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: Abstract Especially in horses, personality traits play an important role because horses' behavior influences their quality as a riding partner. In contrast to that, no objective assessment of horses' personality traits is available at present. Although initial efforts are made in this field, a successful implementation of behavior tests into horse performance tests depends on the acceptance of the riders and breeders. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess the importance of personality traits to breeders and riders as well as the degree of riders' acceptance of a temperament test as a more objective means of assessing equine personality traits. Using a web-based survey consisting of a 41-item questionnaire, a total of 1087 competition riders (49.3%), breeders (39.0%), leisure riders (37.9%), and professional riders (8.6%) of 13 countries were recruited to participate in the survey. When asked to split 1000 Euro among the different traits listed in the breeding goal, respondents clearly assigned more weight to the personality-related character and temperament traits (least squares mean ± standard error; P < 0.005: €228.7 ± 17.6) and willingness to work (€123.0 ± 9.6) compared with performance traits, such as the quality of trot (€77.7 ± 6.9) or show jumping (€68.0 ± 12.3). Nevertheless, expected differences in relative weighting of traits between the different groups of riders were confirmed (e.g., character and temperament: €209.3 ± 6.1 [leisure riders] vs. €149.7 ± 5.4 [competition riders], P < 0.0001). When asking why personality traits are so important, the simplification of daily work with the horses (47.9%) and relationship between horse and human (44.9%) as well as a more comfortable and safer handling (31.5%) were most commonly listed. As much as 45.6% of all participants see quality problems with the current assessment and suggested the evaluation of all breeding animals (30.1%), followed by a better standardization of assessment procedures (25.5%) and a move to more objective criteria such as the introduction of a temperament test (20.3%) for solving the problems. The present survey revealed that behavior traits are very important to all groups of riders and breeders, although there are diverse opinions about it. According to the participants, there is a need for and a high potential in the move toward more objective assessment methods of horses' personality traits, and participants would support a restructuring of the current assessment.

Abstract: Anecdotal evidence from horse owners and handlers suggests the existence of breed typical behaviour and personality in horses. This is further supported by current research on heritability of personality characteristics in a range of species. The Horse Personality Questionnaire (HPQ) is a 25-item rating method that has previously been shown to be reliable for the assessment of personality in horses. Principal component analysis on HPQ data has identified six underlying personality components in horses. These are Dominance, Anxiousness, Excitability, Protection, Sociability and Inquisitiveness. Using the HPQ a survey of 1223 horses of eight different breeds was completed. Data were analysed to explore any differences in personality between breeds across the six personality components. Breed differences in personality were identified, and it was noted that variability between breeds varied between personality components. Anxiousness and Excitability showed the most variation between breeds, whilst Dominance and Protection showed the least variance. The results identified breed typical personalities that were comparable to results from previous studies as well as anecdotal evidence provided by the popular equine literature. The results are discussed in terms of the potential selection pressures that may have resulted in these differences.