|
|
Gadhöfer, R., Krüger, K., & Zanger, M. (2021). Der Bockhuf – Entstehung, Verlauf und Therapie. Wald: Xenophon Verlag.
|
|
|
|
Galaverni, M., Palumbo, D., Fabbri, E., Caniglia, R., Greco, C., & Randi, E. (2012). Monitoring wolves (Canis lupus) by non-invasive genetics and camera trapping: A small-scale pilot study. Eur J Wildl Res, 58.
|
|
|
|
Galef, B. G. (2013). Imitation and local enhancement: Detrimental effects of consensus definitions on analyses of social learning in animals. Behavioural Processes, 100, 123–130.
Abstract: Development of a widely accepted vocabulary referring to various types of social learning has made important contributions to decades of progress in analyzing the role of socially acquired information in the development of behavioral repertoires. It is argued here that emergence of a consensus vocabulary, while facilitating both communication and research, has also unnecessarily restricted research on social learning. The article has two parts. In the first, I propose that Thorndike, 1898, Thorndike, 1911 definition of imitation as “learning to do an act from seeing it done” has unduly restricted studies of the behavioral processes involved in the propagation of behavior. In part 2, I consider the possibility that success in labeling social learning processes believed to be less cognitively demanding than imitation (e.g. local and stimulus enhancement, social facilitation, etc.) has been mistaken for understanding of those processes, although essentially nothing is known of their stimulus control, development, phylogeny or substrate either behavioral or physiological.
|
|
|
|
Galef, B. G. (1989). Enduring social enhancement of rats' preferences for the palatable and the piquant. Appetite, 13(2), 81–92.
Abstract: In three experiments on the social induction of food preferences in rats, I found: (a) that eight 30-min exposures of a naive “observer” rat to a “demonstrator” rat fed one of two approximately equipalatable diets produced observer preference for the diet fed to its demonstrator that lasted for more than a month, (b) that simple exposure of naive subjects to a diet itself, rather than to a rat that had eaten a diet, was not sufficient to enhance preference for that diet, and (c) that lasting preference for an unpalatable, piquant diet could also be established by exposing naive rats to demonstrators that had eaten the piquant diet, but not by simply exposure to the piquant diet itself. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis proposed by both Birch and Rozin that social-affective contexts are important in establishing stable, learned preferences for foods.
|
|
|
|
Galef, B. G., & Laland, K. N. (2005). Social Learning in Animals: Empirical Studies and Theoretical Models. BioScience, 55(6), 489–499.
Abstract: AbstractThe last two decades have seen a virtual explosion in empirical research on the role of social interactions in the development of animals' behavioral repertoires, and a similar increase in attention to formal models of social learning. Here we first review recent empirical evidence of social influences on food choice, tool use, patterns of movement, predator avoidance, mate choice, and courtship, and then consider formal models of when animals choose to copy behavior, and which other animals' behavior they copy, together with empirical tests of predictions from those models.
|
|
|
|
Gardner, E. L., & Engel, D. R. (1971). Imitational and social facilitatory aspects of observational learning in the laboratory rat. Psychon. Sci., 25(1), 5–6.
Abstract: Rats acquired a food-motivated leverpressing response by “observational learning” or by trial-and-error learning under conditions of social facilitation or isolation. Both the observational learning and social facilitation Ss learned faster than did the isolated trial-and-error Ss. There was no difference in speed of learning between the observational learning and social facilitation groups. It is suggested that some previous studies purporting to demonstrate observational learning may have demonstrated socially facilitated trial-and-error learning instead.
|
|
|
|
Gaunitz, C., Fages, A., Hanghøj, K., Albrechtsen, A., Khan, N., Schubert, M., et al. (2018). Ancient genomes revisit the ancestry of domestic and Przewalski's horses. Science, 360(6384), 111–114.
Abstract: The Eneolithic Botai culture of the Central Asian steppes provides the earliest archaeological evidence for horse husbandry, ~5,500 ya, but the exact nature of early horse domestication remains controversial. We generated 42 ancient horse genomes, including 20 from Botai. Compared to 46 published ancient and modern horse genomes, our data indicate that Przewalski's horses are the feral descendants of horses herded at Botai and not truly wild horses. All domestic horses dated from ~4,000 ya to present only show ~2.7% of Botai-related ancestry. This indicates that a massive genomic turnover underpins the expansion of the horse stock that gave rise to modern domesticates, which coincides with large-scale human population expansions during the Early Bronze Age.
|
|
|
|
Gazzola, A., Avanzinelli, E., Mauri, L., Scandura, M., & Apollonio, M. (2002). Temporal changes of howling in south European wolf packs. Ital J Zool, 69.
|
|
|
|
Gehlen, H., Große, V., & Doher, M. (2012). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Herdenschutzes für Pferde in Zusammenhang mit der wachsenden Wolfspopulation in Deutschland Literaturrecherche und Befragung von Pferdehaltern zur Gefährdungsbeurteilung [Options and limitations of protecting horse husbandries in times of growing wolf populations in Germany Review of the literature and horse owner questionnaire on risk assessment]. Tierarztl Prax Ausg G, 49(05), 301–309.
Abstract: Zusammenfassung
Gegenstand und Ziel Seit 2000 siedelt sich der Wolf in Deutschland wieder an. Mit steigenden Wolfszahlen nehmen die durch Wölfe verursachten Nutztierschäden zu, wobei auch Pferde betroffen sind. Ziel der Studie war es, einen Überblick zu dieser Problematik sowie Lösungsansätze zu geben.
Material und Methoden Anhand einer Literaturrecherche wurden Daten zur Wolfspopulation in Deutschland, wolfsbedingten Schäden sowie Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Herdenschutzes beim Pferd eruiert. Eine Online-Befragung von Pferdehaltern/-besitzern diente dazu, die tatsächliche und/oder gefühlte Bedrohung durch Wölfe und die daraus resultierenden Auswirkungen auf die Pferdehaltung zu ermitteln.
Ergebnisse Die Literaturrecherche zeigte ein kontinuierliches Anwachsen der Wolfspopulation in den letzten Jahren und insbesondere seit 2016 einen deutlichen Anstieg wolfsverursachter Nutztierschäden, wobei Pferde selten betroffen waren. Bei der Online-Befragung stammte die Hälfte der 574 ausgewerteten Fragebögen aus Brandenburg und Niedersachsen. Den größten Einfluss auf die Gefährdungsbeurteilung eigener Pferde durch die wachsende Wolfspopulation hatte das Wissen der Pferdehalter über Wolfsangriffe im eigenen Landkreis, wobei insbesondere die Aspekte einer Haltung von Jungpferden und Weidegang für die Pferde eine Rolle spielten. 64 % der Befragten gaben an, ihre Pferdehaltung trotz der zunehmenden Wolfspopulation nicht geändert zu haben. Nur 8 von 576 Pferdehaltern gaben amtlich bestätigte Wolfsübergriffe an und 30 hatten einen vermuteten Wolfsschaden amtlichen Stellen nicht gemeldet. Mehr als die Hälfte der Befragten, die Kontakt zu einem Wolfsberater hatten, bezeichneten die Zusammenarbeit als nicht bis wenig zielführend.
Schlussfolgerung und klinische Relevanz Die Zahl amtlich bestätigter Wolfsangriffe auf Pferde ist gering. Durch einen grundsätzlich durchgeführten Gentest bei entsprechendem Verdacht ließen sich diese Zahlen objektivieren. Trotz des Bewusstseins einer zunehmenden Gefährdung von Pferden durch Wölfe unternehmen Pferdehalter überwiegend keine prophylaktischen Schutzmaßnahmen. Die Kommunikation zwischen den für das Wolfsmonitoring zuständigen Behörden und den Pferdehaltern erscheint verbesserungswürdig.
Abstract
Objective Since 2000 the wolf population is reestablishing itself in Germany. In consequence to increasing numbers, livestock damage caused by wolves is on the rise, with horses likewise being affected. The aim of the study was to provide an overview of this challenge and its possible solutions.
Material and methods Based on a literature research, data on the wolf population in Germany, wolf-related damage as well as possibilities and limitations of herd protection for horses were evaluated. An online survey addressed to horse owners/keepers served to determine the actual and/or perceived threat posed by wolves and the resulting effects on horse husbandry.
Results The literature search showed a continuous increase of the wolf population in recent years as well as a significant increase of wolf-caused livestock damage in general especially since 2016; although horses were rarely affected. Half of the 574 evaluated questionnaires were from Brandenburg and Lower Saxony. The greatest influence on the individual risk assessment concerning their own horses by the growing wolf population was the horse owners� knowledge of wolf attacks in their own county. Especially the aspects of keeping young horses as well as pasture keeping played a significant role. 64 % of respondents indicated that they had not changed their horse management practices despite the increasing wolf population. Only 8 of 576 horse owners had reported officially confirmed wolf attacks and 30 respondents had not reported a suspected wolf damage to official agencies. More than half of the respondents who had contact with a wolf advisor described the cooperation as either not or only slightly purposeful.
Conclusion and clinical relevance The number of officially confirmed wolf attacks on horses is low. These numbers could be objectified by a routinely performed genetic test in case of corresponding suspicion. Despite the awareness of an increasing danger of horses by wolves, horse owners mostly do not undertake prophylactic protection measures. The communication between responsible authorities for wolf monitoring and horse owners seems to be in need of improvement.
|
|
|
|
Gehring, T. M., VerCauteren, K. C., Provost, M. L., & Cellar, A. C. (2010). Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farms. Wildl. Res., 37(8), 715–721.
Abstract: Context. Livestock producers worldwide are negatively affected by livestock losses because of predators and wildlife-transmitted diseases. In the western Great Lakes Region of the United States, this conflict has increased as grey wolf (Canis lupus) populations have recovered and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have served as a wildlife reservoir for bovine tuberculosis (Myobacterium bovis).Aims. We conducted field experiments on cattle farms to evaluate the effectiveness of livestock-protection dogs (LPDs) for excluding wolves, coyotes (C. latrans), white-tailed deer and mesopredators from livestock pastures.Methods. We integrated LPDs on six cattle farms (treatment) and monitored wildlife use with tracking swaths on these farms, concurrent with three control cattle farms during 2005-2008. The amount of time deer spent in livestock pastures was recorded using direct observation.Key results. Livestock pastures protected by LPDs had reduced use by these wildlife compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs. White-tailed deer spent less time in livestock pastures protected by LPDs compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs.Conclusions. Our research supports the theory that LPDs can be an effective management tool for reducing predation and disease transmission. We also demonstrate that LPDs are not limited to being used only with sheep and goats; they can also be used to protect cattle.Implications. On the basis of our findings, we support the use of LPDs as a proactive management tool that producers can implement to minimise the threat of livestock depredations and transmission of disease from wildlife to livestock. LPDs should be investigated further as a more general conservation tool for protecting valuable wildlife, such as ground-nesting birds, that use livestock pastures and are affected by predators that use these pastures.
|
|
