Janczarek, I., Wisniewska, A., Chruszczewski, M. H., Tkaczyk, E., & Górecka-Bruzda, A. (2020). Social Behaviour of Horses in Response to Vocalisations of Predators. Animals, 10(2331).
Abstract: We tested the hypothesis that social defensive responses to the vocalisation of a predator still exist in horses. The recordings of a grey wolf, an Arabian leopard and a golden jackal were played to 20 Konik polski and Arabian mares. Durations of grazing, standing still, standing alert and the number of steps in walk and trot/canter were measured. In one-minute scans, the distances of the focal horse from the reference horse (DIST-RH) and from the nearest loudspeaker (DIST-LS) were approximated. The vocalisation of a leopard aroused the Arabians more than the Koniks (less grazing, stand-still and walk, more stand-alert and trotting/cantering). Koniks showed more relaxed behaviours to the leopard vocalisation (more grazing, stand-still and walk), but high alertness to the wolf playback (stand-alert, trotting/cantering). Spatial formation of the herd of Koniks showed tight grouping (lower DIST-RH) and maintaining distance from the potential threat (DIST-LS) in response to the wolf howling, while the Arabians approached the loudspeakers in linear herd formation when the leopard growls were played. Adult horses responded to potential predation by changing spatial group formations. This ability to apply a social strategy may be one of the explanations for the least number of horses among all hunted farm animal species.
|
|
Boyce, P. N., & McLoughlin, P. D. (2021). Ecological Interactions Involving Feral Horses and Predators: Review with Implications for Biodiversity Conservation. Jour. Wild. Mgmt., n/a(n/a).
Abstract: ABSTRACT For many ecosystems, feral horses are increasingly becoming an important if not dominant component of ungulate biomass and hence influence on community dynamics. Yet we still know little of how horses contribute to key ecological interactions including predator-prey and indirect competitive relationships at a community level. Notably, feral species like horses can exhibit life-history traits that differ from that of native (mainly artiodactyl) herbivore competitors. Artificial selection for traits like increased, early, or extended reproduction that have yet to be reversed by natural selection, coupled with naturally selected differences in anatomy and behavior, in addition to unique management objectives for horses compared to other species, means that the dynamics of feral horse populations are not likely to align with what might be expected of other large herbivores. Unexpected population dynamics and inherent biological asymmetries between native ungulates and feral horses may therefore influence the former via direct competition for shared resources and through enemy-mediated interactions like apparent competition. In several localities feral horses now co-exist with multiple native prey species, some of which are in decline or are species at risk. Compounding risks to native species from direct or indirect competitive exclusion by horses is the unique nature and socio-political context of feral horse management, which tends towards allowing horse populations to be limited largely by natural, density-dependent factors. We summarize the inherent asymmetries between feral horse biology and that of other ungulate prey species with consequences for conservation, focusing on predator-prey and emerging indirect interactions in multi-prey systems, and highlight future directions to address key knowledge gaps in our understanding of how feral horses may now be contributing to the (re)structuring of food webs. Observations of patterns of rapid growth and decline, and associated skews in sex ratios of feral horse populations, indicate a heightened potential for indirect interactions among large ungulate prey species, where there is a prevalence of feral horses as preferred prey, particularly where native prey are declining. In places like western North America, we expect predator-prey interactions involving feral horses to become an increasingly important factor in the conservation of wildlife. This applies not only to economically or culturally important game species but also at-risk species, both predators (e.g., wolves [Canis lupus], grizzly bears [Ursus arctos]) and prey (e.g., woodland caribou [Rangifer tarandus caribou]), necessitating an ecological understanding of the role of horses in natural environments that goes beyond that of population control. ? 2021 The Wildlife Society.
|
|
Bruns, A., Waltert, M., & Khorozyan, I. (2020). The effectiveness of livestock protection measures against wolves (Canis lupus) and implications for their co-existence with humans. Global Ecology and Conservation, 21, e00868.
Abstract: Wolves (Canis lupus) can kill domestic livestock resulting in intense conflicts with humans. Damage to livestock should be reduced to facilitate human-wolf coexistence and ensure positive outcomes of conservation efforts. Current knowledge on the effectiveness of livestock protection measures from wolves is limited and scattered in the literature. In this study, we compiled a dataset of 30 cases describing the application of 11 measures of protecting cattle and smaller livestock against wolves, estimated their effectiveness as a relative risk of damage, and identified the best measures for damage reduction. We found that: (1) lethal control and translocation were less effective than other measures, (2) deterrents, especially fladry which is a fence with ropes marked by hanging colored flags that sway in the wind and provide a visual warning signal, were more effective than guarding dogs; (3) deterrents, fencing, calving control and herding were very effective, but the last two measures included only one case each; and (4) protection of cattle was more effective than that of small stock (sheep and goats, or sheep only) and mixed cattle and small stock. In all of these cases, the relative risk of damage was reduced by 50-100%. Considering Germany as an example of a country with a recovering wolf population and escalating human-wolf conflicts, we suggest electric fences and electrified fladry as the most promising measures, which under suitable conditions can be accompanied by well-trained livestock guarding dogs, and the temporary use of deterrents during critical periods such as calving and lambing seasons. Further research in this field is of paramount importance to efficiently mitigate human-wolf conflicts.
|
|
Gehring, T. M., VerCauteren, K. C., Provost, M. L., & Cellar, A. C. (2010). Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farms. Wildl. Res., 37(8), 715–721.
Abstract: Context. Livestock producers worldwide are negatively affected by livestock losses because of predators and wildlife-transmitted diseases. In the western Great Lakes Region of the United States, this conflict has increased as grey wolf (Canis lupus) populations have recovered and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have served as a wildlife reservoir for bovine tuberculosis (Myobacterium bovis).Aims. We conducted field experiments on cattle farms to evaluate the effectiveness of livestock-protection dogs (LPDs) for excluding wolves, coyotes (C. latrans), white-tailed deer and mesopredators from livestock pastures.Methods. We integrated LPDs on six cattle farms (treatment) and monitored wildlife use with tracking swaths on these farms, concurrent with three control cattle farms during 2005-2008. The amount of time deer spent in livestock pastures was recorded using direct observation.Key results. Livestock pastures protected by LPDs had reduced use by these wildlife compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs. White-tailed deer spent less time in livestock pastures protected by LPDs compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs.Conclusions. Our research supports the theory that LPDs can be an effective management tool for reducing predation and disease transmission. We also demonstrate that LPDs are not limited to being used only with sheep and goats; they can also be used to protect cattle.Implications. On the basis of our findings, we support the use of LPDs as a proactive management tool that producers can implement to minimise the threat of livestock depredations and transmission of disease from wildlife to livestock. LPDs should be investigated further as a more general conservation tool for protecting valuable wildlife, such as ground-nesting birds, that use livestock pastures and are affected by predators that use these pastures.
|
|
Ronnenberg, K., Habbe, B., Gräber, R., Strauß, E., & Siebert, U. (2017). Coexistence of wolves and humans in a densely populated region (Lower Saxony, Germany). Basic. Appl. Ecol., 25, 1–14.
Abstract: Since the first sporadic occurrences of grey wolves (Canis lupus) west of the Polish border in 1996, wolves have shown a rapid population recovery in Germany. Wolves are known to avoid people and wolf attacks on humans are very rare worldwide. However, the subjectively perceived threat is considerable, especially as food-conditioned habituation to humans occurs sporadically. Lower Saxony (Germany) has an exceedingly higher human population density than most other regions with territorial wolves; thus, the potential for human-wolf conflicts is higher. Using hunters' wildlife survey data from 455 municipalities and two years (2014-2015) and data from the official wolf monitoring (557 confirmed wolf presences and 500 background points) collected between 2012-2015, grey wolf habitat selection was modelled using generalized additive models with respect to human population density, road density, forest cover and roe deer density. Moreover, we tested whether habitat use changed in response to human population and road density between 2012/2013 and 2014/2015. Wolves showed a preference for areas of low road density. Human population density was less important as a covariate in the model of the survey data. Areas with higher prey abundance (5-10 roe deer/km2) and areas with >20% forest cover were preferred wolf habitats. Wolves were mostly restricted to areas with the lowest road and human population densities. However, between the two time periods, avoidance of human density decreased significantly. Recolonization of Germany is still in its early stages and it is unclear where this process will halt. To-date authorities mainly concentrate on monitoring measures. However, to avoid conflict, recolonization will require more stringent management of wolf populations and an improved information strategy for rural populations.
|
|