|
|
Grönemann, C. (2015). Konfliktfeld Pferd und Wolf – Eine Untersuchung zu Einstellungen, Erwartungen und Befürchtungen von Pferdehaltern und Reitsportlern in Niedersachsen. Master's thesis, Universität Hildesheim, Hildesheim.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Genov, P. W., & Kostava, V. (1993). Untersuchungen zur zahlenmäßigen Stärke des Wolfes und seiner Einwirkung auf die Haustierbestände in Bulgarien. Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft, 39(4), 217–223.
Abstract: Die Untersuchung wurde in der Zeitspanne von 1984 bis 1988 durchgeführt. Es wurden die Protokolle des Staatlichen Versicherungsinstituts benutzt, die Angaben für Raubüberfälle von Wölfen auf Haustiere beinhalten (Tabelle 1). Außerdem wurden Angaben über die während dieser Zeitspanne erlegten Wölfe zusammengefaßt. Die Abschußzahlen lauten: 1984 – 163, 1985 – 147, 1986 – 179, 1987 – 211 und 1988 – 220 Tiere. Die Anzahl der in den einzelnen Gebirgen lebenden Wölfe wurde nach einer Umfrage festgestellt. Für die in Betracht kommenden Gebirge werden folgende Bestandszahlen angenommen: Rhodopen -- 60-80 Individuen, 189 bis 264 km2 pro Tier, Rila- und Piringebirge -- 60-80 Tiere, 109 bis 145 km2 pro Tier, Ossogowo-Belassiza Gebirgssystem -- 40-50 Individuen, 57-70 km2 pro Tier, West- und Mittelbalkan -- 35-38 Wölfe, 200 km2 pro Tier. Dazu kommen noch 10-15 Wölfe im Flußbecken von Beli Lom und etwa 20 Exemplare in Strandscha- und Sakargebirge. Insgesamt lebten in Bulgarien im Jahre 1988 etwa 260-330 Wölfe (Abb. 1).
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Meriggi, A., Dagradi, V., Dondina, O., Perversi, M., Milanesi, P., Lombardini, M., et al. (2014). Short-term responses of wolf feeding habits to changes of wild and domestic ungulate abundance in Northern Italy. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 27(4), 389–411.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Wotschikowsky, U. (2007). Wölfe und Jäger in der Oberlausitz. Broschüre, Freundeskreis freilebender Wölfe, .
|
|
|
|
Leliveld, L. M. C., Düpjan, S., Tuchscherer, A., & Puppe, B. (2020). Hemispheric Specialization for Processing the Communicative and Emotional Content of Vocal Communication in a Social Mammal, the Domestic Pig. Front. Behav. Neurosci., 14, 596758.
Abstract: In humans, speech perception is lateralized, with the left hemisphere of the brain dominant in processing the communicative content and the right hemisphere dominant in processing the emotional content. However, still little is known about such a division of tasks in other species. We therefore investigated lateralized processing of communicative and emotionally relevant calls in a social mammal, the pig (Sus scrofa). Based on the contralateral connection between ears and hemispheres, we compared the behavioural and cardiac responses of 36 young male pigs during binaural and monaural (left or right) playback to the same sounds. The playback stimuli were calls of social isolation and physical restraint, whose communicative and emotional relevance, respectively, were validated prior to the test by acoustic analyses and during binaural playbacks. There were indications of lateralized processing mainly in the initial detection (left head-turn bias, indicating right hemispheric dominance) of the more emotionally relevant restraint calls. Conversely, there were indications of lateralized processing only in the appraisal (increased attention during playback to the right ear) of the more communicative relevant isolation calls. This implies differential involvement of the hemispheres in the auditory processing of vocalizations in pigs and thereby hints at similarities in the auditory processing of vocal communication in non-human animals and speech in humans. Therefore, these findings provide interesting new insight in the evolution of human language and auditory lateralization.
|
|
|
|
Camerlink, I., Menneson, S., Turner, S. P., Farish, M., & Arnott, G. (2018). Lateralization influences contest behaviour in domestic pigs. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 12116.
Abstract: Cerebral lateralization, i.e. hemispheric asymmetries in structure and function, relates in many species to a preference to attack from their left. Lateralization increases cognitive capacity, enabling the simultaneous processing of multiple sources of information. Therefore, lateralization may constitute a component of fighting ability (Resource Holding Potential), and/or influence the efficiency of information-gathering during a contest. We hypothesized that lateralization will affect contest outcome and duration, with an advantage for more strongly lateralized individuals. In 52 dyadic contests between weight-matched pigs (Sus scrofa; n = 104; 10 wk age), the direction of orientation towards the opponent was scan sampled every 10 s. Laterality indexes (LI) were calculated for the direction and strength of lateralization. Up to 12.5% of the individuals showed significant lateralization towards either the right or left but lateralization was absent at the population level. In line with our hypothesis, animals showing strong lateralization (irrespective of direction) had a shorter contest duration than animals showing weak lateralization. Winners did not differ from losers in their strength or direction of lateralization. Overall the results suggest that cerebral lateralization may aid in conflict resolution, but does not directly contribute to fighting ability, and will be of value in the study of animal contests.
|
|
