RESSALVA Atendendo solicitação da autora, o texto completo desta dissertação será disponibilizado somente a partir de 16/10/2026. UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA – UNESP Instituto de Biociências, Letras e Ciências Exatas - Campus de São José do Rio Preto FRANCIELE FERNANDA CANDIDO THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF RURAL DOG-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS IN THE CERRADO São José do Rio Preto 2024 FRANCIELE FERNANDA CANDIDO THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF RURAL DOG-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS IN THE CERRADO Dissertação apresentada à Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP, Instituto de Biociências Letras e Ciências Exatas, São José do Rio Preto, para obtenção do título de Mestra em Biodiversidade. Área de Concentração: Ecologia e conservação Orientador(a): Prof. Dr. Rita de Cassia Bianchi São José do Rio Preto 2024 C217h Candido, Franciele Fernanda The human dimensions of rural dog-wildlife interactions in the Cerrado / Franciele Fernanda Candido. -- São José do Rio Preto, 2024 42 p.: tabs., fotos, mapas Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Instituto de Biociências Letras e Ciências Exatas, São José do Rio Preto Orientadora: Rita Bianchi 1. Biologia da Conservação. 2. Percepção ambiental. 3. Invasões Biológicas. 4. Cães. 5. Predação (biologia). I. Título. Sistema de geração automática de fichas catalográficas da Unesp. Dados fornecidos pelo autor(a). IMPACTO POTENCIAL DESTA PESQUISA Este estudo pioneiro sobre as interações entre cães de vida livre e a fauna silvestre no Cerrado brasileiro contribui significativamente para o conhecimento científico e técnico sobre o impacto dessas interações. A avaliação da predação de vida selvagem por cães utilizando análise de fezes — um método amplamente empregado em pesquisas sobre carnívoros — é inovadora ao focar em cães domésticos. Além disso, ao investigar tanto a predação quanto as percepções das comunidades locais, esta pesquisa oferece uma compreensão abrangente das dinâmicas entre cães domésticos e espécies nativas em áreas protegidas. Os resultados trazem subsídios importantes para o desenvolvimento de políticas públicas municipais e estaduais, especialmente em relação ao controle de populações de cães domésticos por meio de campanhas de castração e vacinação, alinhadas ao conceito de saúde única. O trabalho também pode servir de base para a criação de conteúdos educacionais sobre ecologia humana e convivência responsável, incentivando o manejo adequado dos animais domésticos. Esse impacto, que pode ser expandido para escalas estaduais e nacional, promove um convívio harmonioso entre sociedade e vida silvestre, visando o bem-estar social e a sustentabilidade ecológica dos remanescentes de Cerrado no Brasil. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THIS RESEARCH This pioneering study on interactions between free-ranging dogs and wildlife in the Brazilian Cerrado makes a significant contribution to scientific and technical knowledge regarding the impact of these interactions. The assessment of wildlife predation by dogs through fecal analysis — a method widely used in carnivore research — is innovative here in its application to domestic dogs. Additionally, by investigating both predation and the perceptions of local communities, this research provides a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics between domestic dogs and wildlife in protected areas. The findings offer essential support for developing municipal and state public policies, particularly regarding domestic dog population control through castration and vaccination campaigns, aligned with the concept of One Health. This work also serves as a foundation for creating educational content on human ecology and responsible coexistence, encouraging the appropriate management of domestic animals. This local and regional impact aims to promote harmonious coexistence between society and wildlife, supporting the social well-being and ecological sustainability of the remaining Cerrado areas in Brazil. FRANCIELE FERNANDA CANDIDO THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF RURAL DOG-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS IN THE CERRADO Dissertação apresentada à Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Instituto de Biociências Letras e Ciências Exatas, São José do Rio Preto, para obtenção do título de Mestra em Biodiversidade. Área de Concentração: Ecologia e conservação Data da defesa: 16/10/2024 Banca Examinadora: ______________________________________ Prof. Dr. Rita de Cassia Bianchi UNESP – Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias - Campus de Jaboticabal ______________________________________ Prof. Dr. Eduardo Silva-Rodriguez Universidad Austral de Chile ______________________________________ Prof. Dr. Clarissa Rosa Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia – INPA Do it nice, not twice AGRADECIMENTOS À minha família – minha mãe, meu pai, meus avós e meu tio Leandro –, minha eterna gratidão. Obrigada por todo o apoio, incentivo e pela fé inabalável que vocês depositaram em mim desde a infância. Vocês acreditaram nos meus sonhos e nunca mediram esforços para que eles se concretizassem. À minha companheira de vida, Marina, por trilhar este caminho ao meu lado. Por me acolher com amor e cuidado, sem julgamentos, e por me apoiar em cada momento desta jornada, especialmente nos mais desafiadores. Obrigada por nunca soltar a minha mão, por ser meu grande amor e minha melhor amiga. Aos amigos, tanto os que já se foram quanto os que permanecem. Entre encontros e despedidas, vocês marcaram cada etapa da minha vida e foram essenciais para que eu chegasse até aqui. Em especial, à Maisa, querida amiga que esta pesquisa me presenteou. Sua presença tornou este caminho muito mais leve e fácil. À minha orientadora, Rita Bianchi, minha profunda gratidão por me abrir as portas de seu laboratório e, consequentemente, do fascinante mundo da ciência. Obrigada por me ensinar a fazer pesquisa com ética e profissionalismo, e por compartilhar tantas conversas, cafés e saberes. À equipe do Laboratório de Ecologia de Mamíferos – LEMa, por me acolherem com tanta generosidade e por promoverem um ambiente de trabalho harmonioso e leve. Sem dúvida, isso fez toda a diferença. A todos os membros, permanentes e temporários, que integraram a equipe deste projeto, em especial a Maisa e Bárbara, meu sincero agradecimento. Obrigada pela parceria, pelo trabalho conjunto e pela amizade cultivada ao longo deste período. Sem vocês, nada disso seria possível. À população de Pedregulho – SP, por nos receberem com tanto carinho e por colaborarem de maneira primorosa para a realização deste trabalho. Aos gestores e funcionários do Parque Estadual Furnas do Bom Jesus, pela hospitalidade e pelo apoio logístico durante o período de amostragem deste projeto. À FAPESP, pelo apoio financeiro, concedido por meio do Processo nº 2021/02737-7, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP). O presente trabalho foi realizado com apoio da Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Código de Financiamento 001. RESUMO O cão doméstico vem sendo considerado uma das sete espécies exóticas mais prejudiciais à biodiversidade de vertebrados no mundo, principalmente devido a sua alta densidade populacional. Em zonas rurais, a mediação dos conflitos entre cães e a fauna silvestre depende de fatores ambientais, socioeconômicos e principalmente do trabalho colaborativo entre gestores e a comunidade local. Neste sentido, para além dos estudos ecológicos a respeito da biologia e interação entre as espécies, se faz necessário um olhar atento à maneira como as comunidades locais entendem e interagem com o problema. Assim, neste estudo avaliamos a influência das práticas de manejo de cães de vida livre com donos e as características sociodemográficas dos proprietários na probabilidade de cães de vida livre com donos perseguirem a vida selvagem. Também investigamos a percepção dos proprietários sobre as interações de seus cães e a vida selvagem, os tipos de animais selvagens mais frequentemente perseguidos e predados e a ocorrência de possíveis eventos de predação de animais selvagens pelos cães. Nossos resultados mostram que cães em matilhas maiores têm uma probabilidade de 90% de perseguir vida selvagem, e cães que acompanham seus tutores nas atividades diárias têm três vezes mais chances de interagir com a fauna local. A maioria dos tutores (69%) relatou perseguições, embora a predação seja menos comum (15%), indicando uma possível subestimação dessas interações. Além da predação direta, os cães representam uma ameaça significativa devido os efeitos de risco, como mudanças no uso do habitat e comportamento de vigilância das presas. A baixa cobertura vacinal e a reprodução indiscriminada destacam a necessidade de campanhas integradas de saúde única para aumentar a adesão dos tutores às práticas de manejo. A conscientização sobre os riscos que os cães representam para a biodiversidade e a saúde comunitária pode facilitar a implementação de medidas de controle mais eficazes. Políticas de manejo devem ir além da eutanásia e remoção de cães, incorporando abordagens holísticas que considerem a realidade socioeconômica e cultural das comunidades locais. Palavras-chave: Cães de vida livre. Risco de predação. Manejo de cães-domésticos. Canis familiaris. ABSTRACT The domestic dog (Canis familiaris) is considered one of the seven most harmful exotic species to vertebrate biodiversity globally, primarily due to its high population density. In rural areas, mitigating conflicts between dogs and wildlife depends on environmental and socioeconomic factors and, crucially, the collaborative efforts of managers and local communities. Beyond ecological studies of species biology and interactions, it is essential to consider how local communities perceive and interact with this issue. In this study, we evaluated the influence of free-ranging dog management practices and the sociodemographic characteristics of owners on the likelihood of their dogs' chasing wildlife. We also investigated owners' perceptions of their dogs' interactions with wildlife, the types of wildlife most frequently chased and preyed upon, and the occurrence of potential predation events. Our results show that dogs in larger packs have a probability of 90% of chasing wildlife, and dogs that accompany their owners in daily activities are three times more likely to interact with local fauna. Most owners (69%) reported chasing incidents, although predation was less common (15%), indicating a potential underestimation of these interactions. Beyond direct predation, dogs pose significant threats due to risk effects, such as changes in habitat use and activity patterns of prey. Low vaccination coverage and uncontrolled reproduction highlight the need for integrated One Health campaigns to increase owners' adherence to management practices. Raising awareness about the risks that dogs pose to biodiversity and community health can facilitate the implementation of more effective control measures. Management policies should go beyond euthanasia and removal of dogs, incorporating holistic approaches that consider the socioeconomic and cultural realities of local communities. Key-Words: Free-roaming dogs. Predation risk. Dog management. Canis familiaris. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Sampled residences around the Furnas do Bom Jesus State Park (FBJSP), São Paulo, Brazil, from September 2022 to January 2024. ........................................................................ 20 Figure 2 - Frequency of occurrence of animals chased by dogs according to owner reports. . 27 Figure 3 - Owners' perceptions of the recommendations by the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) for managing dogs within the park. .............................. 28 Figure 4 - Owners' perceptions of the recommendations by the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) for managing dogs within the park. .............................. 29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1- Demographics and management of free-ranging rural dogs ...................................... 25 Table 2- Best models to estimate the probability of wildlife chasing owned free-ranging dogs. .................................................................................................................................................. 30 Table 3- Odds ratios and variable weights in the global model for owned free-ranging dogs interacting with wildlife. .......................................................................................................... 30 Table 4- Frequency of Occurrence of Identified Items in the Diet of Owned Free-Ranging... 31 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CAAE Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Consideration CEUA Ethics Committee on Animal Use CI Confidence interval CMOS Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Cwb Temperate Climate with Dry Winter and Mild Summer DHARMa Diagnostics for HierArchical Regression Models dplyr Data PLYeR FBJEP Furnas do Bom Jesus State Park FO Frequency of Occurrence FOOD Type of food provided to the dogs by the owners ggplot2 Grammar of Graphics Plot Version 2 GLM Generalized Linear Model IBGE Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics ICMBio Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation K Number of parameters LCI Lower confidence interval LIVESTOCK Presence of livestock on the property Mm Millimeters OR Odds Ratio PACK Number of dogs per residence QAICc Quasi-Akaike Information Criterion corrected for small sample sizes SE Standard Error SIZE Average size of dogs in each household UCI Upper confidence interval Unesp São Paulo State University ΔQAICc Quasi-Akaike Information Criterion difference for small samples ωi QAICc weight LIST OF SYMBOLS % Percentage + Addition = Equal ° Degrees °C Degrees Celsius Δ Uppercase Delta ω Ômega Este artigo foi submetido e formatado de acordo com as normas da revista Ecology & Society CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 16 2. MATERIAL AND METHODS .................................................................................. 19 2.1. Study Area ................................................................................................................ 19 2.2. Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 20 2.3. Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 22 3. RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 24 3.1. Sociodemographic parameters.................................................................................. 24 3.2. Determinants of Wildlife Chase by Rural Dogs in the Cerrado ............................... 29 3.3. Predation of Wildlife by Rural Dogs ........................................................................ 31 4. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 32 5. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 37 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... 38 16 1. INTRODUCTION Interactions between domestic dogs and wildlife are an emerging topic for conservation (Silva‐Rodríguez and Sieving 2012, Hughes and Macdonald 2013, Loss et al. 2013, Parsons et al. 2016, Doherty et al. 2017, Twardek et al. 2017, Home et al. 2018). Due to domestication, dogs (Canis familiaris) have expanded their distribution to all continents except Antarctica. As a result, they have become the most widely distributed and abundant carnivore species on the planet (Gompper 2014). Currently, 75% of this population is composed of rural dogs (Davlin and Vonville 2012), characterized by living associated with rural communities (Gompper 2014). These animals usually live freely, with unrestricted access to natural areas and without proper care (Sepúlveda et al. 2014, Silva-Rodriguez and Sieving 2011). When rural areas are close to protected areas, the presence of free-ranging dogs may become a threat to biodiversity conservation (Lacerda et al. 2009, Paschoal et al. 2012, Lessa et al. 2016, Paschoal et al. 2016, Ribeiro 2019), though predation, changes in wildlife behavior, hybridization and disease transmission (Hughes and Macdonald 2013, Wierzbowska et al. 2016 Twardek et al. 2017, Home et al. 2018, Figuerêdo 2022, Silveira et al. 2023). Such a scenario is common in Brazil, where a significant portion of the hotspot Cerrado is found on private properties, and only 2.8% is protected (Durigan et al. 2006, Colman et al. 2021). The fragmentation of these habitats favors the invasion of free-ranging dogs into natural vegetation areas (Ribeiro et al. 2019). Moreover, this fragmentation forces wildlife to use cultivated areas as ecological corridors (Passamani and Ribeiro 2009, Brady et al. 2011, Martin et al. 2012) increasing encounters between wildlife and domesticated species. Interactions between dogs and wildlife can result in population declines of prey species (Taborsky 1988) and disturbances leading to changes in the activity patterns and habitat use of many other species (Zapata-Ríos & Branch 2016, Nayeri et al. 2022), although in other cases such effects may not be detected (Bianchi et al. 2020, 2021). Predation of wild animals by dogs is frequent (Taborsky 1988, Wierzbowska et al. 2016, Home et al. 2018, Carrasco-Román et al. 2021, Merz et al. 2021, Zamora-Nasca et al. 2021, Nayeri et al. 2022), and mammals are usually the most affected group, especially ungulates and small mammals (Taborsky 1988, Wierzbowska et al. 2016, Home et al. 2018, Carrasco-Román et al. 2021, Merz et al. 2021, Nayeri et al. 2022), followed by birds (Doherty et al. 2017, Hughes and Macdonald 2013). In addition to direct predation, the dynamics of these interactions also involve chasing. Studies conducted in India and Zimbabwe demonstrate that most chasing interactions do not result in 17 prey being killed (Butler et al. 2004, Home et al. 2018). This indicates that free-ranging dogs may be inefficient predators compared to other carnivores (Gompper 2014). Thus, non-lethal impacts, such as disease transmission and risk effects, would be more significant and frequent than direct predation (Silva-Rodriguez et al. 2023; Creel and Christianson 2008). These impacts, in turn, would be primarily caused by the high density of free-ranging dogs close to protected areas (Silva-Rodriguez et al. 2023; Creel and Christianson 2008). The type and magnitude of the impacts that free-ranging dogs cause on wildlife are mediated, among other factors (Svartberg and Forkman 2002, McGreevy et al. 2013), by the environmental and socioeconomic conditions of the communities where they reside (Craft et al. 2016, Serpell 2017, Torres et al. 2018). In rural areas, regardless of whether or not they have owners, free-ranging dogs feed on low-nutritional-value resources such as garbage, human feces, and food scraps (Butler and Bingham 2000, Vanak and Gompper 2009, McDonald et al. 2020). By consuming low-quality diets, dogs may move more in search for food, thus increasing their interactions with wildlife (Silva-Rodriguez and Sieving 2011, Sepulveda et al. 2014). In various regions of the world, other factors such as the owners' activities with the dogs (Wilson- Aggarwal et al. 2021), the role dogs play on the property (Sepúlveda et al. 2014), the number of males and the pack size (Hubrecht et al. 1992, Sparkes et al. 2014, Westgarth et al. 2015, Molloy et al. 2017, Saavedra-Aracena et al. 2021) can influence these interactions. However, few studies have investigated the human dimension of these conflicts, including the owners' perception and how their practices influence these interactions (Sepúlveda et al. 2014, Silva- Rodriguez and Sieving 2011, Wilson-Aggarwal et al. 2021, Zamora-Nasca and Lambertucci 2022). Given the complexity of canine behavior and conflicts between domestic species and wildlife, it is essential to understand the owners' perception and the role of the socio- environmental context in these interactions (dos Santos et al. 2018), because inadequate management of these conflicts can intensify tensions between biodiversity conservation and rural livelihood (Loss et al. 2022). Approaches that consider multiple factors are essential to develop effective solutions, including actions that go beyond dog management (Gompper 2021). To obtain community support and engagement, it is necessary to promote the understanding that environmental issues directly reflect on life and social well-being (Loyau and Schmeller 2017). According to Zamora-Nasca and Lambertucci (2022), the greater the understanding of the threat that dogs pose to wildlife and the communities’ health, the more likely people will collaborate with management measures. In this way, the implementation of 18 neuter programs and vaccination campaigns for the prevention of zoonotic diseases will have greater impact, as dogs will not be replaced by unneutered and unvaccinated animals brought from other regions (Villatoro et al. 2016). In this work, we assessed the influence of owned free-ranging dogs management practices and the owner's sociodemographic features on the likelihood of owned free-ranging dogs chasing wildlife and investigated the most frequently chased and/or preyed upon wild species through interviews and direct investigation of dogs’ fecal samples. We also investigated the owners' perceptions of the presence of dogs in native vegetation areas, their view regarding associated management strategies, as well as the way they manage/care for their dogs. Our hypothesis was that the probability of perceived chasing would increase with male dogs in the pack, the presence of livestock on the property, and the frequency with which dogs follow their owners during daily activities. 37 5. CONCLUSION It is undeniable that dogs, like other domestic species, interact with wildlife. Our results emphasize the risks that domestic dogs pose to the fauna of the Brazilian Cerrado and contribute to elucidating the mechanisms and human dimensions of the behavior of rural free-ranging dogs in Brazil. The fact that interactions are mainly influenced by the demographics of dogs and occur in agricultural matrices adjacent to fragments highlights the urgency of developing management actions integrated into the reality of local communities. The owners' concern for their animals' health during incursions away from home can be seen as an opportunity to educate the community about the risks these interactions pose not only to dogs but also to local biodiversity and the community itself. The existing awareness of the importance of vaccination and the suggestion by some owners to restrict their dogs' movements may facilitate the implementation of control measures. Therefore, management policies that include community education about the importance of restricting dog movement, especially during the day, can be effective in mitigating these impacts. To achieve this, it is necessary to go beyond methods such as euthanasia or removal of dog populations from the area, which are not only ineffective in solving the problem but also do not align with the culture and moral values of local communities, whose dogs play an active role in their lifestyles. In this sense, the One Health approach can be an efficient tool (Leandro et al. 2021, Winck et al. 2022, Skinner 2022): its holistic perspective allows for intersectoral and educational collaboration to promote biodiversity conservation and address emerging problems such as zoonoses and climate change (Leandro et al. 2021, Winck et al. 2022). 38 LITERATURE CITED Andrade, E., K. Nascimento, M. Silva, J. Morais, M. Carneiro, M. Monteiro, C. Azevedo, C. Rocha, L. Chaves, K. Scheffer, R. Neto, and I. Abel. 2022. Factors associated with adherence to annual rabies vaccination in dogs and cats in the municipality of Curuçá, Eastern Amazon. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.15.516558 Arendt, M., K. Cairns, J. Ballard, P. Savolainen, and E. Axelsson. 2016. Diet adaptation in dog reflects spread of prehistoric agriculture. Heredity 117:301-306. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2016.48 Atickem, A., A. Bekele, and S. D. Williams. 2010. Competition between domestic dogs and Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis) in the Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. African Journal of Ecology 48:401-407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2009.01126.x Bakševičius, M. 2022. Free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in Lithuania: their distribution and impact on wildlife. Biologija 68(3). Bertolazzi, S., F. R. Paz, V. P. da Silveira, F. Prusch, I. Agnes, W. D. O. Santana, and V. R. Lunge. 2023. Canine Parvovirus 2 in Free-Living Wild Mammals from Southern Brazil. The Journal of Wildlife Diseases 59(3):500-503. https://doi.org/10.7589/JWD-D-22-00125 Bhadra, A., and A. Bhadra. 2014. Preference for meat is not innate in dogs. Journal of Ethology 32:15-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-013-0388-7 Bhattacharjee, D., R. Sarkar, S. Sau, and A. Bhadra. 2021. Sociability of Indian free-ranging dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) varies with human movement in urban areas. Journal of Comparative Psychology 135(1):89-97. https://doi.org/10.1037/COM0000241 Bianchi, R., J. M. A. Jenkins, D. B. Lesmeister, J. A. Gouvea, C. S. Cesário, L. Fornitano, M. Y. de Oliveira, K. D. R. de Morais, R. L. A. Ribeiro, and M. E. Gompper. 2021. Tayra (Eira barbara) landscape use as a function of cover types, forest protection, and the presence of puma and free‐ranging dogs. Biotropica 53(6):1569-1581. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13005 Bianchi, R., N. Olifiers, L. L. Riski, J. A. Gouvea, C. S. Cesário, L. Fornitano, and M. E. Gompper. 2020. Dog activity in protected areas: behavioral effects on mesocarnivores and the impacts of a top predator. European Journal of Wildlife Research 66(3):36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-020-01376-z Bianchi, R.D.C., N. Olifiers, and A.P.N. Gomes. 2011. Mammals of the Furnas do Bom Jesus State Park and their potential as tourist attractions. In: II Congresso de Natureza, Turismo e Sustentabilidade. Cuiabá, MT, Brazil. Böhm, M. 2009. Current vaccination strategies in dogs and cats. In Practice 31:2-7. https://doi.org/10.1136/inpract.31.1.2 Bonanni, R., and S. Cafazzo. 2014. The social organisation of a population of free-ranging dogs in a suburban area of Rome: a reassessment of the effects of domestication on dogs’ behaviour. In: The social dog. Academic Press, New York, New York, USA, pages 65-104. Boonstra, R., D. Hik, G. R. Singleton, and A. Tinnikov. 1998. The impact of predator‐induced stress on the snowshoe hare cycle. Ecological Monographs 68(3):371-394. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1998)068[0371:TIOPIS]2.0.CO;2 Brady, M., C. McAlpine, H. Possingham, C. Miller, and G. Baxter. 2011. Matrix is important for mammals in landscapes with small amounts of native forest habitat. Landscape Ecology 26:617-628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9602-6 Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York, New York, USA. Butler, J. R. A., J. T. du Toit, and J. Bingham. 2004. Free-ranging domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) as predators and prey in rural Zimbabwe: threats of competition and disease to large https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.15.516558 https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2016.48 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2009.01126.x https://doi.org/10.7589/JWD-D-22-00125 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-013-0388-7 https://doi.org/10.1037/COM0000241 https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13005 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-020-01376-z https://doi.org/10.1136/inpract.31.1.2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9602-6 39 wild carnivores. Biological Conservation 115(3):369-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006- 3207(03)00152-6 Butler, J. R., W. Y. Brown, and J. T. du Toit. 2018. Anthropogenic food subsidy to a commensal carnivore: the value and supply of human faeces in the diet of free-ranging dogs. Animals 8(5):67. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8050067 Calaboni, A., L. R. Tambosi, A. T. Igari, J. S. Farinaci, J. P. Metzger, and M. Uriarte. 2018. The forest transition in São Paulo, Brazil: historical patterns and potential drivers. Ecology and Society 23(4):55. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10270-230407 Campos, C. B. D., C. F. Esteves, K. M. P. M. B. Ferraz, P. G. Crawshaw Jr, and L. M. Verdade. 2007. Diet of free‐ranging cats and dogs in a suburban and rural environment, south‐eastern Brazil. Journal of Zoology 273(1):14-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2007.00291.x Carrasco-Roman, E., J. P. Medina, C. S. Miranda, E. S. Vargas, and J. M. Sánchez-Jasso. 2021. Contributions on the diet of free-ranging dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) in the Nevado de Toluca Flora and Fauna Protection Area, Estado de México, Mexico. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 92. https://doi.org/10.22201/ib.20078706e.2021.92.3495 Choudhury, T. 2019. The effect of protein vs carbohydrate rich diet on the behaviour of juvenile Indian free-ranging dogs. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 8(1):05-09. Colman, C., A. Guerra, F. Roque, I. Rosa, and P. Oliveira. 2021. Identifying priority regions and territorial planning strategies for conserving native vegetation in the Cerrado (Brazil) under different scenarios of land use changes. The Science of the Total Environment 150998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150998 Craft, M.E., F. Vial, E. Miguel, S. Cleaveland, A. Ferdinands, and C. Packer. 2016. Interactions between domestic and wild carnivores around the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem. Animal Conservation 20(2):193-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12305 Creel, S., and D. Christianson. 2008. Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23(4):194-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.12.004 Creel, S., J. Winnie Jr., B. Maxwell, K. Hamlin, and M. Creel. 2005. Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. Ecology 86:3387-3397. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-0032 Curi, N., R. Massara, A. Paschoal, A. Soriano-Araujo, Z. Lobato, G. Demetrio, A. Chiarello, and M. Passamani. 2016. Prevalence and risk factors for viral exposure in rural dogs around protected areas of the Atlantic Forest. BMC Veterinary Research 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0646-3 Davlin, S.L., and H.M. Vonville. 2012. Canine rabies vaccination and domestic dog population characteristics in the developing world: a systematic review. Vaccine 30(24):3492-3502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.03.069 Day, M. 2017. Small animal vaccination: a practical guide for vets in the UK. In Practice 39:110-118. https://doi.org/10.1136/INP.J615 de Jesus Melo, E., and V.P. Santos. 2022. Desenvolvimento rural no Brasil e seus impactos na concretização de um modelo voltado à saúde única (ONE HEALTH). Europub Journal of Health Research 3(4 Edição Especial):852-858. https://doi.org/10.54747/ejhrv3n4-ed.esp.026 Doherty, T.S., C.R. Dickman, A.S. Glen, T.M. Newsome, D.G. Nimmo, E.G. Ritchie, A.T. Vanak, and A.J. Wirsing. 2017. The global impacts of domestic dogs on threatened vertebrates. Biological Conservation 210:56-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.04.007 dos Santos, C.L., Y. Le Pendu, G.A. Giné, C.R. Dickman, T.M. Newsome, and C.R. Cassano. 2018. Human behaviors determine the direct and indirect impacts of free-ranging dogs on wildlife. Journal of Mammalogy 99(5):1261-1269. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyy077 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00152-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00152-6 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8050067 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10270-230407 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2007.00291.x https://doi.org/10.22201/ib.20078706e.2021.92.3495 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150998 https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12305 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.12.004 https://doi.org/10.1890/05-0032 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0646-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.03.069 https://doi.org/10.1136/INP.J615 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.04.007 https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyy077 40 Duarte Moraes, M.F., A. de Souza Pollo, and E.G.L. Hoppe. 2022. Filarids (Spirurida: Onchocercidae) in wild carnivores and domestic dogs from the Brazilian Atlantic forest. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010213 Durigan, G., M.F. Siqueira, G.A.D. Corrêa, and J.A. Ratter. 2006. Seleção de fragmentos prioritários para a criação de unidades de conservação do cerrado no estado de São Paulo. Revista do Instituto Florestal 18:32-37. https://doi.org/10.24278/2178-5031.200618321 Fleming, P.J.S., H. Nolan, S.M. Jackson, G.-A. Ballard, A. Bengsen, W.Y. Brown, P.D. Meek, G. Mifsud, S.K. Pal, and J. Sparkes. 2017. Roles for the Canidae in food webs reviewed: where do they fit? Food Webs 12:14-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.03.001 Frigeri, E., C. Cassano, and R. Pardini. 2014. Domestic dog invasion in an agroforestry mosaic in southern Bahia, Brazil. Tropical Conservation Science 7:508-528. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291400700310 Galetti, M., and I. Sazima. 2006. Impact of feral dogs in an urban Atlantic forest fragment in southeastern Brazil. Natureza e Conservação 4(1):146-151. Gatti, A., J.B. Seibert, and D.D. Moreira. 2018. A predation event by free-ranging dogs on the lowland tapir in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 41(2):311- 314. Gittleman, J.L. 1989. Carnivore group living: comparative trends. In: Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution. Springer, Boston, MA, USA, pages 183-207. Goldston, R.T. & Hoskins, J.D. 1999. Geriatria e gerontologia do cão e do gato. São Paulo: Roca, p. 551. Gomes, A.P.N., L. Fornitano, R.T. Costa, T. Angeli, K.D.R. de Morais, N. Olifiers, and R.D.C. Bianchi. 2018. The importance of protected areas for conservation of bare-faced curassow (Crax fasciolata spix, 1825)(Galliformes: Cracidae) in the São Paulo State, Brazil. Biota Neotropica 18(3). https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2018-0524 Gompper, M. E. 2021. Adding nuance to our understanding of dog-wildlife interactions and the need for management. Integrative and Comparative Biology 61(1):93-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icab049 Gompper, M.E. 2014. The dog-human-wildlife interface: Assessing the scope of the problem. In: Free-ranging dogs and wildlife conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199663217.001.0001 Guedes, J.J.M., C.L. Assis, R.N. Feio, and F.M. Quintela. 2021. The impacts of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) on wildlife in two Brazilian hotspots and implications for conservation. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 44(1):45-58. https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2021.44.0045 Harder, T., and A. Osterhaus. 1997. Canine distemper virus—a morbillivirus in search of new hosts? Trends in Microbiology 5(3):120-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-842X(97)01010- X Hartig, F. 2022. DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level / Mixed) Regression Models. R package version 0.4.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa Home, C., Y. Bhatnagar, and A. T. Vanak. 2018. Canine conundrum: domestic dogs as an invasive species and their impacts on wildlife in India. Animal Conservation 21:275-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12389 Hubrecht, R., J. Serpell, and T. Poole. 1992. Correlates of pen size and housing conditions on the behaviour of kennelled dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34:365-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80096-6 Hughes, J., and D. W. Macdonald. 2013. A review of the interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife. Biological Conservation 157:341-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.005 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010213 https://doi.org/10.24278/2178-5031.200618321 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.03.001 https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291400700310 https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2018-0524 https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icab049 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199663217.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2021.44.0045 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-842X(97)01010-X https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-842X(97)01010-X https://cran.r-project.org/package=DHARMa https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12389 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80096-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.005 41 Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). 2022. Censo Demográfico 2022. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/sociais/populacao/9127-censo- demografico-2022.html Jimenez, A. G., K. Paul, A. Zafar, and A. Ay. 2023. Effect of different masses, ages, and coats on the thermoregulation of dogs before and after exercise across different seasons. Veterinary Research Communications 47(2):833-847. Kapoor, S. 2022. Developing framework toward one health approach: Relevance and future implications. Journal of Public Health and Primary Care 4(1):1-3. https://doi.org/10.4103/jphpc.jphpc_15_22 Knobel, D. L., J. R. Butler, T. Lembo, R. Critchlow, and M. E. Gompper. 2014. Dogs, disease, and wildlife. Free-ranging dogs and wildlife conservation, 144, 169. Lacerda, A. C., W. M. Tomas, and J. Marinho-Filho. 2009. Domestic dogs as an edge effect in the Brasília National Park, Brazil: interactions with native mammals. Animal Conservation 12(5):477-487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00277.x Larson, G., E. K. Karlsson, A. Perri, M. T. Webster, S. Y. Ho, J. Peters, and K. Lindblad-Toh. 2012. Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(23):8878-8883. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203005109 Leandro, A. S., R. D. Lopes, C. A. Martins, A. V. Rivas, I. Silva, S. R. Galvão, and R. Maciel- de-Freitas. 2021. The adoption of the One Health approach to improve surveillance of venomous animal injury, vector-borne and zoonotic diseases in Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009109 Lessa, I. A., T. C. S. Guimarães, H. G. Bergallo, A. Cunha, and E. M. Vieira. 2016. Domestic dogs in protected areas: a threat to Brazilian mammals? Nature and Conservation 14(2):46-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2016.05.001 Loss, S. R., B. Boughton, S. M. Cady, D. W. Londe, C. McKinney, T. J. O'Connell, G. J. Riggs, and E. P. Robertson. 2022. Review and synthesis of the global literature on domestic cat impacts on wildlife. The Journal of Animal Ecology 91:1361-1372. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365- 2656.13745 Loss, S., T. Will, and P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 4:1396. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2380 Loyau, A., and D. S. Schmeller. 2017. Positive sentiment and knowledge increase tolerance towards conservation actions. Biodiversity and Conservation 26:461-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1253-0 Maccoby, E. E., and N. Maccoby. 1954. The interview: A tool of social science. Handbook of Social Psychology 1(1):449-487. Mahar, N., B. Habib, and S. A. Hussain. 2024. Do we need to unfriend a few friends? Free- ranging dogs affect wildlife and pastoralists in the Indian Trans-Himalaya. Animal Conservation 27(1):53-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12876 Marshall-Pescini, S., S. Cafazzo, Z. Virányi, and F. Range. 2017. Integrating social ecology in explanations of wolf–dog behavioral differences. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 16:80-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.05.002 Martin, P. S., C. Gheler-Costa, P. C. Lopes, L. M. Rosalino, and L. M. Verdade. 2012. Terrestrial non-volant small mammals in agro-silvicultural landscapes of Southeastern Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 282:185-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.07.002 McDonald, R. A., J. K. Wilson-Aggarwal, G. J. F. Swan, C. E. D. Goodwin, T. Moundai, D. Sankara, G. Biswas, and J. A. Zingeser. 2020. Ecology of domestic dogs Canis familiaris as an https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/sociais/populacao/9127-censo-demografico-2022.html https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/sociais/populacao/9127-censo-demografico-2022.html https://doi.org/10.4103/jphpc.jphpc_15_22 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00277.x https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203005109 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009109 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2016.05.001 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13745 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13745 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2380 https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12876 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.05.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.07.002 42 emerging reservoir of Guinea worm Dracunculus medinensis infection. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008170 McGreevy, P. D., D. Georgevsky, J. Carrasco, M. Valenzuela, D. L. Duffy, and J. A. Serpell. 2013. Dog behavior co-varies with height, bodyweight, and skull shape. PLoS One 8(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080529 Merz, L., A. Kshirsagar, R. Rafaliarison, T. Rajaonarivelo, Z. Farris, Z. Randriana, and K. Valenta. 2021. Wildlife predation by dogs in Madagascar. Biotropica 54:181-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13049 Miklósi, Á., and J. Topál. 2013. What does it take to become 'best friends'? Evolutionary changes in canine social competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17(6):287-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.005 Molloy, S., A. Burleigh, S. Dürr, and M. P. Ward. 2017. Roaming behaviour of dogs in four remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, Australia: preliminary investigations. Australian Veterinary Journal 95(3):55-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/avj.12562 Monar-Barragán, H. P., E. E. Araujo, J. S. Restrepo-Cardona, S. Kohn, A. Paredes-Bracho, and F. H. Vargas. 2023. Impacts of free-ranging dogs on a community of vertebrate scavengers in a high Andean ecosystem. Tropical Conservation Science 16:19400829231218409. https://doi.org/10.1177/19400829231218409 Nayeri, D., A. Mohammadi, A. T. Qashqaei, A. T. Vanak, and M. E. Gompper. 2022. Free- ranging dogs as a potential threat to Iranian mammals. Oryx 56(3):383-389. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605321000090 Nowak, R., and X. Boivin. 2015. Filial attachment in sheep: Similarities and differences between ewe-lamb and human-lamb relationships. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 164:12- 28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.09.013 Olea, P. P., N. Iglesias, and P. Mateo-Tomás. 2022. Temporal resource partitioning mediates vertebrate coexistence at carcasses: The role of competitive and facilitative interactions. Basic and Applied Ecology 60:63-75. Otranto, D., F. Dantas-Torres, A. Mihalca, R. Traub, M. Lappin, and G. Baneth. 2017. Zoonotic Parasites of Sheltered and Stray Dogs in the Era of the Global Economic and Political Crisis. Trends in Parasitology 33(10):813-825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2017.05.013 Parsons, A., C. Bland, T. Forrester, M. C. Baker-Whatton, S. G. Schuttler, W. J. McShea, R. Costello, and R. Kays. 2016. The ecological impact of humans and dogs on wildlife in protected areas in eastern North America. Biological Conservation 203:75-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.001 Paschoal, A. M. O., R. L. Massara, J. L. Santos, and A. G. Chiarello. 2012. Is the domestic dog becoming an abundant species in the Atlantic forest? A study case in southeastern Brazil. Mammalia 76:67-76. https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2012-0501 Paschoal, A. M. O., R. L. Massara, L. L. Bailey, W. L. Kendall, P. F. Doherty Jr., A. Hirsch, A. G. Chiarello, and A. P. Paglia. 2016. Use of Atlantic Forest protected areas by free-ranging dogs: estimating abundance and persistence of use. Ecosphere 7(10). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1480 Passamani, M., and D. Ribeiro. 2009. Small mammals in a fragment and adjacent matrix in southeastern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 69(2):305-309. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842009000200010 Pereira, A.D., M.H. Antoniazzi, A.P.V. Magnoni, and M.L. Orsi. 2019. Mamíferos silvestres predados por cães domésticos em fragmentos de Mata Atlântica no sul do Brasil. Biotemas 32(2):107-113. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7925.2019v32n2p107 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008170 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080529 https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.005 https://doi.org/10.1111/avj.12562 https://doi.org/10.1177/19400829231218409 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605321000090 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.09.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2017.05.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.001 https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2012-0501 https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1480 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842009000200010 https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7925.2019v32n2p107 43 Polo, G., C. Acosta, and R. Dias. 2013. Spatial accessibility to vaccination sites in a campaign against rabies in São Paulo city, Brazil. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 111(1-2):10-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.03.010 Quadros, J., and E. L. de A. Monteiro-Filho. 2006. Coleta e preparação de pêlos de mamíferos para identificação em microscopia óptica. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 23:274-278. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-81752006000100022 Reynolds, J. C., and N. J. Aebischer. 1991. Comparison and quantification of carnivore diet by faecal analysis: a critique, with recommendations, based on a study of the fox Vulpes vulpes. Mammal Review 21(3):97-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1991.tb00113.x Ribeiro, F. S., E. Nichols, R. G. Morato, J. P. Metzger, and R. Pardini. 2019. Disturbance or propagule pressure? Unravelling the drivers and mapping the intensity of invasion of free‐ ranging dogs across the Atlantic forest hotspot. Diversity and Distributions 25(2):191-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12845 Rodrigues, R. C. A., A. P. B. von Zuben, T. Lucca, and M. L. A. B. Reichmann. 2017. Rabies vaccination campaigns in dogs and cats, and rabies positivity in bats, from 2004 to 2014, in Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde 26(3):621-628. https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742017000300019 Rodríguez-Cabo-Mercado, R., F. Martínez-Hernández, N. Aréchiga-Ceballos, O. López-Díaz, C. I. Muñoz-García, A. Aguilar-Setién, G. Villalobos, C. Villanueva-García, A. Verdugo- Rodríguez, R. Iturbe-Ramírez, and E. Rendón-Franco. 2020. Canine distemper in neotropical procyonids: Molecular evidence, humoral immune response and epidemiology. Virus Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2020.198164 Saavedra-Aracena, L., A. Grimm-Seyfarth, and E. Schüttler. 2021. Do dog-human bonds influence movements of free-ranging dogs in wilderness? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 241105358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105358 Sarkar, R., A. Bhowmick, D. Dasgupta, R. Banerjee, P. Chakraborty, A. Nayek, R. Sreelekshmi, A. Roy, R. Sonowal, A. B. Mondal, and A. Bhadra. 2023. Eating smart: Free-ranging dogs follow an optimal foraging strategy while scavenging in groups. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 111099543. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1099543 Sasaki, D., and R. D. Mello-Silva. 2008. Levantamento florístico no cerrado de Pedregulho, SP, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica 22:187-202. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102- 33062008000100019 Schüttler, E., L. Saavedra-Aracena, and J. Jiménez. 2018. Domestic carnivore interactions with wildlife in the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, Chile: husbandry and perceptions of impact from a community perspective. PeerJ 6. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4124 Schwartz, A. L., H. F. Williams, E. Chadwick, R. J. Thomas, and S. E. Perkins. 2018. Roadkill scavenging behaviour in an urban environment. Journal of Urban Ecology 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juy006 Selman, P., E. van Garderen, J. A. Mol, and T. S. G. A. M. Ingh. 1995. Comparison of the histological changes in the dog after treatment with the progestins medroxyprogesterone acetate and proligestone. The Veterinary Quarterly 17(4):128-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.1995.9694551 Selman, P., J. A. Mol, G. R. Rutteman, E. van Garderen, and A. Rijnberk. 1994. Progestin- induced growth hormone excess in the dog originates in the mammary gland. Endocrinology 134(1):287-292. https://doi.org/10.1210/ENDO.134.1.7506206 Sepúlveda, M. A., R. S. Singer, E. A. Silva-Rodríguez, P. Stowhas, and K. M. Pelican. 2014. Domestic dogs in rural communities around protected areas: conservation problem or conflict solution? PLoS ONE 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086152 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.03.010 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-81752006000100022 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1991.tb00113.x https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12845 https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742017000300019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2020.198164 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105358 https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1099543 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-33062008000100019 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-33062008000100019 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4124 https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juy006 https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.1995.9694551 https://doi.org/10.1210/ENDO.134.1.7506206 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086152 44 Serpell, J. A. 2017. From paragon to pariah: cross-cultural perspectives on attitudes to dogs. In: J. A. Serpell, editor. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pages 300-316. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139161800.015 Silva-Rodríguez, E. A., and K. E. Sieving. 2011. Influence of care of domestic carnivores on their predation on vertebrates. Conservation Biology 25(4):808-815. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01690.x Silva-Rodríguez, E. A., and K. E. Sieving. 2012. Domestic dogs shape the landscape-scale distribution of a threatened forest ungulate. Biological Conservation 150(1):103-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.008 Silva-Rodríguez, E. A., E. I. Cortés, B. Zambrano, L. Naughton-Treves, and A. A. Farías. 2023. On the causes and consequences of the free-roaming dog problem in southern Chile. Science of The Total Environment 891:164324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164324 Skinner, T. J. 2022. One health the future of rural health? Australian Journal of Rural Health 30(3):304-305. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12893 Souza, N. A., R. S. Leite, S. O. Silva, M. G. Penna, L. F. F. Vilela, M. N. Melo, and A. S. R. Andrade. 2019. Detection of mixed Leishmania infections in dogs from an endemic area in southeastern Brazil. Acta Tropica 193:12-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.02.016 Sparkes, J., G. Körtner, C. Ballard, P. J. S. Fleming, and W. Y. Brown. 2014. Effects of sex and reproductive state on interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs. PLoS ONE 9(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116053 Svartberg, K., and B. Forkman. 2002. Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79:133-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168- 1591(02)00121-1 Taaffe, J., R. Sharma, A. B. R. Parthiban, J. S. P. Kaur, B. B. S. J. Gill, D. R. Gopal, N. K. Dhand, and F. K. Parekh. 2023. One Health activities to reinforce intersectoral coordination at local levels in India. Frontiers in Public Health 11:1041447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1041447 Taborsky, M. 1988. Kiwis and dog predation: observations in Waitangi State Forest. Notornis 35(3):197-202. Torres, D. F., E. S. Oliveira, and R. R. N. Alves. 2018. Conflicts between humans and terrestrial vertebrates: A global review. Tropical Conservation Science 11:1940082918794084. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082918794084 Trites, A. W., and R. Joy. 2005. Dietary analysis from fecal samples: How many scats are enough? Journal of Mammalogy 86:704-712. https://doi.org/10.1644/1545- 1542.2005.086:DAFFSH2.0.CO;2 Tull, A., H. Valdmann, R. Rannap, T. Kaasiku, E. Tammeleht, and U. Saarma. 2022. Free- ranging rural dogs are highly infected with helminths, contaminating environment nine times more than urban dogs. Journal of Helminthology 96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X22000116 Tull, A., H. Valdmann, R. Rannap, T. Kaasiku, E. Tammeleht, and U. Saarma. 2022. Free- ranging rural dogs are highly infected with helminths, contaminating environment nine times more than urban dogs. Journal of Helminthology 96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X22000116 Twardek, W. M., K. S. Peiman, A. J. Gallagher, and S. J. Cooke. 2017. Fido, Fluffy, and wildlife conservation: The environmental consequences of domesticated animals. Environmental Reviews 25:381-395. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2016-0111 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139161800.015 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01690.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164324 https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12893 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.02.016 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116053 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00121-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00121-1 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1041447 https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082918794084 https://doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542.2005.086:DAFFSH2.0.CO;2 https://doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542.2005.086:DAFFSH2.0.CO;2 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X22000116 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X22000116 https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2016-0111 45 Valenta, K., J. A. Gettinger-Larson, C. A. Chapman, and Z. J. Farris. 2016. Barking up the right tree: understanding local attitudes towards dogs in villages surrounding Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar can benefit applied conservation. Madagascar Conservation & Development 11(2):87-90. https://doi.org/10.4314/mcd.v11i2.4 van Dongen, F., P.-J. Guay, R.W. Robinson, and M.A. Weston. 2018. Evaluating how the group size of domestic, invasive dogs affect coastal wildlife responses: the case of flight-initiation distance (FID) of birds on southern Australian beaches. In: 10.1007/978-3-319-91382-7_12 Vanak, A. T., and M. E. Gompper. 2009. Dogs Canis familiaris as carnivores: Their role and function in intraguild competition. Mammal Review 39:265-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2009.00148.x Villatoro, F. J., M. A. Sepúlveda, P. Stowhas, and E. A. Silva-Rodríguez. 2016. Urban dogs in rural areas: Human-mediated movement defines dog populations in southern Chile. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 135:59-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.11.004 Warembourg, C., E. Wera, T. Odoch, P. M. Bulu, M. Berger-González, D. Alvarez, and S. Dürr. 2021. Comparative study of free-roaming domestic dog management and roaming behavior across four countries: Chad, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Uganda. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8:617900. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.617900 Westgarth, C., H. Christian, and R. Christley. 2015. Factors associated with daily walking of dogs. BMC Veterinary Research 11:116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-015-0434-5 Wickham, H. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org Wickham, H., R. François, L. Henry, and K. Müller. 2023. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 1.1.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr Wierzbowska, I. A., M. Hędrzak, B. Popczyk, H. Okarma, and K. R. Crooks. 2016. Predation of wildlife by free-ranging domestic dogs in Polish hunting grounds and potential competition with the grey wolf. Biological Conservation 201:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.016 Wilson-Aggarwal, J. K., C. E. Goodwin, T. Moundai, M. K. Sidouin, G. J. F. Swan, M. Lechenne, and R. A. McDonald. 2021. Spatial and temporal dynamics of space use by free- ranging domestic dogs Canis familiaris in rural Africa. Ecological Applications 31. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2328 Winck, G. R., R. L. G. Raimundo, H. Fernandes-Ferreira, M. G. Bueno, P. S. D'Andrea, F. L. Rocha, G. L. T. Cruz, E. M. Vilar, M. Brandão, J. L. P. Cordeiro, and C. S. Andreazzi. 2022. Socioecological vulnerability and the risk of zoonotic disease emergence in Brazil. Science Advances 8. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo5774 Zamora-Nasca, L., A. Virgilio, and S. Lambertucci. 2021. Online survey suggests that dog attacks on wildlife affect many species and every ecoregion of Argentina. Biological Conservation 256:109041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109041 Zapata-Ríos, G., and L. C. Branch. 2016. Altered activity patterns and reduced abundance of native mammals in sites with feral dogs in the high Andes. Biological Conservation 193:9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.016 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2009.00148.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.11.004 https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.617900 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-015-0434-5 https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org/ https://cran.r-project.org/package=dplyr https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.016 https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2328 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo5774 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109041 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.016