|
|
Houpt, K. A., & Feldman, J. (1993). Animal behavior case of the month. Aggression toward a neonatal foal by its dam. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 203(9), 1279–1280.
|
|
|
|
Miller, G. (2006). Animal behavior. Signs of empathy seen in mice. Science, 312(5782), 1860–1861.
|
|
|
|
Cohen, J. (2007). Animal behavior. The world through a chimp's eyes (Vol. 316).
|
|
|
|
Timberlake, W. (1993). Animal Behavior: A Continuing Synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 675–706.
|
|
|
|
Krueger, K., Esch, L., & Byrne, R. (2019). Animal behaviour in a human world: A crowdsourcing study on horses that open door and gate mechanisms. Plos One, 14(6), e0218954.
Abstract: Anecdotal reports of horses opening fastened doors and gates are an intriguing way of exploring the possible scope of horses' problem-solving capacities. The species' natural environment has no analogues of the mechanisms involved. Scientific studies on the topic are missing, because the rate of occurrence is too low for exploration under controlled conditions. Therefore, we compiled from lay persons case reports of horses opening closed doors and gates. Additionally, we collected video documentations at the internet platform YouTube, taking care to select raw data footage of unedited, clearly described and clearly visible cases of animals with no distinct signs of training or reduced welfare. The data included individuals opening 513 doors or gates on hinges, 49 sliding doors, and 33 barred doors and gateways; mechanisms included 260 cases of horizontal and 155 vertical bars, 43 twist locks, 42 door handles, 34 electric fence handles, 40 carabiners, and 2 locks with keys. Opening was usually for escape, but also for access to food or stable-mates, or out of curiosity or playfulness. While 56 percent of the horses opened a single mechanism at one location, 44 percent opened several types of mechanism (median = 2, min. = 1, max. = 5) at different locations (median = 2, min. = 1, max. = 4). The more complex the mechanism was, the more movements were applied, varying from median 2 for door handles to 10 for carabiners. Mechanisms requiring head- or lip-twisting needed more movements, with significant variation between individuals. 74 horses reported in the questionnaire had options for observing the behaviour in stable mates, 183 did not, which indicates that the latter learned to open doors and gates either individually or from observing humans. Experience favours opening efficiency; subjects which opened several door types applied fewer movements per lock than horses which opened only one door type. We failed to identify a level of complexity of door-fastening mechanism that was beyond the learning capacity of the horse to open. Thus, all devices in frequent use, even carabiners and electric fence handles, are potentially vulnerable to opening by horses, something which needs to be considered in relation to keeping horses safely.
|
|
|
|
Weissing, F. J. (2011). Animal behaviour: Born leaders. Nature, 474(7351), 288–289.
Abstract: Social animals face a dilemma. To reap the benefits of group living, they have to stay together. However, individuals differ in their preferences as to where to go and what to do next. If all individuals follow their own preferences, group coherence is undermined, resulting in an outcome that is unfavourable for everyone. Neglecting one's own preferences and following a leader is one way to resolve this coordination problem. But what attributes make an individual a 'leader'? A modelling study by Johnstone and Manica1 illuminates this question.
|
|
|
|
Fenton, B., & Ratcliffe, J. (2004). Animal behaviour: eavesdropping on bats. Nature, 429(6992), 612–613.
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (2007). Animal behaviour: planning for breakfast. Nature, 445(7130), 825–826.
|
|
|
|
Dyer, F. C. (2002). Animal behaviour: when it pays to waggle (Vol. 419).
|
|
|
|
Real, L. A. (1991). Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture. Science, 253(5023), 980–986.
Abstract: Animals process sensory information according to specific computational rules and, subsequently, form representations of their environments that form the basis for decisions and choices. The specific computational rules used by organisms will often be evolutionarily adaptive by generating higher probabilities of survival, reproduction, and resource acquisition. Experiments with enclosed colonies of bumblebees constrained to foraging on artificial flowers suggest that the bumblebee's cognitive architecture is designed to efficiently exploit floral resources from spatially structured environments given limits on memory and the neuronal processing of information. A non-linear relationship between the biomechanics of nectar extraction and rates of net energetic gain by individual bees may account for sensitivities to both the arithmetic mean and variance in reward distributions in flowers. Heuristic rules that lead to efficient resource exploitation may also lead to subjective misperception of likelihoods. Subjective probability formation may then be viewed as a problem in pattern recognition subject to specific sampling schemes and memory constraints.
|
|
