Search

Simple Summary Sharing your possessions or donating them to others, as well as helping others, can be summarized under the term, “prosocial behavior”. Recently, researchers have become interested in whether, and in which situations, animals help and share. In this study, we trained carrion crows and azure-winged magpies—two bird species that have previously been found to donate food to their group members—to exchange objects, called “tokens”, with an experimenter for food. We then tested whether the birds would provide these tokens to their group members when they themselves did not have access to the experimenter, but their group members did. We found, however, that there were very few attempted and/or successful token transfers between the birds, suggesting that they were not prosocial in this situation. We argue that the carrion crows and azure-winged magpies might not have fully understood the value of the tokens, either as placeholders for food or as “currency” with which food could be obtained. This limited understanding might have prevented them from exhibiting prosocial behavior in the current study. Therefore, we advocate the use of simpler and more naturalistic paradigms to study prosocial behaviors, such as providing food or resources to others, in a broader range of species. Abstract To study the evolution of humans’ cooperative nature, researchers have recently sought comparisons with other species. Studies investigating corvids, for example, showed that carrion crows and azure-winged magpies delivered food to group members when tested in naturalistic or simple experimental paradigms. Here, we investigated whether we could replicate these positive findings when testing the same two species in a token transfer paradigm. After training the birds to exchange tokens with an experimenter for food rewards, we tested whether they would also transfer tokens to other birds, when they did not have the opportunity to exchange the tokens themselves. To control for the effects of motivation, and of social or stimulus enhancement, we tested each individual in three additional control conditions. We witnessed very few attempts and/or successful token transfers, and those few instances did not occur more frequently in the test condition than in the controls, which would suggest that the birds lack prosocial tendencies. Alternatively, we propose that this absence of prosociality may stem from the artificial nature and cognitive complexity of the token transfer task. Consequently, our findings highlight the strong impact of methodology on animals’ capability to exhibit prosocial tendencies and stress the importance of comparing multiple experimental paradigms.

Lisa Horn (M. A.) verfasste einen religionsgeschichtlichen Beitrag mit dem Titel: Jungfrau, Himmlische, Gottesgebärerin. Der Kult der antiken Göttinnen Artemis und Aphrodite als Kontext früher Marienverehrung? Konzentriert auf die fünf ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte und einige signifikante religiös-kultische Transfer-Zentren in Zypern und Kleinasien (etwa Ephesus) gilt das Erkenntnisinteresse der Verfasserin den Differenzen und Kontinuitäten in den Mythologien und Kulten der zwei antiken Göttinnen Artemis und Aphrodite sowie der frühchristlichen Figurierung und Verehrung Marias. Mit Hilfe verschiedener Quellensorten wird forschungsgestützt argumentiert, dass das erstarkende Christentum ältere pagane, polytheistische (und selbst hoch hybride) Kulte und Gottheiten synchretistisch adaptierte. Deutlich wird, wie die matristischen, in den beiden griechisch-römischen Göttinnen noch erinnerten Aspekte von gleichzeitiger Jungfräulichkeit und Mütterlichkeit einerseits mit dem Vorstellungskomplex von der menschlichen Empfängnis eines ‚Gottessohnes‘ andererseits verbunden und zur Deutung der ‚jungfräulichen Gottesmutter Maria‘ genutzt wurden, um so, funktionsgeschichtlich gelesen, den androzentrischen Wegfall weiblicher Gottheiten kompensieren zu helfen.

The WGEEL has this year adjusted the manner in which it reports data in time-series. First, readers should note that some data reported to the WGEEL in the most recent year are always provisional but are then finalised in the report of the following year. Where data have been updated from those reported in the 2018 report this is indicated in the 2019 report; and provisional data are similarly highlighted. Second, the mean of the previous 5 years data is also presented to help place the data from the most recent year(s) in context of this most recent period. The recruitment of European eel from the ocean remained low in 2019. The glass eel recruitment compared to the 1960–1979 in the ‘North Sea’ index area was 1.4% in 2019 (provisional), 1.9% in 2018 (finalised) and the previous 5-year mean was 1.7% (2012-2016); and in the ‘Elsewhere Europe’ index series it was 6.0% in 2019 (provisional), 8.9% in 2018 (final) and the previous 5-year mean was 8.7%, based on available dataseries. For the yellow eel dataseries, recruitment for 2018 was 26.4% of the 1960–1979 level and the previous 5-year mean was 16.6% (2013–2017); 2019 data collection is ongoing so data not available at time of writing. Statistical analyses of time-series from 1980–2019 show that there was a change in the trend of glass eel recruitment indices in 2011; the recruitment has stopped decreasing and has been increasing in the period 2011–2019 with a rate statistically significantly different from zero. The highest point during the period from 2011–2019 was in 2014. Landings data were updated according to those reported to the WGEEL, either through responses to the 2019 Data call or Country Reports, or integrated by the WGEEL using data from its previous reports. When data are absent and presumed missing for a country or year, a predicted (reconstructed) catch is used to account for non-reporting, but this is not a complete solution and therefore even the raised estimates should be considered as minima. Here we present both reported and reconstructed values. Glass eel fisheries within the EU take place in France, UK, Spain, Portugal and Italy. Glass eel landings have declined sharply from 1980, when reported and reconstructed landings were larger than 2000 tonnes, to 62.2 t in 2018 (final, full reporting), 58.6 t in 2019 (provisional, no reconstruction), and a mean for the previous 5 years (2013–2017) of 56.5 t (full reporting). Yellow and silver eel landings are not always reported separately, so are combined here. The WGEEL has reconstructed the time-series to fill in some gaps in reporting. Reconstructed total commercial landings of yellow and silver eels were around 20 000 t in the 1950s to 2000–3500 t around 2009, most recently being 2393 t in 2017 (final), 2694 t in 2018 (provisional) and a mean of 2729 t for the preceding 5 years (2012–2016). The reported landings were around 10 000 to 12 000 t in the 1950s, declining to 2000 to 3000 t around 2009, and more recently being 2249 t in 2017 (final), 2375 t in 2018 (provisional, only 14 countries reported) and a mean of 2729 t for the preceding 5 years (2012–2016).Recreational catches and landings are poorly reported, so amounts must be treated as minima. Spain reports a recreational fishery for glass eel, with landings estimated as 0.9 t for 2019 (provisional), with a mean of 2 t for the preceding 5 years (2014–2018). Recreational landings for yellow and silver eel combined were 543 t for 2016 (ten countries reporting), 195 t for 2017 (eight countries reported) and 148 t for 2018 (five countries reported). Overall, the impact of recreational fisheries on the eel stock remains largely unquantified although landings can be thought to be at a similar order of magnitude to those of commercial fisheries. Aquaculture production of eel is presented from 1984 onwards. It increased until the mid-2000s, peaking around 8000 t. Production was reported in 2017 (the most recent year of most countries reporting: 10) as 5497 t in 2017 and the preceding 5-year mean was 6429 t (2012–2016). It should be noted that eel aquaculture is based on wild recruits, and part of the production is subsequently released as on-grown eel for stocking. Restocking (the process of capture, translocation and restocking to new locations in the wild) of eel increased after the implementation of management plans in EU Member States in 2009. Although the definition of restocking is clear, the process is complex with a varied and broad sequence of steps and even life stages. As there is still some variation in the way that countries report some of these actions, the WGEEL broadly categorises them as RELEASES, though the term RESTOCKING is still used here for some circumstances. Most recent relatively complete data show 36.3 million glass eel (2017, 15 countries), 14 million yellow eels (2016, six countries) and about 0.25 million silver eels (2018, three countries) were restocked or released (combined). The WG has made substantial progress in developing the use of the Data call and database to refine data submission, checking, analyses and reporting. The Data call for 2020 will request updates for recruitment, landings, aquaculture and releases, plus abundance indices for yellow and silver eels. The emerging threats and opportunities reported by WGEEL in each of the last three years continue to develop/evolve from their initial reporting. In addition, a new eel virus (picornavirus EPV-1) has been detected in eels in several German waters. The WG has a new standing annual activity to examine quantification of the impacts of nonfishery factors, and to review methods for reducing these mortalities. A crude estimate of loss to all non-fishery anthropogenic factors (largely hydropower and pumps) of eel was estimated from reported mortality indicators from approximately half of countries reporting to WG. This amounted to 1625 tonnes annually. Given better and more consistent data, this estimate could be improved in the future. Evidence on the impacts of hydropower facilities and water pumps was reviewed, with new studies ranging from direct measurements of eel mortality at individual facilities, through models to extend empirical data at individual sites to estimate impacts to regional levels, to overarching reviews and national and international advisory reports. Ranges of mortality as eel pass by or through hydropower stations are highly variable, and within previously published ranges. Mitigation measures to reduce eel losses from hydropower and pumping facilities provide clear technical scope for individual site and collective actions to reduce current losses. The WG considered the potential impact of changes to fishery regulations on the time-series used in support of the ICES advice. Many fishery-based time-series are used to assess temporal trends in recruitment and escapement. This is especially true for recruitment in the so-called ‘Elsewhere Europe’ area. New fishery regulations might introduce biases in those time-series and compromise their use in the analyses. Losing fishery-based indices would increase the noise in the stock assessment. As such, it seems worthwhile implementing new fishery-independent time-series. The WG considered the consequences of the Precautionary Approach on advice for European eel. Based on the FAO Code of Conduct, the ICES form of advice, and the EU Eel Regulation, the WG developed a proposal for a coherent framework for advice on eel, consisting of a doubletiered approach: an international tier focused on the status of the whole stock and the long-term objectives (overall stock status, recruitment trends, biomass reference points), and a national (or lower) tier focused on mortality levels and related management actions, addressed per management unit. This proposal suggests adoption of the reference point of the Eel Regulation, as Bmgt = 40% escapement of pristine, and a corresponding mortality limit of ΣAmgt = 0.92. Below Bmgt, mortality should be reduced further, to allow recovery of the stock. It is suggested to adopt a provisional time frame in terms of number of generations for this, which would translate into a corresponding mortality limit for each management unit. Noting that the proposed comprehensive framework for advice deviates from conventional ICES approaches, it is concluded that a followup workshop convened by ACOM might be appropriate, to discuss and evaluate the proposed framework and consider any now unforeseen or unintentional consequences. An international process of Quality Assurance of national assessments and stock indicators is also required as a matter of urgency. The WG considered the challenge of quantifying the effort that is undertaken in the commercial eel fisheries around Europe, based on new data provided by countries through the Data call. It was concluded that for many countries, the licensing of commercial eel fisheries needs to be improved in order to supply fishery managers and WGEEL with the appropriate information to assess the state of the stock. Difficulties encountered include inadequate reporting of levels of effort, lack of recording on number of gears per licence and generic multispecies licensing. The level of reporting can be at the national, regional or local level and this has resulted in some countries having different licence requirements per waterbody. The WGEEL has recommended a workshop on harmonising the reporting of fishing effort.

In 2016, the WGEEL glass eel recruitment indices remain low at 2.7% of the 1960–1979 reference level in the ‘North Sea’ series, and 10.7% in the ‘Elsewhere’ series. The ‘recruiting yellow eel’ index was 21% of the level during the reference period.The Eel Management Plan silver eel biomass and mortality rate estimates (reported in 2015) indicate the stock in the EU-assessed area is not within the biomass limits of the Eel Regulation and in most management units, anthropogenic mortality exceeds a level that can be expected to lead to recovery.FAO reports the total landings from Commercial fisheries in 2014 were about 3321 t of eel. Six countries account for 73% of the FAO landings: France, Egypt, UK, Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark. Five EU Member States have a glass eel fishery (France, UK, Spain, Portugal and Italy): some non-EU countries (e.g. Morocco) also have glass eel fisheries but data from these were not available for analysis. The best estimates of the total EU catch of glass eel in 2015 and 2016 were 51.6 and 59.2 t, respectively.About 10.6 million glass eels and 9.2 million yellow eels were stocked in 2015. Stocking is a component of many Eel Management Plans (EMPs) and in some cases the commitment could not be achieved in 2016 due to timing, market and other glass eel availability issues. Aquaculture production was about 4000–6500 t in 2015/2016 (data from FAO, FEAP and WGEEL Country Reports).WGEEL attempts to cross-check glass eel catch with records of their fate (consumption, restocking and aquaculture) reveal major discrepancies between reporting systems. About 32% of the catch for 2015 has no recorded fate (about 36% for 2016). EuroStat trade data show France and UK declared exports of glass eel to Hong Kong in 2015/2016 despite these being ‘banned’ by the EU application of CITES.The EU Eel Regulation effectively implements a Distributed Control System, in which common objectives (protection and recovery, minimal spawner production of 40% relative to the notional pristine production) are achieved by collective action (national management plans, reducing mortalities). Effective governance across the whole stock requires other areas to adopt the same approach of distributed control. Most non-EU areas have only recently joined this process, and further development - of reference points, assessment procedures, and feedback mechanisms - might be required, to cope with unforeseen complications and/or to familiarise local experts, and involve them in future standardisation processes. Additionally, reference points, assessment procedures and feedback mechanisms will need to be agreed for the whole distribution area.A mechanism needs to found between the EU and the ICES rules to facilitate feedback on the status of the implementation of the EMPs, as in the Eel Management Plan Evaluation workshop (WKEPEMP) in 2013 (ICES, 2013). This lack leaves a void between the formal Precautionary Advice and scientific support for the recovery plan on eel.Knowledge gaps and research needs were identified regarding impacts of pollutants and hydropower, habitat preferences, and monitoring across environments. A recent review shows that evidence on net benefits of eel stocking is inconclusive. Emerging threats include climate change, pollution and post-release mortalities from recreational fisheries. New opportunities include research on migratory triggers and habitat use, survey methods in large water bodies, protection for eel passing hydropower facilities, and coordinating eel management and data collection in the Mediterranean. In 2016, the WGEEL glass eel recruitment indices remain low at 2.7% of the 1960–1979 reference level in the ‘North Sea’ series, and 10.7% in the ‘Elsewhere’ series. The ‘recruiting yellow eel’ index was 21% of the level during the reference period.The Eel Management Plan silver eel biomass and mortality rate estimates (reported in 2015) indicate the stock in the EU-assessed area is not within the biomass limits of the Eel Regulation and in most management units, anthropogenic mortality exceeds a level that can be expected to lead to recovery.FAO reports the total landings from Commercial fisheries in 2014 were about 3321 t of eel. Six countries account for 73% of the FAO landings: France, Egypt, UK, Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark. Five EU Member States have a glass eel fishery (France, UK, Spain, Portugal and Italy): some non-EU countries (e.g. Morocco) also have glass eel fisheries but data from these were not available for analysis. The best estimates of the total EU catch of glass eel in 2015 and 2016 were 51.6 and 59.2 t, respectively.About 10.6 million glass eels and 9.2 million yellow eels were stocked in 2015. Stocking is a component of many Eel Management Plans (EMPs) and in some cases the commitment could not be achieved in 2016 due to timing, market and other glass eel availability issues. Aquaculture production was about 4000–6500 t in 2015/2016 (data from FAO, FEAP and WGEEL Country Reports).WGEEL attempts to cross-check glass eel catch with records of their fate (consumption, restocking and aquaculture) reveal major discrepancies between reporting systems. About 32% of the catch for 2015 has no recorded fate (about 36% for 2016). EuroStat trade data show France and UK declared exports of glass eel to Hong Kong in 2015/2016 despite these being ‘banned’ by the EU application of CITES.The EU Eel Regulation effectively implements a Distributed Control System, in which common objectives (protection and recovery, minimal spawner production of 40% relative to the notional pristine production) are achieved by collective action (national management plans, reducing mortalities). Effective governance across the whole stock requires other areas to adopt the same approach of distributed control. Most non-EU areas have only recently joined this process, and further development - of reference points, assessment procedures, and feedback mechanisms - might be required, to cope with unforeseen complications and/or to familiarise local experts, and involve them in future standardisation processes. Additionally, reference points, assessment procedures and feedback mechanisms will need to be agreed for the whole distribution area.A mechanism needs to found between the EU and the ICES rules to facilitate feedback on the status of the implementation of the EMPs, as in the Eel Management Plan Evaluation workshop (WKEPEMP) in 2013 (ICES, 2013). This lack leaves a void between the formal Precautionary Advice and scientific support for the recovery plan on eel.Knowledge gaps and research needs were identified regarding impacts of pollutants and hydropower, habitat preferences, and monitoring across environments. A recent review shows that evidence on net benefits of eel stocking is inconclusive. Emerging threats include climate change, pollution and post-release mortalities from recreational fisheries. New opportunities include research on migratory triggers and habitat use, survey methods in large water bodies, protection for eel passing hydropower facilities, and coordinating eel management and data collection in the Mediterranean.

One of the contemporary hypotheses concerning the evolution of human altruism is the cooperative breeding hypothesis (CBH) which has recently been tested in non-human primates. Using a similar paradigm, we investigated prosociality in a cooperatively breeding corvid, the azure-winged magpie. We found that the magpies delivered food to their group members at high rates, and unlike other corvids, they did so without any cues provided by others. In two control conditions, the magpies stopped participating over time, indicating that they learned to discriminate prosocial tests from controls. Azure-winged magpies are thus the first birds that experimentally show proactive prosociality. Our findings are in line with the CBH; however, additional corvid species need to be tested in this promising paradigm.

Die Beziehung zwischen Menschen und Hunden (Canis familiaris) begann vor mehr als 15.000 Jahren, als die Menschen erstmals die Vorfahren der heutigen Hunde domestizierten. Ein Merkmal, das die folgende Ausbreitung des Hundes in alle menschlichen Kulturen ermöglichte und seine Position als eine der erfolgreichsten domestizierten Tierarten stärkte, war seine Fähigkeit, enge und sehr individuelle Beziehungen mit seinen menschlichen Besitzern einzugehen. Während heutzutage bekannt ist, dass diese Beziehungen einen starken positiven Effekt auf die Besitzer haben, wurden Fragen bezüglich des Einflusses der Hund-Mensch-Beziehung auf das Verhalten und die kognitiven Fähigkeiten des Hundes bisher größtenteils vernachlässigt. In dieser Dissertation untersuche ich die Verbindung zwischen der Hund-Mensch-Beziehung und den Leistungen von Hunden in sozial-kognitiven Aufgaben. In der ersten Studie testete ich, ob die An- oder Abwesenheit des Besitzers oder sein Verhalten die Leistungen des Hundes in einer Problemlöseaufgabe beeinflussten. Ich zeigte, dass das Verhalten des Besitzers nur wenig Einfluss auf den Hund hatte, die Anwesenheit des Besitzers hingegen dem Hund eine sichere Basis für die Exploration während des Versuchs bot. In der zweiten Studie führte ich zwei Experimente durch, in denen ich Hunde mit zwei verschiedenen Problemlöseaufgaben konfrontierte. Im ersten Experiment konnte ich zeigen, dass die Blicke der Hunde zu ihrem Besitzer durch die vorangegangene Interaktion beeinflusst wurden. Im zweiten Experiment konnten die Hunde ihr Verhalten auch flexibel an die situations-spezifischen Charakteristika von zwei vorher unbekannten Personen anpassen. Die dritte Studie konzentrierte sich schlussendlich auf die Frage, ob die Aufmerksamkeit von Hunden gegenüber den Handlungen eines bestimmten Menschen von der Beziehung zu diesem Menschen oder nur von Vertrautheit beeinflusst wurde. Die Ergebnisse zeigten, dass die Vertrautheit allein nicht ausschlaggebend für die große Aufmerksamkeit von Hunden gegenüber ihren Besitzern sein konnte, weil sie nicht zwischen bekannten und unbekannten Menschen unterschieden, solange die Vertrautheit nicht auch mit einer engen Beziehung gekoppelt war. Die Ergebnisse dieser Studien weisen auf beträchtliche wechselseitige Verbindung zwischen der Hund-Mensch-Beziehung und den Leistungen von Hunden in sozial-kognitiven Aufgaben hin, welche umfangreiche Implikationen für kognitive Tests mit Hunden haben., The relationship between humans and domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) started when humans tamed the dogs’ ancestors about 15.000 years ago. One trait that enabled dogs’ subsequent spread through every human culture and strengthened its position as one of the most successful domesticated species was their ability to form close and highly individualized relationships with their human owners. While nowadays it is known that those relationships have a strong beneficial effect on the owners, questions regarding the influence of the dog-human relationship on dogs’ behaviour and cognitive abilities have largely been neglected. Here, I set out to specifically investigate the connection between the dog-human relationship and dogs’ performance in socio-cognitive tasks. In the first study I tested if the presence/absence or the behaviour of the owner had an influence on dogs’ performance in a problem-solving task. I showed that while the presence of the owner provided a secure base for the dogs during the experiment, the behaviour of the owner had very little effect. In the second study I conducted two experiments, in which I confronted dogs with two problem-solving situations. In the first experiment I could show that dogs’ looking behaviour directed at their owners was influenced by owners’ previous interaction style. In the second experiment dogs were also able to flexibly adjust their behaviour to the situation-specific characteristics of two previously unknown humans. Finally, the third study was centred on the question whether the attention of dogs toward the actions of humans depended on the type of relationship between the dog and the human or merely on social familiarity. Results showed that familiarity alone could not account for dogs’ increased attention towards their owners since they did not differentiate between familiar and unfamiliar people, unless familiarity was linked to having a high-quality relationship. The results of these studies point to a substantial interconnection between the dog-human relationship and dogs’ performances in socio-cognitive tasks, which has wide implications for cognitive testing in domestic dogs.