|
Holzapfel, M., Wagner, C., & Kluth, G. et al. (2011). Zur Nahrungsökologie der Wölfe (Canis lupus) in Deutschland. Beiträge zur Jagd- und Wildforschung, 36, 117–128.
|
|
Wotschikowsky, U. (2007). Wölfe und Jäger in der Oberlausitz. Broschüre, Freundeskreis freilebender Wölfe, .
|
|
Heydebreck, K. von. (1928). Reitlehrer und Reiter in Uniform und Zivil eine Anleitung nach den Grundsätzen der deutschen Reitvorschrift (2., neubearb. Aufl ed.). Berlin: Mittler.
|
|
Virányi, Z., Range, F., & Huber, L. (2008). Attentiveness toward others and social learning in domestic dogs. In L. S. Röska-hardy, & E. Neumann-held (Eds.), Learning from Animals?: Examining the Nature of Human Uniqueness (pp. 141–154). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
|
Bentley-Condit, V., & Smith, E. O. (2010). Animal tool use: current definitions and an updated comprehensive catalog. Behaviour, 147(2), 185–32.
Abstract: Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study.
|
|
Stecken, P. (2015). Bemerkungen und Zusammenhänge.
|
Whiten, A., Horner, V., Litchfield, C. A., & Marshall-Pescini, S. (2004). How do apes ape? Learn. Behav., 32(1), 36–52.
Abstract: In the wake of telling critiques of the foundations on which earlier conclusions were based, the last 15 years have witnessed a renaissance in the study of social learning in apes. As a result, we are able to review 31 experimental studies from this period in which social learning in chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans has been investigated. The principal question framed at the beginning of this era, Do apes ape? has been answered in the affirmative, at least in certain conditions. The more interesting question now is, thus, How do apes ape? Answering this question has engendered richer taxonomies of the range of social-learning processes at work and new methodologies to uncover them. Together, these studies suggest that apes ape by employing a portfolio of alternative social-learning processes in flexibly adaptive ways, in conjunction with nonsocial learning. We conclude by sketching the kind of decision tree that appears to underlie the deployment of these alternatives.
|
|
Sabou, M., Bontcheva, K., & Scharl, A. (2012). Crowdsourcing Research Opportunities: Lessons from Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies (pp. 1–18). i-KNOW '12. New York, NY, USA: Acm.
|
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. - Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2002). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol., 85(5), 879–903.
Abstract: Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. Despite this, a comprehensive summary of the potential sources of method biases and how to control for them does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processes through which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
$11.95
|
Carlstead, K., & Brown, J. L. (2005). Relationships between patterns of Fecal corticoid excretion and behavior, reproduction, and environmental factors in captive black (Diceros bicornis) and white (Ceratotherium simum) rhinoceros. Zoo Biol., 24(3), 215–232.
Abstract: Mortality is high in zoo-housed black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis), and the reproductive rates of captive white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) are unsustainably low. To determine the possible role of stress in the causation of these problems, we analyzed weekly fecal samples collected for 1 year from black (10 males and 16 females) and white (six males and 13 females) rhinoceroses at 16 zoos for corticoid metabolite concentrations. Fecal corticoid profiles were examined in relation to behavior as rated by keepers in a questionnaire, luteal phase ovarian cycles of females (Brown et al., 2001), and socioenvironmental factors. We compared individual fecal corticoid profiles by examining hormone means and variability (i.e., standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV)). For the black rhinos, higher mean corticoid concentrations were found at zoos where rhinos were maintained in enclosures that were exposed to the public around a greater portion of the perimeter. Higher variability in corticoid excretion was correlated with higher rates of fighting between breeding partners and higher institutional mortality rates. Black rhino pairs that were kept separated exhibited lower corticoid variability and less fighting activity when they were introduced during female estrous periods compared to pairs that were kept together every day. For white rhinos, significantly lower mean corticoids were found for individuals that rated higher on “friendliness to keeper.” Higher corticoid variability was found in noncycling as compared to cycling white rhino females. Noncycling females exhibited higher rates of stereotypic pacing and lower frequencies of olfactory behaviors. Interindividual differences in mean corticoids in both species appeared to be related to responsiveness to humans, whereas corticoid variability was related to intraspecific social relationships. More importantly, high corticoid variability appeared to be an indicator of chronic or “bad” stress, because of its association with potentially deleterious consequences in each species (i.e., fighting and mortality (black rhino), and reproductive acyclicity (white rhino)). Our results provide evidence that social stressors may cause chronic stress in black and white rhinos, and that this contributes to the captive-population sustainability problems observed in each species. Zoo Biol 0:1–18, 2005. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
|
