|
|
Wiesner, J., & V. Hegel, G. (1990). Zur Immobilisation von Wildequiden mit STH 2130 und Tiletamin/Zolazepam. Tierärzl Prax, 18, 151–154.
|
|
|
|
Osman, F., Zeitler-Feicht, M., Fink, G. W., Arnhard, S., & Krüger, K. (2020). Überprüfung der lichten Weiten von Gitterstäben in der Pferdehaltung [Analysing demands for the clear widths of lattice bars in horse husbandry]. Landtechnik [Agricultural Engineering], 75(1), 24–33.
Abstract: An Gitterstäben, die in der Pferdehaltung an verschiedenen Stellen verwendet werden, können sich Pferde verletzen, wenn sie ihre Köpfe oder ihre Hufe hindurchstecken und nicht zurückziehen können. Um das Verletzungsrisiko zu reduzieren sind lichte Weiten und Materialstärken von Gitterstäben so zu wählen, dass Pferdeköpfe und -hufe entweder nicht zwischen den Freiräumen hindurchpassen oder aber gefahrlos wieder zurückgezogen werden können. Die bisherige Forschung liefert jedoch keine belastbaren Aussagen zu Stababständen (senkrecht und waagerecht), die für Pferde ungefährlich sind. Die in der Praxis verwendeten und in der Literatur empfohlenen Gitterstababstände beruhen auf Erfahrungswerten und technischen Materialeigenschaften. In der vorliegenden Untersuchung wurden Pferdeköpfe und -hufe von insgesamt 480 Pferden (233 Stuten, 204 Wallache und 43 Hengste) von 23 verschiedenen Rassen vermessen, um auf Grundlage der Anatomie der Pferde Aussagen über die Eignung von marktüblichen Stababständen in der Praxis treffen zu können. Es stellte sich heraus, dass bei senkrechten Gitterstäben eine lichte Weite von nicht mehr als 5 cm für alle Pferde ab einem Stockmaß von 110 cm und einem Alter von zwei Jahren als sicher bezeichnet werden kann. Bei waagerechten Gitterstäben erwies sich eine lichte Weite von genau 17 cm als sicher. Dies gilt für alle Pferde ab einem Alter von zwei Jahren oder ab einem Stockmaß von 148 cm.
Kritisch sind die lichten Weiten von Panels zu beurteilen. Hier zeigte sich, dass die handelsüblichen Abstände der Gitterstäbe für die meisten Pferde eine erhebliche Gefahr darstellen. Wenn die Pferde beispielsweise versuchen außerhalb der Panels zu fressen und dabei ihren Kopf durch die Gitterstäbe stecken, kann es leicht passieren, dass sie sich mit dem Kopf zwischen den Gitterstäben verklemmen.
[At bars, used in various places in horse husbandry, horses can hurt themselves when retracting their heads or hooves after pushing them through the interspaces. In order to reduce the risk of injury, the clear widths and material thicknesses of bars should be chosen so that horse heads and hooves either cannot pass between the spaces or can be retracted safely. However, research to date has not provided any reliable information on bar width (vertical and horizontal) that is safe for horses. Grid bar width used in practice and recommended in the literature is based on empirical values and technical material properties. In this study, heads and hooves of 480 horses (233 mares, 204 geldings and 43 stallions) of 23 breeds were measured for making statements about the suitability of standard bar width, when considering the anatomy of the horse. It turned out that for vertical bars, an interspace of no more than five centimetres can be considered to be safe for all horses of a height of 110 centimetres and an age of two years and more. With horizontal lattice bars, a clear width of exactly 17 centimetres proved to be safe. This applies to all horses of a height of 148 centimetres and an age of two years or more. The clear widths of panels must be considered critical for horse welfare. When horses, for example, try to eat outside the panels and put their head through the bars, they may get stuck.]
|
|
|
|
Wallner, B., Palmieri, N., Vogl, C., Rigler, D., Bozlak, E., Druml, T., et al. (2017). Y Chromosome Uncovers the Recent Oriental Origin of Modern Stallions. Current Biology, 27(13), 2029–2035.e5.
Abstract: The Y chromosome directly reflects male genealogies, but the extremely low Y chromosome sequence diversity in horses has prevented the reconstruction of stallion genealogies [1, 2]. Here, we resolve the first Y chromosome genealogy of modern horses by screening 1.46 Mb of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in 52 horses from 21 breeds. Based on highly accurate pedigree data, we estimated the de novo mutation rate of the horse MSY and showed that various modern horse Y chromosome lineages split much later than the domestication of the species. Apart from few private northern European haplotypes, all modern horse breeds clustered together in a roughly 700-year-old haplogroup that was transmitted to Europe by the import of Oriental stallions. The Oriental horse group consisted of two major subclades: the Original Arabian lineage and the Turkoman horse lineage. We show that the English Thoroughbred MSY was derived from the Turkoman lineage and that English Thoroughbred sires are largely responsible for the predominance of this haplotype in modern horses.
|
|
|
|
Reinhardt, I., Kluth, G., Balzer, S., & Steyer, K. (2022). Wolfsverursachte Schäden, Präventions- und Ausgleichszahlungen in Deutschland 2021 (Markus Ritz, Ed.) (Vol. 41). Görlitz, Deutschland: DBBW-Dokumentations- und Beratungsstelle des Bundes zum Thema Wolf.
|
|
|
|
van Duyne, C., Ras, E., de Vos, A. E. W., de Boer, W. F., Henkens, R. J. H. G., & Usukhjargal, D. (2009). Wolf Predation Among Reintroduced Przewalski Horses in Hustai National Park, Mongolia. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73(6), 836–843.
|
|
|
|
Dugnol, B., Fernández, C., & Galiano, G. (2007). Wolf population counting by spectrogram image processing. Appl Math Comput, 186.
|
|
|
|
Wolf, M., van Doorn, G. S., Leimar, O., & Weissing, F. J. (2007). Wolf et al. reply. Nature, 450(7167), E5–E6.
|
|
|
|
Dreber, A., Rand, D. G., Fudenberg, D., & Nowak, M. A. (2008). Winners don/'t punish. Nature, 452(7185), 348–351.
Abstract: A key aspect of human behaviour is cooperation1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. We tend to help others even if costs are involved. We are more likely to help when the costs are small and the benefits for the other person significant. Cooperation leads to a tension between what is best for the individual and what is best for the group. A group does better if everyone cooperates, but each individual is tempted to defect. Recently there has been much interest in exploring the effect of costly punishment on human cooperation8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Costly punishment means paying a cost for another individual to incur a cost. It has been suggested that costly punishment promotes cooperation even in non-repeated games and without any possibility of reputation effects10. But most of our interactions are repeated and reputation is always at stake. Thus, if costly punishment is important in promoting cooperation, it must do so in a repeated setting. We have performed experiments in which, in each round of a repeated game, people choose between cooperation, defection and costly punishment. In control experiments, people could only cooperate or defect. Here we show that the option of costly punishment increases the amount of cooperation but not the average payoff of the group. Furthermore, there is a strong negative correlation between total payoff and use of costly punishment. Those people who gain the highest total payoff tend not to use costly punishment: winners don't punish. This suggests that costly punishment behaviour is maladaptive in cooperation games and might have evolved for other reasons.
|
|
|
|
Burke, D., Cieplucha, C., Cass, J., Russell, F., & Fry, G. (2002). Win-shift and win-stay learning in the short-beaked echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus). Anim. Cogn., 5(2), 79–84.
Abstract: Numerous previous investigators have explained species differences in spatial memory performance in terms of differences in foraging ecology. In three experiments we attempted to extend these findings by examining the extent to which the spatial memory performance of echidnas (or “spiny anteaters”) can be understood in terms of the spatio-temporal distribution of their prey (ants and termites). This is a species and a foraging situation that have not been examined in this way before. Echidnas were better able to learn to avoid a previously rewarding location (to “win-shift”) than to learn to return to a previously rewarding location (to “win-stay”), at short retention intervals, but were unable to learn either of these strategies at retention intervals of 90 min. The short retention interval results support the ecological hypothesis, but the long retention interval results do not.
|
|
|
|
Marfin, A. A., Petersen, L. R., Eidson, M., Miller, J., Hadler, J., Farello, C., et al. (2001). Widespread West Nile virus activity, eastern United States, 2000. Emerg Infect Dis, 7(4), 730–735.
Abstract: In 1999, the U.S. West Nile (WN) virus epidemic was preceded by widespread reports of avian deaths. In 2000, ArboNET, a cooperative WN virus surveillance system, was implemented to monitor the sentinel epizootic that precedes human infection. This report summarizes 2000 surveillance data, documents widespread virus activity in 2000, and demonstrates the utility of monitoring virus activity in animals to identify human risk for infection.
|
|
