|
Marescot, L., Pradel, R., Duchamp, C., Cubaynes, S., Mrboutin, E., & Choquet, R. (2011). Capture – recapture population growth rate as a robust tool against detection heterogeneity for population management. Ecol Appl, 21.
|
|
McComb, K., Moss, C., Sayialel, S., & Baker, L. (2000). Unusually extensive networks of vocal recognition in African elephants. Anim Behav, 59.
|
|
Mech, L. D. (1970). The Wolf: The Ecology and Behaviour of an Endangered Species. New York: The Natural History Press, Garden City.
|
|
Meddock, T., & Osborn, D. (1968). Neophobia in wild and laboratory mice. Psychol Sci, 12.
|
Miyata, H., Gajdon, G. K., Huber, L., & Fujita, K. (2011). How do keas (Nestor notabilis) solve artificial-fruit problems with multiple locks? Anim. Cogn., 14(1), 45–58.
Abstract: Keas, a species of parrots from New Zealand, are an interesting species for comparative studies of problem solving and cognition because they are known not only for efficient capacities for object manipulation but also for explorative and playful behaviors. To what extent are they efficient or explorative, and what cognitive abilities do they use? We examined how keas would solve several versions of artificial-fruit box problems having multiple locks. After training keas to remove a metal rod from over a Plexiglas lid that had to be opened, we exposed the birds to a variety of tasks having two or more locks. We also introduced a preview phase during which the keas had extended opportunity to look at the tasks before the experimenter allowed the birds to solve them, to examine whether the preview phase would facilitate the birds' performance on the tasks. In a large number of tests, the keas showed a strong trend to solve the tasks with no positive effect of previewing the tasks. When the tasks became complex, however, the keas corrected inappropriate responses more quickly when they had had chance to preview the problems than when they had not. The results suggest that the keas primarily used explorative strategies in solving the lock problems but might have obtained some information about the tasks before starting to solve them. This may reflect a good compromise of keas' trial-and-error tendency and their good cognitive ability that result from a selection pressure they have faced in their natural habitat.
|
|
Mladenoff, D. J., Sickley, T. A., & Wydeven, A. P. (1999). Predicting gray wolf landscape recolonization: logistic regression models vs. new field data. Ecol Appl, 9.
|
|
Morand-Ferron, J., Cole, E. F., Rawles, J. E. C., & Quinn, J. L. (2011). Who are the innovators? A field experiment with 2 passerine species. Behav Ecol, 22.
|
|
Morgan, T. W., & Elliott, C. L. (2011). Comparison of remotely-triggered cameras vs. howling surveys for estimating coyote (Canis latrans) Abundance in central Kentucky. J Ky Acad Science, 72.
|
Mori, E., Benatti, L., Lovari, S., & Ferretti, F. (2016). What does the wild boar mean to the wolf? European Journal of Wildlife Research, 63(1), 9.
Abstract: Generalist predators are expected to shape their diets according to the local availability of prey species. In turn, the extent of consumption of a prey would be influenced by the number of alternative prey species. We have tested this prediction by considering the wild boar and the grey wolf: two widespread species whose distribution ranges overlap largely in Southern Europe, e.g. in Italy. We have reviewed 16 studies from a total of 21 study areas, to assess whether the absolute frequency of occurrence of wild boar in the wolf diet was influenced by (i) occurrence of the other ungulate species in diet and (ii) the number of available ungulate species. Wild boar turned out to be the main prey of the wolf (49% occurrence, on average), followed by roe deer (24%) and livestock (18%). Occurrence of wild boar in the wolf diet decreased with increasing usage of roe deer, livestock, and to a lower extent, chamois and red deer. The number of prey species did not influence the occurrence of wild boar in the wolf diet. The wild boar is a gregarious, noisy and often locally abundant ungulate, thus easily detectable, to a predator. In turn, the extent of predation on this ungulate may not be influenced so much by the availability of other potential prey. Heavy artificial reductions of wild boar numbers, e.g. through numerical control, may concentrate predation by wolves on alternative prey (e.g. roe deer) and/or livestock, thus increasing conflicts with human activities.
|
Murphy, M. A., Waits, L. P., Kendall, K. C., Wasser, S. K., Higbee, J. A., & Bogden, R. (2002). An evaluation of long-term preservation methods for brown bear (Ursus arctos) faecal DNA samples. Conservat. Genet., 3(4), 435–440.
Abstract: Relatively few large-scale faecal DNA studieshave been initiated due to difficulties inamplifying low quality and quantity DNAtemplate. To improve brown bear faecal DNA PCRamplification success rates and to determinepost collection sample longevity, fivepreservation methods were evaluated: 90%ethanol, DETs buffer, silica-dried, oven-driedstored at room temperature, and oven-driedstored at -20 °C. Preservationeffectiveness was evaluated for 50 faecalsamples by PCR amplification of a mitochondrialDNA (mtDNA) locus (~146 bp) and a nuclear DNA(nDNA) locus (~200 bp) at time points of oneweek, one month, three months and six months. Preservation method and storage timesignificantly impacted mtDNA and nDNAamplification success rates. For mtDNA, allpreservation methods had >= 75% success atone week, but storage time had a significantimpact on the effectiveness of the silicapreservation method. Ethanol preserved sampleshad the highest success rates for both mtDNA(86.5%) and nDNA (84%). Nuclear DNAamplification success rates ranged from 26-88%, and storage time had a significant impacton all methods but ethanol. Preservationmethod and storage time should be importantconsiderations for researchers planningprojects utilizing faecal DNA. We recommendpreservation of faecal samples in 90% ethanolwhen feasible, although when collecting inremote field conditions or for both DNA andhormone assays a dry collection method may beadvantageous.
|
