Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T14:12:03.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - The ecology and behavior of feral dogs: A case study from central Italy

from PART IV - LIFE ON THE MARGINS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2016

By
Luigi Boitani ,
Francesco Francisci ,
Paolo Ciucci  and
Giorgio Andreoli
Edited by
James Serpell
Luigi Boitani
Affiliation:
Dept. of Biology and Biotechnology, University of Rome “La Sapienza,” Rome, Italy
Francesco Francisci
Affiliation:
ECOSOLUZIONI S.n.c., Cortona (AR), Italy
Paolo Ciucci
Affiliation:
Dept. of Biology and Biotechnology, University of Rome “La Sapienza,” Rome, Italy
Giorgio Andreoli
Affiliation:
Biol, Agriconsulting SpA, Rome, Italy
James Serpell
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

Feral dogs: A definition

What exactly is a feral dog? Dogs are not a homogeneous category and their immense diversity of phenotypes and functional specializations hinders any unambiguous classification (Boitani et al., 2006). Dog categories have been proposed on the basis of a variety of natural history traits and relationships with humans: behavioral and ecological traits (Causey & Cude, 1980; Scott & Causey, 1973); origins (Daniels & Bekoff, 1989a, 1989b); rural vs. urban habitat (Berman & Dunbar, 1983); access to public property (Beck, 1973), and level of dependency on humans (WHO, 1988). This diversity of definitions contributes to the difficulty of comparing results from different studies, while the great variety of ecological contexts of urban, rural and “natural” habitats means that such comparisons may only yield a confirmation of the high ecological and behavioral flexibility of dogs.

Boitani & Fabbri (1983a), Perry (1993) and Vanak & Gompper (2009) proposed similar classifications based on dogs’ associations with humans. While Perry's categories were functional to his work in managing a rabies control program, Boitani and Fabbri were more interested in the ecology of dog populations in their natural environment. Boitani & Fabbri (1983a) proposed four categories (owned restricted, owned unrestricted, stray and feral dogs) based on the type of social bond with humans, and the ecology of dogs with varying degrees of human dependency. The first two categories are similar to Perry's (1993), i.e. restricted and family dogs. A restricted dog is fully dependent on (all its needs provided intentionally), and also restricted by, humans. Family dogs have an owner on whom they depend, but may be only semi-restricted or left free to roam (Hsu et al., 2003). The third category, stray dogs, is a heterogeneous group that includes dogs that still have a social bond with humans (possibly abandoned or born into human settings), and dogs with different degrees of fear/tolerance towards humans. Stray dogs live near human settings where they find food and shelter regardless of whether these resources are intentionally provided by humans or are causally associated with them (e.g. handouts, refuse tips or garbage dumps for food, structures for shelter, etc.).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Domestic Dog
Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People
 , pp. 342 - 368
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aschoff, J. (1966). Circadian activity patterns with two peaks. Ecology, 47: 657–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, B. D. & Rudd, R. L. (1983). Feral dogs of the Galapagos Islands: impact and control. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 4: 44–58.Google Scholar
Beck, A.M. (1973). The Ecology of Stray Dogs: A Study of Free-ranging Urban Animals. Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Beck, A. M. (1975). The ecology of “feral” and free-roving dogs in Baltimore. In The Wild Canids, ed. Fox, M. W.. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 380–90.Google Scholar
Bekoff, M. (1977). Mammalian dispersal and the ontogeny of individual behavioral phenotypes. American Naturalist, 111: 715–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M. (1979). Scent-marking by free-ranging domestic dogs. Biology of Behavior, 4: 123–39.Google Scholar
Bekoff, M., Daniels, T. J. & Gittleman, J. L. (1984). Life history patterns and the comparative social ecology of carnivores. Annual Review of Ecological Systematics, 15: 191–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M., Diamond, J. & Mitton, J. B. (1981). Life history patterns and sociality in canids: body size, reproduction, and behavior. Oecologia, 50: 388–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, M. & Dunbar, I. (1983). The social behavior of free-ranging suburban dogs. Applied Animal Ethology, 10: 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biocca, M., Giovannini, A. Gradoni, L., Gramiccia, M., Mantovani, A., Pozio, E., Procicchiani, L. & Mantovani, A. (1984). Problemi di sanità pubblica legati ai cani randagi e inselvatichiti. Annali Dell’ Istituto di Sanita, 20: 275–86.Google Scholar
Boitani, L. (1981). Lupo, Canis lupus . In Distribuzione e Biologia di 22 Specie di Mammiferi in Italia, ed. Pavan, M.. Roma: CNR, pp. 61–7.Google Scholar
Boitani, L. (1983). Wolf and dog competition in Italy. Acta Zoologica Fennica, 174: 259–64.Google Scholar
Boitani, L. & Ciucci, P. (1995) Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 7: 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boitani, L., Ciucci, P., Corsi, F. & Fabbri, M. L. (1989). A geographic information system (GIS) application to analyze the internal anatomy of the home range: feral dogs in the Apennines (Italy). In Abstracts of the Fifth International Theriological Congress, University of Rome, Rome, pp. 890–1.Google Scholar
Boitani, L., Ciucci, P. & Ortolani, A. (2006). Behavior and social ecology of free-ranging dogs. In The Behavioral Biology of Dogs, ed. Jensen, P.. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 147–65.Google Scholar
Boitani, L. & Fabbri, M. L. (1983a). Censimento dei cani in Italia con particolare riguardo al fenomeno del randagismo. Ricerche di Biologia della Selvaggina (INBS, Bologna), 73: 1–51.Google Scholar
Boitani, L. & Fabbri, M. L. (1983b). Strategia nazionale di conservazione per il lupo (Canis lupus). Ricerche di Biologia della Selvaggina (INBS, Bologna), 72: 1–31.Google Scholar
Boitani, L. & Racana, A. (1984). Indagine eco-etologica sulla popolazione di cani domestici e randagi di due comuni della Basilicata. Silva Lucana (Bari), 3/84: 186.Google Scholar
Bonanni, R., Cafazzo, S., Valsecchi, P. & Natoli, E. (2010b) Effect of affiliative and agonistic relationships on leadership behavior in free-ranging dogs. Animal Behavior, 79: 981–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonanni, R., Valsecchi, P. & Natoli, E. (2010a) Pattern of individual participation and cheating in conflicts between groups of free-ranging dogs. Animal Behavior, 79: 957–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, A. (1893). Tierleben, 4 vols. Liepzig-Wien, . Brisbin, I. L. (1974). The ecology of animal domestication: its relevance to man's environmental crises – past, present and future. Association of Southeastern Biologists Bulletin, 21: 3–8.Google Scholar
Butler, J. R. A. & du Toit, J. T. (2002). Diet of free-ranging domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in rural Zimbabwe: Implications for wild scavengers on the periphery of wildlife reserves. Animal Conservation, 5: 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. R. A., du Toit, J. T. & Bingham, J. (2004) Free-ranging domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) as predators and prey in rural Zimbabwe: threats of competition and disease to large wild carnivores. Biological Conservation, 115: 369–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cafazzo, S., Valsecchi, P., Bonanni, R. & Natoli, E. (2010) Dominance in relation to age, sex and competitive contexts in a group of free-ranging domestic dogs. Behavioral Ecology, 21: 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campos, C. B., Esteves, C. F., Ferraz, K., Crawshaw, P. G. & Verdade, L. M. (2007) Diet of free-ranging cats and dogs in a suburban and rural environment, south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Zoology, 273: 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causey, M. K. & Cude, C. A. (1980). Feral dog and white-tailed deer interactions in Alabama. Journal of Wildlife Management, 44: 481–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciucci, P. (2012). Ibridazione con il cane come minaccia per la conservazione del lupo: stato delle conoscenze e criteri per l'identificazione degli ibridi. [Wolf/dog hybridization as a threat for wolf conservation: a review and criteria for the identification of hybrids]. Technical Report Life Project 10NAT/IT/00265/Ibriwolf, Roma. [In Italian].
Ciucci, P., Boitani, L., Francisci, F. & Andreoli, G. (1997). Home-range, activity and movements of a wolf pack in central Italy. Journal of Zoology (London), 243: 803–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciucci, P., Lucchini, V., Boitani, L. & Randi, E. (2003). Dew-claws in wolves as evidence of admixed ancestry with dogs. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81: 2077–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, R. L., Marchinton, R. L. & Hill, C. L. (1971). Preliminary study of the effects of dogs on radio-equipped deer in mountainous habitat. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association State Game and Fish Commissioners, 25: 69–77.Google Scholar
Corrain, R., Francesco, A., di Bolognini, M., Ciucci, P., Baldelli, R. & Guberti, V. (2007). Serosurvey for CPV-2, distemper virus, ehrlichiosis and leishmaniosis in free-ranging dogs in Italy. Veterinary Record, 160: 91–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniels, T. J. (1983a). The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs: II. Estrous groups and the mating system. Applied Animal Ethology, 10: 365–73.Google Scholar
Daniels, T. J. (1983b). The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs: I. Nonestrous social behavior. Applied Animal Ethology, 10: 341–63.Google Scholar
Daniels, T. J. (1988). Down in the dumps. Natural History, 97: 8–12.Google Scholar
Daniels, T. J. & Bekoff, M. (1989a). Spatial and temporal resource use by feral and abandoned dogs. Ethology, 81: 300–12.Google Scholar
Daniels, T. J. & Bekoff, M. (1989b). Population and social biology of free-ranging dogs, Canis familiaris. Journal of Mammalogy, 70: 754–62.Google Scholar
Daniels, T. J. & Bekoff, M. (1989c). Feralization: the making of wild domestic animals. Behavioural Processes, 19: 79–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denney, R. N. (1974). Impact of uncontrolled dogs on wildlife and livestock. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 39: 257–91.Google Scholar
Dixon, K. R. & Chapman, J. A. (1980). Harmonic mean measure of animal activity areas. Ecology. 61: 1040–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federoff, N. E., Jakob, W. J. & Bauer, W. C. (1994) Female feral dog and two pups kill deer fawn at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. Maryland Naturalist, 38: 1–2.Google Scholar
Gavitt, J. D., Downing, R. L. & McGinnes, B. S. (1974). Effects of dogs on deer reproduction in Virginia. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association State Game and Fish Commissioners, 28: 532–9.Google Scholar
Genovesi, P. & Dupré, E. (2000) Strategia nazionale di conservazione del Lupo (Canis lupus): indagine sulla presenza e la gestione dei cani vaganti in Italia. [National strategy for the conservation of the wolf (Canis lupus): survey on the presence and management of free-ranging dogs in Italy.] Biologia e Conservazione della Fauna, 104: 1–33.Google Scholar
Gipson, P. S. (1972). The Taxonomy, Reproductive Biology, Food Habits, and Range of Wild Canis (Canidae) in Arkansas. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Gipson, P. S. (1983). Evaluation of behavior of feral dogs in interior Alaska, with control implications. In Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials: 4th Symposium, ed. Kaukeinen, D. E.. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM Special Technical Publication, pp. 285–94.Google Scholar
Gipson, P. S. & Sealander, J. A. (1977). Ecological relationship of white-tailed deer and dogs in Arkansas. In Proceedings of the 1975 Predator Symposium, Montana Forest Conservation Experimental Station, eds. Philips, R. L. & Jonkel, C.. Missoula: University of Montana, pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
Gittleman, J. L. (ed.) (1989). Carnivore Behavior, Ecology and Evolution. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Hale, E. B. (1962). Domestication and the evolution of behaviour. In The Behaviour of Domestic Animals, edition, ed. Hafez, E. S. E.. London: Bailliere, Tindall & Cassell, pp. 22–42.Google Scholar
Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C. & Tomasello, M. (2002). The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science, 298: 1634–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, R. E., Klimstra, W. D. & Antry, D. C. (1970). Significant mortality factors of deer in Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Sciences, 63: 202–6.Google Scholar
Herranz, J., Yanes, M. & Suarez, F. (2000) Relationships among the abundance of small game species, their predators, and habitat structure on Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). Ecologia, 14: 219–33.Google Scholar
Hirata, H., Okuzaki, M. & Obara, H. (1986). Characteristics of urban dogs and cats. In Integrated Studies in Urban Ecosystems as the Basis of Urban Planning I., ed. Obara, H.. Special Research Project on Environmental Science (B276-R15–3). Tokyo: Ministry of Education, pp. 163–75.Google Scholar
Hirata, H., Okuzaki, M. & Obara, H. (1987). Relationships between men and dogs in urban ecosystem. In Integrated Studies in Urban Ecosystems as the Basis of Urban Planning II., ed. Obara, H.. Special Research Project on Environmental Science (B334R15–3). Tokyo: Ministry of Education, pp. 113–20.Google Scholar
Hsu, Y., Severinghaus, L. L. & Serpell, J. A. (2003) Dog keeping in Taiwan: its contribution to the problem of free-roaming dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 6: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M. R. (2002). A new capture pen for Caribbean feral dog packs. Intermountain Journal of Sciences, 8: 255.Google Scholar
Kamler, J. F., Keeler, K., Wiens, G., Richardson, C. & Gipson, P. S. (2003) Feral dogs, Canis familiaris, kill coyote, Canis latrans . Canadian Field-Naturalist, 117: 123–4.Google Scholar
Kirk, R. W. (ed.) (1977). Current Veterinary Therapy. Vol. VI: Small Animal Practice. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Kleiman, D. G. (1968). Reproduction in the Canidae. International Zoo Yearbook, 8: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiman, D. G. & Brady, C. A. (1978). Coyote behavior in the context of recent canid research: problems and perspectives. In Coyotes, ed. Bekoff, M.. New York: Academic Press, pp. 163–88.Google Scholar
Kleiman, D. G. & Eisenberg, J. F. (1973). Comparisons of canid and felid social systems from an evolutionary perspective. Animal Behavior, 21: 637–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleiman, D. G. & Malcolm, J. R. (1981). The evolution of male parental investment in mammals. In Parental Care in Mammals, eds. Gubernik, D. J. & Klopfer, P. H.. New York: Plenum, pp. 347–87.Google Scholar
Lenth, B., Knight, R. & Brennan, M. E. (2008). The effects of dogs on wildlife communities. Natural Areas Journal, 28: 218–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstrom, E. (1986). Territory inheritance and the evolution of group living in carnivores. Animal Behavior, 34: 1825–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, D. A. & MacArthur, K. L. (1978). Domestic dogs as predators on deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 6: 38–9.Google Scholar
Macdonald, D. W. (1983). The ecology of carnivore social behavior. Nature, 301: 379–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, D. W. & Carr, G. M. (1989). Food security and the rewards of tolerance. In Comparative Socioecology: the Behavioral Ecology of Humans and Other Mammals, eds. Standen, V. & Foley, R. A.. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 75–99.Google Scholar
Manor, R. & Saltz, D. (2004). The impact of free-roaming dogs on gazelle kid/female ratio in a fragmented area. Biological Conservation, 119: 231–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKnight, T. (1964). Feral Livestock in Anglo–America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mech, L. D. (1970). The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. New York: Natural History Press.Google Scholar
Mech, L. D. (1975). Disproportionate sex ratios of wolf pups. Journal of Wildlife Management, 39: 737–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mech, L. D. (1983). Handbook of Animal Radiotracking. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Mech, L. D. & Boitani, L. (2003) Social ecology of the wolf. In Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation, eds. Mech, L. D. & Boitani, L.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesbitt, W. H. (1975). Ecology of a feral dog pack on a wildlife refuge. In The Wild Canids, ed. Fox, M. W.. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 391–5.Google Scholar
Olson, J. C. (1974). Movements of deer as influenced by dogs. Indiana Department of Natural Resources Job Progress Report Project W-26-R-5, Job III-b-4, pp. 1–36.
Ortolani, A., Vernooij, H. & Coppinger, R. (2009). Ethiopian village dogs: Behavioural responses to stranger's approach. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 119: 210–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pal, S. K. (2001). Population ecology of free-ranging urban dogs in West Bengal, India. Acta Theriologica, 46: 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pal, S. K. (2005). Parental care in free-ranging dogs, Canis familiaris . Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 90: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pal, S. K. (2008). Maturation and development of social behavior during early ontogeny in free-ranging dog puppies in West Bengal, India. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 111: 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pal, S. K., Gosh, B. & Roy, S. (1998a) Dispersal behavior of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in relation to age, sex, season and dispersal distance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 61: 123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pal, S. K., Gosh, B. & Roy, S. (1998b) Agonistic behavior of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in relation to season, sex and age. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59: 331–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pal, S. K., Gosh, B. & Roy, S. (1999) Inter- and intra-sexual behavior of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 62: 267–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, B. D. (1993). Dog ecology in eastern and southern Africa: implications for rabies control. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, 60: 429–36.Google ScholarPubMed
Perry, M. C. & Giles, R. H. (1971). Free running dogs. Virginia Wildlife, 32: 17–19.Google Scholar
Price, E. O. (1984). Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. Quarterly Review of Biology, 59: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progulske, D. R. & Baskett, T. S. (1958). Mobility of Missouri deer and their harassment by dogs. Journal of Wildlife Management, 22: 184–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randi, E. (2008). Detecting hybridization between wild species and their domesticated relatives. Molecular Ecology, 17: 285–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rouys, S. & Theuerkauf, J. (2003). Factors determining the distribution of introduced mammals in nature reserves of the southern province, New Caledonia. Wildlife Research, 30: 187–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salb, A. L., Barkema, H. W, Elkin, B. T., Thompson, R. C. A., Whiteside, D. P., Black, S. R., Dubey, J. P. & Kutz, S. J. (2008). Dogs as sources and sentinels of parasites in humans and wildlife, northern Canada. Emerging Infectious Disease, 14: 60–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samuel, M. D., Pierce, D. J. & Garton, E. O. (1985). Identifying areas of concentrated use within home ranges. Journal of Animal Ecology, 54: 711–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. D. & Causey, K. (1973). Ecology of feral dogs in Alabama. Journal of Wildlife Management, 37: 253–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. P. & Fuller, J. L. (1965). Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, W. D. & Barret, R. H. (1984). An evaluation of the harmonic mean measure for defining carnivore activity areas. Acta Zoologica Fennica, 171: 255–9.Google Scholar
Sweeney, J. R., Marchinton, R. L. & Sweeney, J. M. (1971). Responses of radiomonitored white-tailed deer chased by hunting dogs. Journal of Wildlife Management, 35: 707–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ballenberghe, V. (1983). Two litters raised in one year by a wolf pack. Journal of Mammalogy, 64: 171–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Schantz, T. (1984). Carnivore social behavior – does it need patches? Nature, 307: 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanak, A. T. & Gompper, M. E. (2009). Dogs (Canis familiaris) as carnivores: their role and function in intraguild competition. Mammal Review, 39: 265–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. K., Olson, K. A, Reading, R. P., Amgalanbaatar, S. & Berger, J. (2011). Is wildlife going to the dogs? Impacts of feral and free-roaming dogs on wildlife populations. BioScience, 61: 125–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization (1988). Report of WHO Consultation on Dog Ecology Studies Related to Rabies Control. WHO/Rabies Research/88.25.
Zeuner, F. E. (1963). A History of Domesticated Animals. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×