|
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.
|
|
|
Hoogstraal, H., & Mitchell, R. M. (1971). Haemaphysalis (Alloceraea) aponommoides Warburton (Ixodoidea: Ixodidae), description of immature stages, hosts, distribution, and ecology in India, Nepal, Sikkim, and China. J Parasitol, 57(3), 635–645.
|
|
|
Hoogstraal, H., Dhanda, V., & Bhat, H. R. (1970). Haemaphysalis (Kaiseriana) davisi sp. n. (Ixodoidea: Ixodidae), a parasite of domestic and wild mammals in Northeastern India, Sikkim, and Burma. J Parasitol, 56(3), 588–595.
|
|
|
Holzapfel, W. H., & Botha, S. J. (1988). Physiology of Sporolactobacillus strains isolated from different habitats and the indication of in vitro antagonism against Bacillus species. Int J Food Microbiol, 7(2), 161–168.
Abstract: In an ecological study only low numbers of Sporolactobacillus were found in habitats such as the faeces of herbivores, the rumen of cattle and the final waste water of an abattoir. Their presence in the final waste water of an abattoir indicates their possible association with food, and, more specifically, with meat. Differences were found in some physiological characteristics. One isolate (L2404) differed from the authentic Sporolactobacillus ATCC 15538 by its inability to ferment inulin, its growth in presence of 6.5% NaCl and in 0.2% tellurite, by the isomer(s) of lactic acid produced and the mol% G + G in the DNA. One Sporolactobacillus isolate (L2407) showed antagonism against Bacillus cereus, Bacillus cereus var, mycoides, Bacillus megaterium and Bacillus subtilis.
|
|
|
Holbrook, A. A. (1969). Biology of equine piroplasmosis. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 155(2), 453–454.
|
|
|
Henson, S. M., Dennis, B., Hayward, J. L., Cushing, J. M., & Galusha, J. G. (2007). Predicting the dynamics of animal behaviour in field populations. Anim. Behav., 74(1), 103–110.
Abstract: Many species show considerable variation in behaviour among individuals. We show that some behaviours are largely deterministic and predictable with mathematical models. We propose a general differential equation model of behaviour in field populations and use the methodology to explain and predict the dynamics of sleep and colony attendance in seabirds as a function of environmental factors. Our model explained over half the variability in the data to which it was fitted, and it predicted the dynamics of an independent data set. Differential equation models may provide new approaches to the study of behaviour in animals and humans.
|
|
|
Healy, S., & Braithwaite, V. (2000). Cognitive ecology: a field of substance? Trends. Ecol. Evol, 15(1), 22–26.
Abstract: In 1993, Les Real invented the label 'cognitive ecology'. This label was intended for work that brought cognitive science and behavioural ecology together. Real's article stressed the importance of such an approach to the understanding of behaviour. At the end of a decade in which more interdisciplinary work on behaviour has been seen than for many years, it is time to assess whether cognitive ecology is a label describing an active field.
|
|
|
Healy, S. D., & Jones, C. M. (2002). Animal learning and memory: an integration of cognition and ecology. Zoology, 105(4), 321–327.
Abstract: Summary A wonderfully lucid framework for the ways to understand animal behaviour is that represented by the four [`]whys' proposed by Tinbergen (1963). For much of the past three decades, however, these four avenues have been pursued more or less in parallel. Functional questions, for example, have been addressed by behavioural ecologists, mechanistic questions by psychologists and ethologists, ontogenetic questions by developmental biologists and neuroscientists and phylogenetic questions by evolutionary biologists. More recently, the value of integration between these differing views has become apparent. In this brief review, we concentrate especially on current attempts to integrate mechanistic and functional approaches. Most of our understanding of learning and memory in animals comes from the psychological literature, which tends to use only rats or pigeons, and more occasionally primates, as subjects. The underlying psychological assumption is of general processes that are similar across species and contexts rather than a range of specific abilities. However, this does not seem to be entirely true as several learned behaviours have been described that are specific to particular species or contexts. The first conspicuous exception to the generalist assumption was the demonstration of long delay taste aversion learning in rats (Garcia et al., 1955), in which it was shown that a stimulus need not be temporally contiguous with a response for the animal to make an association between food and illness. Subsequently, a number of other examples, such as imprinting and song learning in birds (e.g., Bolhuis and Honey, 1998; Catchpole and Slater, 1995; Horn, 1998), have been thoroughly researched. Even in these cases, however, it has been typical for only a few species to be studied (domestic chicks provide the [`]model' imprinting species and canaries and zebra finches the song learning [`]models'). As a result, a great deal is understood about the neural underpinnings and development of the behaviour, but substantially less is understood about interspecific variation and whether variation in behaviour is correlated with variation in neural processing (see review by Tramontin and Brenowitz, 2000 but see ten Cate and Vos, 1999).
|
|
|
Hazem, A. S. (1978). [Collective review: Salmonella paratyphi in animals and in the environment]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 85(7), 296–303.
|
|
|
Hanson, R. P., & Trainer, D. O. (1969). Significance of changing ecology on the epidemiology of arboviruses in the United States. Proc Annu Meet U S Anim Health Assoc, 73, 291–294.
|
|