|
|
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G. - A., & Fleming, P. J. S. (2015). The pitfalls of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia. Aust. Mammal., 37(1), 13–22.
Abstract: Camera trapping is a relatively new addition to the wildlife survey repertoire in Australia. Its rapid adoption has been unparalleled in ecological science, but objective evaluation of camera traps and their application has not kept pace. With the aim of motivating practitioners to think more about selection and deployment of camera trap models in relation to research goals, we reviewed Australian camera trapping studies to determine how camera traps have been used and how their technological constraints may have affected reported results and conclusions. In the 54 camera trapping articles published between 1991 and 2013, mammals (86%) were studied more than birds (10%) and reptiles (3%), with small to medium-sized mammals being most studied. Australian camera trapping studies, like those elsewhere, have changed from more qualitative to more complex quantitative investigations. However, we found that camera trap constraints and limitations were rarely acknowledged, and we identified eight key issues requiring consideration and further research. These are: camera model, camera detection system, camera placement and orientation, triggering and recovery, camera trap settings, temperature differentials, species identification and behavioural responses of the animals to the cameras. In particular, alterations to animal behaviour by camera traps potentially have enormous influence on data quality, reliability and interpretation. The key issues were not considered in most Australian camera trap papers and require further study to better understand the factors that influence the analysis and interpretation of camera trap data and improve experimental design.
|
|
|
|
Mejdell, C. M., Buvik, T., Jørgensen, G. H. M., & Bøe, K. E. (2016). Horses can learn to use symbols to communicate their preferences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 184, 66–73.
Abstract: This paper describes a method in which horses learn to communicate by touching different neutral visual symbols, in order to tell the handler whether they want to have a blanket on or not. Horses were trained for 10-15min per day, following a training program comprising ten steps in a strategic order. Reward based operant conditioning was used to teach horses to approach and touch a board, and to understand the meaning of three different symbols. Heat and cold challenges were performed to help learning and to check level of understanding. At certain stages, a learning criterion of correct responses for 8-14 successive trials had to be achieved before proceeding. After introducing the free choice situation, on average at training day 11, the horse could choose between a “no change” symbol and the symbol for either “blanket on” or “blanket off” depending on whether the horse already wore a blanket or not. A cut off point for performance or non-performance was set to day 14, and 23/23 horses successfully learned the task within this limit. Horses of warm-blood type needed fewer training days to reach criterion than cold-bloods (P<0.05). Horses were then tested under differing weather conditions. Results show that choices made, i.e. the symbol touched, was not random but dependent on weather. Horses chose to stay without a blanket in nice weather, and they chose to have a blanket on when the weather was wet, windy and cold (χ2=36.67, P<0.005). This indicates that horses both had an understanding of the consequence of their choice on own thermal comfort, and that they successfully had learned to communicate their preference by using the symbols. The method represents a novel tool for studying preferences in horses.
|
|
|
|
Mejdell, C. M., Buvik, T., Jørgensen, G. H. M., & Bøe, K. E. (2016). Horses can learn to use symbols to communicate their preferences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 184, 66–73.
Abstract: This paper describes a method in which horses learn to communicate by touching different neutral visual symbols, in order to tell the handler whether they want to have a blanket on or not. Horses were trained for 10-15min per day, following a training program comprising ten steps in a strategic order. Reward based operant conditioning was used to teach horses to approach and touch a board, and to understand the meaning of three different symbols. Heat and cold challenges were performed to help learning and to check level of understanding. At certain stages, a learning criterion of correct responses for 8-14 successive trials had to be achieved before proceeding. After introducing the free choice situation, on average at training day 11, the horse could choose between a “no change” symbol and the symbol for either “blanket on” or “blanket off” depending on whether the horse already wore a blanket or not. A cut off point for performance or non-performance was set to day 14, and 23/23 horses successfully learned the task within this limit. Horses of warm-blood type needed fewer training days to reach criterion than cold-bloods (P<0.05). Horses were then tested under differing weather conditions. Results show that choices made, i.e. the symbol touched, was not random but dependent on weather. Horses chose to stay without a blanket in nice weather, and they chose to have a blanket on when the weather was wet, windy and cold (χ2=36.67, P<0.005). This indicates that horses both had an understanding of the consequence of their choice on own thermal comfort, and that they successfully had learned to communicate their preference by using the symbols. The method represents a novel tool for studying preferences in horses.
|
|
|
|
Mench, J. A., Morrow-Tesch, J., & Chu, L. - R. (1998). Environmental enrichment for farm animals. Lab Anim., 27, 32–36.
|
|
|
|
Meriggi, A., Dagradi, V., Dondina, O., Perversi, M., Milanesi, P., Lombardini, M., et al. (2014). Short-term responses of wolf feeding habits to changes of wild and domestic ungulate abundance in Northern Italy. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 27(4), 389–411.
|
|
|
|
Meriggi, A., & Lovari, S. (1996). A Review of Wolf Predation in Southern Europe: Does the Wolf Prefer Wild Prey to Livestock? J. Appl. Ecol, 33, 1561–1571.
Abstract: 1. The recent recovery of the wolf in southern Europe has not yet removed the risk
of local extinction. Wolf populations are fragmented and often comprise fewer than
500 individuals. In North America, northern and eastern Europe, wolves feed maiiily
on wild herbivores. In southern Europe, this canid has apparently adapted to feed
also on fruit, rubbish, livestock, small and medium-size mammals.
2. The main conservation problem lies with predation o n domestic ~ingulates,w liich
leads to extensive killing of wolves. The reintroduction of wild large herbivores has
been advocated as a means of reducing attacks on livestock, but predatiori on the
latter may remain high if domestic ungulates are locally abundant.
3. Our synthesis of 15 studies, published in the last 15 years, on food habits of the
wolf in southern Europe, has shown that ungulates have been the main diet component
overall. A significant inverse correlation was found between the occurrence (%) of
wild and domestic ungulates in the diet. The presence of relatively few wild ungulate
species was necessary to reduce predation on livestock.
4. Selection of wild and domestic ungulate prey was influenced mainly by their local
abundance, but also by their accessibility. Feeding dependence on rubbish was local
and rare. In Italy, the consumption of riibbish/fruit and that of ungulates was significantly
negatively correlated. Diet breadth increased as the presence of large prey
in tlie diet decreased.
5. The simultaneous reintroduction of severa1 wild ungulate species is likely to reduce
predation on livestock and may prove to be one of the most effective conservation
measures.
|
|
|
|
Merkies, K., McKechnie, M. J., & Zakrajsek, E. (2018). Behavioural and physiological responses of therapy horses to mentally traumatized humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, .
Abstract: The benefits to humans of equine-assisted therapy (EAT) have been well-researched, however few studies have analyzed the effects on the horse. Understanding how differing mental states of humans affect the behaviour and response of the horse can assist in providing optimal outcomes for both horse and human. Four humans clinically diagnosed and under care of a psychotherapist for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) were matched physically to four neurotypical control humans and individually subjected to each of 17 therapy horses loose in a round pen. A professional acting coach instructed the control humans in replicating the physical movements of their paired PTSD individual. Both horses and humans were equipped with a heart rate (HR) monitor recording HR every 5secs. Saliva samples were collected from each horse 30 min before and 30 min after each trial to analyze cortisol concentrations. Each trial consisted of 5 min of baseline observation of the horse alone in the round pen after which the human entered the round pen for 2 min, followed by an additional 5 min of the horse alone. Behavioural observations indicative of stress in the horse (gait, head height, ear orientation, body orientation, distance from the human, latency of approach to the human, vocalizations, and chewing) were retrospectively collected from video recordings of each trial and analyzed using a repeated measures GLIMMIX with Tukey's multiple comparisons for differences between treatments and time periods. Horses moved slower (p < 0.0001), carried their head lower (p < 0.0001), vocalized less (p < 0.0001), and chewed less (p < 0.0001) when any human was present with them in the round pen. Horse HR increased in the presence of the PTSD humans, even after the PTSD human left the pen (p < 0.0001). Since two of the PTSD/control human pairs were experienced with horses and two were not, a post-hoc analysis showed that horses approached quicker (p < 0.016) and stood closer (p < 0.0082) to humans who were experienced with horses. Horse HR was lower when with inexperienced humans (p < 0.0001) whereas inexperienced human HR was higher (p < 0.0001). Horse salivary cortisol did not differ between exposure to PTSD and control humans (p > 0.32). Overall, behavioural and physiological responses of horses to humans are more pronounced based on human experience with horses than whether the human is diagnosed with a mental disorder. This may be a reflection of a directness of movement associated with humans who are experienced with horses that makes the horse more attentive. It appears that horses respond more to physical cues from the human rather than emotional cues. This knowledge is important in tailoring therapy programs and justifying horse responses when interacting with a patient in a therapy setting.
|
|
|
|
Miyata, H., Gajdon, G. K., Huber, L., & Fujita, K. (2011). How do keas (Nestor notabilis) solve artificial-fruit problems with multiple locks? Anim. Cogn., 14(1), 45–58.
Abstract: Keas, a species of parrots from New Zealand, are an interesting species for comparative studies of problem solving and cognition because they are known not only for efficient capacities for object manipulation but also for explorative and playful behaviors. To what extent are they efficient or explorative, and what cognitive abilities do they use? We examined how keas would solve several versions of artificial-fruit box problems having multiple locks. After training keas to remove a metal rod from over a Plexiglas lid that had to be opened, we exposed the birds to a variety of tasks having two or more locks. We also introduced a preview phase during which the keas had extended opportunity to look at the tasks before the experimenter allowed the birds to solve them, to examine whether the preview phase would facilitate the birds' performance on the tasks. In a large number of tests, the keas showed a strong trend to solve the tasks with no positive effect of previewing the tasks. When the tasks became complex, however, the keas corrected inappropriate responses more quickly when they had had chance to preview the problems than when they had not. The results suggest that the keas primarily used explorative strategies in solving the lock problems but might have obtained some information about the tasks before starting to solve them. This may reflect a good compromise of keas' trial-and-error tendency and their good cognitive ability that result from a selection pressure they have faced in their natural habitat.
|
|
|
|
Mladenoff, D. J., Sickley, T. A., & Wydeven, A. P. (1999). Predicting gray wolf landscape recolonization: logistic regression models vs. new field data. Ecol Appl, 9.
|
|
|
|
Monfardini, E., Hadj-Bouziane, F., & Meunier, M. (2014). Model-Observer Similarity, Error Modeling and Social Learning in Rhesus Macaques. Plos One, 9(2), e89825.
Abstract: Monkeys readily learn to discriminate between rewarded and unrewarded items or actions by observing their conspecifics. However, they do not systematically learn from humans. Understanding what makes human-to-monkey transmission of knowledge work or fail could help identify mediators and moderators of social learning that operate regardless of language or culture, and transcend inter-species differences. Do monkeys fail to learn when human models show a behavior too dissimilar from the animals' own, or when they show a faultless performance devoid of error? To address this question, six rhesus macaques trained to find which object within a pair concealed a food reward were successively tested with three models: a familiar conspecific, a 'stimulus-enhancing' human actively drawing the animal's attention to one object of the pair without actually performing the task, and a 'monkey-like' human performing the task in the same way as the monkey model did. Reward was manipulated to ensure that all models showed equal proportions of errors and successes. The 'monkey-like' human model improved the animals' subsequent object discrimination learning as much as a conspecific did, whereas the 'stimulus-enhancing' human model tended on the contrary to retard learning. Modeling errors rather than successes optimized learning from the monkey and 'monkey-like' models, while exacerbating the adverse effect of the 'stimulus-enhancing' model. These findings identify error modeling as a moderator of social learning in monkeys that amplifies the models' influence, whether beneficial or detrimental. By contrast, model-observer similarity in behavior emerged as a mediator of social learning, that is, a prerequisite for a model to work in the first place. The latter finding suggests that, as preverbal infants, macaques need to perceive the model as 'like-me' and that, once this condition is fulfilled, any agent can become an effective model.
|
|
