|
De Stoppelaire, G. H., Gillespie, T. W., Brock, J. C., & Tobin, G. A. (2004). Use of remote sensing techniques to determine the effects of grazing on vegetation cover and dune elevation at Assateague Island National Seashore: impact of horses. Environ Manage, 34(5), 642–649.
Abstract: The effects of grazing by feral horses on vegetation and dune topography at Assateague Island National Seashore were investigated using color-infrared imagery, lidar surveys, and field measurements. Five pairs of fenced and unfenced plots (300 m2) established in 1993 on sand flats and small dunes with similar elevation, topography, and vegetation cover were used for this study. Color-infrared imagery from 1998 and field measurements from 2001 indicated that there was a significant difference in vegetation cover between the fenced and unfenced plot-pairs over the study period. Fenced plots contained a higher percentage of vegetation cover that was dominated by American beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata). Lidar surveys from 1997, 1999, and 2000 showed that there were significant differences in elevation and topography between fenced and unfenced plot-pairs. Fenced plots were, on average, 0.63 m higher than unfenced plots, whereas unfenced plots had generally decreased in elevation after establishment in 1993. Results demonstrate that feral horse grazing has had a significant impact on dune formation and has contributed to the erosion of dunes at Assateague Island. The findings suggest that unless the size of the feral horse population is reduced, grazing will continue to foster unnaturally high rates of dune erosion into the future. In order to maintain the natural processes that historically occurred on barrier islands, much larger fenced exclosures would be required to prevent horse grazing.
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B. (1997). Food transfers through mesh in brown capuchins. J Comp Psychol, 111(4), 370–378.
Abstract: Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) share food even if their partner is behind a mesh restraint. Pairs of adult capuchins were moved into a test chamber in which 1 monkey received cucumber pieces for 20 min and the other received apple slices during the following 20 min. Tolerant transfers of food occurred reciprocally among females: The rate of transfer from Female B to A in the second test phase varied with the rate from Female A to B in the first test phase. Several social mechanisms may explain this reciprocity. Whereas this study does not contradict cognitively complex explanations (e.g., mental record keeping of given and received food), the results are consistent with a rather simple explanation: that food sharing reflects a combination of affiliative tendency and high tolerance. The study suggests that sharing mechanisms may be different for adult male capuchins, with males sharing food more readily and less discriminatingly than females.
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B., & Berger, M. L. (2000). Payment for labour in monkeys. Nature, 404(6778), 563.
|
|
|
Devenport, J. A., Patterson, M. R., & Devenport, L. D. (2005). Dynamic averaging and foraging decisions in horses (Equus callabus). J. Comp. Psychol., 119(3), 352–358.
Abstract: The variability of most environments taxes foraging decisions by increasing the uncertainty of the information available. One solution to the problem is to use dynamic averaging, as do some granivores and carnivores. Arguably, the same strategy could be useful for grazing herbivores, even though their food renews and is more homogeneously distributed. Horses (Equus callabus) were given choices between variable patches after short or long delays. When patch information was current, horses returned to the patch that was recently best, whereas those without current information matched choices to the long-term average values of the patches. These results demonstrate that a grazing species uses dynamic averaging and indicate that, like granivores and carnivores, they can use temporal weighting to optimize foraging decisions.
|
|
|
Drapier, M., Chauvin, C., & Thierry, B. (2002). Tonkean macaques ( Macaca tonkeana) find food sources from cues conveyed by group-mates. Anim. Cogn., 5(3), 159–165.
Abstract: It is possible that non-specialised cues transmitted by conspecifics guide animals' food search provided they have the cognitive abilities needed to read these cues. Macaques often check the mouth of their group-mates by olfactory and/or visual inspection. We investigated whether Tonkean macaques ( Macaca tonkeana) can find the location of distant food on the basis of cues conveyed by group-mates. The subjects of the study were two 6-year-old males, who belonged to a social group of Tonkean macaques raised in semi-free-ranging conditions. In a first experiment, we tested whether the subject can choose between two sites after having sniffed a partner who has just eaten food corresponding to one of the sites. We found that both subjects were able to choose the matching site significantly above the chance level. This demonstrated that Tonkean macaques are capable of delayed olfactory matching. They could associate a food location with an odour conveyed by a partner. In a second experiment, the same subjects were allowed to see their partner through a Plexiglas window. Both subjects were still able to choose the matching site, demonstrating they could rely on visual cues alone. Passive recruitment of partners appears possible in macaques. They can improve their foraging performances by finding the location of environmental resources from olfactory or visual cues conveyed by group-mates.
|
|
|
Edman, J. D. (1971). Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes. I. Aedes, Anopheles, Coquillettidia, Mansonia and Psorophora. J Med Entomol, 8(6), 687–695.
|
|
|
Fragaszy, D., & Visalberghi, E. (2004). Socially biased learning in monkeys. Learn Behav, 32(1), 24–35.
Abstract: We review socially biased learning about food and problem solving in monkeys, relying especially on studies with tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and callitrichid monkeys. Capuchin monkeys most effectively learn to solve a new problem when they can act jointly with an experienced partner in a socially tolerant setting and when the problem can be solved by direct action on an object or substrate, but they do not learn by imitation. Capuchin monkeys are motivated to eat foods, whether familiar or novel, when they are with others that are eating, regardless of what the others are eating. Thus, social bias in learning about foods is indirect and mediated by facilitation of feeding. In most respects, social biases in learning are similar in capuchins and callitrichids, except that callitrichids provide more specific behavioral cues to others about the availability and palatability of foods. Callitrichids generally are more tolerant toward group members and coordinate their activity in space and time more closely than capuchins do. These characteristics support stronger social biases in learning in callitrichids than in capuchins in some situations. On the other hand, callitrichids' more limited range of manipulative behaviors, greater neophobia, and greater sensitivity to the risk of predation restricts what these monkeys learn in comparison with capuchins. We suggest that socially biased learning is always the collective outcome of interacting physical, social, and individual factors, and that differences across populations and species in social bias in learning reflect variations in all these dimensions. Progress in understanding socially biased learning in nonhuman species will be aided by the development of appropriately detailed models of the richly interconnected processes affecting learning.
|
|
|
Friedrich, A. M., & Zentall, T. R. (2004). Pigeons shift their preference toward locations of food that take more effort to obtain. Behav. Process., 67(3), 405–415.
Abstract: Although animals typically prefer to exert less effort rather than more effort to obtain food, the present research shows that requiring greater effort to obtain food at a particular location appears to increase the value of that location. In Experiment 1, pigeons' initial preference for one feeder was significantly reduced by requiring 1 peck to obtain food from that feeder and requiring 30 pecks to obtain food from the other feeder. In Experiment 2, a similar decrease in preference was not found when pigeons received reinforcement from both feeders independently of the amount of effort required. These results are consistent with the within-trial contrast effect proposed by in which the relative hedonic value of a reward depends on the state of the animal immediately prior to the reward. The greater the improvement from that prior state the greater the value of the reinforcer.
|
|
|
Gauvin, S., & Giraldeau, L. - A. (2004). Nutmeg mannikins ( Lonchura punctulata) reduce their feeding rates in response to simulated competition. Oecologia, 139(1), 150–156.
Abstract: Group feeding animals experience a number of competitive foraging costs that may result in a lowered feeding rate. It is important to distinguish between reductions in feeding rates that are caused by reduced food availability and physical interactions among foragers from those caused by the mere presence of foraging companions that may be self-imposed in order to obtain some benefit of group membership. Starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris) reduce their feeding rates when in the company of simulated competitors located in an adjacent cage that cannot affect the food availability or interact with the forager. In the present study, we investigate whether the presence of simulated competitors in another species of passerine, nutmeg mannikins ( Lonchura punctulata), can result in self-imposed reductions in feeding rates. When feeding in the company of simulated competitors, mannikins spent more non-foraging time near them, fed more slowly, reduced travel times between patches, reduced their scanning time and pecked more slowly. These results provide evidence that simulated competitors induce a reduction in pecking rate: behavioural interference. These self-imposed responses to competitors may have resulted from attempts to remain close to the non-feeding companions. Such self-imposed reductions in feeding rates may be a widespread yet generally unrecognised foraging cost to group feeding individuals.
|
|
|
Houpt, K. A., & Smith, R. (1993). Animal behavior case of the month. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 203(3), 377–378.
|
|