Of shared homes and pathways: free-ranging dog movement and habitat use in a human-wildlife landscape in India

TL;DR

This study examines how free-ranging dogs move and use habitats near a wildlife reserve in India, finding that human presence influences their behavior and potential impact on wildlife.

Contribution

The study provides new insights into how human-modified landscapes influence the movement and habitat use of free-ranging dogs near protected areas.

Findings

Free-ranging dogs had small activity ranges and primarily stayed within 500 meters of their homes.

Dogs in less populated areas showed higher intensity of use, suggesting a response to perceived threats from wildlife.

Dogs strongly selected human-modified habitats and moved faster in forested areas.

Abstract

Free-ranging dogs are widely considered to negatively impact wildlife in shared landscapes. Understanding their use of these landscapes is therefore essential to develop effective management strategies in wildlife-adjacent regions. In this study, we investigated the movement patterns of free-ranging dogs (FRD) in the protected area matrix of Mudumalai Tiger Reserve (MTR) in Southern India. We hypothesized that increased settlement cover would result in a greater human shield effect, allowing dogs more freedom of movement.

Fifteen owned FRD were collared from two adjacent villages with different levels of human habitation. We estimated dog activity ranges and movement patterns using autocorrelated kernel density estimates (AKDE). Large-scale movement was characterized through multiple metrics (intensity of space use and mean distance from the dog’s home) and compared between villages to understand underlying drivers. Lastly, we quantified fine-scale movement and habitat selection using integrated step selection analysis (iSSA).

We found that FRD in MTR had directionally dependent home-ranging behavior and small activity ranges, with the mean AKDE activity range being 9.88 ± 7.69 ha (median = 6.09 ha, range 3.28–26.16 ha), and primarily utilized the area within 500 m of their homes. None of the movement metrics varied significantly between villages except for intensity of use, suggesting that dogs in the less populated village perceived a greater threat from surrounding wildlife and were more driven to seek refuge inside their activity ranges. iSSA revealed that dogs selected strongly for human settled or human-modified habitats, and moved significantly faster in forest land than any other habitat.

Our findings indicate that owned FRD may pose a relatively lower threat to wildlife in MTR than feral dogs. They also support the human shield hypothesis, show that FRD display behavioral plasticity at fine scales of < 5 km, and highlight the role of human land use intensity in shaping the movement of domestic dogs. As humans can thus mediate the potential effects of dogs on wildlife, anthropogenic factors should be taken in consideration when designing management strategies that aim to curb dog movement.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40462-026-00632-2.

Figures