Abstract: Summary Reliable assessment of animal populations is a long-standing challenge in wildlife ecology. Technological advances have led to widespread adoption of camera traps (CTs) to survey wildlife distribution, abundance and behaviour. As for any wildlife survey method, camera trapping must contend with sources of sampling error such as imperfect detection. Early applications focused on density estimation of naturally marked species, but there is growing interest in broad-scale CT surveys of unmarked populations and communities. Nevertheless, inferences based on detection indices are controversial, and the suitability of alternatives such as occupancy estimation is debatable. We reviewed 266 CT studies published between 2008 and 2013. We recorded study objectives and methodologies, evaluating the consistency of CT protocols and sampling designs, the extent to which CT surveys considered sampling error, and the linkages between analytical assumptions and species ecology. Nearly two-thirds of studies surveyed more than one species, and a majority used response variables that ignored imperfect detection (e.g. presence?absence, relative abundance). Many studies used opportunistic sampling and did not explicitly report details of sampling design and camera deployment that could affect conclusions. Most studies estimating density used capture?recapture methods on marked species, with spatially explicit methods becoming more prominent. Few studies estimated density for unmarked species, focusing instead on occupancy modelling or measures of relative abundance. While occupancy studies estimated detectability, most did not explicitly define key components of the modelling framework (e.g. a site) or discuss potential violations of model assumptions (e.g. site closure). Studies using relative abundance relied on assumptions of equal detectability, and most did not explicitly define expected relationships between measured responses and underlying ecological processes (e.g. animal abundance and movement). Synthesis and applications. The rapid adoption of camera traps represents an exciting transition in wildlife survey methodology. We remain optimistic about the technology's promise, but call for more explicit consideration of underlying processes of animal abundance, movement and detection by cameras, including more thorough reporting of methodological details and assumptions. Such transparency will facilitate efforts to evaluate and improve the reliability of camera trap surveys, ultimately leading to stronger inferences and helping to meet modern needs for effective ecological inquiry and biodiversity monitoring.

Abstract: This study investigates behavioural lateralization in sheep and lambs of different ages. A flock was tested in a task in which the animals were facing an obstacle and should avoid it on either the right or left side to rejoin flock-mates (adult sheep) or their mothers (lambs). A bias for avoiding the obstacle on the right side was observed, with lambs apparently being more lateralized than sheep. This right bias was tentatively associated with the left-hemifield laterality in familiar faces recognition which has been documented in this species. Differences between adult sheep and lambs were likely to be due to differences in social reinstatement motivation elicited by different stimuli (flock-mates or mothers) at different ages. Preferential use of the forelegs to step on a wood-board and direction of jaw movement during rumination was also tested in adult animals. No population bias nor individual-level lateralization was observed for use of the forelegs. At the same time, however, there was a large number of animals showing individual-level lateralization for the direction of jaw movement during rumination even though there was no population bias. These findings highlight that within the same species individual- and population-level lateralization can be observed in different tasks. Moreover, the results fit the general hypothesis that population-level asymmetries are more likely to occur in tasks that require social coordination among behaviourally asymmetric individuals.

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.

Abstract: Growing evidence shows a variety of sensorial and motor asymmetries in social and non-social interactions in various species, indicating a lateralized processing of information by the brain. Using digital video cameras on tripods and drones, this study investigated lateralization in frequency and duration of social behavior patterns, in affiliative, agonistic, and resting contexts, in a feral population of horses (Equus ferus caballus) in Northern Portugal, consisting of 37 individuals organized in eight harem groups. Affiliative interactions (including grooming) were more often performed, and lasted longer, when recipients were positioned to the right side. In recumbent resting (animals lying down) episodes on the left side lasted longer. Our results of an affiliative behavior having a right side tendency, provide partial support to the valence-specific hypothesis of Ahern and Schwartz (1979) – left hemisphere dominance for positive affect, affiliative behaviors. Longer recumbent resting episodes on the left side may be due to synchronization. However, in both instances it is discussed how lateralization may be context dependent. Investigating the position asymmetries of social behaviors in feral equids will contribute to a better understanding of differential lateralization and hemispheric specialization from the ecological and evolutionary perspectives.

Abstract: Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used a crowdsourcing approach to gather data. We contacted equid owners and carers and asked them to report and video examples of �unusual� behaviour via a dedicated website. We also searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tool use. From 635 reports, including 1014 behaviours, we found 20 cases of tool use, 13 of which were unambiguous in that it was clear that the behaviour was not trained, caused by reduced welfare, incidental or accidental. We then assessed (a) the effect of management conditions on tool use and (b) whether the animals used tools alone, or socially, involving other equids or humans. We found that management restrictions were associated with corresponding tool use in 12 of the 13 cases (p = 0.01), e.g., equids using sticks to scrape hay within reach when feed was restricted. Furthermore, 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans, such as horses using brushes to groom others. The most frequent tool use was for foraging, with seven examples, tool use for social purposes was seen in four cases, and there was just one case of tool use for escape. There was just one case of tool use for comfort, and in this instance, there were no management restrictions. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is a rare occurrence.