The relation between ‘female reproductive success' and the first factor of the PCA developed for females.

<p>Reproductive success has been assessed as number of puppies survived to maturity. High negative values on factor 1 indicate high-ranking and old females who often led the pack.</p

Results of the principal components analysis (PCA) for females.

<p>The circle shows the correlation between the original variables and the two new components. a  =  female standardized dominance rank, b  =  female leadership score, c  =  female age. Pearson correlations between factor 1 of the PCA and the original variables were: −0.95 (a), −0.99 (b), −0.97 (c); Pearson correlations between factor 2 and the original variables were: −0.31 (a), 0.09 (b), 0.21 (c).</p

Correlation between the first factor PCA developed for females and: (a) rate of received mounts; (b) proportion of interrupted mounts.

<p>See text for additional explanations.</p

Results of the general linear models developed for males.

<p>(a) The relation between ‘male copulation tie rate’ and the first factor of the PCA. High negative values on factor 1 indicate high-ranking males who often led the pack, who were frequently approached within 1 metre by females and who displayed both a high rate of affiliative behaviour and a low rate of aggressive behaviour towards females; (b) The relation between “rate of refusals that males received by females” and the second factor of the PCA. High negative values on factor 2 indicate a high rate of aggressive behaviour displayed by males towards females.</p

Identity, age class at the end of the study (young: 6 mo to 1 yr; sub-adult: 1 yr to 2 yr; adult: more than 2 yr), gender, pack membership, standardized dominance rank, leadership score, mating pattern and denning location (inside the core area, inside the home range of the pack and at other places) of the dogs studied.

<p>Male mating success  =  number of copulation ties. Female reproductive success  =  number of puppies survived to maturity.</p

7.Total_Number_of_Aggressive_interactions_in_dog_packs

This file contains six tables. Each table is a squared matrix reporting the total number of aggressive gestures exchanged among dogs belonging to the same pack. So, each table corresponds to a different dog pack. Performers of aggressive gestures are reported on the vertical axis on the left side of each table, in which each individual dog is identified using a 2-3 letters code. Recipients of aggressive gestures are reported on the upper horizontal axis of each table, and again each individual dog is identified using a 2-3 letter code. Note that the data reported for the Curva pack are not statistically independent from those reported for the Fused pack, since the latter originated from the fusion of the Curva pack with another one and the data collected before and after the fusion event were combined (see Bonanni et al. 2017, Behav Ecol, for additional explanations). In the original paper, the data reported in these tables were used to calculate the statistical parameters reported in Table S6, i.e. hierarchy linearity, directional consistency of aggressive behaviour, hierarchy steepness, as well as percentage of unknown, 1-way, 2-ways, and tied dyadic relationships

1.Total_Number_of_Submissive_interactions_in_dog_packs

This file contains six tables. Each table is a squared matrix reporting the total number of submissive gestures exchanged among dogs belonging to the same pack. So, each table corresponds to a different dog pack. Performers of submissive gestures are reported on the vertical axis on the left side of each table, in which each individual dog is identified using a 2-3 letters code. Recipients of submissive gestures are reported on the upper horizontal axis of each table, and again each individual dog is identified using a 2-3 letter code. Note that the data reported for the Curva pack are not statistically independent from those reported for the Fused pack, since the latter originated from the fusion of the Curva pack with another one and the data collected before and after the fusion event were combined (see Bonanni et al. 2017, Behav Ecol, for additional explanations). In the original paper, the data reported in these tables were used to calculate the statistical parameters reported in Table 3, i.e. hierarchy linearity, directional consistency of submissive behaviour, hierarchy steepness, as well as percentage of unknown, 1-way, 2-ways, and tied dyadic relationships. Moreover, these data were also used to arrange pack members in the rank order that was most consistent with a linear hierachy

5.Measures_of_social_tolerance_in_dog_packs

This file contains a table reporting several measures of social tolerance (and other related variables) in domestic dog packs, comprising both the packs presented in the paper by Bonanni et al. (2017), and others for which data were published in other papers (data source is also reported). Measures of social tolerance comprised: directional consistency index of total submissive behaviour, hierarchy steepness (calculated from matrices reporting total submissive behavior, and based on Dij, i.e. dyadic dominance indexes corrected by chance), and proportion of bites in relation to the total number of agonistic interactions (obtained by summing up aggressive and dominance interactions). Related variables comprised: percentage of dyadic unknown relationships in matrices reporting total submissive behaviour, number of pack members, and proportion of pack members who were either spayed or castrated. In the original paper, these data were used to assess Spearman correlation between measures of social tolerance and related variables

3.Gender_DominanceRank_Age_Body_Size_of_Individual_Dogs

This files contains data concerning gender, dominance rank, age and body size for some of the dogs studied. In particular, body measurements were collected for members of two dog packs, one studied during the period 2005-2006 (most behaviorual data analyses concerning this group were published by Cafazzo et al. 2010, Behav Ecol 21, 443-455), and another one studied during 2007-2008 (most behavioural data analyses concerning this one are included in Bonanni et al. 2017). As said above, the variable “age class” does not express the actual age of dogs in years, but rather it ranks pack members from the youngest (lowest rank) to the oldest one (highest rank). All body measurements are espressed in cm. Head size was obtained by summing up three distances: nose-occipital bone, temporal-temporal, mandible-forehead. Empty cells refer to missing values. In the original paper by Bonanni et al. (2017), these data were used to: 1) assess the correlation between standardized dominance rank and body measurements (separately for each pack); 2) assess the partial correlation between dominance rank and age, after controlling for body size (it was feasible only for the Corridoio pack); 3) assess the partial correlation between dominance rank and body measurements after controlling for age (it was feasible only for the Corridoio pack; 4) assess the effect of gender on the body measurements (all measured individuals taken together). Note that one female dog was a member of both packs at different times, and her body measurements were used in the statistical tests concerning both packs since she was already fully adult/grown during the study period 2005-2006

8.Total_Number_of_Dominance_interactions_in_dog_packs

This file contains six tables. Each table is a squared matrix reporting the total number of dominance displays exchanged among dogs belonging to the same pack. So, each table corresponds to a different dog pack. Performers of dominance displays are reported on the vertical axis on the left side of each table, in which each individual dog is identified using a 2-3 letters code. Recipients of dominance displays are reported on the upper horizontal axis of each table, and again each individual dog is identified using a 2-3 letter code. Note that the data reported for the Curva pack are not statistically independent from those reported for the Fused pack, since the latter originated from the fusion of the Curva pack with another one and the data collected before and after the fusion event were combined (see Bonanni et al. 2017, Behav Ecol, for additional explanations). Also, note that the data concerning the Caraffa pack are missing because they were lost. In the original paper, the data reported in these tables were used to calculate the statistical parameters reported in Table S6, i.e. hierarchy linearity, directional consistency of dominance behaviour, hierarchy steepness, as well as percentage of unknown, 1-way, 2-ways, and tied dyadic relationships