|
|
Krueger., K., & Farmer, K. (2018). Social learning in Horses: Differs from individual learning only in the learning stimulus and not in the learning mechanisms. In 14th Meeting of the Internatinoal Society for Equitation Science.
Abstract: Equine welfare can be enhanced by applying species specific training. This may incorporate social learning, as horses are highly social and social stimuli are of primary importance. Social learning is comparable to individual learning in its learning mechanisms, differing primarily in the way it is stimulated. Our initial study showed that horses of different breeds (N = 38) follow humans after observing other horses doing so, but only if the observed horse was familiar to and higher ranking than the observer (Fisher's exact test: N = 12, P = 0.003). A second study showed that horses and ponies (N = 25) learned to pull a rope to open a feeding apparatus after observing demonstrations by conspecifics, again, only if the demonstrating horse was older and higher ranking than the observer (Fisher's combination test, N = 3, v2 = 27.71, p = 0.006). Our third approach showed that horses and ponies (N = 24) learned to press a switch to open a feeding apparatus after observing a familiar person (GzLM: N = 24, z = 2.33, P = 0.02). Most recently, we confronted horses and ponies (N = 50) with persons demonstrating different techniques for opening a feeding apparatus. In this study we investigated whether the horses would copy the demonstrators' techniques or apply their own. Here only some horses copied the technique, and most of the successful learners used their mouths irrespective of the demonstrators' postures (Chi Square Test: N = 40, df = 2, χ2 = 31.4, p < 0.001). In all the approaches social stimuli elicited learning processes in the test horses, while only a few individuals in the control groups mastered the tasks by individual learning. The following behaviour observed in the initial study may have been facilitated by a social stimuli (social facilitation), and the opening of the feed boxes in the subsequent studies appear to be mostly the result of enhancement (social enhancement). Some horses may have used the social stimuli at first and continued their learning process by individual trial and error. However, the horses were also selective in whom and some in how to copy. This may have been conditioned (socially conditioned) or the result of simple forms of reasoning on the reliability of the particular information provided by demonstrators of certain social ranks or social positions, as high ranking and familiar horses and familiar persons were copied and some imitated exactly.
Lay person message: Traditional riding instructions suggest that horses learn by observing other horses. For example, older, more experienced driving horses are used for initial training of young driving horses. We have shown that horses indeed use learning stimuli provided by other horse, as well as by humans. Horses readily accept stimuli observed in high ranking and familiar horses, and familiar persons. Such stimuli elicit learning processes which are comparable to individual learning. We suggest applying social learning whenever possible, as it is much faster and less stressful than individual learning, where learners experience negative outcomes in trial and error learning.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Shmidt Mech, L. D. (1997). Wolf pack size and food acquisition. Am Nat, 150.
|
|
|
|
Richards, D. G., & Wiley, R. H. (2008). Reverberations and Amplitude Fluctuations in the Propagation of Sound in a Forest: Implications for Animal Communication. Am Nat, 115.
|
|
|
|
Joslin, P. W. B. (1967). Movements and home sites of timber wolves in Algonquin Park. Am Zool, 7.
|
|
|
|
Sueur, C., Jacobs, A., Amblard, F., Petit, O., & King, A. J. (2010). How can social network analysis improve the study of primate behavior? Am. J. Primatol., 73(8), 703–719.
Abstract: Abstract When living in a group, individuals have to make trade-offs, and compromise, in order to balance the advantages and disadvantages of group life. Strategies that enable individuals to achieve this typically affect inter-individual interactions resulting in nonrandom associations. Studying the patterns of this assortativity using social network analyses can allow us to explore how individual behavior influences what happens at the group, or population level. Understanding the consequences of these interactions at multiple scales may allow us to better understand the fitness implications for individuals. Social network analyses offer the tools to achieve this. This special issue aims to highlight the benefits of social network analysis for the study of primate behaviour, assessing it's suitability for analyzing individual social characteristics as well as group/population patterns. In this introduction to the special issue, we first introduce social network theory, then demonstrate with examples how social networks can influence individual and collective behaviors, and finally conclude with some outstanding questions for future primatological research. Am. J. Primatol. 73:703?719, 2011. ? 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
|
|
|
|
Harrington, F. H. (1987). Aggressive howling in wolves. Anim Behav, 35.
|
|
|
|
Tooze, Z. J., Harrington, F. H., & Fentress, J. C. (1990). Individually distinct vocalizations in timber wolves, Canis lupus. Anim Behav, 40.
|
|
|
|
Bateson, P. (2014). Play, playfulness, creativity and innovation. Anim. Behav. Cogn., 1(2), 99–112.
|
|
|
|
Baker, P. J., Funk, S. M., Harris, S., & White, P. C. L. (2000). Flexible spatial organization of urban foxes, Vulpes vulpes, before and during an outbreak of sarcoptic mange. Anim. Behav., 59(1), 127–146.
Abstract: The social and spatial organization of urban fox groups prior to and during an outbreak of sarcoptic mange was compared with predictions derived from the resource dispersion hypothesis (RDH). We investigated the availability of three key resources. Neither daytime rest sites nor breeding sites appeared to be limited in availability. The availability of food deliberately supplied by local householders was examined by questionnaire surveys. The daily and weekly amount of food supplied was greatly in excess of the minimum requirements of a pair of foxes, but was consistent between territories. The availability of this food source increased markedly as a result of more people feeding the foxes. In agreement with the RDH, group size prior to the outbreak of mange increased from 2.25 animals (N=4) to 6.57 animals (N=7). Before the outbreak of mange, two territories were divided. Increased scavenge availability on smaller territories may have promoted these changes. Excluding these spatial changes, territories were very stable between years. After the outbreak of mange, group size declined as a direct result of mange-induced mortality. Surviving animals increased their ranges only after neighbouring groups had died out. Ranges did not increase in size in response to a decline in food availability. Nor were the increases in range size associated with the relinquishment of parts of the existing territory. These postmange changes are contrary to the RDH. Three factors may have promoted these changes: the elimination of interstitial space, the forced dispersal of young or future division of the territory.
|
|
