|
|
Solmsen, E. - H., Bathen, M., Grüntjens, T., Hempel, E., Klose, M., Krüger, K., et al. (2021). Protecting horses against wolves in Germany. CDPNews, 23.
|
|
|
|
Grönemann, C. (2015). Konfliktfeld Pferd und Wolf – Eine Untersuchung zu Einstellungen, Erwartungen und Befürchtungen von Pferdehaltern und Reitsportlern in Niedersachsen. Master's thesis, Universität Hildesheim, Hildesheim.
|
|
|
|
Reinhardt, I., Kluth, G., Balzer, S., & Steyer, K. (2022). Wolfsverursachte Schäden, Präventions- und Ausgleichszahlungen in Deutschland 2021 (Markus Ritz, Ed.) (Vol. 41). Görlitz, Deutschland: DBBW-Dokumentations- und Beratungsstelle des Bundes zum Thema Wolf.
|
|
|
|
Capitani, C., Chynoweth, M., Kusak, J., Çoban, E., & Sekercioglu, Ç. H. (2016). Wolf diet in an agricultural landscape of north-eastern Turkey. Mammalia, 80(3), 329–334.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Wotschikowsky, U. (2007). Wölfe und Jäger in der Oberlausitz. Broschüre, Freundeskreis freilebender Wölfe, .
|
|
|
|
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G. - A., & Fleming, P. J. S. (2015). The pitfalls of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia. Aust. Mammal., 37(1), 13–22.
Abstract: Camera trapping is a relatively new addition to the wildlife survey repertoire in Australia. Its rapid adoption has been unparalleled in ecological science, but objective evaluation of camera traps and their application has not kept pace. With the aim of motivating practitioners to think more about selection and deployment of camera trap models in relation to research goals, we reviewed Australian camera trapping studies to determine how camera traps have been used and how their technological constraints may have affected reported results and conclusions. In the 54 camera trapping articles published between 1991 and 2013, mammals (86%) were studied more than birds (10%) and reptiles (3%), with small to medium-sized mammals being most studied. Australian camera trapping studies, like those elsewhere, have changed from more qualitative to more complex quantitative investigations. However, we found that camera trap constraints and limitations were rarely acknowledged, and we identified eight key issues requiring consideration and further research. These are: camera model, camera detection system, camera placement and orientation, triggering and recovery, camera trap settings, temperature differentials, species identification and behavioural responses of the animals to the cameras. In particular, alterations to animal behaviour by camera traps potentially have enormous influence on data quality, reliability and interpretation. The key issues were not considered in most Australian camera trap papers and require further study to better understand the factors that influence the analysis and interpretation of camera trap data and improve experimental design.
|
|
|
|
Krueger, K., Gruentjens, T., & Hempel, E. (2023). Wolf contact in horses at permanent pasture in Germany. Plos One, 18(8), e0289767.
Abstract: Wolves returned to Germany in 2000, leading to fear in German horse owners that their horses could be in danger of wolf attacks or panic-like escapes from pastures when sighting wolves. However, reports from southern European countries indicate that wolf predation on horses diminishes with increasing presence of wildlife. Therefore, we conducted a long-term, filed observation between January 2015 and July 2022 on 13 non breeding riding horses, mares and geldings, kept permanently on two pastures within the range of wildlife and a stable wolf pack with annual offspring. Wildlife cameras at the fences of the pastures made 984 times recordings of wolves and 3151 times recordings of wildlife in and around the pastures. Between 1 January 2022 and 23 March 2022 we observed two stable horse groups. Pasture 1 was grazed by five horses of mixed breed, four mares and one gelding, with the median age of 8 years (min. = 6y, max. = 29y). Pasture 2 was grazed by eight heavy warmbloods and draught horses, three mares and five geldings, with the median age of 16 years (min. = 13y, max. = 22y). During this period no wolf was recorded at pasture 2, but wild boar several times, whereas at pasture 1, wolves were recorded 89 times, and for the wildlife mostly hare. Wolves may have avoided pasture 2 because of the presence of wild boar or because the large group of older, heavy breed horses may have formed a stable, protective group. The latter needs to be confirmed in a follow-up field observation, which records anti-predator behavior and welfare indicators in horses. In conclusion, wolves did not attack the mature horses on pastures with plenty of wildlife and the horses did not respond to the presence of wolves with visible signs of reduced welfare or panic. This indicates that wolves may prefer to prey on easily accessible wildlife around and at horse pastures and that Central European horses become accustom to the presence of non-hunting wolves.
|
|
|
|
Heydebreck, K. von. (1928). Reitlehrer und Reiter in Uniform und Zivil eine Anleitung nach den Grundsätzen der deutschen Reitvorschrift (2., neubearb. Aufl ed.). Berlin: Mittler.
|
|
|
|
Schneider, G., & Krueger, K. (2012). Third-party interventions keep social partners from exchanging affiliative interactions with others. Anim. Behav., 83(2), 377–387.
Abstract: Third-party interventions are defined as the interruption of dyadic interactions by third animals through direct physical contact, interposing or threats. Previous studies focused on the analysis of interventions against agonistic encounters. However, there have been no evaluations of interventions against affiliative behaviours, particularly in relation to the intervening animal�s social relationships and its social and spatial position. Horses, Equus caballus, are an interesting model species, as interventions against affiliative interactions occur more frequently than against agonistic interactions. In this study, 64 feral horses displayed 67 interventions in affiliative interactions and eight interventions in agonistic interactions within the observation period. We analysed the interventions in affiliative encounters, and found that it was mainly higher-ranking females that intervened in the affiliative interactions of group mates in the stable horse harems. The intervening animals took an active part in affiliative and agonistic encounters within the group, but did not occupy particular social roles or spatial positions. They intervened in affiliative interactions in which group mates with which they had social bonds interacted with other members of the group. They targeted the nonbonded animal and approached the one with which they were socially bonded. We suggest some species use third-party interventions in affiliative interactions to prevent competition for preferred social interaction partners from escalating into more costly agonistic encounters.
|
|
