|
|
Passilongo, D., Dessi-Fulgheri, F., Gazzola, A., Zaccaroni, M., & Apollonio, M. (2012). Wolf counting and individual acoustic discrimination by spectrographic analysis [Abstract]. Bioacoustics, 21.
|
|
|
|
Palacios, V., Font, E., & Marquez, R. (2007). Iberian wolf howls: acoustic structure, individual variation, and a comparison with North American populations. J Mammal, 88.
|
|
|
|
O'Brien, P. H. (1988). Feral goat social organization: a review and comparative analysis. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 21.
|
|
|
|
Nowak, S., Jedrzejewski, W., Schmidt, K., Theuerkauf, J., Myslajek, R. W., & Jedrzejewska, B. (2006). Howling activity of free-ranging wolves (Canis lupus) in the Bialowieza Primeval Forest and the Western Beskidy Mountains (Poland). J Ethol, 25.
|
|
|
|
Nakamura, K., Takimoto-Inose, A., & Hasegawa, T. (2018). Cross-modal perception of human emotion in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Scientific Reports, 8(1), 8660.
Abstract: Humans have domesticated many kinds of animals in their history. Dogs and horses have particularly close relationships with humans as cooperative partners. However, fewer scientific studies have been conducted on cognition in horses compared to dogs. Studies have shown that horses cross-modally distinguish human facial expressions and recognize familiar people, which suggests that they also cross-modally distinguish human emotions. In the present study, we used the expectancy violation method to investigate whether horses cross-modally perceive human emotions. Horses were shown a picture of a human facial expression on a screen, and they then heard a human voice from the speaker before the screen. The emotional values of the visual and auditory stimuli were the same in the congruent condition and different in the incongruent condition. Horses looked at the speaker significantly longer in the incongruent condition than in the congruent condition when they heard their caretaker's voices but not when they heard the stranger voice. In addition, they responded significantly more quickly to the voice in the incongruent condition than in the congruent one. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to show that horses cross-modally recognized the emotional states of their caretakers and strangers.
|
|
|
|
Nakagawa, S. (2004). A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behav Ecol, 15.
|
|
|
|
Murphy, M. A., Waits, L. P., Kendall, K. C., Wasser, S. K., Higbee, J. A., & Bogden, R. (2002). An evaluation of long-term preservation methods for brown bear (Ursus arctos) faecal DNA samples. Conservat. Genet., 3(4), 435–440.
Abstract: Relatively few large-scale faecal DNA studieshave been initiated due to difficulties inamplifying low quality and quantity DNAtemplate. To improve brown bear faecal DNA PCRamplification success rates and to determinepost collection sample longevity, fivepreservation methods were evaluated: 90%ethanol, DETs buffer, silica-dried, oven-driedstored at room temperature, and oven-driedstored at -20 °C. Preservationeffectiveness was evaluated for 50 faecalsamples by PCR amplification of a mitochondrialDNA (mtDNA) locus (~146 bp) and a nuclear DNA(nDNA) locus (~200 bp) at time points of oneweek, one month, three months and six months. Preservation method and storage timesignificantly impacted mtDNA and nDNAamplification success rates. For mtDNA, allpreservation methods had >= 75% success atone week, but storage time had a significantimpact on the effectiveness of the silicapreservation method. Ethanol preserved sampleshad the highest success rates for both mtDNA(86.5%) and nDNA (84%). Nuclear DNAamplification success rates ranged from 26-88%, and storage time had a significant impacton all methods but ethanol. Preservationmethod and storage time should be importantconsiderations for researchers planningprojects utilizing faecal DNA. We recommendpreservation of faecal samples in 90% ethanolwhen feasible, although when collecting inremote field conditions or for both DNA andhormone assays a dry collection method may beadvantageous.
|
|
|
|
Mori, E., Benatti, L., Lovari, S., & Ferretti, F. (2016). What does the wild boar mean to the wolf? European Journal of Wildlife Research, 63(1), 9.
Abstract: Generalist predators are expected to shape their diets according to the local availability of prey species. In turn, the extent of consumption of a prey would be influenced by the number of alternative prey species. We have tested this prediction by considering the wild boar and the grey wolf: two widespread species whose distribution ranges overlap largely in Southern Europe, e.g. in Italy. We have reviewed 16 studies from a total of 21 study areas, to assess whether the absolute frequency of occurrence of wild boar in the wolf diet was influenced by (i) occurrence of the other ungulate species in diet and (ii) the number of available ungulate species. Wild boar turned out to be the main prey of the wolf (49% occurrence, on average), followed by roe deer (24%) and livestock (18%). Occurrence of wild boar in the wolf diet decreased with increasing usage of roe deer, livestock, and to a lower extent, chamois and red deer. The number of prey species did not influence the occurrence of wild boar in the wolf diet. The wild boar is a gregarious, noisy and often locally abundant ungulate, thus easily detectable, to a predator. In turn, the extent of predation on this ungulate may not be influenced so much by the availability of other potential prey. Heavy artificial reductions of wild boar numbers, e.g. through numerical control, may concentrate predation by wolves on alternative prey (e.g. roe deer) and/or livestock, thus increasing conflicts with human activities.
|
|
|
|
Morgan, T. W., & Elliott, C. L. (2011). Comparison of remotely-triggered cameras vs. howling surveys for estimating coyote (Canis latrans) Abundance in central Kentucky. J Ky Acad Science, 72.
|
|
|
|
Morand-Ferron, J., Cole, E. F., Rawles, J. E. C., & Quinn, J. L. (2011). Who are the innovators? A field experiment with 2 passerine species. Behav Ecol, 22.
|
|
