Pair-Specific Scents in African Wild Dogs, Lycaon pictus, and an Example of a Potential Method to Identify Signals Within Complex Mixtures

  • Neil R. JordanEmail author
  • Peter J. Apps
  • Krystyna A. Golabek
  • J. Weldon McNutt
Conference paper


Identifying specific signaling components within complex mixtures is a common problem in semiochemistry. Both glandular secretions and excretory products contain components of semiochemical importance, but identifying these signals is problematic because they are usually parts of mixtures with several 100 components, of which only a subset may be involved with signaling. In contrast to waste and metabolic byproducts—which can be expected to vary both between and within individuals according to extrinsic factors—signaling compounds are expected to be uniform among animals sending the same signal and stable over time. In group-living territorial species we would expect there to be a degree of group-specificity in signals that advertise territory residence. As part of an ongoing study investigating and manipulating scent-marking and territorial behavior in African wild dogs, several 100 volatile components have been located from their urine. How many and which, if any, of these have active roles in semiochemical communication of territory residence is currently unknown. Observations of scent marking behaviors of African wild dogs strongly suggest that dominant urine overmarks (DUOs)—where one member of a pair deposits urine on the urine of its partner—are the most likely source of such signals. We used multivariate statistics to investigate >990 separated chemical components (some of which could be multiple compounds) found in these DUOs, and found as few as 10 chemical components that together enabled statistical discrimination of specific dominant pairs. We suggest that this method may be broadly applied across communication systems to locate components of signals within complex “mixtures.”


Principal Component Analysis Discriminant Function Analysis Scent Mark Discriminant Function Analysis Multivariate Statistical Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation for funding this work. SpectralWorks ( kindly donated the AnalyzerPro software. All work was carried out under a permit from the Botswana Ministry of Environment Wildlife and Tourism, Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Reena H. Walker kindly assisted with data extraction. Briana Abrahms, Geoffrey Gilfillan and Jessica Vitale assisted in collecting the samples used in this study.


  1. Apps PJ (2013) Are mammal olfactory signals hiding right under our noses? Naturwissenschaften 100:487–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Apps P, Mmualefe L, McNutt JW (2012) Identification of volatiles from the secretions and excretions of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). J Chem Ecol 38:1450–1461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekoff M (2001) Observations of scent-marking and discriminating self from others by a domestic dog (Canis familiaris): tales of displaced yellow snow. Behav Processes 55:75–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloss J, Acree TE, Bloss JM, Hood WR, Kunz TH (2002) Potential use of chemical cues for colony-mate recognition in the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus. J Chem Ecol 28:819–834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonadonna F, Nevitt GA (2004) Partner-specific odor recognition in an Antarctic seabird. Science 306:835CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Burger BV (2005) Mammalian semiochemicals. In: Schulz S (ed) The chemistry of pheromones and other semiochemicals II (Topics in current chemistry 240). Springer, Heidelberg, pp 231–278Google Scholar
  7. Davies JM, Lachno DR, Roper TJ (1988) The anal gland secretion of the European badger (Meles meles) and its role in social communication. J Zool 216:455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunbar IF (1977) Olfactory preferences in dogs: the response of male and female beagles to conspecific odors. Behav Biol 20:471–481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ewer RF (1968) Ethology of mammals. Logos Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Field A (2005) Discovering statistics using SPSS, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Golabek KA, Radford AN (2013) Chorus-call classification in the southern pied babbler: multiple call types given in overlapping contexts. Behaviour 150:691–712Google Scholar
  12. Gorman ML (1976) A mechanism for individual recognition by odour in Herpestes auropunctatus (Carnivora: Viverridae). Anim Behav 24:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorman ML, Kruuk H, Leitch A (1984) Social functions of the sub-caudal scent gland secretion of the European badger Meles meles (Carnivora: Mustelidae). J Zool 204:549–559Google Scholar
  14. Gosling LM (1982) A reassessment of the function of scent marking in territories. Z Tierpsychol 60:89–118Google Scholar
  15. Johnston RE, Chaing G, Tung C (1994) The information in scent over-marks of golden hamsters. Anim Behav 48:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jordan NR (2007) Scent marking investment is determined by sex and breeding status in meerkats. Anim Behav 74:531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jordan NR, Mwanguhya F, Kyabulima S, Rüedi P, Cant MA (2010) Scent marking within and between groups of wild banded mongooses. J Zool 280:72–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jordan NR, Mwanguhya F, Furrer RD, Kyabulima S, Rüedi P, Cant MA (2011) Scent marking in wild banded mongooses: 2. Intrasexual overmarking and competition between males. Anim Behav 81:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jordan NR, Golabek KA, Apps PJ, Gilfillan GD, McNutt JW (2013) Scent-mark identification and scent-marking behavior in African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). Ethology 119:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jordan NR, Apps PJ, Golabek KA, McNutt JW (2014) Top marks for top dogs: tandem marking and pair-bond advertisement in African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). Anim Behav 88:211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Malcolm JR (1979) Social organization and communal rearing in African wild dogs. Dissertation, Harvard University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Manser MB, Bell MB (2004) Spatial representation of shelter locations in meerkats, Suricata suricatta. Anim Behav 68:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin SJ, Drijfhout FP (2009) How reliable is the analysis of complex cuticular hydrocarbon profiles by multivariate statistical methods? J Chem Ecol 35:375–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin SJ, Helanterä H, Drijfhout FP (2008) Colony-specific hydrocarbons identify nest mates in two species of Formica ant. J Chem Ecol 34:1072–1080CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. McNutt JW (1996) Sex-biased dispersal in African wild dogs, Lycaon pictus. Anim Behav 52:1067–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitteroecker P, Bookstein F (2011) Linear discrimination, ordination, and the visualization of selection gradients in modern morphometrics. Evol Biol 38:100–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Müller CA, Manser MB (2007) ‘Nasty neighbours’ rather than ‘dear enemies’ in a social carnivore. Proc R Soc B 274:959–965PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Müller CA, Manser MB (2008) The information banded mongooses extract from heterospecific alarms. Anim Behav 75:897–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Osofsky SA, McNutt JW, Hirsch KJ (1996) Immobilization of free-ranging African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) using a ketamine/xylazine/atropine combination. J Zoo Wildl Med 27:528–532Google Scholar
  30. Palphramand KL, White PCL (2007) Badgers, Meles meles, discriminate between neighbor, alien and self scent. Anim Behav 74:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poindron P, Levy F, Krehbiel D (1988) Genital, olfactory, and endocrine interactions in the development of maternal behavior in the parturient ewe. Psychoneuroendocrinology 13:99–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pomilia MA, McNutt JW, Jordan NR (2015) Ecological predictors of African wild dog ranging patterns in northern Botswana. J Mamm DOI: 10.1093/jmammal/gyv130.Google Scholar
  33. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  34. Radford AN (2005) Group-specific vocal signatures and neighbor-stranger discrimination in the cooperatively breeding green woodhoopoe. Anim Behav 70:1227–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rasmussen LEL, Lee TD, Zhang A, Roelofs WL, Daves GD (1997) Purification, identification, concentration and bioactivity of (Z)-7-dodecen-1-yl acetate: sex pheromone of the female Asian elephant, Elephas maximus. Chem Senses 22:417–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Roberts SC, Davidson AJ, McLean L, Beynon RJ, Hurst JL (2012) Pheromonal induction of spatial learning in mice. Science 338:1462–1465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Safi K, Kerth G (2003) Secretions of the interaural gland contain information about individuality and colony membership in Bechstein’s bat. Anim Behav 65:363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schulte BA (1998) Scent marking and responses to male castor fluid by beavers. J Mamm 79:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sillero-Zubiri C, Macdonald DW (1998) Scent-marking and territorial behavior of Ethiopian wolves Canis simensis. J Zool 245:351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sun L, Müller-Schwarze D (1998) Anal gland secretion codes for family membership in the beaver. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 44:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yamamoto I (1984) Latrine utilization and feces recognition in the raccoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides. J Ethol 2:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil R. Jordan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Peter J. Apps
    • 4
  • Krystyna A. Golabek
    • 1
    • 5
  • J. Weldon McNutt
    • 1
  1. 1.Botswana Predator Conservation TrustMaunBotswana
  2. 2.Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Taronga Conservation Society Australia, Taronga Western Plains ZooWildlife Reproduction CentreDubboAustralia
  4. 4.Paul G. Allen Family Foundation Laboratory for Wildlife ChemistryBotswana Predator Conservation TrustMaunBotswana
  5. 5.Department of Zoology, Wildlife Conservation Research UnitUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations