|
|
Koolhaas, J. M., Korte, S. M., De Boer, S. F., Van Der Vegt, B. J., Van Reenen, C. G., Hopster, H., et al. (1999). Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 23(7), 925–935.
Abstract: This paper summarizes the current views on coping styles as a useful concept in understanding individual adaptive capacity and vulnerability to stress-related disease. Studies in feral populations indicate the existence of a proactive and a reactive coping style. These coping styles seem to play a role in the population ecology of the species. Despite domestication, genetic selection and inbreeding, the same coping styles can, to some extent, also be observed in laboratory and farm animals. Coping styles are characterized by consistent behavioral and neuroendocrine characteristics, some of which seem to be causally linked to each other. Evidence is accumulating that the two coping styles might explain a differential vulnerability to stress mediated disease due to the differential adaptive value of the two coping styles and the accompanying neuroendocrine differentiation.
|
|
|
|
Erhart, E., & Overdorff, D. (1999). Female Coordination of Group Travel in Wild Propithecus and Eulemur. Int. J. Primatol., 20(6), 927-940.
Abstract: Coordination of primate group movements by individual group members is generally categorized as leadership behavior, which entails several steps: deciding where to move next, initiating travel, and leading a group between food, water sources, and rest sites. Presumably, leaders are able to influence their daily foraging efficiency and nutritional intake, which could influence an individual's feeding ecology and long-term reproductive success. Within anthropoid species, females lead group movements in most female-bonded groups, while males lead groups in most nonfemale-bonded groups. Group leadership has not been described for social prosimians, which are typically not female-bonded. We describe group movements in two nonfemale-bonded, lemurid species living in southeastern Madagascar, Propithecus diadema edwardsi and Eulemur fulvus rufus. Although several social lemurids exhibit female dominance Eulemur fulvus rufus does not, and evidence for female dominance is equivocal in Propithecus diadema edwardsi. Given the ecological stresses that females face during reproduction, we predict that females in these two species will implement alternative behavioral strategies such as group leadership in conjunction with, or in the absence of, dominance interactions to improve access to food. We found that females in both species initiated and led group movements significantly more often than males did. In groups with multiple females, one female was primarily responsible for initiating and leading group movements. We conclude that female nutritional needs may determine ranging behavior to a large extent in these prosimian species, at least during months of gestation and lactation.
|
|
|
|
Hanggi, E. B. (1999). Interocular transfer of learning In horses (Equus caballus). J Equine Vet Sci, 19(8), 518–524.
|
|
|
|
Czaran, T. (1999). Game theory and evolutionary ecology: Evolutionary Games & Population Dynamics by J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund, and Game Theory & Animal Behaviour, edited by L.A. Dugatkin and H.K. Reeve. Trends. Ecol. Evol, 14(6), 246–247.
|
|
|
|
Giraldeau, L. A., & Beauchamp, G. (1999). Food exploitation: searching for the optimal joining policy. Trends In Ecology And Evolution, 14(3), 102–106.
Abstract: Commonly invoked foraging advantages of group membership include increased mean food intake rates and/or reduced variance in foraging success. These foraging advantages rely on the occurrence of 'joining': feeding from food discovered or captured by others. Joining occurs in most social species but the assumptions underlying its analysis have been clarified only recently, giving rise to two classes of model: information-sharing and producer-scrounger models. Recent experimental evidence suggests that joining in ground-feeding birds might be best analysed as a producer-scrounger game, with some intriguing consequences for the spatial distribution of foragers and patch exploitation.
|
|
|
|
Grandin, T. (1999). Safe handling of large animals. Occup Med, 14(2), 195–212.
Abstract: The major causes of accidents with cattle, horses, and other grazing animals are: panic due to fear, male dominance aggression, or the maternal aggression of a mother protecting her newborn. Danger is inherent when handling large animals. Understanding their behavior patterns improves safety, but working with animals will never be completely safe. Calm, quiet handling and non-slip flooring are beneficial. Rough handling and excessive use of electric prods increase chances of injury to both people and animals, because fearful animals may jump, kick, or rear. Training animals to voluntarily cooperate with veterinary procedures reduces stress and improves safety. Grazing animals have a herd instinct, and a lone, isolated animal can become agitated. Providing a companion animal helps keep an animal calm.
|
|
|
|
Taberlet, P., Waits, L. P., & Luikart, G. (1999). Noninvasive genetic sampling: look before you leap. Trends Ecol. Evol, 14(8), 323–327.
Abstract: Noninvasive sampling allows genetic studies of free-ranging animals without the need to capture or even observe them, and thus allows questions to be addressed that cannot be answered using conventional methods. Initially, this sampling strategy promised to exploit fully the existing DNA-based technology for studies in ethology, conservation biology and population genetics. However, recent work now indicates the need for a more cautious approach, which includes quantifying the genotyping error rate. Despite this, many of the difficulties of noninvasive sampling will probably be overcome with improved methodology.
|
|
|
|
Thomas R. Zentall. (1999). Animal Cognition: The Bridge BetweenAnimal Learning and Human Cognition. Psychological Science, 10, 206–208.
|
|
|
|
Mladenoff, D. J., Sickley, T. A., & Wydeven, A. P. (1999). Predicting gray wolf landscape recolonization: logistic regression models vs. new field data. Ecol Appl, 9.
|
|
|
|
Weed M.R., Taffe M.A., Polis I., Roberts A.C., Robbins T.W., Koob G.F., et al. (1999). Performance norms for a rhesus monkey neuropsychological testing battery: acquisition and long-term performance. Cognitive Brain Research, 8, 185–201.
|
|
