|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Lonsdorf, E. V. (2005). Sex differences in the development of termite-fishing skills in the wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii, of Gombe National Park, Tanzania. Anim. Behav., 70(3), 673–683.
Abstract: By the age of 5.5 years, all of the young chimpanzees of Gombe National Park have acquired a skill known as 'termite fishing'. Termite fishing involves inserting a flexible tool made from vegetation into a termite mound and extracting the termites that attack and cling to the tool. Although tool use is a well-known phenomenon in chimpanzees, little is known about how such skills develop in the wild. Prior studies have found adult sex differences in frequency, duration and efficiency of tool-using tasks, with females scoring higher on all measures. To investigate whether these sex differences occurred in youngsters, I performed a 4-year longitudinal field study during which I observed and videotaped young chimpanzees' development of the termite-fishing behaviour. Critical elements of the skill included identifying a hole, making a tool, inserting a tool into a hole and extracting termites. These elements appeared in the same order during the development of all subjects, but females typically peaked at least a year earlier than males in their performance of the skills that precede termite fishing. In addition, young females successfully termite-fished an average of 27 months earlier than young males and were more proficient at the skill after acquisition had occurred. Furthermore, the techniques of female offspring closely resembled those of their mothers whereas the techniques of male offspring did not, suggesting that the process by which termite fishing is learned differs for male and female chimpanzees.
|
|
|
|
Amici, F., Widdig, A., Lehmann, J., & Majolo, B. (2019). A meta-analysis of interindividual differences in innovation. Anim. Behav., 155, 257–268.
Abstract: The ability to innovate and the social transmission of innovations have played a central role in human evolution. However, innovation is also crucial for other animals, by allowing them to cope with novel socioecological challenges. Although innovation plays such a central role in animals' lives, we still do not know the conditions required for innovative behaviour to emerge. Here, we focused on interindividual differences in innovation by (1) extensively reviewing existing literature on innovative behaviour in animals and (2) quantitatively testing the different evolutionary hypotheses that have been proposed to explain interindividual variation in innovation propensity during foraging tasks. We ran a series of phylogenetically controlled mixed-effects meta-regression models to determine which hypotheses (if any) are supported by currently available empirical studies. Our analyses show that innovation is more common in individuals that are older and belong to the larger sex, but also in more neophilic and/or explorative individuals. Moreover, these effects change depending on the study setting (i.e. wild versus captive). Our results provide no clear support to the excess of energy or the bad competitor hypotheses and suggest that study setting and interindividual differences in traits related to personality are also important predictors of innovation.
|
|
|
|
Pimenta, V., Barroso, I., Boitani, L., & Beja, P. (2018). Risks a la carte: Modelling the occurrence and intensity of wolf predation on multiple livestock species. Biol. Conserva., 228, 331–342.
Abstract: Predation on livestock is a source of human-wildlife conflicts and can undermine the conservation of large carnivores. To design effective mitigation strategies, it is important to understand the determinants of predation across livestock species, which often differ in husbandry practices, vulnerability to predators and economic value. Moreover, attention should be given to both predation occurrence and intensity, because these can have different spatial patterns and predictors. We used spatial risk modelling to quantify factors affecting wolf predation on five livestock species in Portugal. Within the 1619 parishes encompassing the entire wolf range in the country, the national wolf compensation scheme recorded 17,670 predation events in 2009-2015, each involving one or more livestock species: sheep (31.7%), cattle (27.7%), goats (26.8%), horses (14.8%) and donkeys (3.2%). Models built with 2009-2013 data and validated with 2014-2015 data, showed a shared general pattern of predation probability on each species increasing with its own density and proximity to wolf packs. For some species there were positive relations with the density of other livestock species, and with habitat variables such as altitude, and land cover by shrubland and natural pastures. There was also a general pattern for predation intensity on each species increasing with its own density, while proximity to wolf packs had no significant effects. Predation intensity on goats, cattle and horses increased with the use of communal versus private pastures. Our results suggest that although predation may occur wherever wolves coexist with livestock species, high predation intensity is mainly restricted to particular areas where husbandry practices increase the vulnerability of animals, and this is where mitigation efforts should concentrate.
|
|
