| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Hofmeester, T.R.; Cromsigt, J.P.G.M.; Odden, J.; Andrén, H.; Kindberg, J.; Linnell, J.D.C. |
|
| |
Title |
Framing pictures: A conceptual framework to identify and correct for biases in detection probability of camera traps enabling multi-species comparison |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2019 |
Publication |
Ecology and Evolution |
Abbreviated Journal |
Ecol Evol |
|
| |
Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
|
| |
Keywords |
animal characteristics; detectability; environmental variables; mammal monitoring; reuse of data; trail camera |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd |
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN  |
2045-7758 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
doi: 10.1002/ece3.4878 |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
6518 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Baumgartner, M.; Boisson, T.; Erhard, M.H.; Zeitler-Feicht, M.H. |
|
| |
Title |
Common Feeding Practices Pose A Risk to the Welfare of Horses When Kept on Non-Edible Bedding |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2020 |
Publication |
Animals |
Abbreviated Journal |
Animals |
|
| |
Volume |
10 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
441 |
|
| |
Keywords |
horse behaviour; feed intake pause; bedding; welfare indicator; feeding practices; roughage; horse welfare; individual housing system |
|
| |
Abstract |
During the evolution of the horse, an extended period of feed intake, spread over the entire 24-h period, determined the horses� behaviour and physiology. Horses will not interrupt their feed intake for more than 4 h, if they have a choice. The aim of the present study was to investigate in what way restrictive feeding practices (non ad libitum) affect the horses� natural feed intake behaviour. We observed the feed intake behaviour of 104 horses on edible (n = 30) and non-edible bedding (n = 74) on ten different farms. We assessed the duration of the forced nocturnal feed intake interruption of horses housed on shavings when no additional roughage was available. Furthermore, we comparatively examined the feed intake behaviour of horses housed on edible versus non-edible bedding. The daily restrictive feeding of roughage (2 times a day: n = 8; 3 times a day: n = 2), as it is common in individual housing systems, resulted in a nocturnal feed intake interruption of more than 4 hours for the majority (74.32%, 55/74) of the horses on shavings (8:50 ± 1:25 h, median: 8:45 h, minimum: 6:45 h, maximum: 13:23 h). In comparison to horses on straw, horses on shavings paused their feed intake less frequently and at a later latency. Furthermore, they spent less time on consuming the evening meal than horses on straw. Our results of the comparison of the feed-intake behaviour of horses on edible and non-edible bedding show that the horses� ethological feeding needs are not satisfied on non-edible bedding. If the horses accelerate their feed intake (also defined as �rebound effect�), this might indicate that the horses� welfare is compromised. We conclude that in addition to the body condition score, the longest duration of feed intake interruption (usually in the night) is an important welfare indicator of horses that have limited access to roughage. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
Animals |
|
| |
Series Volume |
10 |
Series Issue |
3 |
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
2076-2615 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
6647 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Krueger, K.; Trager, L.; Farmer, K.; Byrne, R. |
|
| |
Title |
Tool Use in Horses |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2022 |
Publication |
Animals |
Abbreviated Journal |
Animals |
|
| |
Volume |
12 |
Issue |
15 |
Pages |
1876 |
|
| |
Keywords |
crowdsourcing; horse; innovation; mule; management; tool use |
|
| |
Abstract |
Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used a crowdsourcing approach to gather data. We contacted equid owners and carers and asked them to report and video examples of �unusual� behaviour via a dedicated website. We also searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tool use. From 635 reports, including 1014 behaviours, we found 20 cases of tool use, 13 of which were unambiguous in that it was clear that the behaviour was not trained, caused by reduced welfare, incidental or accidental. We then assessed (a) the effect of management conditions on tool use and (b) whether the animals used tools alone, or socially, involving other equids or humans. We found that management restrictions were associated with corresponding tool use in 12 of the 13 cases (p = 0.01), e.g., equids using sticks to scrape hay within reach when feed was restricted. Furthermore, 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans, such as horses using brushes to groom others. The most frequent tool use was for foraging, with seven examples, tool use for social purposes was seen in four cases, and there was just one case of tool use for escape. There was just one case of tool use for comfort, and in this instance, there were no management restrictions. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is a rare occurrence. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
Animals |
|
| |
Series Volume |
12 |
Series Issue |
15 |
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
2076-2615 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
6695 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
