| Home | << 1 2 3 >> |
|
Nakagawa, S., & Waas, J. R. (2004). 'O sibling, where art thou?' – A review of avian sibling recognition with respect to the mammalian literature. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 79(1), 101–119.
Abstract: Avian literature on sibling recognition is rare compared to that developed by mammalian researchers. We compare avian and mammalian research on sibling recognition to identify why avian work is rare, how approaches differ and what avian and mammalian researchers can learn from each other. Three factors: (1) biological differences between birds and mammals, (2) conceptual biases and (3) practical constraints, appear to influence our current understanding. Avian research focuses on colonial species because sibling recognition is considered adaptive where 'mixing potential' of dependent young is high; research on a wider range of species, breeding systems and ecological conditions is now needed. Studies of acoustic recognition cues dominate avian literature; other types of cues (e.g. visual, olfactory) deserve further attention. The effect of gender on avian sibling recognition has yet to be investigated; mammalian work shows that gender can have important influences. Most importantly, many researchers assume that birds recognise siblings through 'direct familiarisation' (commonly known as associative learning or familiarity); future experiments should also incorporate tests for 'indirect familiarisation' (commonly known as phenotype matching). If direct familiarisation proves crucial, avian research should investigate how periods of separation influence sibling discrimination. Mammalian researchers typically interpret sibling recognition in broad functional terms (nepotism, optimal outbreeding); some avian researchers more successfully identify specific and testable adaptive explanations, with greater relevance to natural contexts. We end by reporting exciting discoveries from recent studies of avian sibling recognition that inspire further interest in this topic.
|
|
Wolff, A., & Hausberger, M. (1994). Behaviour of foals before weaning may have some genetic basis. Ethology, 96(1), 1–10.
Abstract: In this preliminary study on foal behaviour, 13 French saddlebred foals (2-3 mo old) and their dams were observed on pasture. The most important findings are the interindividual quantitative differences in foal behaviour patterns as well as in the amount of mainly foal-initiated time spent at given distances from their mares. Interindividual differences seem in part due to a sire effect
|
|
Romero, T., & Aureli, F. (2008). Reciprocity of support in coatis (Nasua nasua). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 122(1), 19–25.
Abstract: Primate sociality has received much attention and its complexity has been viewed as a driving force for the evolution of cognitive abilities. Improved analytic techniques have allowed primate researchers to reveal intricate social networks based on the exchange of cooperative acts and services. Although nonprimates are known to show similar behavior (e.g., cooperative hunting, food sharing, coalitions) there seems a consensus that social life is less complex than in primates. Here the authors present the first group-level analysis of reciprocity of social interactions in a social carnivore, the ring-tailed coati (<xh:i xmlns:search=“http://marklogic.com/appservices/search” xmlns=“http://apa.org/pimain” xmlns:xsi=“http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance” xmlns:xh=“http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml”>Nasua nasua</xh:i>). The authors found that support in aggressive conflicts is a common feature in coatis and that this behavior is reciprocally exchanged in a manner seemingly as complex as in primates. Given that reciprocity correlations persisted after controlling for the effect of spatial association and subunit membership, some level of scorekeeping may be involved. Further studies will be needed to confirm our findings and understand the mechanisms underlying such reciprocity, but our results contribute to the body of work that has begun to challenge primate supremacy in social complexity and cognition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
|
|
Passilongo, D., Buccianti, A., Dessi-Fulgheri, F., Gazzola, A., Zaccaronii, M., & Apollonio, M. (2010). The Acoustic Structure Of Wolf Howls In Some Eastern Tuscany (Central Italy) Free Ranging Packs. Bioacoustics, 19(3), 159–175.
Abstract: Italian wolf howls are described for the first time from observations between 2003–2008 of a population living in eastern Tuscany, central Italy. A sample of 37 howls selected among single responses and 128 howls included in the choruses of 7 free ranging packs was recorded and analysed. The mean fundamental frequency of the howls ranged between 274–908 Hz. Two main structures recognised by means of multivariate explorative analysis, in particular Principal Component and Cluster Analysis, were ascribed to breaking and flat howls. Discriminant Function Analysis was applied to the recognised groups with the aim to find a general rule for classification. Howls with different features were correctly assigned to the groups obtained by explorative analysis in 95.8% of cases. The analysis of the variables characterising the structure of the howls suggests that maximum frequency and range of fundamental frequency are the most important parameters for classification, while duration does not appear to play any significant role.
|
|
Hofmeester, T. R., Cromsigt, J. P. G. M., Odden, J., Andrén, H., Kindberg, J., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2019). Framing pictures: A conceptual framework to identify and correct for biases in detection probability of camera traps enabling multi-species comparison. Ecol Evol, .
Abstract: Abstract Obtaining reliable species observations is of great importance in animal ecology and wildlife conservation. An increasing number of studies use camera traps (CTs) to study wildlife communities, and an increasing effort is made to make better use and reuse of the large amounts of data that are produced. It is in these circumstances that it becomes paramount to correct for the species- and study-specific variation in imperfect detection within CTs. We reviewed the literature and used our own experience to compile a list of factors that affect CT detection of animals. We did this within a conceptual framework of six distinct scales separating out the influences of (a) animal characteristics, (b) CT specifications, (c) CT set-up protocols, and (d) environmental variables. We identified 40 factors that can potentially influence the detection of animals by CTs at these six scales. Many of these factors were related to only a few overarching parameters. Most of the animal characteristics scale with body mass and diet type, and most environmental characteristics differ with season or latitude such that remote sensing products like NDVI could be used as a proxy index to capture this variation. Factors that influence detection at the microsite and camera scales are probably the most important in determining CT detection of animals. The type of study and specific research question will determine which factors should be corrected. Corrections can be done by directly adjusting the CT metric of interest or by using covariates in a statistical framework. Our conceptual framework can be used to design better CT studies and help when analyzing CT data. Furthermore, it provides an overview of which factors should be reported in CT studies to make them repeatable, comparable, and their data reusable. This should greatly improve the possibilities for global scale analyses of (reused) CT data.
|
|
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.
|