Tracking of food quantity by coyotes (Canis latrans)

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 88, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 72-75

  Baker, Joseph M ^a   Shivik, John ^a   Jordan, Kerry E ^a  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Coyote behavior; Quantitative discrimination; Scalar variability; Weber's Law

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; CANID; FOOD AVAILABILITY; OLFACTORY CUE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS;

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; COYOTE; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULUS; FOOD INTAKE; NONHUMAN; OLFACTORY DISCRIMINATION;

ANIMALS; COYOTES; CUES; DIET; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FOOD; JUDGMENT; LOGISTIC MODELS; ODORS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; SMELL;

CANIS LATRANS;

EID: 80052937740     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: 18728308     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.08.006     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Agresti A. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis 1996, Wiley, New York.
2. Beran M.J. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) respond to nonvisible sets after one-by-one addition and removal of items. J. Comp. Psychol. 2004, 118(1):25-36.
3. Beran M.J. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) accurately compare poured liquid quantities. Anim. Cogn. 2010, 13(4):641-649.
4. Blejwas K.M., Sacks B.N., Jaeger M.M., McCullough D.R. The effectiveness of selective removal of breeding coyotes in reducing sheep predation. J. Wildlife Manage. 2002, 66:451-462.
5. Boysen S.T., Berntson G.G. Responses to quantity: perceptual versus cognitive mechanisms in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J. Exp. Psychol: Anim. Behav. Proc. 1995, 21:82-86.
6. Brannon E.M., Jordan K.E., Jones S. Behavioral signatures of numerical discrimination. Primate Neuroethology 2010, 144-159. Oxford Press. M.L. Platt, A. Ghazanfar (Eds.).
7. Brannon E.M., Roitman J.D. Nonverbal representations of time and number in animals and human infants. Functional and Neural Mechanisms of Interval Timing 2003, 143-182. CRC Press, UK. W.H. Meck (Ed.).
8. Brannon E.M., Roussel L.W., Meck W.H., Woldorff M. Timing in the baby brain. Cogn. Brain Res. 2004, 21:227-233.
9. Call J. Estimating and operating on discrete quantities in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). J. Comp. Psychol. 2000, 114(2):136-147.
10. Davison M., McCarthy D. The Matching Law: A Research Review 1988, L. Erlbaum, New Jersey. first ed.
11. Dehaene S., Cohen L. Cerebral pathways for calculation: double dissociation between rote verbal and quantitative knowledge of arithmetic. Cortex 1997, 33:219-250.
12. Dooley G.B., Gill T.V. Acquisition and use of mathematical skills by a linguistic chimpanzee. Language Learning by a Chimpanzee 1977, 247-260. Academic Press, New York. D.M. Rumbaugh (Ed.).
13. Feigenson L., Carey S., Hauser M. The representations underlying infants' choice of more: object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychol. Sci. 2002, 13(2):150-156.
14. Gallistel C.R., Gelman R. Non-verbal numerical cognition: from reals to integers. Trend Cogn. Sci. 2000, 4(2):59-65.
15. Gilbert-Norton L.B., Shahan T.A., Shivik J.A. Coyotes (Canis latrans) and the matching law. Behav. Proc. 2009, 82:178-183.
16. Haber G.C. Biological, conservation, and ethical implications of exploiting and controlling wolves. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10:1068-1081.
17. Hare B., Brown M., Williamson C., Tomasello M. The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 2002, 298:1634-1636.
18. Huntley-Fenner G., Cannon E. Preschoolers' magnitude comparisons are mediated by a preverbal analog mechanism. Psychol. Sci. 2000, 11(2):147-152.
19. Jordan K.E., Baker J.M. Multisensory information boosts numerical matching abilities in young children. Dev. Sci. 2011, 14(2):205-213.
20. Jordan K.E., Brannon E.M. A comparative approach to understanding human numerical cognition. The Origins of Object Knowledge 2009, 53-84. Oxford University Press, Oxford. B. Hood, L. Santos (Eds.).
21. Jordan K.E., Brannon E.M. A common representational system governed by Weber's law: nonverbal numerical similarity judgments in 6-year-olds and rhesus macaques. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2006, 95:215-229.
22. Jordan K.E., Brannon E.M. The multisensory representation of number in infancy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2006, 103:3486-3489.
23. Jordan K.E., Brannon E.M., Logothetis N.K., Ghazanfar A.A. Monkeys match the number of voices they hear to the number of faces they see. Curr. Biol. 2005, 15:1034-1038.
24. Jordan K.E., MacLean E., Brannon E.M. Monkeys match and tally quantities across senses. Cognition 2008, 108:617-625.
25. Lipton J.S., Spelke E.S. Origins of number sense: large-number discrimination in human infants. Psychol. Sci. 2003, 14(5):396-401.
26. Meck W.H., Church R.M. A mode control model of counting and timing processes. J. Exp. Psychol. 1983, 8(3):226.
27. Miklósi A., Kubinyi E., Topál J., Gácsi M., Virányi Z., Csányi V. A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Curr. Biol. 2003, 13:763-766.
28. Moyer R.S., Landauer T.K. Time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature 1967, 215(5109):1519-1520.
29. Musiani M., Mamo C., Boitani L., Callaghan C., Gates C.C., Mattei L., Visalberghi E., Breck S., Volpi G. Wolf depredation trends and the use of barriers to protect livestock in western North America. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17(6):1-10.
30. Okarma H. Status and management of the wolf in Poland. Biol. Conserv. 1993, 66:153-158.
31. Pavio A. Perceptual comparisons through the mind's eye. Mem. Cogn. 1975, 3(6):635-647.
32. Pepperberg I.M. Evidence for conceptual quantitative abilities in the African grey parrot: labeling of cardinal sets. Ethology 1987, 75(1):37-61.
33. Rugani R., Fontanari L., Simoni E., Regolin L., Vallortigara G. Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proc. R. Soc.: Biol. Sci. 2009, 276:2451-2460.
34. Rumbaugh D.M., Savage-Rumbaugh S., Hegel M.T. Summation in the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Proc. 1987, 13(2):107-115.
35. Sacks B.J., Blejwas K.M., Jaeger M.M. Relative vulnerability of coyotes to removal methods on a northern California ranch. J. Wildlife Manage. 1999, 63:939-949.
36. Shivik J.A. Non-lethal alternatives for predation management. Sheep Goat Res. J. 2004, 19:64-71.
37. Shivik J.A. Tools for the edge: what's new for conserving carnivores. Biol. Sci. 2006, 56:253-259.
38. Shivik J.A., Palmer G.L., Gese E.M., Osthaus B. Behavioural budgets of captive versus wild coyotes: does environmental enrichment help?. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 2009, 12:223-235.
39. United States Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Survey 2008, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
40. vanMarle K., Wynn K. Six-month-old infants use analog magnitudes to represent duration. Dev. Sci. 2006, 9(5):F41-F49.
41. Ward C., Smuts B.B. Quantity-based judgments in the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim. Cogn. 2007, 10:71-80.
42. Wells M.C., Lehner P.M. The relative importance of the distance senses in coyote predatory behaviour. Anim. Behav. 1976, 26:251-258.
43. West R.E., Young R.J. Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count?. Anim. Cogn. 2002, 5:183-186.
44. Xu F., Spelke E.S. Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants. Cognition 2000, 74:B1-B11.