|
|
Broekhuis, F., Madsen, E. K., & Klaassen, B. (2019). Predators and pastoralists: how anthropogenic pressures inside wildlife areas influence carnivore space use and movement behaviour. Anim Conserv, .
Abstract: Abstract Across the globe, wildlife populations and their behaviours are negatively impacted by people. Protected areas are believed to be an antidote to increasing human pressures but even they are not immune to the impact of anthropogenic activities. Areas that have been set aside for the protection of wildlife therefore warrant more attention when investigating the impact of anthropogenic pressures on wildlife. We use cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus as a case study to explore how a large carnivore responds to anthropogenic pressures inside wildlife areas. Using GPS-collar data we investigate cheetah space use, both when moving and stationary, and movement parameters (speed and turn angles) in relation to human disturbance, distance to human settlement, livestock abundance and livestock site use inside wildlife areas. Space use was negatively influenced by human disturbance, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation and potentially reducing landscape permeability between neighbouring wildlife areas. Cheetahs were also less likely to stop in areas where livestock numbers were high, but more likely to stop in areas that were frequently used by livestock. The latter could reflect that cheetahs are attracted to livestock however, cheetahs in the study area rarely predated on livestock. It is therefore more likely that areas that are frequently used by livestock attract wild herbivores, which in turn could influence cheetah space use. We did not find any effects of people and livestock on cheetahs? speed and turn angles which might be related to the resolution of the data. We found that cheetahs are sensitive to human pressures and we believe that they could be an indicator species for other large carnivores facing similar challenges. We suggest that further research is needed to determine the levels of anthropogenic pressures needed to maintain ecological integrity, especially inside wildlife areas.
|
|
|
|
Beck, B. B. (1980). Animal tool behaviour: The use and manufacture of tools by animals. New York: Garland.
|
|
|
|
Fisher, J., & Hinde, R. A. (1994). The opening of milk bottles by birds. British Birds, (42), 347–357.
|
|
|
|
Kuczaj, S. A., Makecha, R., Trone, M., Paulos, R. D., & Ramos, J. A. (2006). Role of Peers in Cultural Innovation and Cultural Transmission: Evidence from the Play of Dolphin Calves. Int. J. Comp. Psychol, 19(2), 223–240.
|
|
|
|
Thorpe, W. H. (1963). Learning and Instinct in Animals. London: Methuen.
|
|
|
|
Burke, C., Rashman, M., Wich, S., Symons, A., Theron, C., & Longmore, S. (2019). Optimizing observing strategies for monitoring animals using drone-mounted thermal infrared cameras. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 40(2), 439–467.
Abstract: ABSTRACTThe proliferation of relatively affordable off-the-shelf drones offers great opportunities for wildlife monitoring and conservation. Similarly the recent reduction in the cost of thermal infrared cameras also offers new promise in this field, as they have the advantage over conventional RGB cameras of being able to distinguish animals based on their body heat and being able to detect animals at night. However, the use of drone-mounted thermal infrared cameras comes with several technical challenges. In this article, we address some of these issues, namely thermal contrast problems due to heat from the ground, absorption and emission of thermal infrared radiation by the atmosphere, obscuration by vegetation, and optimizing the flying height of drones for a best balance between covering a large area and being able to accurately image and identify animals of interest. We demonstrate the application of these methods with a case study using field data and make the first ever detection of the critically endangered riverine rabbit (Bunolagus monticularis) in thermal infrared data. We provide a web-tool so that the community can easily apply these techniques to other studies (http://www.astro.ljmu.ac.uk/aricburk/uav_calc/).
|
|
|
|
Forrester, G., Hudry, K., Lindell, A., & Hopkins, W. D. (2018). Cerebral Lateralization and Cognition: Evolutionary and Developmental Investigations of Behavioral Biases (Vol. 238). Cambridge: Academic Press.
|
|
|
|
Reader, S. M., & Laland, K. N. (2003). Animal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Giraldeau, L. - A., Lefebvre, L., & Morand-Ferron, J. (2007). Can a restrictive definition lead to biases and tautologies? Behav. Brain Sci., 30(4), 411–412.
Abstract: We argue that the operational definition proposed by Ramsey et al. does not represent a significant improvement for students of innovation, because it is so restrictive that it might actually prevent the testing of hypotheses on the relationships between innovation, ecology, evolution, culture, and intelligence. To avoid tautological thinking, we need to use an operational definition that is taxonomically unbiased and neutral with respect to the hypotheses to be tested.
|
|
|
|
Lee, P. C., & de Antonio, C. A. (2015). Necessity, unpredictability and opportunity: An exploration of ecological and social drivers of behavioral innovation. Animal Creativity and Innovation, , 317–333.
|
|
