Abstract: Habitat types were classified in a semi-arid nature reserve in South Africa in order to assess the spatial requirements of resident ungulates, namely zebra, wildebeest and impala. Multivariate analyses showed patterns of soil factors and plant species associations that corresponded with variations of local geological formations and the abundance of plants. The response of ungulates to habitats of different degrees of complexity in terms of soils and plant species associations was examined on the basis of annual occurrence. New habitat types were described through merging or subdividing the existing classification. New habitat categories which corresponded with high occurrences of ungulates provided better indications of the resource requirements for large herbivores. Wildebeest were restricted in their habitat requirements and were characterized by high seasonal densities in bottom lands, particularly during the late wet period. There was a considerable overlap in the preference of habitat types between wildebeest and zebra although zebra were aggregated during longer periods within the dolerite formation. Impala had a consistent annual preference for the granite formation where seepage lines and bottom lands were inhabited seasonally by large herd concentrations.
Résumé
On a classifié les types d'habitat dans une réserve naturelle semiaride d'Afrique du Sud, dans le but d'évaluer les exigences spatiales des ongulés qui y vivent, c'est à dire les zèbres, les gnous et les impalas. Des analyses multivariées ont révélé des schémas pour les facteurs du sol et pour les associations d'espèces végétales qui correspondent aux variations des formations géologiques locales et à l'abon-dance des plantes. On a examiné la réponse des ongulés à des habitats de complexité différente en termes de sols et d'associations d'espéces végétales, d'après leur présence annuelle. On a décrit de nouveaux types d'habitats en fusionnant ou en subdivisant la classification existante. Les nouvelles catégories d'habitats qui correspondaient à des présences abondantes d'ongulés ont fourni de meilleures indications sur les ressources exigées par les grands herbivores. Les gnous se limitaient aux endroits qui répondaient a leurs exigences et se caractérisaient par de hautes densités saisonnières dans les régions basses, spécialement pendant la dernière saison des pluies. Il y avait un recouvrement considérable des types d'habitats préferés par les gnous et les zébres, encore que les zébres se rassemblent plus longtemps dans la formation doléritique. Les impalas marquent une préférence annuelle constante pour la formation granitique où les sources et les terres basses sont occupées de façon saisonnière par des hardes très concentrées.

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.

Abstract: A previous study demonstrated that horses can learn socially from observing humans, but could not draw any conclusions about the social learning mechanisms. Here we develop this by showing horses four different human action sequences as demonstrations of how to press a button to open a feed box. We tested 68 horses aged between 3 and 12 years. 63 horses passed the habituation phase and were assigned either to the group Hand Demo (N = 13) for which a kneeling person used a hand to press the button, Head Demo (N = 13) for which a kneeling person used the head, Mixed Demo (N = 12) for which a squatting person used both head and hand, Foot Demo (N = 12) in which a standing person used a foot, or No Demo (N = 13) in which horses did not receive a demonstration. 44 horses reached the learning criterion of opening the feeder twenty times consecutively, 40 of these were 75% of the Demo group horses and four horses were 31% of the No Demo group horses. Horses not reaching the learning criterion approached the human experimenters more often than those who did. Significantly more horses used their head to press the button no matter which demonstration they received. However, in the Foot Demo group four horses consistently preferred to use a hoof and two switched between hoof and head use. After the Mixed Demo the horses' actions were more diverse. The results indicate that only a few horses copy behaviours when learning socially from humans. A few may learn through observational conditioning, as some appeared to adapt to demonstrated actions in the course of reaching the learning criterion. Most horses learn socially through enhancement, using humans to learn where, and which aspect of a mechanism has to be manipulated, and by applying individual trial and error learning to reach their goal.