|
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Bentley-Condit, V.; Smith, E.O. |
|
|
Title |
Animal tool use: current definitions and an updated comprehensive catalog |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
2010 |
Publication |
Behaviour |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
|
Volume |
147 |
Issue |
2 |
Pages |
185-32 |
|
|
Keywords |
TOOL USE; CATALOG; ANIMAL |
|
|
Abstract |
Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study. |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ :/content/journals/10.1163/000579509x12512865686555 |
Serial |
5859 |
|
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
|
Author |
Schwenk, B.K.; Fürst, A.E.; Bischhofberger, A.S. |
|
|
Title |
Traffic accident-related injuries in horses |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Pferdeheilkunde – Equine Medicine |
Abbreviated Journal |
Equine Med. |
|
|
Volume |
32 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
192-199 |
|
|
Keywords |
traffic / horse / injury / body site / accident / trauma |
|
|
Abstract |
Horses involved in road traffic accidents (RTAs) are commonly presented to veterinarians with varying types of injuries. The aim
of this study was describe the pattern and severity of traffic accident-related injuries in horses in a single hospital population. Medical
records of horses either hit by a motorized vehicle or involved in RTAs whilst being transported from 1993 to 2015 were retrospectively
reviewed and the following data was extracted: Signalement, hospitalisation time, month in which the accident happened, cause of the
accident, place of the accident and type of vehicle hitting the horse. Further the different body sites injured (head, neck, breast, fore limb,
abdomen, back and spine, pelvis and ileosacral region, hind limb, tail and genital region), the type of injury (wounds, musculoskeletal
lesions and internal lesions) and the presence of neurological signs were retrieved from the medical records. 34 horses hit by motorized
vehicles and 13 horses involved in RTAs whilst being transported were included in the study. Most of the accidents where horses were hit
by motorized vehicles occurred during December (14.7%) and October (14.7%), horses were most commonly hit by cars (85.3%) and the
majority of accidents occurred on main roads (26.5%). In 29.4% of the cases, horses had escaped from their paddock and then collided
with a motorized vehicle. Most of the accidents with horses involved in RTAs whilst being transported occurred during April (30.8%) and
June (23.1%). In 76.9% of the cases the accident happened on a freeway. In the horses hit by motorized vehicles the proximal hind limbs
were the body site most commonly affected (44.1%), followed by the proximal front limbs (38.2%) and the head (32.4%). When horses
were involved in RTAs whilst being transported the proximal fore limbs (61.5%), the proximal hind limbs (53.8%) and the distal hind limbs,
back and head (38.5% each) were the most common injured body sites. Wounds were the most common type of injury in both groups
(85.3% hit by motorized vehicle, 76.9% transported ones). In horses hit by a motorized vehicle 35.3% suffered from fractures, in 20.6%
a synovial structure was involved and in 5.9% a tendon lesion was present. 14.7% suffered from internal lesions and 14.7% showed neurologic
symptoms (40% peripheral, 60% central neurologic deficits). On the other hand, in horses involved in a RTA whilst being transported
30.8% suffered from fractures. There were no synovial structures injured and no tendon injuries were present. Furthermore there were
no internal lesions present and only one horse involved in a RTA showed central neurologic symptoms. Injuries of horses being hit by a
motorized vehicle were more severe than when horses were protected by a trailer and involved in a RTA whilst being transported. The study
has been able to identify the different injury types of traffic accident-related injuries in horses. Awareness of the nature of these injuries is
important, to avoid underestimation of their severity. |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
6207 |
|
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
|
Author |
Gehlen, H.; Große, V.; Doher, M. |
|
|
Title |
Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Herdenschutzes für Pferde in Zusammenhang mit der wachsenden Wolfspopulation in Deutschland Literaturrecherche und Befragung von Pferdehaltern zur Gefährdungsbeurteilung [Options and limitations of protecting horse husbandries in times of growing wolf populations in Germany Review of the literature and horse owner questionnaire on risk assessment] |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
2012 |
Publication |
Tierärztliche Praxis Großtier/Nutztier Ausgabe G |
Abbreviated Journal |
Tierarztl Prax Ausg G |
|
|
Volume |
49 |
Issue |
05 |
Pages |
301-309 |
|
|
Keywords |
Wolfsrisse – Bedrohung – Weidehaltung – Pferdehaltung – Verletzungen; Wolf kill – threat – pasture management – horse husbandry – injury |
|
|
Abstract |
Zusammenfassung
Gegenstand und Ziel Seit 2000 siedelt sich der Wolf in Deutschland wieder an. Mit steigenden Wolfszahlen nehmen die durch Wölfe verursachten Nutztierschäden zu, wobei auch Pferde betroffen sind. Ziel der Studie war es, einen Überblick zu dieser Problematik sowie Lösungsansätze zu geben.
Material und Methoden Anhand einer Literaturrecherche wurden Daten zur Wolfspopulation in Deutschland, wolfsbedingten Schäden sowie Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Herdenschutzes beim Pferd eruiert. Eine Online-Befragung von Pferdehaltern/-besitzern diente dazu, die tatsächliche und/oder gefühlte Bedrohung durch Wölfe und die daraus resultierenden Auswirkungen auf die Pferdehaltung zu ermitteln.
Ergebnisse Die Literaturrecherche zeigte ein kontinuierliches Anwachsen der Wolfspopulation in den letzten Jahren und insbesondere seit 2016 einen deutlichen Anstieg wolfsverursachter Nutztierschäden, wobei Pferde selten betroffen waren. Bei der Online-Befragung stammte die Hälfte der 574 ausgewerteten Fragebögen aus Brandenburg und Niedersachsen. Den größten Einfluss auf die Gefährdungsbeurteilung eigener Pferde durch die wachsende Wolfspopulation hatte das Wissen der Pferdehalter über Wolfsangriffe im eigenen Landkreis, wobei insbesondere die Aspekte einer Haltung von Jungpferden und Weidegang für die Pferde eine Rolle spielten. 64 % der Befragten gaben an, ihre Pferdehaltung trotz der zunehmenden Wolfspopulation nicht geändert zu haben. Nur 8 von 576 Pferdehaltern gaben amtlich bestätigte Wolfsübergriffe an und 30 hatten einen vermuteten Wolfsschaden amtlichen Stellen nicht gemeldet. Mehr als die Hälfte der Befragten, die Kontakt zu einem Wolfsberater hatten, bezeichneten die Zusammenarbeit als nicht bis wenig zielführend.
Schlussfolgerung und klinische Relevanz Die Zahl amtlich bestätigter Wolfsangriffe auf Pferde ist gering. Durch einen grundsätzlich durchgeführten Gentest bei entsprechendem Verdacht ließen sich diese Zahlen objektivieren. Trotz des Bewusstseins einer zunehmenden Gefährdung von Pferden durch Wölfe unternehmen Pferdehalter überwiegend keine prophylaktischen Schutzmaßnahmen. Die Kommunikation zwischen den für das Wolfsmonitoring zuständigen Behörden und den Pferdehaltern erscheint verbesserungswürdig.
Abstract
Objective Since 2000 the wolf population is reestablishing itself in Germany. In consequence to increasing numbers, livestock damage caused by wolves is on the rise, with horses likewise being affected. The aim of the study was to provide an overview of this challenge and its possible solutions.
Material and methods Based on a literature research, data on the wolf population in Germany, wolf-related damage as well as possibilities and limitations of herd protection for horses were evaluated. An online survey addressed to horse owners/keepers served to determine the actual and/or perceived threat posed by wolves and the resulting effects on horse husbandry.
Results The literature search showed a continuous increase of the wolf population in recent years as well as a significant increase of wolf-caused livestock damage in general especially since 2016; although horses were rarely affected. Half of the 574 evaluated questionnaires were from Brandenburg and Lower Saxony. The greatest influence on the individual risk assessment concerning their own horses by the growing wolf population was the horse owners� knowledge of wolf attacks in their own county. Especially the aspects of keeping young horses as well as pasture keeping played a significant role. 64 % of respondents indicated that they had not changed their horse management practices despite the increasing wolf population. Only 8 of 576 horse owners had reported officially confirmed wolf attacks and 30 respondents had not reported a suspected wolf damage to official agencies. More than half of the respondents who had contact with a wolf advisor described the cooperation as either not or only slightly purposeful.
Conclusion and clinical relevance The number of officially confirmed wolf attacks on horses is low. These numbers could be objectified by a routinely performed genetic test in case of corresponding suspicion. Despite the awareness of an increasing danger of horses by wolves, horse owners mostly do not undertake prophylactic protection measures. The communication between responsible authorities for wolf monitoring and horse owners seems to be in need of improvement. |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
6673 |
|
Permanent link to this record |