| |
|
Mann Janet, & Patterson Eric M. (2013). Tool use by aquatic animals. Phil. Trans. Biol. Sci., 368(1630), 20120424.
|
|
Schanz, L., Krueger, K., & Hintze, S. (2019). Sex and Age Don't Matter, but Breed Type Does--Factors Influencing Eye Wrinkle Expression in Horses. Front. Vet. Sci., 6, 154.
Abstract: Identifying valid indicators to assess animals' emotional states is a critical objective of animal welfare science. In horses, eye wrinkles above the eyeball have been shown to be affected by pain and other emotional states. From other species we know that individual characteristics, e.g. age in humans, affect facial wrinkles, but it has not yet been investigated whether eye wrinkle expression in horses is systematically affected by such characteristics. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess how age, sex, breed type, body condition and coat colour affect the expression and/or the assessment of eye wrinkles in horses. To this end, we adapted the eye wrinkle assessment scale from Hintze et al. (2016) and assessed eye wrinkle expression in pictures taken from the left and the right eye of 181 horses in a presumably neutral situation, using five outcome measures: a qualitative first impression reflecting how worried the horse is perceived by humans, the extent to which the brow is raised, the number of wrinkles, their markedness and the angle between a line through both corners of the eye and the topmost wrinkle. All measures could be assessed highly reliable with respect to intra- and inter-observer agreement. Breed type affected the width of the angle (F2, 114 = 8.20, p < 0.001), with thoroughbreds having the narrowest angle (M = 23.80, SD = 1.60), followed by warmbloods (M = 28.00, SD = 0.60), and coldbloods (M = 31.00, SD = 0.90). None of the other characteristics affected any of the outcome measures, and eye wrinkle expression did not differ between the left and the right eye area (all p-values > 0.05). In conclusion, horses' eye wrinkle expression and its assessment in neutral situations was not systematically affected by the investigated characteristics, except for 'breed type', which accounted for some variation in 'angle'; how much eye wrinkle expression is affected by emotion or perhaps mood needs further investigation and validation.
|
|
|
Ruid, D. B., Paul, W. J., Roell, B. J., Wydeven, A. P., Willging, R. C., Jurewicz, R. L., et al. (2009). Wolf-Human Conflicts and Management in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. In A. P. Wydeven, T. R. Van Deelen, & E. J. Heske (Eds.), Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States: An Endangered Species Success Story (pp. 279–295). New York, NY: Springer New York.
|
|
Iliopoulos, Y., Sgardelis, S., Koutis, V., & Savaris, D. (2009). Wolf depredation on livestock in central Greece. Mamm. Reas., 54(1), 11–22.
Abstract: We studied wolfCanis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 -- livestock conflict in central Greece by investigating patterns of 267 verified wolf attacks on livestock for 21 months. Wolves attacked adult goats 43% and cattle 218% more than expected, whereas sheep 41% less than expected from their availability. Wolves killed less than four sheep or goats in 79%, and one cow or calf in 74% of depredation events, respectively. We recorded higher attack rates during wolf post-weaning season. Wolf attacks on strayed, or kept inside non predator-proof enclosures, sheep and goats, were on average two to four times respectively more destructive than those when livestock was guarded by a shepherd. Sheepdog use reduced losses per attack. Optimal sheepdog number ranged from 3 to 9 animals depending on flock size. Losses per attack were positively related to the number of wolves involved. Total losses per farm were positively correlated with the size of livestock unit but percentage losses per capita increased with decreasing flock size. Management implications to mitigate livestock depredation are discussed.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
