|
|
Goddard, P. J., Summers, R. W., Macdonald, A. J., Murray, C., & Fawcett, A. R. (2001). Behavioural responses of red deer to fences of five different designs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 73(4), 289–298.
Abstract: Capercaillie, a large species of grouse, are sometimes killed when they fly into high-tensile deer fences. A fence design which is lower or has a less rigid top section than conventional designs would reduce bird deaths, but such fences would still have to be deer-proof. The short-term behavioural responses of farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus) to fences of five designs, including four that were designed to be less damaging to capercaillie, were measured. Five deer were located on one side of a fence with a larger group (20 animals), from which they had been recently separated, on the other. The efficacy of fences in preventing deer from the small group from rejoining the larger group was also recorded. In addition to a conventional deer fence (C) the four new designs were, an inverted “L” shape (L), a fence with offset electric wire (E), a double fence (D) and a fence with four webbing tapes above (W). Four replicate groups of deer were each tested for 3 days with each fence design. Deer paced the test fence line relatively frequently (a proportion of 0.09 scan observations overall) but significantly less when deer were separated by fences E or C compared to L, W or D (overall difference between fence types, P<0.001). Deer separated by fence E spent significantly more time pacing perimeter fences than deer separated by fences of other types (overall difference between fence types, P<0.01) but deer separated by fence C maintained a low level of fence pacing overall. Analysis of behaviour patterns across the first day and the 3 days of exposure suggested that the novelty of the test fences, rather than the designs per se, influenced the behaviour of the deer. Over the course of the study, no deer crossed either C or L. Three deer crossed E and two deer crossed both W and D. On this basis, field testing, particularly of fence L, would be a useful next step.
|
|
|
|
Lamoot, I., Callebaut, J., Degezelle, T., Demeulenaere, E., Laquiere, J., Vandenberghe, C., et al. (2004). Eliminative behaviour of free-ranging horses: do they show latrine behaviour or do they defecate where they graze? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 86(1-2), 105–121.
Abstract: In contrast to horses in pastures, it is thought that free-ranging horses do not perform latrine behaviour, i.e. a behavioural pattern whereby the animals graze and defecate in separate areas. However, few studies deal with this particular subject, reporting contrasting conclusions. We hypothesize that horses free-ranging in large heterogeneous areas do not perform latrine behaviour. Thus, we believe that grazing and elimination behaviour are spatially related: where horses graze, they will also defecate. Behavioural data were collected from Konik horses, Haflinger horses, Shetland ponies and donkeys, grazing in different nature reserves (54-80 ha). Data for the different equids were analyzed separately, as well as data for mares and stallions (Konik and donkey stallions only). We investigated the proportion of the number of defecations/urinations while grazing on the total number of defecations/urinations; furthermore, we searched for the sequence of behaviours representing latrine behaviour in the strict sense. Additionally, we analyzed the correlation between grazing behaviour and eliminative behaviour on both vegetation type level and patch level. All the female equids often continued grazing while defecating. During urination, grazing ceases in the majority of instances. Cases where a mare terminated grazing in a certain vegetation type and sward height to eliminate in another vegetation type or in another sward height within the same vegetation type were rarely observed. On the vegetation type level as well as on the patch level, there was a highly significant (P<0.001) positive correlation between grazing time and number of eliminations (or eliminating time). The high values of the correlation coefficients (in case of the defecation variables r ranges between 0.553 and 0.955; in case of the urination variables r ranges between 0.370 and 0.839) illustrate that the spatial distribution of the eliminative behaviour can be explained to a high degree by the spatial distribution of the grazing behaviour. Results in the case of the stallions are preliminary, but indicate the same pattern. Horses, free-ranging in large heterogeneous areas, do not perform latrine behaviour, but defecate where they graze. Possibly, animal density is of major importance to explain this behavioural difference with horses in pastures. We suggest that also spatial vegetation heterogeneity and plant productivity of the grazed area, as well as parasite status of the grazing animals could play a role.
|
|
|
|
Lamoot, I., Callebaut, J., Demeulenaere, E., Vandenberghe, C., & Hoffmann, M. (2005). Foraging behaviour of donkeys grazing in a coastal dune area in temperate climate conditions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 92(1-2), 93–112.
Abstract: A small herd of donkeys was introduced in a coastal dune reserve `Houtsaegerduinen' (ca. 80 ha) in Belgium, in order to slow down expansion of dominant grass and shrub species. The Houtsaegerduinen is a nutrient poor scrub-dominated dune system with a spatially heterogeneous vegetation pattern. Different aspects of the grazing behaviour (grazing time, bite rate, habitat use, diet composition) of the free-ranging donkeys are described and analysed. Behavioural data (of maximum six adult mares) were collected through continuous focal animal observation in three consecutive years (1998-2001). Temporal variation in grazing time, habitat use and diet composition was determined. During daylight, donkeys spent most of their time on grazing (56%). In all 3 years, grazing time was significantly shorter in summer (45% of their time), longest grazing times were achieved in spring (64%). In spring, the donkeys also achieved the highest bite rate (21.5 bites/min). The grassy habitat was preferred for foraging in all seasons, while the use of scrub and woodland was variable over time. Averaged over the four seasons, the general diet consisted for 80% of graminoids, 10% of forbs and 10% of woody plants. However, diet composition varied not only among seasons and years, but depended also on the foraged habitat type. We discuss the possible role of the donkeys in nature management.
|
|
