| Home | << 1 >> |
|
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.
|
|
Owen, H., Hall, C., Hallam, S., & Smith, E. (2012). The use of GPS to measure feeding behaviour and activity patterns in the horse (Equus caballus). In K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2. International Equine Science Meeting (Vol. in press). Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
Abstract: The global positioning system (GPS) has been used to record activity and monitor habitat use in many animal species. In the horse (Equus caballus) the monitoring of activity and feeding patterns has been used to assess the impact of environmental factors on behaviour and welfare. In free-ranging animals GPS can provide such information but the accuracy and reliability of these devices has yet to be confirmed. The aim of this study was: 1) to compare the results of visual observation with GPS recordings of the horse’s head and neck position (head up (HU) and down (HD)) used to quantify time spent grazing; 2) to test the use of GPS collars to monitor activity patterns where distance, speed and location paths were recorded. In both studies two animals were fitted with Lotek GPS 3300S collars (with integrated GPS data logger and removable battery pack) round the top of the neck. In study 1 two horses were fitted with collars and turned loose into a 20x40m sand arena for 45 minutes. Feed balls and hay were provided (in nets and on the ground) to encourage movement and feeding behaviour for comparison using the two methods (observation from digital video recordings and GPS). HD was recorded by the GPS collars for a significantly longer time (interpreted as feeding/grazing time) than that recorded by observation (p=0.004). However when the visual observation was split into HU, HD and also head in mid-way position (HMW), where the nose of the horse was level or just above the chest, then no difference between the collar (HU and HD) and visual observation for (HU and HD+HMW) was found. It is likely that when in HMW the GPS collar may not be sufficiently angled to trigger the sensor to record HU or the collar may move on the neck. Conclusions relating to time spent feeding should be treated with caution. In study 2, the collars were fitted to two ponies with access to 2.02 hectares of lowland grazing. Activity (distance travelled and speed) and location was recorded for 2 days. The total distance travelled by the ponies in 24 hours (2.84km) and their average speed (4.04m/minute) was calculated and showed no significant difference between day and night. The total area was split into four equal segments and there was no significant difference in the time the ponies spent in each area although they were found to move at slower speeds and stand for longer in some areas. Movement paths could be identified by inputting the GPS collar data into ArcGIS and viewed on Google Maps. There was a high level of comparability observed between the two ponies confirming behavioural synchronicity. As in other species, the use of GPS collars to monitor the movement and location of horses/ponies was found to be effective, but data relating to head position did not provide a reliable means of recording the time spent feeding.
|