|
|
Burton, A. C., Neilson, E., Moreira, D., Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Fisher, J. T., et al. (2015). REVIEW: Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J Appl Ecol, 52(3), 675–685.
Abstract: Summary Reliable assessment of animal populations is a long-standing challenge in wildlife ecology. Technological advances have led to widespread adoption of camera traps (CTs) to survey wildlife distribution, abundance and behaviour. As for any wildlife survey method, camera trapping must contend with sources of sampling error such as imperfect detection. Early applications focused on density estimation of naturally marked species, but there is growing interest in broad-scale CT surveys of unmarked populations and communities. Nevertheless, inferences based on detection indices are controversial, and the suitability of alternatives such as occupancy estimation is debatable. We reviewed 266 CT studies published between 2008 and 2013. We recorded study objectives and methodologies, evaluating the consistency of CT protocols and sampling designs, the extent to which CT surveys considered sampling error, and the linkages between analytical assumptions and species ecology. Nearly two-thirds of studies surveyed more than one species, and a majority used response variables that ignored imperfect detection (e.g. presence?absence, relative abundance). Many studies used opportunistic sampling and did not explicitly report details of sampling design and camera deployment that could affect conclusions. Most studies estimating density used capture?recapture methods on marked species, with spatially explicit methods becoming more prominent. Few studies estimated density for unmarked species, focusing instead on occupancy modelling or measures of relative abundance. While occupancy studies estimated detectability, most did not explicitly define key components of the modelling framework (e.g. a site) or discuss potential violations of model assumptions (e.g. site closure). Studies using relative abundance relied on assumptions of equal detectability, and most did not explicitly define expected relationships between measured responses and underlying ecological processes (e.g. animal abundance and movement). Synthesis and applications. The rapid adoption of camera traps represents an exciting transition in wildlife survey methodology. We remain optimistic about the technology's promise, but call for more explicit consideration of underlying processes of animal abundance, movement and detection by cameras, including more thorough reporting of methodological details and assumptions. Such transparency will facilitate efforts to evaluate and improve the reliability of camera trap surveys, ultimately leading to stronger inferences and helping to meet modern needs for effective ecological inquiry and biodiversity monitoring.
|
|
|
|
Bussières, G., Jacques, C., Lainay, O., Beauchamp, G., Leblond, A., Cadoré, J. - L., et al. (2008). Development of a composite orthopaedic pain scale in horses. Research in Veterinary Science, 85(2), 294–306.
Abstract: This study addresses development and validation of a composite multifactorial pain scale (CPS) in an experimental equine model of acute orthopaedic pain. Eighteen horses were allocated to control (sedation with/without epidural analgesia – mixture of morphine, ropivacaine, detomidine and ketamine) and experimental groups: amphotericin-B injection in the tarsocrural joint induced pain and analgesia was either i.v. phenylbutazone administered post-induction of synovitis, or pre-emptive epidural mixture, or a pre-emptive combination of the 2. Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility was good (0.8<K<1). The key specific and sensitive behavioural indices were response to palpation of the painful area, posture, and, of lesser value, pawing on the floor, kicking at abdomen and head movement. Of particular interest was the statistical correlation observed between the CPS and both non-invasive blood pressure (P<0.0001) and blood cortisol (P<0.002). This study established the value of some behavioural and physiological criteria in determining equine orthopaedic pain intensity and clearly demonstrated that pre-emptive, multimodal analgesia provided better management than the two other protocols tested.
|
|
|
|
Bücheler, T., & Sieg, J. H. (2011). Understanding Science 2.0: Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation in the Scientific Method. Proceedings of the 2nd European Future Technologies Conference and Exhibition 2011 (FET 11), 7, 327–329.
Abstract: The innovation process is currently undergoing significant change in many industries. The World Wide Web has created a virtual world of collective intelligence and helped large groups of people connect and collaborate in the innovation process [1]. Von Hippel [2], for instance, states that a large number of users of a given technology will come up with innovative ideas. This process, originating in business, is now also being observed in science. Discussions around “Citizen Science” [3] and “Science 2.0” [4] suggest the same effects are relevant for fundamental research practices. “Crowdsourcing” [5] and “Open Innovation” [6] as well as other names for those paradigms, like Peer Production, Wikinomics, Swarm Intelligence etc., have become buzzwords in recent years. However, serious academic research efforts have also been started in many disciplines. In essence, these buzzwords all describe a form of collective intelligence that is enabled by new technologies, particularly internet connectivity. The focus of most current research on this topic is in the for-profit domain, i.e. organizations willing (and able) to pay large sums to source innovation externally, for instance through innovation contests. Our research is testing the applicability of Crowdsourcing and some techniques from Open Innovation to the scientific method and basic science in a non-profit environment (e.g., a traditional research university). If the tools are found to be useful, this may significantly change how some research tasks are conducted: While large, apriori unknown crowds of “irrational agents” (i.e. humans) are used to support scientists (and teams thereof) in several research tasks through the internet, the usefulness and robustness of these interactions as well as scientifically important factors like quality and validity of research results are tested in a systematic manner. The research is highly interdisciplinary and is done in collaboration with scientists from sociology, psychology, management science, economics, computer science, and artificial intelligence. After a pre-study, extensive data collection has been conducted and the data is currently being analyzed. The paper presents ideas and hypotheses and opens the discussion for further input.
|
|
|
|
Byrne R.W. (1994). The evolution of intelligence. In P.J.B. Slater and T.R. Halliday (Ed.), Behaviour and Evolution (pp. 223–265). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
|
|
Byrne, R. W., & Russon, A. E. (1998). Learning by imitation: a hierachical approach. Behav. Brain Sci., 21, 667–721.
|
|
|
|
Byrne, R. W. (1993). Do larger brains mean greater intelligence? Behav. Brain Sci., 16(4), 696–697.
|
|
|
|
Byrne, R. W., & Whiten, A. (1990). Tactical deception in primates: the 1990 database (Vol. 27). German Primate Center.
|
|
|
|
Byström, A., Clayton, H. M., Hernlund, E., Rhodin, M., & Egenvall, A. (2020). Equestrian and biomechanical perspectives on laterality in the horse. Comp. Exerc. Physiol., 16(1), 35–45.
Abstract: It has been suggested that one of the underlying causes of asymmetrical performance and left/right bias in sound riding horses is laterality originating in the cerebral cortices described in many species. The aim of this paper is to review the published evidence for inherent biomechanical laterality in horses deemed to be clinically sound and relate these findings to descriptions of sidedness in equestrian texts. There are no established criteria to determine if a horse is left or right dominant but the preferred limb has been defined as the forelimb that is more frequently protracted during stance and when grazing. Findings on left-right differences in forelimb hoof shape and front hoof angles have been linked to asymmetric forelimb ground reaction forces. Asymmetries interpreted as motor laterality have been found among foals and unhandled youngsters, and the consistency or extent of asymmetries seems to increase with age. Expressions of laterality also vary with breed, sex, training and handling, stress, and body shape but there are no studies of the possible link between laterality and lameness. In a recent study of a group of seven dressage horses, a movement pattern in many ways similar to descriptions of sidedness in the equestrian literature, e.g. one hind limb being more protracted and placed more laterally than the other, has been documented. The role of innate laterality versus painful conditions, training, human handedness and simply habit remains to be determined. Understanding the biomechanical manifestations of laterality in healthy horses, including individual variation, would yield a potential basis for how laterality should be taken into account in relation to training/riding and rehabilitation of lameness.
|
|
|
|
Bödeker, E. (1908). Maultierzucht und Maultierhaltung (Vol. 3). Hannover: Max Jänecke.
|
|
|
|
Caldwell, C. A., & Whiten, A. (2004). Testing for social learning and imitation in common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus, using an artificial fruit. Anim. Cogn., 7(2), 77–85.
Abstract: We tested for social learning and imitation in common marmosets using an artificial foraging task and trained conspecific demonstrators. We trained a demonstrator marmoset to open an artificial fruit, providing a full demonstration of the task to be learned. Another marmoset provided a partial demonstration, controlling for stimulus enhancement effects, by eating food from the outside of the apparatus. We thus compared three observer groups, each consisting of four animals: those that received the full demonstration, those that received the partial demonstration, and a control group that saw no demonstration prior to testing. Although none of the observer marmosets succeeded in opening the artificial fruit during the test periods, there were clear effects of demonstration type. Those that saw the full demonstration manipulated the apparatus more overall, whereas those from the control group manipulated it the least of the three groups. Those from the full-demonstration group also contacted the particular parts of the artificial fruit that they had seen touched (localised stimulus enhancement) to a greater extent than the other two groups. There was also an interaction between the number of hand and mouth touches made to the artificial fruit for the full- and partial-demonstration groups. Whether or not these data represent evidence for imitation is discussed. We also propose that the clear differences between the groups suggest that social learning mechanisms provide real benefits to these animals in terms of developing novel food-processing skills analogous to the one presented here.
|
|
