|
Fritts, S. H., Bangs, E. E., & Gore, J. F. (1994). The relationship of wolf recovery to habitat conservation and biodiversity in the northwestern United States. Landsc Urban Plan, 28.
|
|
Fuller, T. K., & Sampson, B. A. (1988). Evaluation of a simulated howling survey for wolves. J Widl Manag, 52.
|
|
Gadhöfer, R., Krüger, K., & Zanger, M. (2021). Der Bockhuf – Entstehung, Verlauf und Therapie. Wald: Xenophon Verlag.
|
|
Gadhöfer, R., Krüger, K., & Zanger, M. (2021). Der Bockhuf – Entstehung, Verlauf und Therapie. Wald: Xenophon Verlag.
|
|
Galaverni, M., Palumbo, D., Fabbri, E., Caniglia, R., Greco, C., & Randi, E. (2012). Monitoring wolves (Canis lupus) by non-invasive genetics and camera trapping: A small-scale pilot study. Eur J Wildl Res, 58.
|
Galef, B. G. (2013). Imitation and local enhancement: Detrimental effects of consensus definitions on analyses of social learning in animals. Behavioural Processes, 100, 123–130.
Abstract: Development of a widely accepted vocabulary referring to various types of social learning has made important contributions to decades of progress in analyzing the role of socially acquired information in the development of behavioral repertoires. It is argued here that emergence of a consensus vocabulary, while facilitating both communication and research, has also unnecessarily restricted research on social learning. The article has two parts. In the first, I propose that Thorndike, 1898, Thorndike, 1911 definition of imitation as “learning to do an act from seeing it done” has unduly restricted studies of the behavioral processes involved in the propagation of behavior. In part 2, I consider the possibility that success in labeling social learning processes believed to be less cognitively demanding than imitation (e.g. local and stimulus enhancement, social facilitation, etc.) has been mistaken for understanding of those processes, although essentially nothing is known of their stimulus control, development, phylogeny or substrate either behavioral or physiological.
|
Galef, B. G. (1989). Enduring social enhancement of rats' preferences for the palatable and the piquant. Appetite, 13(2), 81–92.
Abstract: In three experiments on the social induction of food preferences in rats, I found: (a) that eight 30-min exposures of a naive “observer” rat to a “demonstrator” rat fed one of two approximately equipalatable diets produced observer preference for the diet fed to its demonstrator that lasted for more than a month, (b) that simple exposure of naive subjects to a diet itself, rather than to a rat that had eaten a diet, was not sufficient to enhance preference for that diet, and (c) that lasting preference for an unpalatable, piquant diet could also be established by exposing naive rats to demonstrators that had eaten the piquant diet, but not by simply exposure to the piquant diet itself. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis proposed by both Birch and Rozin that social-affective contexts are important in establishing stable, learned preferences for foods.
|
Galef, B. G., & Laland, K. N. (2005). Social Learning in Animals: Empirical Studies and Theoretical Models. BioScience, 55(6), 489–499.
Abstract: AbstractThe last two decades have seen a virtual explosion in empirical research on the role of social interactions in the development of animals' behavioral repertoires, and a similar increase in attention to formal models of social learning. Here we first review recent empirical evidence of social influences on food choice, tool use, patterns of movement, predator avoidance, mate choice, and courtship, and then consider formal models of when animals choose to copy behavior, and which other animals' behavior they copy, together with empirical tests of predictions from those models.
|
Gardner, E. L., & Engel, D. R. (1971). Imitational and social facilitatory aspects of observational learning in the laboratory rat. Psychon. Sci., 25(1), 5–6.
Abstract: Rats acquired a food-motivated leverpressing response by “observational learning” or by trial-and-error learning under conditions of social facilitation or isolation. Both the observational learning and social facilitation Ss learned faster than did the isolated trial-and-error Ss. There was no difference in speed of learning between the observational learning and social facilitation groups. It is suggested that some previous studies purporting to demonstrate observational learning may have demonstrated socially facilitated trial-and-error learning instead.
|
Gardner, P. (1937). The responses of horses in a discrimination problem. J Comp Psychol, 23, 305–333.
Abstract: 62 horses were trained to obtain food from the one of three boxes which was covered with a black cloth. The position of the box varied from trial to trial in a random order. Learning was apparently in terms of vision, rather than smell. Many errors were due to the line of direction of the horse's movement as it entered the experimental situation. For all animals the learning curve dropped rapidly during the first few trials. There was slightly more rapid learning in younger horses than in older ones. No sex differences were apparent. Percherons made fewer errors than Belgians. Draft horses showed a slight superiority over military and farm horses. The statistical reliability of these differences is not reported. Good retention was evidenced after a period of several months. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
|
