Evaluation of physical and behavioral traits of llamas associated with aggressiveness toward sheep-threatening canids

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 143-158

  Cavalcanti, Sandra M C ^a,b   Knowlton, Frederick F ^a  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Canis latrans; Coyote; Depredation; Lama glama; Llama; Predation control

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; CARNIVORE; LIVESTOCK FARMING; UNGULATE;

LAMA GLAMA;

EID: 0032576611     PISSN: 01681591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00186-5     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Agresti, A., 1990. Categorical data analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Wiley, New York, pp. 36-70.
2. Altmann J. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour. 49:1974;227-265.
3. Andelt, W.F., 1985. Livestock guarding dogs protect domestic sheep from coyote predation in Kansas. Proc. Great Plains Wildl. Damage Control Workshop 7, pp. 111-113.
4. Andelt W.F. Effectiveness of livestock guarding dogs for reducing predation on domestic sheep. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20:1992;55-62.
5. Anderson D.M., Hulet C.V., Smith J.N., Shupe W.L., Murray L.W. Bonding of young sheep to heifers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 19:1987;31-40.
6. Beilharz R.G., Cox D.F. Social dominance in swine. Anim. Behav. 15:1967;117-122.
7. Beilharz R.G., Zeeb K. Social dominance in dairy cattle. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 8:1982;79-97.
8. Black H.L., Green J.S. Navajo use of mixed-breed dogs for management of predators. J. Range Manage. 38:1984;11-15.
9. Bowen D. Variation in coyote social organization: the influence of prey size. Can. J. Zool. 59:1981;639-652.
10. Cooper, G., 1994. Sheep find safety with Peruvian guard. The Independent, May, p. 4.
11. Coppinger L., Coppinger R. Livestock-guarding dogs that wear sheep's clothing. Smithsonian. 13(4):1982;64-73.
12. Coppinger, R., Lorenz, J., Coppinger, L., 1983. Introducing livestock guarding dogs to sheep and goat producers. Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 1, pp. 129-132.
13. Coppinger, R., Lorenz, J., Coppinger, L., 1987. New uses of livestock guarding dogs to reduce agriculture/wildlife conflicts. Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 3, pp. 253-259.
14. Craig J.V., Guhl A.M. Territorial behavior and social interactions of pullets kept in large flocks. Poultry Sci. 48:1969;1622-1628.
15. Craig J.V., Biswas D.K., Guhl A.M. Agonistic behaviour influenced by strangeness, crowding and heredity in female domestic fowl (Gallus gallus). Anim. Behav. 17:1969;498-506.
16. Fernandez-Baca, S., 1978. Llamoids of new world - Camelidae. In: Williamson, G., Payne, W.J.A. (Eds.), Animal Husbandry in the Tropics. Longman, New York, pp. 499-518.
17. Franklin, W.L., 1978. Socioecology of the vicuna. PhD dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, UT.
18. Franklin W.L. Llama language - modes of communication in the South American camelids. Llama World. 3:1982;6-11.
19. Franklin, W.L., 1983. Contrasting socioecologies of South America's wild camelids: the vicuna and the guanaco. In: Eisenberg, J.F., Kleiman, D.J. (Eds.), Advances in the Study of Mammalian Behavior. Spec. Publ. No. 7, Amer. Soc. Mammal., Shippensburg, PA, pp. 573-629.
20. Franklin, W.L., Powell, K., 1993. Guard llamas. Iowa State University - University Extension Publication, Ames, IA, 12 pp.
21. Gese E.M., Grothe S. Analysis of coyote predation on deer and elk during winter in Yellowstone National Park, WY. Am. Midl. Nat. 133:1995;36-43.
22. Gese E.M., Ruff R.L., Crabtree R.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing coyote predation of small mammals in Yellowstone National Park. Can. J. Zool. 74:1996;784-797.
23. Green, J.S., 1983. The use of Eurasian dogs to protect sheep from predators in North America: a summary of research at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station. Proc. Eastern Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 1, pp. 119-124.
24. Green, J.S., 1989a. Donkeys for predation control. Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 4, pp. 83-86.
25. Green, J.S., 1989b. APHIS Animal Damage Control livestock guarding dog program. Proc. Great Plains Wildl. Damage Control Workshop 9, pp. 50-53.
26. Green, J.S., 1990. Reducing predation with guarding animals. In: Giusti, G.A., Timm, R.M., Schmidt, R.H. (Eds.), Predator Management in North Coastal California: Proceedings of a Workshop Held in Ukiah and Hopland, Univ. of Calif. Hopland Field Station Publ. no. 101, pp. 62-68.
27. Green J.S., Woodruff R.A. Is predator control going to the dogs? Rangelands. 2:1980;187-189.
28. Green J.S., Woodruff R.A. Breed comparisons and characteristics of use of livestock guarding dogs. J. Range Manage. 41:1988;249-251.
29. Green, J.S., Woodruff, R.A., 1990a. Livestock guarding dogs: Protecting sheep from predators. Extension Service and Agricultural Research Service, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 588.
30. Green, J.S., Woodruff, R.A., 1990b. ADC guarding dog program update: a focus on managing dogs. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 14, pp. 233-236.
31. Green J.S., Tueller T.T., Woodruff R.A. Livestock guarding dogs: economics and predator control. Rangelands. 2:1980;247-248.
32. Green J.S., Woodruff R.A., Tueller T.T. Livestock-guarding dogs for predator control: costs, benefits, and practicality. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 12:1984;44-50.
33. Green J.S., Woodruff R.A., Andelt W.F. Do livestock guarding dogs lose their effectiveness over time? The Probe. 146:1994;4-5.
34. Hoffman E. The many ways guanacos talk. International Wildlife. 24(4):1993;4-11.
35. Lehner P.N. Coyote behavior: implications for management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 4:1976;120-126.
36. Linhart, S.B., 1981. Managing coyote damage problems with nonlethal techniques: recent advances in research. Proc. Eastern Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 1, pp. 105-118.
37. Linhart S.B., Sterner R.T., Carrigan T.C., Henne D.R. Komondor guard dogs reduce sheep losses to coyotes: a preliminary evaluation. J. Range Manage. 32:1979;238-241.
38. Lorenz J.R., Coppinger R.P., Shuterland M.R. Causes and economic effects of mortality in livestock guarding dogs. J. Range Manage. 39:1986;293-295.
39. Lynch, J.J., Hinch, G.N., Adams, D.B., 1992. The Behaviour of Sheep: Biological Principles and Implications for Production. CSIRO Publications, Victoria, Australia, pp. 48-95.
40. Markham, D., 1990. Llamas Are the Ultimate: Training, Feeding, Packing, Hunting, Fishing, and Care. Snake River Llamas, Idaho Falls, ID, pp. 8-14.
41. Markham D. Llamas, effective sheep guards. The Probe. 124:1992;2-3.
42. Markham, D., 1993. Warning to coyotes; this sheep ranch is guarded by llamas. Rocky Mountain Livestock Journal, Dec./Jan., 29-33.
43. Markham, D., Hilton, P., Tompkins, J., Hochsprung, D., Schreiner, D., Yohe, G., 1993. Guard llamas - an alternative for effective predator management. Intern. Llama Assoc. Educational Bull, pp. 2-16.
44. McGrew J.C., Blakesley C.S. How Komondor dogs reduce sheep losses to coyotes. J. Range Manage. 35:1982;693-696.
45. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 1995. Sheep and goat predator loss. Publ. No. 4-95, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
46. Powell, K.J., 1993. The use of guard llamas to protect sheep from coyote predation. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
47. Rowell T.E. The concept of social dominance. Behav. Biol. 11:1974;131-154.
48. SAS Institute, 1985. SAS User's Guide Statistics: SAS Release 6.03, 5th edn., SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
49. SAS Institute, 1996. SAS/STAT® Software: Changes and Enhancements Through Release 6.11. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
50. Siegel, S., Castellan, Jr., N.J., 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 225-244.
51. Sterner, R.T., Shumake, S.A., 1978. Coyote damage control research: a review and analysis. In: Bekoff, M. (Ed.), Coyotes: Biology, Behavior, and Management. Academic Press, New York, pp. 297-325.
52. Syme, G.J., Syme, L.A., 1979. Social Structure in Farm Animals. Elsevier North-Holland, New York, pp. 75-90.
53. Timm, R.T., Schmidt, R.H., 1990. Management problems encountered with livestock guarding dogs on the University of California, Hopland Field Station. In: Giusti, G.A., Timm, R.T., Schmidt, R.H. (Eds.), Predator Management in North Coastal California: Proceedings of a Workshop Held in Ukiah and Hopland, University of California, Hopland Field Station Publication 101, pp. 69-74.
54. Tomka S.A. Vicuñas and llamas: parallels in behavioral ecology and implications for the domestication of Andean camelids. Hum. Ecol. 20:1992;407-433.
55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994. Animal Damage Control Program - Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Washington, DC, pp. 7-8.
56. Wagner, F.H., 1988. Predator Control and the Sheep Industry: The Role of Science in Policy Formation. Regina Books, Claremont, CA, pp. 1-10.
57. Walton, M.T., Feild, C.A., 1989. Use of donkeys to guard sheep and goats in Texas. Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 4, pp. 87-94.
58. Wickens, T.D., 1989. Multiway Contingency Tables Analysis for the Social Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Publ., Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 27-30.