Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 1405–1418 | Cite as

Demography of domestic dog population and its implications for stray dog abundance: a case study of Omsk, Russia

Article

Abstract

In cities of Russia, stray dog populations have been conserved for a long time, despite natural mortality and constant catching. We suggested that the overpopulation of owned dogs and their subsequent transition into stray dogs is a primary reason for the increase in the number of stray dogs. Information on owned dogs was obtained through a cross-sectional household survey of dogs owners in Omsk, Russia. Analysis of a vertical life table showed that the maximum mortality of owned dogs under 1 year of age was 53 %; in other age classes, the mortality was, on average, 5.6 %. Analysis of fecundity showed that 81 % of the owners do not mate their dogs; consequently, only 36 % of the adult females whelped at least once. Analysis of the Leslie matrix showed that the growth rate of the population of owned dogs was 1 % per year. This result shows minimum overpopulation. Previous dogs escaped or were lost or vanished in rare cases (approximately 0.5 %). However, in a megalopolis, even such low frequencies are significant (95 % CI: 1433–5473 individuals). Analyses of the demographic processes in a population of owned dogs showed that a transition from owned dogs to stray dogs exists. Overpopulation is not the key reason for the transition, but different accidents are: that is, pets are lost, run away, etc. The frequency of such events is small, but, because of the size of the city, the number of such dogs might be 10–39 % of the total number of stray dogs.

Keywords

Demography of domestic dogs Stray dogs Owned dogs Fecundity Mortality 

References

  1. Acosta-Jamett G, Cleaveland S, Cunningham AA, Bronsvoort BMC (2010) Demography of domestic dogs in rural and urban areas of the Coquimbo region of Chile and implications for disease transmission. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 94:272–281. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.01.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Batsanov NP, Aliev AA et al. (1998) On the Problem of Taking Census of Stray Dogs in St. Petersburg In: Metodicheskie rekomendatsii po uchetu chislennosti bezdomnykh sobak Sankt-Peterburga (Methodological Guidelines for Taking Census of Stray Dogs in St. Petersburg), St. Petersburg, 1998, p. 123. (in Russia).Google Scholar
  3. Berezina ES (2002) Ecology of urban dogs population. A classification of ecological groups, abundance, population structure of groups, communication (on the model of Omsk and Omsk region). Vet Pathol 1:132–135 (in Russia)Google Scholar
  4. Boitani L, Ciucci P (1995) Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves. Ethol Ecol Evol 7:49–72. doi:10.1080/08927014.1995.9522969 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler JR, Bingham J (2000) Demography and dog-human relationships of the dog population in Zimbabwean communal lands. The Veterinary Record 147(16):442–446. doi:10.1136/vr.147.16.442 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd doi:10.1002/9781118445112.stat07481
  7. Gsell AS, Knobel DL, Cleavland S, Kazwala RR, Vounatsou P, Zinsstag J (2012) Domestic dog demographic structure and dynamics relevant to rabies control planning in urban areas in Africa: the case of Iringa, Tanzania. BMC Veterinary Research 8: P.236. doi:10.1186/1746-6148-8-236
  8. Ivanter EV, Sedova NA (2008) Ecological monitoring of urban groups of stray dogs: an example of the city of Petrozavodsk. Russ J Ecol 39(2):105–110. doi:10.1134/S1067413608020057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kitala P, McDermott J, Kyule M, Gathuma J, Perry B, Wandeler A (2001) Dog ecology and demography information to support the planning of rabies control in Machakos District, Kenya. Acta Trop 78(3):217–230. doi:10.1016/S0001-706X(01)00082-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Makenov MT (2007) Ekologicheskaja kharakteristika populjatsij sinantropnyh sobak-pariy (the ecological characteristics of free-ranging dogs population). Omsk State Pedagogical University(in Russia)Google Scholar
  11. Makenov M.T., Kassal B.Yu. (2014) Study of free-range and stray dog population in Omsk. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Biology 1 (7): 87–98. (in Russia, abstract in English).Google Scholar
  12. Makenov МТ, Mihaylova ОА (2013) Biting humans by dogs (general description). Journal of Siberian Federal University. Biology 1(6):32–43Google Scholar
  13. Mindekem R, Kayali U, Yemadji N, Ndoutamia AG, Zinsstaq J (2004) Impact of canine demography on rabies transmission in N'djamena, Chad. Medecine tropicale: revue du Corps de sante colonial 65(1):53–58Google Scholar
  14. Ortega-Pacheco A, Rodriguez-Buenfil JC, Bolio-Gonzalez ME, Sauri-Arceo CH, Jiménez-Coello M, Forsberg CL (2007) A survey of dog populations in urban and rural areas of Yucatan. Mexico Anthrozoos 20(3):261–274. doi:10.2752/089279307X224809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Poyarkov AD (1991) From the life of stray dogs In: What the dogs bark, Moscow, pp 115–148.Google Scholar
  16. Poyarkov AD, Vereshagin AO, Bogomolov PL (2011a) Study of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) population in Moscow. Message 1. Russian Journal of Zoology 90(4), 498–504. (in Russia, abstract in English)Google Scholar
  17. Poyarkov AD, Vereshagin AO, Bogomolov PL (2011b) Study of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) population in Moscow. Message 2. Russian Journal of Zoology 90(6), 724–732. (in Russia, abstract in English)Google Scholar
  18. Snigirev SI, Mister DA (2010) Structure description of dogs population of Oktyabrsky district of Barnaul. Vestnik Altayskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta 2(64):58–60 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  19. Stott I., Hodgson D, Townley S (2014) Popdemo: provides tools for demographic modelling using projection matrices. R package version 0.1–4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=popdemo
  20. WHO (1990) Guidelines for dog population management. World Health Organization, GeneveGoogle Scholar
  21. Zaloznykh DV, Ponomarenko OI (2006) Abundance, specific features of distribution, and territorial behavior of stray dogs in Nizhni Novgorod. Vet Pathol 2 (17): 19–23. (in Russia).Google Scholar
  22. Zolina NF (2011) Features of ecology of populations of homeless dogs of Penza city. Izv Penz gos pedagog univ im.VG Belinskogo 25: 195–198. (in Russia).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Omsk Research Institute of Natural Focal InfectionsOmskRussia
  2. 2.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations