|
Bentley-Condit, V., & Smith, E. O. (2010). Animal tool use: current definitions and an updated comprehensive catalog. Behaviour, 147(2), 185–32.
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.
|
|
|
Benz, B., Benitz, B., Krueger, K., & Winter, D. (2013). Weniger Einstreu bei gleichem Komfort. Pferdezucht und Haltung, 1, 66–71.
|
|
|
Berger, K. M. (2006). Carnivore-Livestock conflicts: effects of subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep industry. Conserv Biol, 20.
|
|
|
Bergmüller, R., & Taborsky, M. (2010). Animal personality due to social niche specialisation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(9), 504–511.
Abstract: The existence of 'animal personality', i.e. consistent individual differences in behaviour across time and contexts, is an evolutionary puzzle that has recently generated considerable research interest. Although social factors are generally considered to be important, it is as yet unclear how they might select for personality. Drawing from ecological niche theory, we explore how social conflict and alternative social options can be key factors in the evolution and development of consistent individual differences in behaviour. We discuss how animal personality research might benefit from insights into the study of alternative tactics and illustrate how selection can favour behavioural diversification and consistency due to fitness benefits resulting from conflict reduction among social partners.
|
|
|
Bernauer, K., Kollross, H., Schuetz, A., Farmer, K., & Krueger, K. (2020). How do horses (Equus caballus) learn from observing human action? Anim. Cogn., 23, 1–9.
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.
|
|
|
Birch, H. G. (1945). The relation of previous experience to insightful problem-solving. J Comp Psychol, 38, 367–383.
|
|
|
Blakeman, N. E., & Friend, T. H. (1986). Visual discrimination at varying distances in Spanish goats. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 16.
|
|
|
Blanco, J. C., & Yolanda, C. (2012). Surveying wolves without snow: a critical review of the methods used in Spain. Hystrix. Ital J Mammal, 23.
|
|
|
Blatz, S., Krüger, K., & Zanger, M. (2018). Der Hufmechanismus – was wir wirklich wissen! Eine historische und fachliche Auseinandersetzung mit der Biomechanik des Hufes. Wald: Xenophon Verlag e.K.
Abstract: Der Hufmechanismus – wir alle glauben ihn zu kennen und zu wissen wie er funktioniert. Doch wussten Sie, dass nach über 250 Jahren der Forschung immer noch keine eindeutige Aussage dazu getroffen werden kann, wie der Hufmechanismus genau entsteht, vonstattengeht und wie er bei der Hufbearbeitung berücksichtigt werden muss?
Die Ergebnisse von 50 Studien unterstützen die Elastizitätstheorie. Sie beschreibt einen individuellen Hufmechanismus, der von Pferd zu Pferd unterschiedlich und von mannigfaltigen Faktoren abhängig ist.
Der Hufmechanismus zeigt sich als ebenso anpassungsfähig wie die Hufform selbst. Daher sollte bei der Hufbearbeitung und beim Beschlag mit Maß und Weitblick die optimale und individuelle Lösung für jedes Pferd gefunden werden.
|
|
|
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2009). Praat: doing phonetics by computer.
|
|