Abstract: Abstract In foraging groups, individuals may utilise information from their social environment to aid decision making when choosing where to search for food. Little work has looked at the costs or benefits of behavioural differences, such as consistent individual variation in boldness, with respect to learning ability. Here, we investigate the response of three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) to ‘social cues’, ‘local enhancement’ and ‘public information’ during foraging tasks. Our results confirm previous work suggesting that this species responds to social cues and local enhancement but not public information. Variation in boldness did not affect the use of different types of information. However, time taken to make a choice and reach a patch varied between fish with different levels of boldness. Contrary to expectation, shy fish were the more variable individuals, having a greater range of reaction times when responding to the tasks. This suggests that individual behavioural differences still play a role when utilising information obtained from the environment and may influence the relative benefits that could result in different contexts.

Abstract: Gegenstand und Ziel: Überprüfung der Tiergerechtheit von Abrufstationen
für Kraftfutter und Heu in der Gruppenhaltung von Pferden anhand
ethologischer und physiologischer Parameter im Vergleich zu konventionellen
Fressständen. Material und Methoden: Die Verhaltensbeobachtungen
fanden in 11 bzw. 10 Offenlaufställen mit Abrufstationen
bzw. Fressständen statt. 270 Pferde wurden individuell unterschieden.
Untersuchungsparameter waren: Drohverhalten mit und ohne Verletzungsrisiko,
Meideverhalten, Verdrängung aus dem Fressstand sowie
Herzfrequenz und Integumentverletzungen. In jedem Betrieb erfolgten
kontinuierliche Direktbeobachtungen für je einen 24-Stunden-Tag (Tortenstückverfahren).
Ergebnisse: Im Wartebereich der Abrufautomaten
traten signifikant mehr Drohgesten ohne bzw. mit Verletzungsgefahr je
Pferd und Tag (8,6 bzw. 3,0) auf als im Wartebereich der Fressstände
(3,4 bzw. 0,9). Demgegenüber konnten die Pferde in Abrufstationen
(1,4 Drohgesten je Pferd und Tag) ungestörter fressen als in Fressständen
(3,2 Drohgesten je Pferd und Tag). Insgesamt betrachtet ergab sich
jedoch bei beiden Fütterungssystemen eine geringe Anzahl an sozionegativen
Interaktionen im Bereich der Futtereinrichtungen. Die Herzfrequenz
lag im Warteareal im Durchschnitt im physiologischen Bereich
(44,59 ± 11,73 Schläge/min). Integumentverletzungen im Zusammenhang
mit dem Fütterungssystem traten nicht auf. Der wichtigste Einflussfaktor
auf die Untersuchungskriterien war der Betrieb (Fläche, Konzeption,
Management). Schlussfolgerung: Unter dem Aspekt der Tiergerechtheit
hinsichtlich des Stress- und Verletzungsrisikos durch soziale
Interaktionen eignen sich bei ordnungsgemäßer Gruppenhaltung mit
fachgerechtem Management sowohl Fressstände als auch Abrufstationen
für Pferde im Offenlaufstall.
[Objective: A comparison with regard to animal welfare of feeding
stalls and automatic feeding systems for hay and concentrates in group
housing systems for horses using parameters of ethology and physiology.
Material and method: The observations of animal behaviour took
place in 10 stables with feeding stalls and in 11 stables with automatic
feeding systems. The field around the feeding systems was divided into
three areas with comparable dimensions (waiting area, exit area and
inside of the feeding system). 270 horses were individually observed.
Parameters of research comprised: threatening behaviour with and
without risk of injury, avoiding behaviour, ”chasing away from the feeding
place”, as well as heart rate and injuries of the integument. Every
group of horses was continuously observed for 24 hours. This observation
took place on four different days and comprised six sessions, each
of 4 hours. Results: In the waiting area of the automatic systems there
were significantly more threatening gestures with and without risk of
injuries for each horse and day (8.6 and 3.0, respectively) than in the
waiting area of the feeding stalls. In contrast, the horses could eat more
relaxed in the automatic systems (1.4 threatening gestures for each
horse and day) than in the feeding stalls (3.2 threatening gestures for
each horse and day). All together the number of negative interactions in
the feeding area of both feeding systems was relatively low. The heart
rate was within the physiological range (44,59 ± 11,73 beats/min) in
the waiting area. There were no injuries of the integument in correlation
with the feeding systems. The most important factor of the observation
criteria was the individual group housing system with its different dimension,
conception and management. Conclusion: Under the aspect
of animal welfare both feeding systems are suitable for horses with respect
to the risk of stress and injuries by social interactions and under
the condition of proper group housing with professional management.]

Abstract: Abstract  Recent research has shown that domestic dogs are particularly good at determining the focus of human attention, often outperforming chimpanzees and hand-reared wolves. It has been suggested that the close evolutionary relationship between humans and dogs has led to the development of this ability; however, very few other domestic species have been studied. We tested the ability of 36 domestic horses to discriminate between an attentive and inattentive person in determining whom to approach for food. The cues provided were body orientation, head orientation or whether the experimenters’ eyes were open or closed. A fourth, mixed condition was included where the attentive person stood with their body facing away from the subjects but their head turned towards the subject while the inattentive person stood with their body facing the subject but their head turned away. Horses chose the attentive person significantly more often using the body cue, head cue, and eye cue but not the mixed cue. This result suggests that domestic horses are highly sensitive to human attentional cues, including gaze. The possible role of evolutionary and environmental factors in the development of this ability is discussed.

Abstract: The aim of our study was to analyze the behavioural responses of horses (N = 51) to familiar humans and to find factors that may affect these responses in three tests: (1) approach to, (2) standing beside, and (3) following the familiar person. We investigated the impacts of horse-related factors (gender and age) and human-related factors (type of work, housing management, amount of handling, number of handlers and training to follow).<br xmlns=“http://pub2web.metastore.ingenta.com/ns/”></br> Horses with one handler needed less time to approach the human than horses with more handlers. Standing beside the human correlated positively with following. Following was mainly affected by training.<br xmlns=“http://pub2web.metastore.ingenta.com/ns/”></br> According to our results, the number of handlers has an important effect on horses' responses to familiar humans, especially regarding approach and follow behaviour. However, following behaviour is fundamentally determined by training.

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 &#65533; 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.