|
|
Burton, A. C., Neilson, E., Moreira, D., Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Fisher, J. T., et al. (2015). REVIEW: Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J Appl Ecol, 52(3), 675–685.
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.
|
|
|
|
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G. - A., & Fleming, P. J. S. (2015). The pitfalls of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia. Aust. Mammal., 37(1), 13–22.
Abstract: Camera trapping is a relatively new addition to the wildlife survey repertoire in Australia. Its rapid adoption has been unparalleled in ecological science, but objective evaluation of camera traps and their application has not kept pace. With the aim of motivating practitioners to think more about selection and deployment of camera trap models in relation to research goals, we reviewed Australian camera trapping studies to determine how camera traps have been used and how their technological constraints may have affected reported results and conclusions. In the 54 camera trapping articles published between 1991 and 2013, mammals (86%) were studied more than birds (10%) and reptiles (3%), with small to medium-sized mammals being most studied. Australian camera trapping studies, like those elsewhere, have changed from more qualitative to more complex quantitative investigations. However, we found that camera trap constraints and limitations were rarely acknowledged, and we identified eight key issues requiring consideration and further research. These are: camera model, camera detection system, camera placement and orientation, triggering and recovery, camera trap settings, temperature differentials, species identification and behavioural responses of the animals to the cameras. In particular, alterations to animal behaviour by camera traps potentially have enormous influence on data quality, reliability and interpretation. The key issues were not considered in most Australian camera trap papers and require further study to better understand the factors that influence the analysis and interpretation of camera trap data and improve experimental design.
|
|
|
|
Lee, P. C., & de Antonio, C. A. (2015). Necessity, unpredictability and opportunity: An exploration of ecological and social drivers of behavioral innovation. Animal Creativity and Innovation, , 317–333.
|
|
|
|
Hinz, K., Sennet, S., Maros, K., & Krueger, K. (2015). Waiting behaviour in front of a computerized feeding system in an active stable – Effects on heart rate, heart rate variability and sensory laterality in horses. In Current research in applied ethology [Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemäßen Tierhaltung. Darmstadt: KTBL-Schrift 510.
|
|
|
|
Wolter, R., & Krueger, K. (2015). Einflussfaktoren auf das Grooming-Verhalten bei wilden und verwilderten Pferden [Influencing factors on grooming behaviour in wild living horses]. In Current research in applied ethology [Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemäßen Tierhaltung] KTBL Schrift 510. Darmstadt: KTBL-Schrift 510.
Abstract: Die soziale Fellpflege wurde bei Equiden intensiv erforscht. Es stellte sich heraus, dass diverse Faktoren das Grooming-Verhalten beeinflussen können. Neben saisonalen Gegebenheiten sind dies vor allem soziale Faktoren, wie das Alter und Geschlecht der Tiere, die Hierarchie und Gruppenzusammensetzung sowie die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der Tiere untereinander. Diese Faktoren können sowohl bei der Häufigkeit der sozialen Fellpflege, als auch bei der Wahl des Partners eine entscheidende Rolle spielen. Zudem konnte gezeigt werden, dass auch das Aggressivitätslevel in einer Gruppe Einfluss auf das soziale Verhalten und die soziale Fellpflege nehmen kann. Inwiefern zwei Individuen, die sich häufig groomen, auch bevorzugt beieinander stehen, konnte bislang noch nicht eindeutig gezeigt werden, da es hierzu diverse Studien mit konträren Ergebnisse gibt. Dieser Aspekt sollte zukünftig dringend untersucht werden, da die beiden Datensätze häufig gemeinsam verwendet werden, um soziale Bindungen zu berechnen, ohne dass bislang ein eindeutiger Zusammenhang zwischen ihnen ermittelt werden konnte.
[Summary
Social grooming has been investigated intensively in Equids during the last years and several factors are known to influence the grooming behaviour. Beside seasonal conditions these are especially social factors as age and sex, hierarchy and group composition as well as kinship. These factors can affect the grooming frequencies and influence the choice of the grooming partner. Moreover, it could be demonstrated that the groups’
aggression level can influence the social behaviour and the grooming intensity. If individuals which show an increased grooming frequency often stand in close proximity as well, has not been affirmed, as, so far, no distinct correlation has been demonstrated. This aspect has to be investigated urgently, as both data sets are often used in combination for calculating social bonds.]
|
|
|
|
Grönemann, K. (2015). Konfliktfeld Pferd und Wolf – Eine Untersuchung zu Einstellungen, Erwartungen und Befürchtungen von Pferdehaltern und Reitsportlern in Niedersachsen. Master's thesis, University Hildesheim, Hildesheim.
|
|
|
|
Grönemann, C. (2015). Konfliktfeld Pferd und Wolf – Eine Untersuchung zu Einstellungen, Erwartungen und Befürchtungen von Pferdehaltern und Reitsportlern in Niedersachsen. Master's thesis, Universität Hildesheim, Hildesheim.
|
|
|
|
Krause, J., James, R., Franks, D. W., & Croft, D. P. (2015). Animal Social Networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Rubenstein D.I. (2015). Networks of terrestrial ungulates: linking form and function. In D. P. & Croft D. W. Franks R. James J. Krause (Ed.), Animal Social Networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Krueger, K. (2015). Social learning and innovative behaviour in horses. In Proceedings of the 3. International Equine Science Meeting. Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
Abstract: The evaluation of important parameters for measuring the horses’ cognitive capacities is one of the central topics of the equine behaviour team at Nürtingen-Geislingen University. Social complexity has been said to be one of the settings in which needs for cognitive capacities arise in animals. A variety of studies throughout the last two decades proved the horses’ social complexity to be far more elaborate than previously assumed. Horses form social bonds for the protection of offspring, intervene in encounters of others, identify group mates individually and easily orientate in a fission fusion society.
In such socially complex societies, animals will benefit from learning socially. In many bird and primate species the degree of social complexity correlates nicely with the species abilities for social learning. Social learning was, therefore, argued to be an indicator for elaborate mental capacities in animals. We were delighted to prove that horses actually copy social behaviour and techniques for operating a feeding apparatus from older and higher ranking group members. In a recent study we found young horses, at the age of 3 to 12, to copy the operation of a feeding apparatus from a human demonstrator. Social learning seems to work nicely in horses when the social background of the animals is considered.
The degree to which individual animals adapt to changes in their social or physical environment by finding innovative solution appears to be the other side of the coin, of whether animals adjust to challenges by social learning. It is not very astonishing, that along with the animals’ social complexity and their ability to learn socially also the degree to which they show innovative behaviour was claimed to be one of the most important demonstrations of advanced cognitive capacities. In a recent approach, we started to ask horse owners and horse keepers in many countries to tell us about unusual behaviour of their horses via a web site (http://innovative-behaviour.org). To date, we received 204 cases of innovative behaviour descriptions from which six cases were clear examples of tool use or borderline tool use. We categorized the innovative behaviours into the classes, a) innovations to gain food, b) innovations to gain freedom, c) social innovations, d) innovations to increase maintenance, and e) innovations that could not be clearly assigned to a category. About 20% of the innovative horses showed more than one innovation. These animals could be termed “true innovators”. Again, young horses were more innovative than older ones with the age group 5 – 9 showing the highest number of innovative behaviour descriptions.
In a nutshell, the horses’ cognitive capacities appear to be underestimated throughout the last decades. The horses’ social complexity is far more elaborate than previously assumed, horses learn socially from conspecific and humans, some of them demonstrate innovative behaviour adaptations to their environment and even simple forms of tool use.
|
|
