore: testing whether sleep time is a significant predictor of cortisol or the onset of positive elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus viraemia

“…There was no physical measurement of something believed to be linked to their welfare, such as stress hormones. Recently, Owczarczak‐Garstecka & Burman () tried to fill this gap by linking sleep directly to welfare by using signs of compromised welfare, rather than assuming a situation was stressful. Their results were counterintuitive and found that the percentage of time spent asleep during the night was not predicted by behavioural indicators of welfare.…”

Assessing the welfare of kennelled dogs—A review of animal-based measures

“…were more active) than dogs in homes (although this may be due to home dogs being under-stimulated, so care should be taken when interpreting their lower activity as positive welfare). Another study looked specifically at sleep in dogs kennelled at rehoming centres and, although it did not find a relationship between night-time sleep and behavioural measures, it did find that dogs that spent more time resting during the day had a more positive judgement bias and exhibited fewer repetitive behaviours than dogs that did not rest as much in the daytime (Owczarczak-Garstecka et al, 2016). While this may suggest that reduced activity and increased resting during the day, may be a useful indicator of positive welfare in kennelled dogs, another study by Hiby et al (2006) found that this relationship may be more complex.…”

“…Temperature or previous experiences may confound. Clark et al, 1997;Stephen and Ledger, 2005;Hiby et al 2006;Kiddie and Collins, 2014 Activity/Resting May require specialised equipment Both Unclear Difficult to distinguish between rest and boredom/learned helplessness/depressive states Haley et al, 2000;Hiby et al, 2006;Rushen et al, 2012;Jones et al, 2014;Part et al, 2014;Owczarczak-Garstecka et al, 2016 Play Spontaneous play needs video recording. Elicited play relatively easy to assess.…”

“…Spontaneous behaviours are more relevant than elicited ones. Hubrecht, 1993;Rooney et al, 2000;Coppola et al, 2006;Horváth et al, 2008;Belpedio et al, 2010;Bergamasco et al, 2010;Held and Špinka, 2011;Titulaer et al, 2013;Johnson et al, 2013;Shiverdecker et al, 2013;Conley et al, 2014;Bradshaw et al, 2015;Flower, 2016 Differences in trainability and motivation may influence results Harding et al, 2004;Mendl et al, 2009Mendl et al, , 2010Bateson et al, 2011;Burman et al, 2011;Owczarczak-Garstecka et al, 2016 Learning ability…”

“…The authors propose several explanations for this, including possible satiation, differences in motivation, and a greater anticipation in the unrewarded dogs eliciting an unexpected positive affective state. Other studies have used setups where dogs were taught that bowls presented in one location contained food while bowls in another location did not (Mendl et al, 2010;Owczarczak-Garstecka et al, 2016). Once the dogs had reached criterion, they were then tested on their speeds to reach bowls that were in different locations between the two original places.…”