| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–20] |
|
Motch, S. M., Harpster, H. W., Ralston, S., Ostiguy, N., & Diehl, N. K. (2007). A note on yearling horse ingestive and agonistic behaviours in three concentrate feeding systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 106(1-3), 167–172.
Abstract: The objective of this study was to compare behaviours of yearling horses fed concentrates under each of three management systems. Over two consecutive years, 16 yearling horses (n = 8/year; 4 fillies, 4 geldings, full siblings between years) were observed over a 60-day trial period/year at 15:30 h each day. The experimental design consisted of three factors (sex, feeder type, and year); repeated measures on feeder type: tire feeders (control system), individual tub feeders, and manger feeders. Frequency of agonistic interaction was affected by feeder type and sex. Fillies performed more than three times the total number of agonistic behaviours per feeding session as geldings. In both years, horses spent the most time eating and had the fewest agonistic interactions when fed in tire feeders.
Keywords: Horse; Feeding; Agonistic behaviour; Social behaviour; Sex differences
|
|
Cunningham, E., & Janson, C. (2007). A socioecological perspective on primate cognition, past and present. Anim. Cogn., .
Abstract: The papers in this special issue examine the relationship between social and ecological cognition in primates. We refer to the intersection of these two domains as socioecological cognition. Examples of socioecological cognition include socially learned predator alarm calls and socially sensitive foraging decisions. In this review we consider how primate cognition may have been shaped by the interaction of social and ecological influences in their evolutionary history. The ability to remember distant, out-of-sight locations is an ancient one, shared by many mammals and widespread among primates. It seems some monkeys and apes have evolved the ability to form more complex representations of resources, integrating “what-where-how much” information. This ability allowed anthropoids to live in larger, more cohesive groups by minimizing competition for limited resources between group members. As group size increased, however, competition for resources also increased, selecting for enhanced social skills. Enhanced social skills in turn made a more sophisticated relationship to the environment possible. The interaction of social and ecological influences created a spiraling effect in the evolution of primate intelligence. In contrast, lemurs may not have evolved the ability to form complex representations which would allow them to consider the size and location of resources. This lack in lemur ecological cognition may restrict the size of frugivorous lemur social groups, thereby limiting the complexity of lemur social life. In this special issue, we have brought together two review papers, five field studies, and one laboratory study to investigate the interaction of social and ecological factors in relation to foraging. Our goal is to stimulate research that considers social and ecological factors acting together on cognitive evolution, rather than in isolation. Cross fertilization of experimental and observational studies from captivity and the field is important for increasing our understanding of this relationship.
|
|
Mennecke, B. E., Townsend, A. M., Hayes, D. J., & Lonergan, S. M. (2007). A study of the factors that influence consumer attitudes toward beef products using the conjoint market analysis tool. J. Anim Sci., , jas.2006–495-.
Abstract: This study utilizes an analysis technique commonly used in marketing, the conjoint method, to examine the relative utilities of a set of beef steak characteristics considered by a national sample of 1,432 US consumers, as well as additional localized samples representing undergraduate students at a business college and in an animal science department. The analyses indicate that among all respondents, region of origin is by far the most important characteristic; this is followed by animal breed, traceability, animal feed, and beef quality. Alternatively, the cost of cut, farm ownership, the use (or non-use) of growth promoters, and whether the product is guaranteed tender were the least important factors. Results for animal science undergraduates are similar to the aggregate results except that these students emphasized beef quality at the expense of traceability and the non-use of growth promoters. Business students also emphasized region of origin but then emphasized traceability and cost. The ideal steak for the national sample is from a locally produced choice Angus, fed a mixture of grain and grass that is traceable to the farm or origin. If the product was not produced locally respondents indicated that their preferred production states are, in order from most to least preferred, Iowa, Texas, Nebraska and Kansas.
|
|
Stashak, T. S., & Wissdorf, H. (2007). Adams' Lahmheit bei Pferden. Hannover: Schaper M. & H.
|
|
Vervaecke, H., Stevens, J., Vandemoortele, H., Sigurjönsdöttir, H., & De Vries, H. (2007). Aggression and dominance in matched groups of subadult Icelandic horses (Equus caballus). J. Ethol., 25(3), 239–248.
Abstract: Abstract We studied sex differences in the nature of aggression and dominance behaviour in two newly formed groups of 1-year-old Icelandic horses. One herd contained nine geldings, the other nine mares. The groups were matched with regard to dominance-determining traits such as age, weaning age, composition of native herd, social experience, genetic origin, body condition and maternal dominance status. High-ranking individuals of both sexes were more aggressive, high-ranking males were older, and high-ranking females had a better body condition. Frequencies of aggressions were similar in both groups. The mares reacted significantly more by showing submission upon an aggression rather than by not responding or by escalating the aggression. For the geldings, this difference was not observed due to a lower tendency to submit. A linear dominance hierarchy was found in both groups. David`s scores provided additional information regarding cardinal rank distances and were used to calculate steepness of hierarchies. The female hierarchy was somewhat steeper compared to the male hierarchy, suggesting somewhat lower despotism among males. This was mainly a consequence of the lower unidirectionality in male submission. Male contests occurred predominantly between dyads at top and mid positions, suggesting a low degree of acceptance of the hierarchy.
|
|
Lingle, S., Rendall, D., & Pellis, S. M. (2007). Altruism and recognition in the antipredator defence of deer: 1. Species and individual variation in fawn distress calls. Anim. Behav., 73(5), 897–905.
Abstract: Mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus, females actively defend fawns against predators, including nonoffspring conspecific fawns and heterospecific white-tailed deer, O. virginianus, fawns. We hypothesized that the defence of nonoffspring fawns was due to a recognition error. During a predator attack, females may have to decide whether to defend a fawn with imperfect information on its identity obtained from hearing only a few distress calls. We examined fawn distress calls to determine whether calls made by the two species and by different individuals within each species were acoustically distinctive. The mean and maximum fundamental frequencies of mule deer fawns were nearly double those of white-tailed deer fawns, with no overlap, enabling us to classify 100% of calls to the correct species using a single trait. A large proportion of calls was also assigned to the correct individual using a multivariate analysis (66% and 70% of mule deer and white-tailed deer fawns, respectively, chance = 6% and 10%); however, there was considerable statistical uncertainty in the probability of correct classification. We observed fawns approach conspecific females in an attempt to nurse; females probed most offspring fawns with their noses before accepting them, and always probed nonoffspring fawns before rejecting them, suggesting that close contact and olfactory information were needed to unequivocally distinguish nonoffspring from offspring fawns. Taken together, these results suggest that acoustic variation alone would probably be sufficient to permit rapid and reliable species discrimination, but it may not be sufficient for mothers to unequivocally distinguish their own fawn from conspecific fawns.
|
|
Lingle, S., Rendall, D., Wilson, W. F., DeYoung, R. W., & Pellis, S. M. (2007). Altruism and recognition in the antipredator defence of deer: 2. Why mule deer help nonoffspring fawns. Anim. Behav., 73(5), 907–916.
Abstract: Both white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, and mule deer, O. hemionus, females defend fawns against coyotes, Canis latrans, but only mule deer defend nonoffspring conspecific and heterospecific fawns. During a predator attack, females may have to decide whether to defend a fawn while having imperfect information on its identity obtained from hearing a few distress calls. Although imperfect recognition can influence altruistic behaviour, few empirical studies have considered this point when testing functional explanations for altruism. We designed a series of playback experiments with fawn distress calls to test alternative hypotheses (by-product of parental care, kin selection, reciprocal altruism) for the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring, specifically allowing for the possibility that females mistake these fawns for their own. White-tailed deer females approached the speaker only when distress calls of white-tailed deer fawns were played and when their own fawn was hidden, suggesting that fawn defence was strictly a matter of parental care in this species. In contrast, mule deer females responded similarly and strongly, regardless of the caller's identity, the female's reproductive state (mother or nonmother) or the presence of their own offspring. The failure of mule deer females to adjust their responses to these conditions suggests that they do not defend nonoffspring because they mistake them for their own fawns. The lack of behavioural discrimination also suggests that kin selection, reciprocal altruism and defence of the offspring's area are unlikely to explain the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring. We identify causal and functional questions that still need to be addressed to understand why mule deer defend fawns so indiscriminately.
|
|
Janis, C. (2007). An Evolutionary History of Browsing and Grazing Ungulates. In The Ecology of Browsing and Grazing (pp. 21–45).
Abstract: Browsing (i.e., eating woody and non-woody dicotyledonous plants) and grazing (i.e., eating grass) are distinctively different types of feeding behaviour among ungulates today. Ungulates with different diets have different morphologies (both craniodental ones and in aspects of the digestive system) and physiologies, although some of these differences are merely related to body size, as grazers are usually larger than browsers. There is also a difference in the foraging behaviour in terms of the relationship between resource abundance and intake rate, which is linear in browsers but asymptotic in grazers. The spatial distribution of the food resource is also different for the different types of herbage, browse being more patchily distributed than grass, and thus browsers and grazers are likely to have a very different perception of food resources in any given ecosystem (see Gordon 2003, for review).
|
|
Straub, A. (2007). An intelligent crow beats a lab. Science, 316(5825), 688.
|
|
Cohen, J. (2007). Animal behavior. The world through a chimp's eyes (Vol. 316).
|