|
|
Peters, G., & Tembrock, G. (1998). Subharmonics, biphonation, and deterministic chaos in mammal vocalizations. Bioacoustics, 9.
|
|
|
|
Burch, J. W., Layne, G. A., Follmann, E. H., & Rexstad, E. A. (2005). Evaluation of Wolf Density Estimation from Radiotelemetry Data. Wildl Soc Bull, 33.
|
|
|
|
Dugnol, B., Fernández, C., Galiano, G., & Velasco, J. (2008). On a chirplet transform-based method applied to separating and counting wolf howls. Signal Process, 88.
|
|
|
|
Dugnol, B., Fernández, C., Galiano, G., & Velasco, J. (2007). Implementation of a diffusive differential reassignment method for signal enhancement: An application to wolf population counting. Appl Math Comput, 193.
|
|
|
|
Dugnol, B., Fernández, C., & Galiano, G. (2007). Wolf population counting by spectrogram image processing. Appl Math Comput, 186.
|
|
|
|
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., Arx, M., Huber, D., & Andrén, H. (2014). Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes. Science, 346.
|
|
|
|
Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Beschta, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G., & Hebblewhite, M. (2014). Status and ecological effects of the world's largest carnivores. Science, 343.
|
|
|
|
Devinsky, O., Boesch, J. M., Cerda-Gonzalez, S., Coffey, B., Davis, K., Friedman, D., et al. (2018). A cross-species approach to disorders affecting brain and behaviour. Nature Reviews Neurology, .
Abstract: Structural and functional elements of biological systems are highly conserved across vertebrates. Many neurological and psychiatric conditions affect both humans and animals. A cross-species approach to the study of brain and behaviour can advance our understanding of human disorders via the identification of unrecognized natural models of spontaneous disorders, thus revealing novel factors that increase vulnerability or resilience, and via the assessment of potential therapies. Moreover, diagnostic and therapeutic advances in human neurology and psychiatry can often be adapted for veterinary patients. However, clinical and research collaborations between physicians and veterinarians remain limited, leaving this wealth of comparative information largely untapped. Here, we review pain, cognitive decline syndromes, epilepsy, anxiety and compulsions, autoimmune and infectious encephalitides and mismatch disorders across a range of animal species, looking for novel insights with translational potential. This comparative perspective can help generate novel hypotheses, expand and improve clinical trials and identify natural animal models of disease resistance and vulnerability.
|
|
|
|
Galef, B. G. (2013). Imitation and local enhancement: Detrimental effects of consensus definitions on analyses of social learning in animals. Behavioural Processes, 100, 123–130.
Abstract: Development of a widely accepted vocabulary referring to various types of social learning has made important contributions to decades of progress in analyzing the role of socially acquired information in the development of behavioral repertoires. It is argued here that emergence of a consensus vocabulary, while facilitating both communication and research, has also unnecessarily restricted research on social learning. The article has two parts. In the first, I propose that Thorndike, 1898, Thorndike, 1911 definition of imitation as “learning to do an act from seeing it done” has unduly restricted studies of the behavioral processes involved in the propagation of behavior. In part 2, I consider the possibility that success in labeling social learning processes believed to be less cognitively demanding than imitation (e.g. local and stimulus enhancement, social facilitation, etc.) has been mistaken for understanding of those processes, although essentially nothing is known of their stimulus control, development, phylogeny or substrate either behavioral or physiological.
|
|
|
|
Schino, G., & Aureli, F. (2016). Reciprocity in group-living animals: partner control versus partner choice. Biol Rev, 92(2), 665–672.
Abstract: ABSTRACT Reciprocity is probably the most debated of the evolutionary explanations for cooperation. Part of the confusion surrounding this debate stems from a failure to note that two different processes can result in reciprocity: partner control and partner choice. We suggest that the common observation that group-living animals direct their cooperative behaviours preferentially to those individuals from which they receive most cooperation is to be interpreted as the result of the sum of the two separate processes of partner control and partner choice. We review evidence that partner choice is the prevalent process in primates and propose explanations for this pattern. We make predictions that highlight the need for studies that separate the effects of partner control and partner choice in a broader variety of group-living taxa.
|
|
