|
|
Carson, K., & Wood-Gush, D. G. M. (1983). Equine behaviour: I. A review of the literature on social and dam--Foal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology, 10(3), 165–178.
Abstract: In most cases, the social organisation of each of the seven species of Equidae existing today outside captivity is either territorial or non-territorial. The striking differences found between these two types of organisation in the social grouping and bonds, mating behaviour, leadership and dominance hierarchies of the animals are examined. It is thought that the non-territorial species show a less primitive type of organisation than the territorial animals. Infant Equidae are precocious animals and are able to follow their dams soon after birth. They stay close by their dams and travel with the herd from an early age and are therefore classified as “followers”, in contrast to the species which have a period of hiding after birth. Dams recognise their foals immediately after birth, whereas it takes 2 or 3 days for a foal to form an attachment to its dam. Being in close proximity to their dams, foals are able to nurse frequently and, unless artificially weaned, a foal will nurse until its dam foals again. Foals start to graze during their first week and as they grow older they spend more time grazing and less time nursing and resting. It is normal for foals to be corprophagic until one month old, and this provides them with bacteria essential for the digestion of fibre. Play behaviour is solitary in very young foals, but after 4 weeks of age, foals play together, with male foals playing more than females and showing more aggressive, fighting movements in play.
|
|
|
|
Primack, R. B. (2010). Essentials of conservation biology. Fifth: Edition.
|
|
|
|
Stenglein, J. L., Waits, L. P., Ausband, D. E., Zager, P., & Mack, C. M. (2011). Estimating gray wolf pack size and family relationships using non invasive genetic sampling at rendezvous sites. J Mammal, 92.
|
|
|
|
Fuller, T. K., & Sampson, B. A. (1988). Evaluation of a simulated howling survey for wolves. J Widl Manag, 52.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Marr, I., Farmer, K., & Krueger, K. (2018). Evidence for Right-Sided Horses Being More Optimistic than Left-Sided Horses. Animals, 8(12), 219.
Abstract: An individual's positive or negative perspective when judging an ambiguous stimulus (cognitive bias) can be helpful when assessing animal welfare. Emotionality, as expressed in approach or withdrawal behaviour, is linked to brain asymmetry. The predisposition to process information in the left or right brain hemisphere is displayed in motor laterality. The quality of the information being processed is indicated by the sensory laterality. Consequently, it would be quicker and more repeatable to use motor or sensory laterality to evaluate cognitive bias than to perform the conventional judgment bias test. Therefore, the relationship between cognitive bias and motor or sensory laterality was tested. The horses (n = 17) were trained in a discrimination task involving a box that was placed in either a “positive” or “negative” location. To test for cognitive bias, the box was then placed in the middle, between the trained positive and negative location, in an ambiguous location, and the latency to approach the box was evaluated. Results indicated that horses that were more likely to use the right forelimb when moving off from a standing position were more likely to approach the ambiguous box with a shorter latency (generalized linear mixed model, p < 0.01), and therefore displayed a positive cognitive bias (optimistic).
|
|
|
|
Bandini, E., Motes-Rodrigo, A., Steele, M. P., Rutz, C., & Tennie, C. (2020). Examining the mechanisms underlying the acquisition of animal tool behaviour. Biol. Lett., 16(2020122).
|
|
|
|
Szabó, L., Heltai, M., Szucs, E., Lanszki, J., & Lehoczki, R. (2009). Expansion range of the golden jackal in Hungary between 1997 and 2006. Mammalia, 73.
|
|
|
|
Laland, K. N., & van Bergen, Y. (2003). Experimental studies of innovation in the guppy. Animal Innovation, , 155–174.
|
|
|
|
Bandini, E., & Tennie C. (2020). Exploring the role of individual learning in animal tool-use. PeerJ, 25, 8:e9877.
Abstract: The notion that tool-use is unique to humans has long been refuted by the growing number of observations of animals using tools across various contexts. Yet, the mechanisms behind the emergence and sustenance of these tool-use repertoires are still heavily debated. We argue that the current animal behaviour literature is biased towards a social learning approach, in which animal, and in particular primate, tool-use repertoires are thought to require social learning mechanisms (copying variants of social learning are most often invoked). However, concrete evidence for a widespread dependency on social learning is still lacking. On the other hand, a growing body of observational and experimental data demonstrates that various animal species are capable of acquiring the forms of their tool-use behaviours via individual learning, with (non-copying) social learning regulating the frequencies of the behavioural forms within (and, indirectly, between) groups. As a first outline of the extent of the role of individual learning in animal tool-use, a literature review of reports of the spontaneous acquisition of animal tool-use behaviours was carried out across observational and experimental studies. The results of this review suggest that perhaps due to the pervasive focus on social learning in the literature, accounts of the individual learning of tool-use forms by naïve animals may have been largely overlooked, and their importance under-examined.
|
|
