|
Krueger, K.. (2011). Soziales Lernen der Pferde. In Göttinger Pferdetage '11: Zucht, Haltung und Ernährung von Sportpferden (51). Warendorf: FN Verlag.
|
|
Krueger, K. (2011). Die Relevanz von sozialem Lernen beim Pferd für Tierhaltung und Tierschutz. In DVG 12. Internationale Fachtagung zu Fragen von Verhaltenskunde, Tierhaltung und Tierschutz. (pp. 220–221). Gießen: DVG.
|
|
Van Schaik, C. P., & Burkart, J. M. (2011). Social learning and evolution: the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Philos Trans R Soc B, 366.
|
|
Van Horik, J., & Emery, N. (2011). Evolution of cognition. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci, 2.
|
|
van de Waal, E., & Bshary, R. (2011). Social-learning abilities of wild vervet monkeys in a two-step task artificial fruit experiment. Anim Behav, 81.
|
|
Morand-Ferron, J., Cole, E. F., Rawles, J. E. C., & Quinn, J. L. (2011). Who are the innovators? A field experiment with 2 passerine species. Behav Ecol, 22.
|
|
Holzapfel, M., Wagner, C., & Kluth, G. et al. (2011). Zur Nahrungsökologie der Wölfe (Canis lupus) in Deutschland. Beiträge zur Jagd- und Wildforschung, 36, 117–128.
|
Warmuth, V., Eriksson, A., Bower, M. A., Cañon, J., Cothran, G., Distl, O., et al. (2011). European Domestic Horses Originated in Two Holocene Refugia. PLoS ONE, 6(3), e18194 EP -.
Abstract: <p>The role of European wild horses in horse domestication is poorly understood. While the fossil record for wild horses in Europe prior to horse domestication is scarce, there have been suggestions that wild populations from various European regions might have contributed to the gene pool of domestic horses. To distinguish between regions where domestic populations are mainly descended from local wild stock and those where horses were largely imported, we investigated patterns of genetic diversity in 24 European horse breeds typed at 12 microsatellite loci. The distribution of high levels of genetic diversity in Europe coincides with the distribution of predominantly open landscapes prior to domestication, as suggested by simulation-based vegetation reconstructions, with breeds from Iberia and the Caspian Sea region having significantly higher genetic diversity than breeds from central Europe and the UK, which were largely forested at the time the first domestic horses appear there. Our results suggest that not only the Eastern steppes, but also the Iberian Peninsula provided refugia for wild horses in the Holocene, and that the genetic contribution of these wild populations to local domestic stock may have been considerable. In contrast, the consistently low levels of diversity in central Europe and the UK suggest that domestic horses in these regions largely derive from horses that were imported from the Eastern refugium, the Iberian refugium, or both.</p>
|
Sankey, C., Henry, S., André, N., Richard-Yris, M. - A., & Hausberger, M. (2011). Do Horses Have a Concept of Person? PLoS ONE, 6(3), e18331 EP -.
Abstract: <sec> <title>Background</title> <p>Animals' ability for cross-modal recognition has recently received much interest. Captive or domestic animals seem able to perceive cues of human attention and appear to have a multisensory perception of humans.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>Methodology/Principal Findings</title> <p>Here, we used a task where horses have to remain immobile under a vocal order to test whether they are sensitive to the attentional state of the experimenter, but also whether they behave and respond differently to the familiar order when tested by a familiar or an unknown person. Horses' response varied according to the person's attentional state when the order was given by an unknown person: obedience levels were higher when the person giving the order was looking at the horse than when he was not attentive. More interesting is the finding that whatever the condition, horses monitored much more and for longer times the unknown person, as if they were surprised to hear the familiar order given by an unknown voice.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>Conclusion/Significance</title> <p>These results suggest that recognition of humans may lie in a global, integrated, multisensory representation of specific individuals, that includes visual and vocal identity, but also expectations on the individual's behaviour in a familiar situation.</p> </sec>
|
Mazurek, M., McGee, M., Minchin, W., Crowe, M. A., & Earley, B. (2011). Is the avoidance distance test for the assessment of animals' responsiveness to humans influenced by either the dominant or flightiest animal in the group? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 132(3-4), 107–113.
Abstract: A previously described (Windschnurer et al., 2009) avoidance distance test was used to assess animals’ fear of humans in order to quantify the human–animal relationship (HAR). This study investigated the influence of the dominant and flightiest animals within a group on the responsiveness of animals during the avoidance distance test. Eighty-eight pregnant heifers comprised of four different genotypes were used (22 animals per genotype): Limousin × Holstein-Friesian, Limousin × Simmental, Charolais × Limousin, and Charolais × Simmental. Sixty of the 88 heifers were group housed (n = 5) into 12 pens with 3 pens per breed, while 28 heifers were singly housed (seven heifers per breed). A reactivity test was performed on days 10, 18, 25 and 30 post-housing on the singly housed heifers, and then on the group housed heifers, on the same days, to calculate a reactivity score. On days 33 and 37 flight and dominance tests, respectively, were performed to identify the flightiest and the dominant animal within each group. On day 41, an avoidance test, measuring both the avoidance distance towards a familiar and an unfamiliar human, was performed on all heifers. No difference (P > 0.05) in reactivity scores was found between the genotypes, between pens for the group housed heifers or between singly housed and group housed heifers (P = 0.28). The avoidance distance (AD) of singly (S) housed heifers towards a familiar (F) (ADSF) human was shorter (P < 0.001) than the avoidance distance of group (G) housed heifers towards an unfamiliar human (ADSU). The ADSF and ADGF were correlated with the ADSU and ADGU (R = 0.87 for singly housed heifers; R = 0.61 for group housed heifers, P < 0.001). For the singly housed heifers, no correlation was observed between reactivity score and ADSF (R = 0.36, P = 0.18), whereas the reactivity score and ADSU were correlated (R = 0.68, P = 0.004). For the group housed heifers no significant correlation was detected between the reactivity score and ADGF (R = 0.18, P = 0.22) or ADGU (R = −0.11, P = 0.39). No influence of the most dominant animal and the flightiest animals was found on the behaviour of the group in term of avoidance distance and reactivity (P > 0.05). It is concluded that the assessment of the fear of the animals towards humans using the avoidance test at the feed bunk may be useful for singly and group housed heifers and that the leaders of a group such as the flightiest animal or the dominant animal did not influence the avoidance distance test.
|
