|
|
Ronnenberg, K., Habbe, B., Gräber, R., Strauß, E., & Siebert, U. (2017). Coexistence of wolves and humans in a densely populated region (Lower Saxony, Germany). Basic. Appl. Ecol., 25, 1–14.
Abstract: Since the first sporadic occurrences of grey wolves (Canis lupus) west of the Polish border in 1996, wolves have shown a rapid population recovery in Germany. Wolves are known to avoid people and wolf attacks on humans are very rare worldwide. However, the subjectively perceived threat is considerable, especially as food-conditioned habituation to humans occurs sporadically. Lower Saxony (Germany) has an exceedingly higher human population density than most other regions with territorial wolves; thus, the potential for human-wolf conflicts is higher. Using hunters' wildlife survey data from 455 municipalities and two years (2014-2015) and data from the official wolf monitoring (557 confirmed wolf presences and 500 background points) collected between 2012-2015, grey wolf habitat selection was modelled using generalized additive models with respect to human population density, road density, forest cover and roe deer density. Moreover, we tested whether habitat use changed in response to human population and road density between 2012/2013 and 2014/2015. Wolves showed a preference for areas of low road density. Human population density was less important as a covariate in the model of the survey data. Areas with higher prey abundance (5-10 roe deer/km2) and areas with >20% forest cover were preferred wolf habitats. Wolves were mostly restricted to areas with the lowest road and human population densities. However, between the two time periods, avoidance of human density decreased significantly. Recolonization of Germany is still in its early stages and it is unclear where this process will halt. To-date authorities mainly concentrate on monitoring measures. However, to avoid conflict, recolonization will require more stringent management of wolf populations and an improved information strategy for rural populations.
|
|
|
|
A. Wiggins, & K. Crowston. (2011). From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science. In 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Abstract: Citizen science is a form of research collaboration involving members of the public in scientific research projects to address real-world problems. Often organized as a virtual collaboration, these projects are a type of open movement, with collective goals addressed through open participation in research tasks. Existing typologies of citizen science projects focus primarily on the structure of participation, paying little attention to the organizational and macrostructural properties that are important to designing and managing effective projects and technologies. By examining a variety of project characteristics, we identified five types-Action, Conservation, Investigation, Virtual, and Education- that differ in primary project goals and the importance of physical environment to participation.
|
|
|
|
Sabou, M., Bontcheva, K., & Scharl, A. (2012). Crowdsourcing Research Opportunities: Lessons from Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies (pp. 1–18). i-KNOW '12. New York, NY, USA: Acm.
|
|
|
|
Bernauer, K., Kollross, H., Schuetz, A., Farmer, K., & Krueger, K. (2020). How do horses (Equus caballus) learn from observing human action? Anim. Cogn., 23, 1–9.
Abstract: A previous study demonstrated that horses can learn socially from observing humans, but could not draw any conclusions about the social learning mechanisms. Here we develop this by showing horses four different human action sequences as demonstrations of how to press a button to open a feed box. We tested 68 horses aged between 3 and 12 years. 63 horses passed the habituation phase and were assigned either to the group Hand Demo (N = 13) for which a kneeling person used a hand to press the button, Head Demo (N = 13) for which a kneeling person used the head, Mixed Demo (N = 12) for which a squatting person used both head and hand, Foot Demo (N = 12) in which a standing person used a foot, or No Demo (N = 13) in which horses did not receive a demonstration. 44 horses reached the learning criterion of opening the feeder twenty times consecutively, 40 of these were 75% of the Demo group horses and four horses were 31% of the No Demo group horses. Horses not reaching the learning criterion approached the human experimenters more often than those who did. Significantly more horses used their head to press the button no matter which demonstration they received. However, in the Foot Demo group four horses consistently preferred to use a hoof and two switched between hoof and head use. After the Mixed Demo the horses' actions were more diverse. The results indicate that only a few horses copy behaviours when learning socially from humans. A few may learn through observational conditioning, as some appeared to adapt to demonstrated actions in the course of reaching the learning criterion. Most horses learn socially through enhancement, using humans to learn where, and which aspect of a mechanism has to be manipulated, and by applying individual trial and error learning to reach their goal.
|
|
|
|
Freitas, J., Lagos, L., & Álvares, F. (2021). Horses as prey of wolves. CDPnews, 23, 1–9.
|
|
|
|
Lema, F. J., Ribeiro, S., & Palacios, V. (2022). Observations of wolves hunting fee-ranging horses in Iberia. CDPNews, 24, 1–9.
|
|
|
|
Hartmann, E., Christensen, J. W., & McGreevy, P. D. (2017). Dominance and Leadership: Useful Concepts in Human-Horse Interactions? Proceedings of the 2017 Equine Science Symposium, 52, 1–9.
Abstract: Dominance hierarchies in horses primarily influence priority access to limited resources of any kind, resulting in predictable contest outcomes that potentially minimize aggressive encounters and associated risk of injury. Levels of aggression in group-kept horses under domestic conditions have been reported to be higher than in their feral counterparts but can often be attributed to suboptimal management. Horse owners often express concerns about the risk of injuries occurring in group-kept horses, but these concerns have not been substantiated by empirical investigations. What has not yet been sufficiently addressed are human safety aspects related to approaching and handling group-kept horses. Given horse's natural tendency to synchronize activity to promote group cohesion, questions remain about how group dynamics influence human-horse interactions. Group dynamics influence a variety of management scenarios, ranging from taking a horse out of its social group to the prospect of humans mimicking the horse's social system by taking a putative leadership role and seeking after an alpha position in the dominance hierarchy to achieve compliance. Yet, there is considerable debate about whether the roles horses attain in their social group are of any relevance in their reactions to humans. This article reviews the empirical data on social dynamics in horses, focusing on dominance and leadership theories and the merits of incorporating those concepts into the human-horse context. This will provide a constructive framework for informed debate and valuable guidance for owners managing group-kept horses and for optimizing human-horse interactions.
|
|
|
|
Sato, S., Sako, S., & Maeda, A. (1991). Social licking patterns in cattle (<em>Bos taurus</em>): influence of environmental and social factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 32(1), 3–12.
Abstract: To investigate the functions of social licking in cattle, four calves (one heifer and one steer in each of two herds), known to exhibit frequent social licking were observed continuously for 2 h before sunset for 13 days, using the focal animal sampling method. Calves were observed under various environmental conditions. Social licking significantly decreased on rainy days and tended to increase in a dirty barn and when food was restricted. Solicitation for social licking occurred not only from dominant animals of pairs but also from subordinates. Of the licking interactions, 31% occurred following solicitation, and these accounted for 39% of the total time spent licking. Following solicitation, 78% of social licking was oriented to the head and the neck regions that were inaccessible to self-licking animals. Unsolicited licking, however, was oriented not only to the head and the neck but also to the back and the rump regions, and these two latter regions were the major ones to receive licking. The effect of social relationships on social licking was investigated using least-squares analysis of variance. Social factors investigated were the difference of dominance values, the dominance-subordinance relationship, and kinship and familiarity; the sex of calves involved was also considered. Only familiarity had a significant effect on licking; exchanges of social licking increased with length of cohabitation. We suggest that social licking may have a cleaning effect, a tension-reducing effect and a bonding effect.
|
|
|
|
Gardner, E. L., & Engel, D. R. (1971). Imitational and social facilitatory aspects of observational learning in the laboratory rat. Psychon. Sci., 25(1), 5–6.
Abstract: Rats acquired a food-motivated leverpressing response by “observational learning” or by trial-and-error learning under conditions of social facilitation or isolation. Both the observational learning and social facilitation Ss learned faster than did the isolated trial-and-error Ss. There was no difference in speed of learning between the observational learning and social facilitation groups. It is suggested that some previous studies purporting to demonstrate observational learning may have demonstrated socially facilitated trial-and-error learning instead.
|
|
|
|
Bandini, E., & Tennie C. (2020). Exploring the role of individual learning in animal tool-use. PeerJ, 25, 8:e9877.
Abstract: The notion that tool-use is unique to humans has long been refuted by the growing number of observations of animals using tools across various contexts. Yet, the mechanisms behind the emergence and sustenance of these tool-use repertoires are still heavily debated. We argue that the current animal behaviour literature is biased towards a social learning approach, in which animal, and in particular primate, tool-use repertoires are thought to require social learning mechanisms (copying variants of social learning are most often invoked). However, concrete evidence for a widespread dependency on social learning is still lacking. On the other hand, a growing body of observational and experimental data demonstrates that various animal species are capable of acquiring the forms of their tool-use behaviours via individual learning, with (non-copying) social learning regulating the frequencies of the behavioural forms within (and, indirectly, between) groups. As a first outline of the extent of the role of individual learning in animal tool-use, a literature review of reports of the spontaneous acquisition of animal tool-use behaviours was carried out across observational and experimental studies. The results of this review suggest that perhaps due to the pervasive focus on social learning in the literature, accounts of the individual learning of tool-use forms by naïve animals may have been largely overlooked, and their importance under-examined.
|
|
