Abstract: Summary Reliable assessment of animal populations is a long-standing challenge in wildlife ecology. Technological advances have led to widespread adoption of camera traps (CTs) to survey wildlife distribution, abundance and behaviour. As for any wildlife survey method, camera trapping must contend with sources of sampling error such as imperfect detection. Early applications focused on density estimation of naturally marked species, but there is growing interest in broad-scale CT surveys of unmarked populations and communities. Nevertheless, inferences based on detection indices are controversial, and the suitability of alternatives such as occupancy estimation is debatable. We reviewed 266 CT studies published between 2008 and 2013. We recorded study objectives and methodologies, evaluating the consistency of CT protocols and sampling designs, the extent to which CT surveys considered sampling error, and the linkages between analytical assumptions and species ecology. Nearly two-thirds of studies surveyed more than one species, and a majority used response variables that ignored imperfect detection (e.g. presence?absence, relative abundance). Many studies used opportunistic sampling and did not explicitly report details of sampling design and camera deployment that could affect conclusions. Most studies estimating density used capture?recapture methods on marked species, with spatially explicit methods becoming more prominent. Few studies estimated density for unmarked species, focusing instead on occupancy modelling or measures of relative abundance. While occupancy studies estimated detectability, most did not explicitly define key components of the modelling framework (e.g. a site) or discuss potential violations of model assumptions (e.g. site closure). Studies using relative abundance relied on assumptions of equal detectability, and most did not explicitly define expected relationships between measured responses and underlying ecological processes (e.g. animal abundance and movement). Synthesis and applications. The rapid adoption of camera traps represents an exciting transition in wildlife survey methodology. We remain optimistic about the technology's promise, but call for more explicit consideration of underlying processes of animal abundance, movement and detection by cameras, including more thorough reporting of methodological details and assumptions. Such transparency will facilitate efforts to evaluate and improve the reliability of camera trap surveys, ultimately leading to stronger inferences and helping to meet modern needs for effective ecological inquiry and biodiversity monitoring.

Abstract: Understanding how groups of individuals with different motives come to daily decisions about the exploitation of their environment is a key question in animal behaviour. While interindividual differences are often seen only as a threat to group cohesion, growing evidence shows that they may to some extent facilitate effective collective action. Recent studies suggest that personality differences influence how individuals are attracted to conspecifics and affect their behaviour as an initiator or a follower. However, most of the existing studies are limited to a few taxa, mainly social fish and arthropods. Horses are social herbivores that live in long-lasting groups and show identifiable personality differences between individuals. We studied a group of 38 individuals living in a 30-ha hilly pasture. Over 200 h, we sought to identify how far individual differences such as personality and affinity distribution affect the dynamic of their collective movements. First, we report that individuals distribute their relationships according to similar personality and hierarchical rank. This is the first study that demonstrates a positive assortment between unrelated individuals according to personality in a mammal species. Second, we measured individual propensity to initiate and found that bold individuals initiated more often than shy individuals. However, their success in terms of number of followers and joining duration did not depend on their individual characteristics. Moreover, joining process is influenced by social network, with preferred partners following each other and bolder individuals being located more often at the front of the movement. Our results illustrate the importance of taking into account interindividual behavioural differences in studies of social behaviours.

Abstract: Abstract One mechanism to resolve conflict among group members is third party intervention, for which several functions, such as kin protection, alliance formation, and the promotion of group cohesion have been proposed. Still, empirical research on the function of intervention behaviour is rare. We studied 40 cases of intervention behaviour in a field study on 13 semi-wild bachelor horses (Equus ferus przewalskii) in (a) standard social situations, and (b) when new horses joined the group (i.e. introductions). Only interventions in agonistic encounters were analysed. Eight of 13 animals directed intervention behaviour toward threatening animal in agonistic encounters of group members. One stallion was particularly active. The stallions did not intervene to support former group mates or kin and interventions were not reciprocated. In introduction situations and in standard social situations, the interveners supported animals which were lower in rank, but targeted, threatening animals of comparable social rank. After introductions, stallions received more affiliative behaviour from animals they supported and thus appeared to intervene for alliance formation. In standard social situations, interveners did not receive more affiliative behaviour from animals they supported and may primarily have intervened to promote group cohesion and to reduce social disruption within the group.

Abstract: Highlights
�Horses remember the location of food hidden by the experimenter after a delay.
�They understand the communicative meaning of a human positioned close to the target.
�The same horses are capable of changing their decision-making strategy.
�They are able to shift from accuracy inferred from human given cues to speed.
�Horses can use human cues or not depending on time, cost, experience and reward.
Abstract
To date, horses have seemed capable of using human local enhancement cues only when the experimenter remains close to the reward, since they fail to understand the communicative meaning of the human as momentary local enhancement cue (when the human is not present at the moment of the animal's choice). This study was designed to analyse the ability of horses to understand, remember and use human-given cues in a delayed (10 s) three-choice task. Twelve horses (experimental group) had to find a piece of carrot hidden under one of three overturned buckets after seeing the experimenter hide it. The results were then compared with those of a control group (twelve horses) that had to find the carrot using only the sense of smell or random attempts. At the beginning, the experimental horses made more correct choices at the first attempt, although they took more time to find the carrot. Later the same horses were less accurate but found the carrot in less time. This suggests that the value of the proximal momentary local enhancement cues became less critical. It seemed, in fact, that the experimental and control group had aligned their behaviour as the trials proceeded. Despite this similarity, in the second half of the trials, the experimental group tended to first approach the bucket where they had found the carrot in the immediately preceding trial. Our findings indicate that horses are capable of remembering the location of food hidden by the experimenter after a delay, by using the human positioned close to the target as valuable information. The same horses are also capable of changing their decision-making strategy by shifting from the accuracy inferred from human given cues to speed. Therefore, horses are able to decide whether or not to use human given-cues, depending on a speed-accuracy trade-off.

Abstract: Most horses are trained by negative reinforcement. Currently, however, no standardised test for evaluating horses' negative reinforcement learning ability is available. The aim of this study was to develop an objective test to investigate negative reinforcement learning in horses. Twenty-four Icelandic horses (3 years old) were included in this study. The horses were tested in a pressure-release task on three separate days with 10, 7 and 5 trials on each side, respectively. Each trial consisted of pressure being applied on the hindquarter with an algometer. The force of the pressure was increased until the horse moved laterally away from the point of pressure. There was a significant decrease in required force over trials on the first test day (P<0.001), but not the second and third day. The intercepts on days 2 and 3 differed significantly from day 1 (P<0.001), but not each other. Significantly stronger force was required on the right side compared to the left (P<0.001), but there was no difference between first and second side tested (P=0.56). Individual performance was evaluated by median-force and the change in force over trials on the first test day. These two measures may explain different characteristics of negative reinforcement learning. In conclusion, this study presents a novel, standardised test for evaluating negative reinforcement learning ability in horses.