|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Hoppitt, W., & Laland, K. N. (2008). Social processes influencing learning in animals: a review of the evidence. Adv Study Behav, 38, 105–165.
|
|
|
|
Houpt, K., Marrow, M., & Seeliger, M. (2000). A preliminary study of the effect of music on equine behavior. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 20(11), 691–737.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Huron, D. (2010). Voice Denumerability of Homogeneous Timbres. Music Percept Interdiscip J, 6.
|
|
|
|
Hölker, S. (2016). Typologie der deutschen Pferdehaltung – Eine empirische Studie mittels Two-Step-Clusteranalyse. Z. Agrarpolit. Landwirtsch., 94(3).
Abstract: In der deutschen Pferdebranche besteht u. a. hinsichtlich der Ausrichtung, Lage, Größe und ökonomischen Zielsetzung von Pferdehaltern eine große Heterogenität, gleichzeitig sind die Strukturen in diesem Sektor bislang kaum wissenschaftlich erfasst. Aus diesem Grund wird im vorliegenden Beitrag die Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Erscheinungsformen in der Pferdehaltung mittels einer empirisch gestützten Typologie systematisch beschrieben. Mittels einer standardisierten Onlinebefragung wurden 1.110 private, landwirtschaftliche und gewerbliche Pferdehalter sowie pferdehaltende Vereine befragt. Abgefragt wurden neben der Organisationsform, Bestandsgröße und der Ausrichtung auch Aspekte wie u. a. die Ausstattung der Anlage, die angewandten Haltungssysteme für die Pferde sowie Angaben zur zukünftige Entwicklung und den wahrgenommenen aktuellen sowie zukünftigen Herausforderungen in der Pferdehaltung. Mittels einer Clusteranalyse konnten sechs Typen herausgearbeitet werden: ländliche Hobbypferdehaltung, stadtorientierte Hobbypferdehaltung, Hobby-Zuchtpferdehaltung, Zuchtpferdehaltung, Pensionspferdehaltung und diversifizierte Pferdehaltung. Dabei sind die drei erstgenannten Typen der Liebhaberei zuzuordnen und die drei letztgenannten Typen werden mit Gewinnerzielungsabsicht betrieben. Die ermittelten Typen unterscheiden sich teilweise signifikant u. a. hinsichtlich ihrer Größe, den angewandten Haltungssystemen, der Anzahl an Betriebszweigen oder auch ihren zukünftig geplanten Entwicklungen. Die vorliegende Studie zeigt somit, dass beispielsweise bei der Entwicklung politischer Maßnahmen im Bereich der Pferdehaltung die Auswirkungen für einzelne Pferdehalter sehr unterschiedlich ausfallen können und es daher notwendig ist, die unterschiedlichen, real existierenden Betriebstypen zu berücksichtigen.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Iliopoulos, Y., Youlatos, D., & Sgardelis, S. (2013). Wolf pack rendezvous site selection in Greece is mainly affected by anthropogenic landscape features. Eur J Wildl Res, 60.
|
|
|
|
Imbert, C., Caniglia, R., Fabbri, E., Milanesi, P., Randi, E., Serafini, M., et al. (2016). Why do wolves eat livestock?: Factors influencing wolf diet in northern Italy. Biological Conservation, 195, 156–168.
Abstract: Thanks to protection by law and increasing habitat restoration, wolves (Canis lupus) are currently re-colonizing Europe from the surviving populations of Russia, the Balkan countries, Spain and Italy, raising the need to update conservation strategies. A major conservation issue is to restore connections and gene flow among fragmented populations, thus contrasting the deleterious consequences of isolation. Wolves in Italy are expanding from the Apennines towards the Alps, crossing the Ligurian Mountains (northern Italy) and establishing connections with the Dinaric populations. Wolf expansion is threatened by poaching and incidental killings, mainly due to livestock depredations and conflicts with shepherds, which could limit the establishment of stable populations. Aiming to find out the factors affecting the use of livestock by wolves, in this study we determined the composition of wolf diet in Liguria. We examined 1457 scats collected from 2008 to 2013. Individual scats were genotyped using a non-invasive genetic procedure, and their content was determined using microscopical analyses. Wolves in Liguria consumed mainly wild ungulates (64.4%; in particular wild boar Sus scrofa and roe deer Capreolus capreolus) and, to a lesser extent, livestock (26.3%; in particular goats Capra hircus). We modeled the consumption of livestock using environmental features, wild ungulate community diversity, husbandry characteristics and wolf social organization (stable packs or dispersing individuals). Wolf diet varied according to years and seasons with an overall decrease of livestock and an increase of wild ungulate consumption, but also between packs and dispersing individuals with greater livestock consumption for the latter. The presence of stable packs, instead of dispersing wolves, the adoption of prevention measures on pastures, roe deer abundance, and the percentage of deciduous woods, reduced predation on livestock. Thus, we suggest promoting wild ungulate expansion, the use of prevention tools in pastures, and supporting wolf pack establishment, avoiding lethal control and poaching, to mitigate conflicts between wolf conservation and husbandry.
|
|
