|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Gleerup, K. B., & Lindegaard, C. (2016). Recognition and quantification of pain in horses: A tutorial review. Equine Vet Educ, 28(1), 47–57.
Abstract: Summary Pain management is dependent on the quality of the pain evaluation. Ideally, pain evaluation is objective, pain-specific and easily incorporated into a busy equine clinic. This paper reviews the existing knowledge base regarding the identification and quantification of pain in horses. Behavioural indicators of pain in horses in the context of normal equine behaviour, as well as various physiological parameters potentially useful for pain evaluation, are discussed. Areas where knowledge is sparse are identified and a new equine pain scale based on results from all reviewed papers is proposed. Finally, the most important considerations in relation to the implementation of a pain scale in a hospital setting are discussed.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Voigtlaender-Schnabel, S., Vogel, L., Greiner, B., Wiezorek, S., Schuette, P., Solmsen, E. - H., et al. (2022). Reactions of horses to wildlife and livestock guarding dogs. CDPNews, 24, 49–58.
|
|
|
|
Charif, R. A., Waack, A. M., & Strickman, L. M. (2008). Raven Pro 1.3 User's Manual. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology.
|
|
|
|
Core Development Team, R. (2011). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R foundation for statistical computing.
|
|
|
|
(2013). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
|
|
|
|
McGreevy, P. D., & McLean, A. N. (2009). Punishment in horse-training and the concept of ethical equitation. J. Vet. Behav., 4(5), 193–197.
Abstract: By definition, punishment makes a response less likely in the future. Because horses are largely trained by negative reinforcement, they are susceptible to inadvertent punishment. Delays in the release of pressure can make desirable responses less likely and thus punish them. This study examines the correct use of negative reinforcement and identifies a continuum between poorly timed negative reinforcement and punishment. It explores some of the problems of non-contingent punishment and the prospect of learned helplessness and experimental neurosis. It concludes by introducing the concept of ethical equitation.
|
|
|
|
Solmsen, E. - H., Bathen, M., Grüntjens, T., Hempel, E., Klose, M., Krüger, K., et al. (2021). Protecting horses against wolves in Germany. CDPNews, 23.
|
|
|
|
Solmsen, E. - H., Bathen, M., Grüntjens, T., Hempel, E., Klose, M., Krüger, K., et al. (2021). Protecting horses against wolves in Germany. CPDnews, 23, 12–19.
|
|
