|
Shmidt Mech, L. D. (1997). Wolf pack size and food acquisition. Am Nat, 150.
|
|
|
Rapin, V., Poncet, P. A., Burger, D., Mermod, C., & Richard, M. A. (2007). [Measurement of the attention time in the horse]. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd, 149(2), 77–83.
Abstract: A study carried out on 49 horses showed that it is possible to measure the attention time by operant conditioning. After teaching horses an instrumental task using a signal, we were then able to test their attention time by asking them to prolong it increasingly while setting success and failure criteria. Two tests were performed 3 weeks apart. The 2nd test was feasible without relearning, a proof of memory, and was repeatable, a proof of consistency in the attention time. A significant difference was observed between the 3 age groups. Young horses often performed very well during the 1st test but their attention dropped in the 2nd test while older horses were more stable with respect to attention and even increased it slightly. The study shows that there are individual differences but it was not possible to prove a significant influence of breed, gender and paternal influence. Consequently, learning appears to be one of the most interesting approaches for evaluating the attention of horses and for observing their behaviour.
|
|
|
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social Facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274.
Abstract: 300 Multiple ChoicesThis is a pdf-only article and there is no markup to show you.full-text.pdf
|
|
|
Figueroa, J., Solà-Oriol, D., Manteca, X., & Pérez, J. F. (2013). Social learning of feeding behaviour in pigs: Effects of neophobia and familiarity with the demonstrator conspecific. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 148(1), 120–127.
Abstract: Social interactions facilitate animals learning of new features of their environment minimizing a trial and error process. It has been observed in some species that food cues can be acquired by one individual (the observer) from an animal model (demonstrator) due to social learning. Three experiments were performed to evaluate whether weaned piglets may show a preference for a flavoured feed following brief social interactions (30min) with an experienced demonstrator. After the social interaction between demonstrator and observer pigs, a 30-min choice test between the flavoured feed previously eaten by demonstrators (DEM-feed) and other flavoured feed (OTH-feed; Exp. 1 and 2) or a known unflavoured starter diet (Exp. 3) was performed with observer animals. Greater intake of DEM-feed occurred when demonstrators and observers were from the same pen (Exp. 1) or from the same litter (Exp. 2), but not when observers and demonstrators were unfamiliar with each other (Exp. 1). Observers also preferred flavours previously eaten by the demonstrator over their unflavoured diet already known. Social interactions with a conspecific pig that had a recent experience with a flavoured feed enhanced the preference for that feed and could even override neophobia to a new feed. The familiarity of conspecific demonstrators plays a key role in social learning of new feed cues probably due to selective exploration involving closer snout-to-snout contacts with kin conspecifics.
|
|
|
Bentley-Condit, V., & Smith, E. O. (2010). Animal tool use: current definitions and an updated comprehensive catalog. Behaviour, 147(2), 185–32.
Abstract: Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study.
|
|
|
Briefer, E. F., & McElligott, A. G. (2013). Rescued goats at a sanctuary display positive mood after former neglect. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 146.
|
|
|
Pérez-Barbería, F. J., & Gordon, I. J. (2005). Gregariousness increases brain size in ungulates. Oecologia, 145.
|
|
|
Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2012). Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biol Conserv, 145.
|
|
|
Murray, L. M. A., Byrne, K., & D’Eath, R. B. (2013). Pair-bonding and companion recognition in domestic donkeys, <em>Equus asinus</em>. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 143(1), 67–74.
Abstract: Pair and social bonding has been documented in various taxa, where pair formations are often described as being driven by kinship or sexual motivation. However, pair-bonding between unrelated individuals where sexual motivation is not a factor is not well documented. Many social relationships and pair-bonds between members of a dyad are facilitated by each individual's ability to recognise their partner using cues which are characteristic of that particular individual. The aims of this study were i) to investigate the existence of pair-bonding in domestic donkeys and ii) to determine whether members of a dyad could recognise their companion during a Y-maze recognition test. Subjects were 55 unrelated donkeys (38 gelded males, 15 females) in seven groups of mixed or same sex, comprising 4?14 individuals. Spatial proximity (nearest-neighbour) was observed three times a day over a 22-day period. Using a simulation approach based on observed data to generate randomised nearest-neighbour matrices, the statistical significance of social relationships was estimated. Of these, 42 (79.2%) were involved in significantly (p<0.05) non-random nearest-neighbour relationships, most of which were reciprocal pair relationships. Based on the spatial data, 24 of the donkeys which had shown significant reciprocal nearest-neighbour preferences for one individual (companion) were then used in a Y-maze recognition test in which they were presented with a choice of their companion and either a familiar donkey from the same group or an unfamiliar donkey from a different group. Donkeys? spatial location in the Y-maze demonstrated a preference for their companion versus familiar (one sample Wilcoxon signed rank test, W=239, p=0.002) or unfamiliar donkeys (W=222, p=0.041). These results verify anecdotal evidence from donkey handlers that donkeys often form pair-bonds, and show that reciprocal social preference and recognition are the basis of these. Pair-bond formation and companionship among donkeys have potential implications for their management, husbandry and welfare.
|
|
|
Briard, L., Deneubourg, J. - L., & Petit, O. (2017). How stallions influence the dynamic of collective movements in two groups of domestic horses, from departure to arrival. Behav. Process., 142, 56–63.
Abstract: Abstract The role of leader in polygynous species has been solely attributed to the male for some time, but recent studies shown decision making to be distributed within the group. However, the specific reproductive strategy and behavioural repertoire of males in polygynous species such as horses may mean that these individuals still have the potential to play a specific role during decision-making. To investigate this subject, we thoroughly studied the behaviour of two domestic stallions during collective movements of their group. We found that they initiated rarely and sometimes failed to recruit the entire group. When departing as followers, they did not accelerate the joining process. Both stallions preferentially occupied the rear position and exhibited numerous monitoring behaviours. Herding behaviours were performed by only one stallion and mostly occurred outside movement context. Finally, we removed this herding stallion from its group to evaluate how the group dynamic changed. As a result, half of the collective movements were five times slower and mares were more dispersed in comparison when the stallion was in the group. Overall, our results suggest that, the two stallions maintained their role of group monitors from departure to arrival. Their influence on the movement dynamic was indirect and did not play a specific role in the process of decision making.
|
|