|
|
Pollard, J. C., & Littlejohn, R. P. (1996). The effects of pen size on the behaviour of farmed red deer stags confined in yards. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 47(3-4), 247–253.
Abstract: To determine whether pen size affected the behaviour and welfare of farmed red deer confined temporarily in yards, four groups of ten 2-year-old stags were confined for 40 min or 2 days in each of spring and summer, in either large (5 m × 4 m ) or small (2.5 m × 4) pens. In the small pens, wall pacing and vertical/horizontal head movements at the walls were more frequently observed (P < 0.05) and were carried out by a greater percentage of the deer (P < 0.001), and distances between individuals were smaller (P < 0.01), than observations in the large pens. Aggressive activities varied seasonally, with head-butting and chasing being seen most frequently in the spring (P < 0.05) and biting and kicking being seen most frequently in the summer (P < 0.05), and the overall frequency of aggressive activities was low in summer. In spring, in small pens there were fewer threats to head-butt, head butts by moving animals, and less stepping activity than in large pens (P < 0.05). In summer, in small pens there were more threats to butt and more stepping activity than in the large pens (P < 0.05). In both seasons, aggressive activities were correlated with wall pacing (r = 0.58 and 0.55, respectively). It was concluded that the effect of pen size on the frequency and nature of aggressive and other activities varied seasonally. In order minimise aggression and stepping activity, small pens were favoured in spring and large pens were favoured in summer. However, in both seasons there were greater inter-individual distances and reduced pacing and head movements at the walls in large pens. This latter finding may indicate that the large pens were less aversive to the deer, regardless of season.
|
|
|
|
Beerda, B., Schilder, M. B. H., Janssen, N. S. C. R. M., & Mol, J. A. (1996). The Use of Saliva Cortisol, Urinary Cortisol, and Catecholamine Measurements for a Noninvasive Assessment of Stress Responses in Dogs. Horm. Behav., 30(3), 272–279.
Abstract: A problem in assessing animal welfare is that collecting data in itself may be stressful to the animals. Therefore, noninvasive methods for collecting data have to be devised and tested. A first step in investigating saliva cortisol, urinary cortisol, and urinary catecholamine as noninvasive indicators of canine well-being is the validation of these hormonal measures as alternatives for those in plasma. Using a model of insulin (0.2 U/kg)-induced hypoglycemia, we report on stress-induced responses in saliva cortisol, urinary cortisol, and urinary catacholamines relative to cortisol and catecholamine responses in plasma. Hypoglycemia in six dogs induced significant (P< 0.05) increases in plasma cortisol and adrenaline but not noradrenaline. Saliva cortisol responses expressed as net area under the response curve correlated significantly with plasma cortisol responses (r> 0.92). Saliva cortisol levels measured 7 to 12% of plasma cortisol concentrations. Cortisol/creatinine ratios in urine were significantly higher when voided after insulin administeration, compared to when voided after saline treatment. Insulin-induced increments in cortisol/creatinine ratios were nonsignificant when urine samples were assayed after dichloromethane extraction. Although urinary adrenaline/creatinine (A/C) ratios were significantly correlated with maximum plasma adrenaline values after insulin administration, A/C ratios did not differ significantly between insulin and saline treatment. The present experiment provides strong support for using saliva sampling and urine collection as noninvasive methods to establish stress-induced cortisol responses. For measuring acute plasma adrenaline responses, measuring A/C ratios may not be a valid alternative.
|
|
|
|
Kruska, D. (1996). The effect of domestication on brain size and composition in the mink (Mustela vison). J Zool, 239.
|
|
|
|
Meriggi, A., & Lovari, S. (1996). A Review of Wolf Predation in Southern Europe: Does the Wolf Prefer Wild Prey to Livestock? J. Appl. Ecol, 33, 1561–1571.
Abstract: 1. The recent recovery of the wolf in southern Europe has not yet removed the risk
of local extinction. Wolf populations are fragmented and often comprise fewer than
500 individuals. In North America, northern and eastern Europe, wolves feed maiiily
on wild herbivores. In southern Europe, this canid has apparently adapted to feed
also on fruit, rubbish, livestock, small and medium-size mammals.
2. The main conservation problem lies with predation o n domestic ~ingulates,w liich
leads to extensive killing of wolves. The reintroduction of wild large herbivores has
been advocated as a means of reducing attacks on livestock, but predatiori on the
latter may remain high if domestic ungulates are locally abundant.
3. Our synthesis of 15 studies, published in the last 15 years, on food habits of the
wolf in southern Europe, has shown that ungulates have been the main diet component
overall. A significant inverse correlation was found between the occurrence (%) of
wild and domestic ungulates in the diet. The presence of relatively few wild ungulate
species was necessary to reduce predation on livestock.
4. Selection of wild and domestic ungulate prey was influenced mainly by their local
abundance, but also by their accessibility. Feeding dependence on rubbish was local
and rare. In Italy, the consumption of riibbish/fruit and that of ungulates was significantly
negatively correlated. Diet breadth increased as the presence of large prey
in tlie diet decreased.
5. The simultaneous reintroduction of severa1 wild ungulate species is likely to reduce
predation on livestock and may prove to be one of the most effective conservation
measures.
|
|
|
|
Laland, K. N., Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (1996). Developing a theory of animal social learning. In C. M. Heyes, & B. G. J. Galef (Eds.), Social learning in animals: the roots of culture. (pp. 129–154). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
|
|
|
|
Tomasello, M. (1996). Do apes ape? In C. M. Heyes, & B. G. Galef (Eds.), Social learning in animals: the roots of culture (pp. 319–346). London: Academic Press.
|
|
|
|
Heyes, C., & Galef, B. G. (Eds.). (1996). Social learning in animals: the roots of culture. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
|
|
|
|
Fragaszy, D., & Visalberghi, E. (1996). Primates “primacy” reconsidered. In C. Heyes, & B. G. Galef (Eds.), Social learning in animals: the roots of culture (pp. 65–84). Academic Press, Inc.
|
|
|
|
Lefebvre, L., & Giraldeau, L. - A. (1996). Is social learning an adaptive specialisation? In C. M. Heyes, & B. G. Galef B. G..Jr. (Eds.), Social learning in animals: The root of culture (pp. 107–128). San Diego: Academic Press.
|
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M., & Aureli, F. (1996). Consolation, reconciliation, and a possible cognitive difference between macaque and chimpanzee. In A. E. Russon, K. A. Bard, & S. T. Parker (Eds.), Reaching into Thought: The Minds of the Great Apes (pp. 80–110.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Abstract: Russon,A.E.; Bard, K.A.; Parker, S.T.
|
|
