SUMMARY: In this study we tested the effect of pollen and nectar loading on metabolic rate (in mW) and wingbeat frequency during hovering, and also examined the effect of pollen loading on wing kinematics and mechanical power output. Pollen foragers had hovering metabolic rates approximately 10% higher than nectar foragers, regardless of the amount of load carried. Pollen foragers also had a more horizontal body position and higher inclination of stroke plane than measured previously for honey bees (probably nectar foragers). Thorax temperatures ranked pollen > nectar > water foragers,and higher flight metabolic rate could explain the higher thorax temperature of pollen foragers. Load mass did not affect hovering metabolic rate or wingbeat frequency in a regression-model experiment. However, using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) design, loaded pollen and nectar foragers (mean loads 27% and 40% of body mass, respectively) significantly increased metabolic rate by 6%. Mean pollen loads of 18% of body mass had no effect on wingbeat frequency, stroke amplitude, body angle or inclination of stroke plane, but increased the calculated mechanical power output by 16–18%(depending on the method of estimating drag). A rise in lift coefficient as bees carry loads without increasing wingbeat frequency or stroke amplitude(and only minimal increases in metabolic rate) suggests an increased use of unsteady power-generating mechanisms.

One of the greatest stressors for dogs living in animal shelters is social isolation. Many studies have demonstrated that human interaction reduces cortisol in shelter dogs, with the possibility that longer periods of interaction may yield greater effects. These types of interventions are contingent upon removing the dog from the kennel and any such reductions in cortisol are often lost when the dog returns to the kennel. More recently, animal shelters are utilizing short-term fostering programs to provide relief from the perceived stresses of kennel life; however the effects of these programs are not well understood. This study assessed the impacts of one- and two-night fostering programs on the urinary cortisol levels, resting pulse rates, longest bout of uninterrupted rest, and proportion of time spent resting of dogs awaiting adoption. Five animal shelters, open and limited-admission facilities, from across the United States participated in the study. During the study, dogs’ urine was collected in the morning before, during, and after fostering stays for cortisol: creatinine analysis. Non-invasive health monitors were worn by the dogs, which collected heart rates and activity levels, in the shelter and in foster homes. In total, 207 dogs participated in the study, and 1,076 cortisol values were used in our analysis. Across all shelters, we found that dogs’ cortisol: creatinine ratios dropped significantly during their fostering stay, but returned to baseline levels after return to the shelter. However, the observed reduction in cortisol varied in magnitude across shelters. We found that dogs of greater weight, age, and average resting pulse rate had higher cortisol levels; and dogs with longer bouts of uninterrupted rest had lower cortisol levels. Dogs had their longest bouts of rest during sleepovers, followed by in the shelter after their sleepovers. Lastly, significant differences were found when comparing in-shelter cortisol values at our five shelters, differences that were in some cases greater than the impact of the fostering intervention itself. Considering the diversity of facilities that participated in this study, it is possible that as yet unstudied, shelter-specific, environmental factors could be contributing to the overall welfare of shelter dogs. Thus while a reprieve from the shelter is impactful for dogs awaiting adoption, mitigating the stressors present in kenneling conditions should also be addressed to improve the lives of shelter dogs.

Despite the intimate relationship dogs share with humans in Western society, we know relatively little about the variables that produce and maintain dog social behavior towards humans. One possibility is that human social interaction is itself a reinforcer for dog behavior. As an initial assessment of the variables that might maintain dog social behavior, we compared the relative efficacy of brief human social interaction to a small piece of food as a reinforcer for an arbitrary response (nose touch). We investigated this in three populations of canids: shelter dogs, owned dogs, and hand‐reared wolves. Across all three canid populations, brief social interaction was a relatively ineffective reinforcer compared to food for most canids, producing lower responding and longer latencies than food.