|
|
Houpt, T. R. (1985). The physiological determination of meal size in pigs. Proc Nutr Soc, 44(2), 323–330.
|
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). How animals do business. Sci Am, 292(4), 54–61.
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (1985). Foraging, memory, and constraints on learning. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 443, 216–226.
|
|
|
|
Dyer, F. C. (2002). Animal behaviour: when it pays to waggle (Vol. 419).
|
|
|
|
La Riviere, J. W. (1969). Ecology of yeasts in the kefir grain. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, 35, Suppl:D15–6.
|
|
|
|
Beerwerth, W., & Schurmann, J. (1969). [Contribution to the ecology of mycobacteria]. Zentralbl Bakteriol [Orig], 211(1), 58–69.
|
|
|
|
Pennisi, E. (2006). Animal cognition. Social animals prove their smarts (Vol. 312).
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (2007). Animal behaviour: planning for breakfast. Nature, 445(7130), 825–826.
|
|
|
|
Moehlman, P. D. (2005). Endangered wild equids. Sci Am, 292(3), 74–81.
|
|
|
|
Meriggi, A., & Lovari, S. (1996). A Review of Wolf Predation in Southern Europe: Does the Wolf Prefer Wild Prey to Livestock? J. Appl. Ecol, 33, 1561–1571.
Abstract: 1. The recent recovery of the wolf in southern Europe has not yet removed the risk
of local extinction. Wolf populations are fragmented and often comprise fewer than
500 individuals. In North America, northern and eastern Europe, wolves feed maiiily
on wild herbivores. In southern Europe, this canid has apparently adapted to feed
also on fruit, rubbish, livestock, small and medium-size mammals.
2. The main conservation problem lies with predation o n domestic ~ingulates,w liich
leads to extensive killing of wolves. The reintroduction of wild large herbivores has
been advocated as a means of reducing attacks on livestock, but predatiori on the
latter may remain high if domestic ungulates are locally abundant.
3. Our synthesis of 15 studies, published in the last 15 years, on food habits of the
wolf in southern Europe, has shown that ungulates have been the main diet component
overall. A significant inverse correlation was found between the occurrence (%) of
wild and domestic ungulates in the diet. The presence of relatively few wild ungulate
species was necessary to reduce predation on livestock.
4. Selection of wild and domestic ungulate prey was influenced mainly by their local
abundance, but also by their accessibility. Feeding dependence on rubbish was local
and rare. In Italy, the consumption of riibbish/fruit and that of ungulates was significantly
negatively correlated. Diet breadth increased as the presence of large prey
in tlie diet decreased.
5. The simultaneous reintroduction of severa1 wild ungulate species is likely to reduce
predation on livestock and may prove to be one of the most effective conservation
measures.
|
|
