|
|
Krueger, K., Gruentjens, T., & Hempel, E. (2023). Wolf contact in horses at permanent pasture in Germany. Plos One, 18(8), e0289767.
Abstract: Wolves returned to Germany in 2000, leading to fear in German horse owners that their horses could be in danger of wolf attacks or panic-like escapes from pastures when sighting wolves. However, reports from southern European countries indicate that wolf predation on horses diminishes with increasing presence of wildlife. Therefore, we conducted a long-term, filed observation between January 2015 and July 2022 on 13 non breeding riding horses, mares and geldings, kept permanently on two pastures within the range of wildlife and a stable wolf pack with annual offspring. Wildlife cameras at the fences of the pastures made 984 times recordings of wolves and 3151 times recordings of wildlife in and around the pastures. Between 1 January 2022 and 23 March 2022 we observed two stable horse groups. Pasture 1 was grazed by five horses of mixed breed, four mares and one gelding, with the median age of 8 years (min. = 6y, max. = 29y). Pasture 2 was grazed by eight heavy warmbloods and draught horses, three mares and five geldings, with the median age of 16 years (min. = 13y, max. = 22y). During this period no wolf was recorded at pasture 2, but wild boar several times, whereas at pasture 1, wolves were recorded 89 times, and for the wildlife mostly hare. Wolves may have avoided pasture 2 because of the presence of wild boar or because the large group of older, heavy breed horses may have formed a stable, protective group. The latter needs to be confirmed in a follow-up field observation, which records anti-predator behavior and welfare indicators in horses. In conclusion, wolves did not attack the mature horses on pastures with plenty of wildlife and the horses did not respond to the presence of wolves with visible signs of reduced welfare or panic. This indicates that wolves may prefer to prey on easily accessible wildlife around and at horse pastures and that Central European horses become accustom to the presence of non-hunting wolves.
|
|
|
|
Hunt, G. R., Gray R.D., & Taylor, A. H. (2013). Why is tool use rare in animals? (Boesch C C. J. anz C, Ed.). Cambridge, MA.: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
|
|
Imbert, C., Caniglia, R., Fabbri, E., Milanesi, P., Randi, E., Serafini, M., et al. (2016). Why do wolves eat livestock?: Factors influencing wolf diet in northern Italy. Biological Conservation, 195, 156–168.
Abstract: Thanks to protection by law and increasing habitat restoration, wolves (Canis lupus) are currently re-colonizing Europe from the surviving populations of Russia, the Balkan countries, Spain and Italy, raising the need to update conservation strategies. A major conservation issue is to restore connections and gene flow among fragmented populations, thus contrasting the deleterious consequences of isolation. Wolves in Italy are expanding from the Apennines towards the Alps, crossing the Ligurian Mountains (northern Italy) and establishing connections with the Dinaric populations. Wolf expansion is threatened by poaching and incidental killings, mainly due to livestock depredations and conflicts with shepherds, which could limit the establishment of stable populations. Aiming to find out the factors affecting the use of livestock by wolves, in this study we determined the composition of wolf diet in Liguria. We examined 1457 scats collected from 2008 to 2013. Individual scats were genotyped using a non-invasive genetic procedure, and their content was determined using microscopical analyses. Wolves in Liguria consumed mainly wild ungulates (64.4%; in particular wild boar Sus scrofa and roe deer Capreolus capreolus) and, to a lesser extent, livestock (26.3%; in particular goats Capra hircus). We modeled the consumption of livestock using environmental features, wild ungulate community diversity, husbandry characteristics and wolf social organization (stable packs or dispersing individuals). Wolf diet varied according to years and seasons with an overall decrease of livestock and an increase of wild ungulate consumption, but also between packs and dispersing individuals with greater livestock consumption for the latter. The presence of stable packs, instead of dispersing wolves, the adoption of prevention measures on pastures, roe deer abundance, and the percentage of deciduous woods, reduced predation on livestock. Thus, we suggest promoting wild ungulate expansion, the use of prevention tools in pastures, and supporting wolf pack establishment, avoiding lethal control and poaching, to mitigate conflicts between wolf conservation and husbandry.
|
|
|
|
Roubová, V., Konecná, M., Smilauer, P., & Wallner, B. (2015). Whom to Groom and for What? Patterns of Grooming in Female Barbary Macaques (Macaca sylvanus). Plos One, 10(2), e0117298.
Abstract: Grooming is one of the most conspicuous social interactions among nonhuman primates. The selection of grooming partners can provide important clues about factors relevant for the distribution of grooming within a social group. We analyzed grooming behavior among 17 semi-free ranging female Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). We tested whether grooming is related to kinship, rank and friendship. Furthermore, we tested whether grooming is reciprocated or exchanged for rank related benefits (i.e. lower aggression and increased tolerance whilst feeding). We found that in general grooming was reciprocally exchanged, directed up the hierarchy and at the same time affected by friendship and kinship. Grooming was more frequent among individuals with higher friendship values as well as amongst related individuals. We also divided our data set on the basis of rank difference and tested if different power asymmetries between individuals affected the tendency to exchange grooming for rank related benefits and grooming reciprocation. In support of our initial hypothesis our results show that the reciprocation of grooming was a significant predictor of grooming interactions between individuals of similar rank, but not between those individuals more distantly separated in the social hierarchy. However, we did not find any evidence for grooming being exchanged for rank related benefits in either data set. Our results, together with previously published studies, illustrate the behavioral flexibility of macaques. It is clear that multiple studies of the same species are necessary to gather the data required for the solid comparative studies needed to shed light on patterns of grooming behavior in primates.
|
|
|
|
Morand-Ferron, J., Cole, E. F., Rawles, J. E. C., & Quinn, J. L. (2011). Who are the innovators? A field experiment with 2 passerine species. Behav Ecol, 22.
|
|
|
|
Krange, O., & Skogen, K. (2011). When the lads go hunting: The 'Hammertown mechanism' and the conflict over wolves in Norway. Ethnography, 12(4), 466–489.
Abstract: Rural communities are changing. Depopulation and unemployment is accompanied by the advance of new perspectives on nature, where protection trumps resource extraction. These developments are perceived as threatening by rural working-class people with close ties to traditional land use ? a situation they often meet with cultural resistance. Cultural resistance is not necessarily launched against institutionalized power, nor does it necessarily imply a desire for fundamental social change. It should rather be seen as a struggle for autonomy. However, autonomy does not entail influence outside the cultural realm. Struggles to uphold traditional rural lifestyles ? for example by denouncing the current nature conservation regime ? could be understood in much the same conceptual framework as Willis employed in ?Learning to labour?. Based on an ethnographic study of the conflicts over wolf protection, we demonstrate that ?the Hammertown mechanism? is of a more general nature than often implied in the discussion of Willis? work.
|
|
|
|
Heyes, C. (2012). What's social about social learning? J Comp Psychol, 120.
|
|
|
|
Leadbeater, E. (2015). What evolves in the evolution of social learning? J Zool, 295(1), 4–11.
Abstract: Social learning is fundamental to social life across the animal kingdom, but we still know little about how natural selection has shaped social learning abilities on a proximate level. Sometimes, complex social learning phenomena can be entirely explained by Pavlovian processes that have little to do with the evolution of sociality. This implies that the ability to learn socially could be an exaptation, not an adaptation, to social life but not that social learning abilities have been left untouched by natural selection. I discuss new empirical evidence for associative learning in social information use, explain how natural selection might facilitate the associative learning process and discuss why such studies are changing the way that we think about social learning.
|
|
|
|
Mori, E., Benatti, L., Lovari, S., & Ferretti, F. (2016). What does the wild boar mean to the wolf? European Journal of Wildlife Research, 63(1), 9.
Abstract: Generalist predators are expected to shape their diets according to the local availability of prey species. In turn, the extent of consumption of a prey would be influenced by the number of alternative prey species. We have tested this prediction by considering the wild boar and the grey wolf: two widespread species whose distribution ranges overlap largely in Southern Europe, e.g. in Italy. We have reviewed 16 studies from a total of 21 study areas, to assess whether the absolute frequency of occurrence of wild boar in the wolf diet was influenced by (i) occurrence of the other ungulate species in diet and (ii) the number of available ungulate species. Wild boar turned out to be the main prey of the wolf (49% occurrence, on average), followed by roe deer (24%) and livestock (18%). Occurrence of wild boar in the wolf diet decreased with increasing usage of roe deer, livestock, and to a lower extent, chamois and red deer. The number of prey species did not influence the occurrence of wild boar in the wolf diet. The wild boar is a gregarious, noisy and often locally abundant ungulate, thus easily detectable, to a predator. In turn, the extent of predation on this ungulate may not be influenced so much by the availability of other potential prey. Heavy artificial reductions of wild boar numbers, e.g. through numerical control, may concentrate predation by wolves on alternative prey (e.g. roe deer) and/or livestock, thus increasing conflicts with human activities.
|
|
|
|
Giljov, A., Malashichev, Y., & Karenina, K. (2019). What do wild saiga antelopes tell us about the relative roles of the two brain hemispheres in social interactions? Anim. Cogn., .
Abstract: Two brain hemispheres are unequally involved in the processing of social stimuli, as demonstrated in a wide range of vertebrates. A considerable number of studies have shown the right hemisphere advantage for social processing. At the same time, an approach-withdrawal hypothesis, mainly based on experimental evidence, proposes the involvement of both brain hemispheres according to approach and withdrawal motivation. The present study aimed to test the relative roles of the two hemispheres in social responses displayed in a natural context. Visual biases, implicating hemispheric lateralization, were estimated in the social interactions of saiga antelope in the wild. In individually identified males, the left/right visual field use during approach and withdrawal responses was recorded based on the lateral head/body position, relative to the conspecific. Lateralized approach responses were investigated in three types of interactions, with left visual field bias found for chasing a rival, no bias--for attacking a rival, and right visual field bias--for pursuing a female. In two types of withdrawal responses, left visual field bias was found for retreating after fighting, while no bias was evident in fight rejecting. These findings demonstrate that neither the right hemisphere advantage nor the approach-withdrawal distinction can fully explain the patterns of lateralization observed in social behaviour. It is clear that both brain hemispheres play significant roles in social responses, while their relative contribution is likely determined by a complex set of motivational and emotional factors rather than a simple dichotomous distinction such as, for example, approach versus withdrawal motivation.
|
|
