Scent rubbing in wolves (Canis lupus): the effect of novelty

Abstract

Two groups of wolves (Canis lupus) (N = 15 individuals) were tested for scent rubbing with eight novel odours from four classes of scent (herbivore, carnivore, food, and manufactured). If novelty is the primary factor influencing scent rubbing, we expected high initial rubbing frequencies across classes that would decline with successive presentations. Differential responses would indicate class of scent is more important. The wolves exhibited a striking propensity to scent rub differentially among odours. The manufactured odours (perfume and motor oil) elicited the strongest rubbing response, carnivore odours (cougar (Felis concolor) feces and black bear (Ursus americanus) feces) elicited the second highest response, and one of the food odours (salt pork) elicited a single rub from one individual, while the other food odour (tuna oil) was not rubbed. Herbivore odours (Aoudad sheep (Ammotraqus lervia) feces and Sable Island horse (Equus caballus) feces) were not rubbed. There was a negative correlation between odours that were rubbed and those tasted. Overall, there was a slight tendency to rub less frequently on an eliciting odour with successive presentations, but a stronger tendency with the two odours that elicited the greatest rubbing response (perfume and motor oil). Scent rub eliciting odours might include (i) scents of a class not usually encountered in the wolf's environment, (ii) a familiar scent that deviates from the norm by a change in character, and (iii) scents to which a wolf might have a strong aversion or attraction.

Integrating multiple genetic detection methods to estimate population density of social and territorial carnivores

“…Scent-marking serves to communicate territories among conspecifics, and resident coyotes and wolves strategically mark via urination and defecation at higher rates than do transients, with alpha pairs often exhibiting the highest defecation rates among all cohorts (Rothman and Mech 1979, Gese and Ruff 1997, Barja and List 2014. In contrast, rubbing behavior by canids has been attributed to mate attraction and early courtship, suggesting that rubbing in odorous materials would be advantageous to transients who are actively seeking mates (Ryon et al 1986, Martin and Farge 1988, Heffernan et al 2007). Therefore, we speculate that scat sampling may be more likely to detect territorial alpha pairs and other residents, whereas hair sampling may be more likely to detect transients, which would cause the inconsistent individual heterogeneity between detection methods that we found.…”

“…Both coyotes and wolves tend to be highly territorial and strategically defecate to mark and communicate territory extents to conspecifics (Rothman and Mech 1979, Gese and Ruff 1997, Barja and List 2014; therefore, collecting scat samples along travel routes or at rendezvous sites has proven effective , Morin et al 2016, Piaggio et al 2016, L opez-Bao et al 2018). Furthermore, rubbing in odorous materials, such as carcasses of dead wildlife, is a natural behavioral response of canids (Ryon et al 1986, Martin and Farge 1988, Heffernan et al 2007, and collecting hair from lured ground-based rub pads has been used to detect both wolves and coyotes (Ausband et al 2011).…”

Hair of the dog: Obtaining samples from coyotes and wolves noninvasively

“…First, hanging devices may have been less secure than ground-based devices; thus, the device moved with the coyote while it rubbed and, therefore, no hair was captured. Second, strong scents incite rub and rub behavior, which is a behavior more naturally performed on the ground by lowering a shoulder and rubbing the neck or shoulders (Ryon et al 1986). Ground devices were more productive for collecting samples, although differences in behavior by individual coyotes Ruff 1997, Darrow andShivik 2009) may result in some coyotes only being detected by hanging devices.…”

“…Coyotes have been shown to rub in lures containing chemicals that mimic degradation and fermentation of tissues, and rub behavior has been elicited from wolves using novel and malodorous substances (Ryon et al 1986, Asa and Mech 1995, Kimball et al 2000. In addition, biologists in the northern Rockies of the United States have observed wolves rubbing in a variety of commercial lures commonly used for trapping (L. Bradley, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, personal communication; M. Jimenez, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication).…”

Behavioral responses to odors from other species: introducing a complementary model of allelochemics involving vertebrates

“…Hyenas show a preference for rolling in animal-based odors, and receive more attention from conspecifics when smelling of carrion (Drea et al, 2002 ). Ryon et al ( 1986 ) found that wolves preferred to rub themselves in strong-smelling, manufactured odors (perfume and motor oil) above carnivore odors, and that sheep and horse feces did not elicit rubbing in wolves. Among the causal explanations for these observed behaviors is status advertisement, where dominant animals seek to stand out by adding complexity to and increasing the range of their odorous presence (Gosling and McKay, 1990 ).…”