|
Heyes, C. M. (1994). Social learning in animals: categories and mechanisms. Biol. Rev., 69(2), 207–231.
Abstract: There has been relatively little research on the psychological mechanisms of social learning. This may be due, in part, to the practice of distinguishing categories of social learning in relation to ill-defined mechanisms (Davis, 1973; Galef, 1988). This practice both makes it difficult to identify empirically examples of different types of social learning, and gives the false impression that the mechanisms responsible for social learning are clearly understood. It has been proposed that social learning phenomena be subsumed within the categorization scheme currently used by investigators of asocial learning. This scheme distinguishes categories of learning according to observable conditions, namely, the type of experience that gives rise to a change in an animal (single stimulus vs. stimulus-stimulus relationship vs. response-reinforcer relationship), and the type of behaviour in which this change is detected (response evocation vs. learnability) (Rescorla, 1988). Specifically, three alignments have been proposed: (i) stimulus enhancement with single stimulus learning, (ii) observational conditioning with stimulus-stimulus learning, or Pavlovian conditioning, and (iii) observational learning with response-reinforcer learning, or instrumental conditioning. If, as the proposed alignments suggest, the conditions of social and asocial learning are the same, there is some reason to believe that the mechanisms underlying the two sets of phenomena are also the same. This is so if one makes the relatively uncontroversial assumption that phenomena which occur under similar conditions tend to be controlled by similar mechanisms. However, the proposed alignments are intended to be a set of hypotheses, rather than conclusions, about the mechanisms of social learning; as a basis for further research in which animal learning theory is applied to social learning. A concerted attempt to apply animal learning theory to social learning, to find out whether the same mechanisms are responsible for social and asocial learning, could lead both to refinements of the general theory, and to a better understanding of the mechanisms of social learning. There are precedents for these positive developments in research applying animal learning theory to food aversion learning (e.g. Domjan, 1983; Rozin & Schull, 1988) and imprinting (e.g. Bolhuis, de Vox & Kruit, 1990; Hollis, ten Cate & Bateson, 1991). Like social learning, these phenomena almost certainly play distinctive roles in the antogeny of adaptive behaviour, and they are customarily regarded as 'special kinds' of learning (Shettleworth, 1993).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
|
|
|
Hiby, E. F., Rooney, N. J., & Bradshaw, J. W. S. (2004). Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Anim. Welf., 13(1), 63–69.
Abstract: Historically, pet dogs were trained using mainly negative reinforcement or punishment, but positive reinforcement using rewards has recently become more popular. The methods used may have different impacts on the dogs� welfare. We distributed a questionnaire to 364 dog owners in order to examine the relative effectiveness of different training methods and their effects upon a pet dog�s behaviour. When asked how they trained their dog on seven basic tasks, 66% reported using vocal punishment, 12% used physical punishment, 60% praise (social reward), 51% food rewards and 11% play. The owner�s ratings for their dog�s obedience during eight tasks correlated positively with the number of tasks which they trained using rewards (P<0.01), but not using punishment (P=0.5). When asked whether their dog exhibited any of 16 common problematic behaviours, the number of problems reported by the owners correlated with the number of tasks for which their dog was trained using punishment (P<0.001), but not using rewards (P=0.17). Exhibition of problematic behaviours may be indicative of compromised welfare, because such behaviours can be caused byor result ina state of anxiety and may lead to a dog being relinquished or abandoned. Because punishment was associated with an increased incidence of problematic behaviours, we conclude that it may represent a welfare concern without concurrent benefits in obedience. We suggest that positive training methods may be more useful to the pet-owning community.
|
|
|
Hoelker, S. (2016). Typologie der deutschen Pferdehaltung – Eine empirische Studie mittels Two-Step-Clusteranalyse. Berichte über Landwirtschaft Zeitschrift für Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaft, 94(3).
|
|
|
Hoffmann, G., Bockisch, F. - J., & Kreimeier, P. (2009). Einfluss des Haltungssystems auf die Bewegungsaktivität und Stressbelastung bei Pferden in Auslaufhaltungssystemen. Landbauforschung – vTI Agriculture and Forestry Research, 2(59), 105–112.
Abstract: Frühere Untersuchungen haben gezeigt, dass die tägliche Bewegung für die Gesunderhaltung der Pferde notwendig ist. Inwieweit sich jedoch unterschiedliche Bewegungsangebote auf das Stress-und Bewegungsverhalten von Pferden in einer Gruppen-Auslaufhaltung auswirken und ob der Bewegungsbedarf der Pferde durch eine Auslaufhaltung ohne zusätzliche Bewegung gedeckt werden kann, ist der Literatur bisher nicht zu entnehmen. Daher sollte in der nachfolgend beschriebenen Untersuchung der Frage nachgegangen werden, welche Auswirkungen verschiedene Bewegungsangebote auf die Bewegungsaktivität von Pferden in Gruppen-Auslaufhaltungen haben und ob diese das Wohlbefinden der Tiere beeinflussen. Letzteres wurde durch Messung der Herzfrequenzvariabilität und Bestimmung von Cortisolmetaboliten im Pferdekot erfasst und die Bewegungsaktivität der Pferde wurde mit ALT-Pedometern bestimmt.
Verglichen wurden eine Einzel-und Gruppenhaltung mit jeweils angrenzendem Auslauf, aber ohne eine zusätzliche Bewegung der Pferde außerhalb des Stalls. In drei weiteren Varianten der Gruppenhaltung bekamen die Pferde täglichen Auslauf auf einer unbegrünten Koppel, auf einer Weide oder durch gezielte Bewegung in einer Führanlage. Die Bewegungsaktivität konnte durch die zusätzliche Bewegung in Form von Weide oder Führanlage signifikant gesteigert werden.
Ein zusätzliches Bewegungsangebot führte bei den Pferden zu einer Abnahme der Stressbelastung und sollte auch den Pferden ermöglicht werden, die in einer Gruppenhaltung gehalten werden, um ihre physische und psychische Gesundheit zu erhalten.
[Former studies confirm the necessity of daily movement for the health of a horse. But so far no description could be found in the literature how different movement offerings impact the stress and movement behaviour of horses in group husbandries with close-by discharge. The same holds true for the question whether a discharge husbandry system can meet the movement requirements of horses if there isn�t any additional movement possibility. The aim of the present study was to examine different movement offerings, their effects on the movement activities of horses in a group horse husbandry with close-by discharge and the impact of the movement on the wellbeing of the animals.
The heart rate variability and the concentration of the cortisol metabolites in the horse excrement were analyzed for detecting the wellbeing of the horses. Additionally ALT-Pedometers were used for determining the movement activity.
A single and a group husbandry system, each with closeby discharge, were compared when horses had no additional movement outside the stable. In three further variants the group husbandry was supplemented with daily time on a non-grassy pasture land, a pasture or in a horse walker. Pasture or horse walker increased movement activity significantly. Nevertheless an additional movement offering resulted in a lower stress load of the horses and should also be allowed to horses in group husbandry systems to ensure the horse�s physical and mental health.]
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Holzapfel, M., Wagner, C., & Kluth, G. et al. (2011). Zur Nahrungsökologie der Wölfe (Canis lupus) in Deutschland. Beiträge zur Jagd- und Wildforschung, 36, 117–128.
|
|
|
Hoppitt, W., & Laland, K. N. (2008). Social processes influencing learning in animals: a review of the evidence. Adv Study Behav, 38, 105–165.
|
|
|
Houpt, K., Marrow, M., & Seeliger, M. (2000). A preliminary study of the effect of music on equine behavior. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 20(11), 691–737.
|
|
|
Houpt, K. A. (1981). Equine behavior problems in relation to humane management. Int. J. Stud. Anim. Prob., 2(6), 329–337.
|
|
|
Hunt, G. R., Gray R.D., & Taylor, A. H. (2013). Why is tool use rare in animals? (Boesch C C. J. anz C, Ed.). Cambridge, MA.: Cambridge University Press.
|
|