|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Gehlen, H., Große, V., & Doher, M. (2012). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Herdenschutzes für Pferde in Zusammenhang mit der wachsenden Wolfspopulation in Deutschland Literaturrecherche und Befragung von Pferdehaltern zur Gefährdungsbeurteilung [Options and limitations of protecting horse husbandries in times of growing wolf populations in Germany Review of the literature and horse owner questionnaire on risk assessment]. Tierarztl Prax Ausg G, 49(05), 301–309.
Abstract: Zusammenfassung
Gegenstand und Ziel Seit 2000 siedelt sich der Wolf in Deutschland wieder an. Mit steigenden Wolfszahlen nehmen die durch Wölfe verursachten Nutztierschäden zu, wobei auch Pferde betroffen sind. Ziel der Studie war es, einen Überblick zu dieser Problematik sowie Lösungsansätze zu geben.
Material und Methoden Anhand einer Literaturrecherche wurden Daten zur Wolfspopulation in Deutschland, wolfsbedingten Schäden sowie Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Herdenschutzes beim Pferd eruiert. Eine Online-Befragung von Pferdehaltern/-besitzern diente dazu, die tatsächliche und/oder gefühlte Bedrohung durch Wölfe und die daraus resultierenden Auswirkungen auf die Pferdehaltung zu ermitteln.
Ergebnisse Die Literaturrecherche zeigte ein kontinuierliches Anwachsen der Wolfspopulation in den letzten Jahren und insbesondere seit 2016 einen deutlichen Anstieg wolfsverursachter Nutztierschäden, wobei Pferde selten betroffen waren. Bei der Online-Befragung stammte die Hälfte der 574 ausgewerteten Fragebögen aus Brandenburg und Niedersachsen. Den größten Einfluss auf die Gefährdungsbeurteilung eigener Pferde durch die wachsende Wolfspopulation hatte das Wissen der Pferdehalter über Wolfsangriffe im eigenen Landkreis, wobei insbesondere die Aspekte einer Haltung von Jungpferden und Weidegang für die Pferde eine Rolle spielten. 64 % der Befragten gaben an, ihre Pferdehaltung trotz der zunehmenden Wolfspopulation nicht geändert zu haben. Nur 8 von 576 Pferdehaltern gaben amtlich bestätigte Wolfsübergriffe an und 30 hatten einen vermuteten Wolfsschaden amtlichen Stellen nicht gemeldet. Mehr als die Hälfte der Befragten, die Kontakt zu einem Wolfsberater hatten, bezeichneten die Zusammenarbeit als nicht bis wenig zielführend.
Schlussfolgerung und klinische Relevanz Die Zahl amtlich bestätigter Wolfsangriffe auf Pferde ist gering. Durch einen grundsätzlich durchgeführten Gentest bei entsprechendem Verdacht ließen sich diese Zahlen objektivieren. Trotz des Bewusstseins einer zunehmenden Gefährdung von Pferden durch Wölfe unternehmen Pferdehalter überwiegend keine prophylaktischen Schutzmaßnahmen. Die Kommunikation zwischen den für das Wolfsmonitoring zuständigen Behörden und den Pferdehaltern erscheint verbesserungswürdig.
Abstract
Objective Since 2000 the wolf population is reestablishing itself in Germany. In consequence to increasing numbers, livestock damage caused by wolves is on the rise, with horses likewise being affected. The aim of the study was to provide an overview of this challenge and its possible solutions.
Material and methods Based on a literature research, data on the wolf population in Germany, wolf-related damage as well as possibilities and limitations of herd protection for horses were evaluated. An online survey addressed to horse owners/keepers served to determine the actual and/or perceived threat posed by wolves and the resulting effects on horse husbandry.
Results The literature search showed a continuous increase of the wolf population in recent years as well as a significant increase of wolf-caused livestock damage in general especially since 2016; although horses were rarely affected. Half of the 574 evaluated questionnaires were from Brandenburg and Lower Saxony. The greatest influence on the individual risk assessment concerning their own horses by the growing wolf population was the horse owners� knowledge of wolf attacks in their own county. Especially the aspects of keeping young horses as well as pasture keeping played a significant role. 64 % of respondents indicated that they had not changed their horse management practices despite the increasing wolf population. Only 8 of 576 horse owners had reported officially confirmed wolf attacks and 30 respondents had not reported a suspected wolf damage to official agencies. More than half of the respondents who had contact with a wolf advisor described the cooperation as either not or only slightly purposeful.
Conclusion and clinical relevance The number of officially confirmed wolf attacks on horses is low. These numbers could be objectified by a routinely performed genetic test in case of corresponding suspicion. Despite the awareness of an increasing danger of horses by wolves, horse owners mostly do not undertake prophylactic protection measures. The communication between responsible authorities for wolf monitoring and horse owners seems to be in need of improvement.
|
|
|
|
Burton, A. C., Neilson, E., Moreira, D., Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Fisher, J. T., et al. (2015). REVIEW: Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J Appl Ecol, 52(3), 675–685.
Abstract: Summary Reliable assessment of animal populations is a long-standing challenge in wildlife ecology. Technological advances have led to widespread adoption of camera traps (CTs) to survey wildlife distribution, abundance and behaviour. As for any wildlife survey method, camera trapping must contend with sources of sampling error such as imperfect detection. Early applications focused on density estimation of naturally marked species, but there is growing interest in broad-scale CT surveys of unmarked populations and communities. Nevertheless, inferences based on detection indices are controversial, and the suitability of alternatives such as occupancy estimation is debatable. We reviewed 266 CT studies published between 2008 and 2013. We recorded study objectives and methodologies, evaluating the consistency of CT protocols and sampling designs, the extent to which CT surveys considered sampling error, and the linkages between analytical assumptions and species ecology. Nearly two-thirds of studies surveyed more than one species, and a majority used response variables that ignored imperfect detection (e.g. presence?absence, relative abundance). Many studies used opportunistic sampling and did not explicitly report details of sampling design and camera deployment that could affect conclusions. Most studies estimating density used capture?recapture methods on marked species, with spatially explicit methods becoming more prominent. Few studies estimated density for unmarked species, focusing instead on occupancy modelling or measures of relative abundance. While occupancy studies estimated detectability, most did not explicitly define key components of the modelling framework (e.g. a site) or discuss potential violations of model assumptions (e.g. site closure). Studies using relative abundance relied on assumptions of equal detectability, and most did not explicitly define expected relationships between measured responses and underlying ecological processes (e.g. animal abundance and movement). Synthesis and applications. The rapid adoption of camera traps represents an exciting transition in wildlife survey methodology. We remain optimistic about the technology's promise, but call for more explicit consideration of underlying processes of animal abundance, movement and detection by cameras, including more thorough reporting of methodological details and assumptions. Such transparency will facilitate efforts to evaluate and improve the reliability of camera trap surveys, ultimately leading to stronger inferences and helping to meet modern needs for effective ecological inquiry and biodiversity monitoring.
|
|
|
|
Hartmann, E., Christensen, J. W., & McGreevy, P. D. (2017). Dominance and Leadership: Useful Concepts in Human-Horse Interactions? Proceedings of the 2017 Equine Science Symposium, 52, 1–9.
Abstract: Dominance hierarchies in horses primarily influence priority access to limited resources of any kind, resulting in predictable contest outcomes that potentially minimize aggressive encounters and associated risk of injury. Levels of aggression in group-kept horses under domestic conditions have been reported to be higher than in their feral counterparts but can often be attributed to suboptimal management. Horse owners often express concerns about the risk of injuries occurring in group-kept horses, but these concerns have not been substantiated by empirical investigations. What has not yet been sufficiently addressed are human safety aspects related to approaching and handling group-kept horses. Given horse's natural tendency to synchronize activity to promote group cohesion, questions remain about how group dynamics influence human-horse interactions. Group dynamics influence a variety of management scenarios, ranging from taking a horse out of its social group to the prospect of humans mimicking the horse's social system by taking a putative leadership role and seeking after an alpha position in the dominance hierarchy to achieve compliance. Yet, there is considerable debate about whether the roles horses attain in their social group are of any relevance in their reactions to humans. This article reviews the empirical data on social dynamics in horses, focusing on dominance and leadership theories and the merits of incorporating those concepts into the human-horse context. This will provide a constructive framework for informed debate and valuable guidance for owners managing group-kept horses and for optimizing human-horse interactions.
|
|
|
|
Iliopoulos, Y., Sgardelis, S., Koutis, V., & Savaris, D. (2009). Wolf depredation on livestock in central Greece. Mamm. Reas., 54(1), 11–22.
Abstract: We studied wolfCanis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 -- livestock conflict in central Greece by investigating patterns of 267 verified wolf attacks on livestock for 21 months. Wolves attacked adult goats 43% and cattle 218% more than expected, whereas sheep 41% less than expected from their availability. Wolves killed less than four sheep or goats in 79%, and one cow or calf in 74% of depredation events, respectively. We recorded higher attack rates during wolf post-weaning season. Wolf attacks on strayed, or kept inside non predator-proof enclosures, sheep and goats, were on average two to four times respectively more destructive than those when livestock was guarded by a shepherd. Sheepdog use reduced losses per attack. Optimal sheepdog number ranged from 3 to 9 animals depending on flock size. Losses per attack were positively related to the number of wolves involved. Total losses per farm were positively correlated with the size of livestock unit but percentage losses per capita increased with decreasing flock size. Management implications to mitigate livestock depredation are discussed.
|
|
|
|
Pongrácz, P., Miklósi, Á., Kubinyi, E., Gurobi, K., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2001). Social learning in dogs: the effect of a human demonstrator on the performance of dogs in a detour task. Anim. Behav., 62(6), 1109–1117.
Abstract: We recorded the behaviour of dogs in detour tests, in which an object (a favourite toy) or food was placed behind a V-shaped fence. Dogs were able to master this task; however, they did it more easily when they started from within the fence with the object placed outside it. Repeated detours starting from within the fence did not help the dogs to obtain the object more quickly if in a subsequent trial they started outside the fence with the object placed inside it. While six trials were not enough for the dogs to show significant improvement on their own in detouring the fence from outside, demonstration of this action by humans significantly improved the dogs' performance within two-three trials. Owners and strangers were equally effective as demonstrators. Our experiments show that dogs are able to rely on information provided by human action when confronted with a new task. While they did not copy the exact path of the human demonstrator, they easily adopted the detour behaviour shown by humans to reach their goal.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Boissy, A. (1995). Fear and Fearfulness in Animals. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 70(2), 165–191.
Abstract: Persistence of individual differences in animal behavior in reactions to various environmental challenges could reflect basic divergences in temperament, which might be used to predict details of adaptive response. Although studies have been carried out on fear and anxiety in various species, including laboratory, domestic and wild animals, no consistent definition of fearfulness as a basic trait of temperament has emerged. After a classification of the events that may produce a state of fear, this article describes the great variability in behavior and in physiological patterns generally associated with emotional reactivity. The difficulties of proposing fearfulness-the general capacity to react to a variety of potentially threatening situations-as a valid basic internal variable are then discussed. Although there are many studies showing covariation among the psychobiological responses to different environmental challenges, other studies find no such correlations and raise doubts about the interpretation of fearfulness as a basic personality trait. After a critical assessment of methodologies used in fear and anxiety studies, it is suggested that discrepancies among results are mainly due to the modulation of emotional responses in animals, which depend on numerous genetic and epigenetic factors. It is difficult to compare results obtained by different methods from animals reared under various conditions and with different genetic origins. The concept of fearfulness as an inner trait is best supported by two kinds of investigations. First, an experimental approach combining ethology and experimental psychology produces undeniable indicators of emotional reactivity. Second, genetic lines selected for psychobiological traits prove useful in establishing between behavioral and neuroendocrine aspects of emotional reactivity. It is suggested that fearfulness could be considered a basic feature of the temperament of each individual, one that predisposes it to respond similarly to a variety of potentially alarming challenges, but is nevertheless continually modulated during development by the interaction of genetic traits of reactivity with environmental factors, particularly in the juvenile period. Such interaction may explain much of the interindividual variability observed in adaptive responses.
|
|
|
|
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.]
|
|
|
|
Capitani, C., Chynoweth, M., Kusak, J., Çoban, E., & Sekercioglu, Ç. H. (2016). Wolf diet in an agricultural landscape of north-eastern Turkey. Mammalia, 80(3), 329–334.
|
|
