|
|
Zeder, M. A. (2011). Pathways to animal domestication. In A. Damania, & P. Gepts (Eds.), Harlan II: Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Davis: University of California.
|
|
|
|
Stenglein, J. L., Waits, L. P., Ausband, D. E., Zager, P., & Mack, C. M. (2011). Estimating gray wolf pack size and family relationships using non invasive genetic sampling at rendezvous sites. J Mammal, 92.
|
|
|
|
Core Development Team, R. (2011). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R foundation for statistical computing.
|
|
|
|
Marescot, L., Pradel, R., Duchamp, C., Cubaynes, S., Mrboutin, E., & Choquet, R. (2011). Capture – recapture population growth rate as a robust tool against detection heterogeneity for population management. Ecol Appl, 21.
|
|
|
|
Morgan, T. W., & Elliott, C. L. (2011). Comparison of remotely-triggered cameras vs. howling surveys for estimating coyote (Canis latrans) Abundance in central Kentucky. J Ky Acad Science, 72.
|
|
|
|
Young, H. P. (2011). The dynamics of social innovation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108(Supplement 4), 21285–21291.
|
|
|
|
Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2011). Individualism, innovation, and long-run growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108(Supplement 4), 21316–21319.
|
|
|
|
Krueger, K., Flauger, B., Farmer, K., & Maros, K. (2011). Horses (Equus caballus) use human local enhancement cues and adjust to human attention. Anim. Cogn., 14(2), 187–201.
Abstract: This study evaluates the horse (Equus caballus) use of human local enhancement cues and reaction to human attention when making feeding decisions. The superior performance of dogs in observing human states of attention suggests this ability evolved with domestication. However, some species show an improved ability to read human cues through socialization and training. We observed 60 horses approach a bucket with feed in a three-way object-choice task when confronted with (a) an unfamiliar or (b) a familiar person in 4 different situations: (1) squatting behind the bucket, facing the horse (2) standing behind the bucket, facing the horse (3) standing behind the bucket in a back-turned position, gazing away from the horse and (4) standing a few meters from the bucket in a distant, back-turned position, again gazing away from the horse. Additionally, postures 1 and 2 were tested both with the person looking permanently at the horse and with the person alternating their gaze between the horse and the bucket. When the person remained behind the correct bucket, it was chosen significantly above chance. However, when the test person was turned and distant from the buckets, the horses’ performance deteriorated. In the turned person situations, the horses approached a familiar person and walked towards their focus of attention significantly more often than with an unfamiliar person. Additionally, in the squatting and standing person situations, some horses approached the person before approaching the correct bucket. This happened more with a familiar person. We therefore conclude that horses can use humans as a local enhancement cue independently of their body posture or gaze consistency when the persons remain close to the food source and that horses seem to orientate on the attention of familiar more than of unfamiliar persons. We suggest that socialization and training improve the ability of horses to read human cues.
|
|
|
|
Krueger, K., & Flauger, B. (2011). Olfactory recognition of individual competitors by means of faeces in horse (Equus caballus). Anim. Cogn., 14(2), 245–257.
Abstract: Living in complex social systems requires perceptual and cognitive capacities for the recognition of group membership and individual competitors. Olfaction is one means by which this can be achieved. Many animals can identify individual proteins in urine, skin secretions, or saliva by scent. Additionally, marking behaviour in several mammals and especially in horses indicates the importance of sniffing conspecifics’ faeces for olfactory recognition. To test this hypothesis, we conducted two separate experiments: Experiment 1 addressed the question of whether horses can recognise the group membership of other horses by sniffing their faeces. The horses were presented with four faecal samples: (1) their own, (2) those of other members of their own group, (3) those of unfamiliar mares, and (4) those of unfamiliar geldings. Experiment two was designed to assess whether horses can identify the group member from whom a faecal sample came. Here, we presented two groups of horses with faecal samples from their group mates in random distribution. As controls, soil heaps and sheep faecal samples were used. In experiment one, horses distinguished their own from their conspecifics’ faeces, but did not differentiate between familiarity and sex. In experiment two, the horses from both groups paid most attention to the faeces of the horses from which they received the highest amount of aggressive behaviours. We therefore suggest that horses of both sexes can distinguish individual competitors among their group mates by the smell of their faeces.
|
|
|
|
Baragli, P., Mariti, C., Petri, L., De Giorgio, F., & Sighieri, C. (2011). Does attention make the difference? Horses' response to human stimulus after 2 different training strategies. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res, 6(1), 31–38.
Abstract: We hypothesized that in an open environment, horses cope with a series of challenges in
their interactions with human beings. If the horse is not physically constrained and is free to move
in a small enclosure, it has additional options regarding its behavioral response to the trainer. The
aim of our study was to evaluate the influence of 2 different training strategies on the horse’s behavioral
response to human stimuli. In all, 12 female ponies were randomly divided into the following 2
groups: group A, wherein horses were trained in a small enclosure (where indicators of the level of
attention and behavioral response were used to modulate the training pace and the horse’s control over
its response to the stimuli provided by the trainer) and group B, wherein horses were trained in a closed
environment (in which the trainer’s actions left no room for any behavioral response except for the one
that was requested). Horses’ behavior toward the human subject and their heart rate during 2 standardized
behavioral tests were used to compare the responses of the 2 groups. Results indicated that the
horses in group A appeared to associate human actions with a positive experience, as highlighted by
the greater degree of explorative behavior toward human beings shown by these horses during the tests.
The experience of the horses during training may have resulted in different evaluations of the person, as
a consequence of the human’s actions during training; therefore, it seems that horses evaluate human
beings on daily relationship experiences.
|
|
