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.

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.

Abstract: Abstract Social learning is the capacity of animals to acquire adaptive information from others. In the case of fear responses, animals can learn fearful or non-fearful responses by observing the behavior of conspecifics. Tonic immobility (TI) is an anti-predatory behavior elicited during intense fear situations. Studies have revealed that regular contact with humans can reduce TI responses in animals. In our study, we evaluated the effect of human contact on the TI responses in guinea pigs. We also evaluated the effect of cohabitation (non-fearful animals with fearful animals) on their TI responses. To achieve this, we measured the TI responses induced by postural inversion and restraint in guinea pigs as a result of different treatments. In our first experiment, we determined the effect of human contact on TI responses by establishing 3 treatment groups: no contact, handled, and habituated. In our second experiment, we addressed the effect of social learning on TI response by testing TI response in habituated, and unhabituated animals that had cohabitated for 10 days. In the first experiment, 10 days of either handling or habituation did not prevent TI in guinea pigs, but habituation did increase latency [F(2,119) = 14.19; p < 0.0001] and handling or habituation decrease duration [F(2,119) = 15.01; p < 0.0001] of the TI behavior in the guinea pigs. In the second experiment, the cohabitation of unhabituated and habituated animals reduced TI duration [F(2,93) = 5.058; p < 0.008]. These data suggest that both forms of human interaction can reduce experimenter fear in guinea pigs. It therefore seems that unhabituated guinea pigs learn not to fear the experimenter by cohabitating with habituated guinea pigs.

Abstract: Recent studies have examined the ecological and evolutionary bases for variation in animal personality. However, only a few such studies have examined how foraging parameters are influenced by different personality domains. In wild ungulates, the trade-off between the time spent on food intake and antipredator behaviour differs between individuals, but the underlying reason for this is not yet well understood. One possibility is that this trade-off reflects personality dimensions such as boldness. To relate foraging decisions to personality we measured personality and performed feeding experiments with familiar and novel food in familiar and novel situations. We measured personality traits in 15 tame fallow deer, using novel object tests (NO), behavioural observations (BO) and personality ratings (PR). Boldness dimensions were found using PR and NO, dominance dimensions were found using BO and PR, and a flexibility dimension was found using BO. Multitrait-multimethod analysis showed that similar dimensions were significantly correlated across different methods and that different dimensions were not significantly correlated, even if measured using the same method. We also found that novel food eaten in familiar situations and familiar food eaten in novel situations were strongly related to boldness but not dominance, flexibility or age. Thus the trade-off between the benefits of gaining more food and the costs of reduced vigilance or increased toxin ingestion reflect boldness. These findings highlight the nature of personality dimensions in ungulates and how boldness impacts foraging behaviour.

Abstract: Prey species show specific adaptations that allow recognition, avoidance and defense against predators. For many mammalian species this includes sensitivity towards predator-derived odors. The typical sources of such odors include predator skin and fur, urine, feces and anal gland secretions. Avoidance of predator odors has been observed in many mammalian prey species including rats, mice, voles, deer, rabbits, gophers, hedgehogs, possums and sheep. Field and laboratory studies show that predator odors have distinctive behavioral effects which include (1) inhibition of activity, (2) suppression of non-defensive behaviors such as foraging, feeding and grooming, and (3) shifts to habitats or secure locations where such odors are not present. The repellent effect of predator odors in the field may sometimes be of practical use in the protection of crops and natural resources, although not all attempts at this have been successful. The failure of some studies to obtain repellent effects with predator odors may relate to (1) mismatches between the predator odors and prey species employed, (2) strain and individual differences in sensitivity to predator odors, and (3) the use of predator odors that have low efficacy. In this regard, a small number of recent studies have suggested that skin and fur-derived predator odors may have a more profound lasting effect on prey species than those derived from urine or feces. Predator odors can have powerful effects on the endocrine system including a suppression of testosterone and increased levels of stress hormones such as corticosterone and ACTH. Inhibitory effects of predator odors on reproductive behavior have been demonstrated, and these are particularly prevalent in female rodent species. Pregnant female rodents exposed to predator odors may give birth to smaller litters while exposure to predator odors during early life can hinder normal development. Recent research is starting to uncover the neural circuitry activated by predator odors, leading to hypotheses about how such activation leads to observable effects on reproduction, foraging and feeding. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.