|
Giraldeau, L. - A. (1997). The ecology of information use. In J. R. Krebs, & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology : an evolutionary approach. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Science.
|
Krueger, K. (2008). Social Ecology of Horses. In j. Korb and J. Heinze (Ed.), Ecology of Social Evolution (pp. 195–206). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Abstract: Horses (Equidae ) are believed to clearly demonstrate the links between ecology and social organization. Their social cognitive abilities enable them to succeed in many different environments, including those provided for them by humans, or the ones domestic horses encounter when escaping from their human care takers. Living in groups takes different shapes in equids. Their aggregation and group cohesion can be explained by Hamilton“s selfish herd theory. However, when an individual joins and to which group it joins appears to be an active individual decision depending on predation pressure, intra group harassment and resource availability. The latest research concerning the social knowledge horses display in eavesdropping experiments affirms the need for an extension of simple herd concepts in horses for a cognitive component. Horses obviously realize the social composition of their group and determine their own position in it. The horses exceedingly flexible social behavior demands for explanations about the cognitive mechanisms, which allow them to make individual decisions. ”Ecology conditions like those that favour the evolution of open behavioural programs sometimes also favour the evolution of the beginnings of consciousness, by favouring conscious choice. Or in other words, consciousness originates with the choice that are left open by open behavioural programs." Popper (1977)
|
Janis, C. (2007). An Evolutionary History of Browsing and Grazing Ungulates. In The Ecology of Browsing and Grazing (pp. 21–45).
Abstract: Browsing (i.e., eating woody and non-woody dicotyledonous plants) and grazing (i.e., eating grass) are distinctively different types of feeding behaviour among ungulates today. Ungulates with different diets have different morphologies (both craniodental ones and in aspects of the digestive system) and physiologies, although some of these differences are merely related to body size, as grazers are usually larger than browsers. There is also a difference in the foraging behaviour in terms of the relationship between resource abundance and intake rate, which is linear in browsers but asymptotic in grazers. The spatial distribution of the food resource is also different for the different types of herbage, browse being more patchily distributed than grass, and thus browsers and grazers are likely to have a very different perception of food resources in any given ecosystem (see Gordon 2003, for review).
|
Wasser, S. K., Keim, J. L., Taper, M. L., & Lele, S. R. (2011). The influences of wolf predation, habitat loss, and human activity on caribou and moose in the Alberta oil sands. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, .
Abstract: Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) and moose (Alces alces) populations in the Alberta oil sands region of western Canada are influenced by wolf (Canis lupus) predation, habitat degradation and loss, and anthropogenic activities. Trained domestic dogs were used to locate scat from caribou, moose, and wolves during winter surges in petroleum development. Evidence obtained from collected scat was then used to estimate resource selection, measure physiological stress, and provide individual genetic identification for precise mark–recapture abundance estimates of caribou, moose, and wolves. Strong impacts of human activity were indicated by changes in resource selection and in stress and nutrition hormone levels as human-use measures were added to base resource selection models (including ecological variables, provincial highways, and pre-existing linear features with no human activity) for caribou. Wolf predation and resource selection so heavily targeted deer (Odocoileus virginiana or O hemionus) that wolves appeared drawn away from prime caribou habitat. None of the three examined species showed a significant population change over 4 years. However, caribou population estimates were more than double those of previous approximations for this area. Our findings suggest that modifying landscape-level human-use patterns may be more effective at managing this ecosystem than intentional removal of wolves.
|
|
Barton, R. (2002). The evolutionary ecolgy of the primate brain. In P. C. Lee (Ed.), Comparative Primate Socioecology (pp. 167–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
Boitani, L. (1982). Patterns of homesites attendance in two Minnesota wolf packs. In F. H. Harrington, & P. C. Paquet (Eds.), Wolves of the World: Perspectives of Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. New York: Noyes, Park Ridge.
|
Amodio, P., Boeckle, M., Schnell, A. K., Ostojic, L., Fiorito, G., & Clayton, N. S. (2018). Grow Smart and Die Young: Why Did Cephalopods Evolve Intelligence? Trends. Ecol. Evol., .
Abstract: Intelligence in large-brained vertebrates might have evolved through independent, yet similar processes based on comparable socioecological pressures and slow life histories. This convergent evolutionary route, however, cannot explain why cephalopods developed large brains and flexible behavioural repertoires: cephalopods have fast life histories and live in simple social environments. Here, we suggest that the loss of the external shell in cephalopods (i) caused a dramatic increase in predatory pressure, which in turn prevented the emergence of slow life histories, and (ii) allowed the exploitation of novel challenging niches, thus favouring the emergence of intelligence. By highlighting convergent and divergent aspects between cephalopods and large-brained vertebrates we illustrate how the evolution of intelligence might not be constrained to a single evolutionary route.
|
Hofmeester, T. R., Cromsigt, J. P. G. M., Odden, J., Andrén, H., Kindberg, J., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2019). Framing pictures: A conceptual framework to identify and correct for biases in detection probability of camera traps enabling multi-species comparison. Ecol Evol, .
Abstract: Abstract Obtaining reliable species observations is of great importance in animal ecology and wildlife conservation. An increasing number of studies use camera traps (CTs) to study wildlife communities, and an increasing effort is made to make better use and reuse of the large amounts of data that are produced. It is in these circumstances that it becomes paramount to correct for the species- and study-specific variation in imperfect detection within CTs. We reviewed the literature and used our own experience to compile a list of factors that affect CT detection of animals. We did this within a conceptual framework of six distinct scales separating out the influences of (a) animal characteristics, (b) CT specifications, (c) CT set-up protocols, and (d) environmental variables. We identified 40 factors that can potentially influence the detection of animals by CTs at these six scales. Many of these factors were related to only a few overarching parameters. Most of the animal characteristics scale with body mass and diet type, and most environmental characteristics differ with season or latitude such that remote sensing products like NDVI could be used as a proxy index to capture this variation. Factors that influence detection at the microsite and camera scales are probably the most important in determining CT detection of animals. The type of study and specific research question will determine which factors should be corrected. Corrections can be done by directly adjusting the CT metric of interest or by using covariates in a statistical framework. Our conceptual framework can be used to design better CT studies and help when analyzing CT data. Furthermore, it provides an overview of which factors should be reported in CT studies to make them repeatable, comparable, and their data reusable. This should greatly improve the possibilities for global scale analyses of (reused) CT data.
|
|
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.
|
