We addressed decision‐making processes in the collective movements of two groups of Przewalski horses (Equus ferus przewalskii) living in a semi free‐ranging population. We investigated whether different patterns of group movement are related to certain ecological contexts (habitat use and group activity) and analysed the possible decision‐making processes involved. We found two distinct patterns; ‘single‐bout’ and ‘multiple‐bout’ movements occurred in both study groups. The movements were defined by the occurrence of collective stops between bouts and differed by their duration, distance covered and ecological context. For both movements, we found that a preliminary period involving several horses occurred before departure. In single‐bout movements, all group members rapidly joined the first moving horse, independently of the preliminary period. In multiple‐bout movements, however, the joining process was longer; in particular when the number of decision‐makers and their pre‐departure behaviour before departure increased. Multiple‐bout movements were more often used by horses to switch habitats and activities. This observation demonstrates that the horses need more time to resolve motivational conflicts before these departures. We conclude that decision‐making in Przewalski horses is based on a shared consensus process driven by ecological determinants.

Farmers' field survey data sets represent extremely valuable information, often having a heterogeneous data format. A large number of methods are available to process this kind of information, which may be combined to address successive, connected hypotheses, with definite objectives. The National Grapevine Trunk Diseases Survey was established in France in order to monitor and analyze the importance and progress of several grapevine diseases, in particular Eutypa dieback and Esca decline. Here we report a first series of analyses pertaining to the years 2003 to 2005 to characterize the incidences of the two diseases, as well as grapevine mortality, in relation to grapevine age, crop management, cultivars, and growing regions. Information representing 256 individual vineyards indicated mean incidences of 2.23 and 3.25% for Eutypa dieback and Esca decline, respectively. A combination of approaches (hierarchical cluster analysis, multiple correspondence analyses, and binomial logistic regressions) indicated distinct patterns of variation in the incidences of the two diseases according to crop management practices; limited linkage of specific crop management practices with diseases, especially Esca decline; a shared contribution of both diseases to mortality; and a weak linkage of the (now banned) arsenite-based pesticides with reduced Esca decline symptoms, but no such association with grapevine mortality. Differences and complementarities of the analytical approaches are discussed, as well as the implications of these analyses on grapevine health.

No abstract

Non-human animals, including great apes, have been suggested to share some of the skills for planning that humans commonly exhibit. A crucial difference between human and non-human planning may relate to the diversity of domains and needs in which this skill is expressed. Although great apes can save tools for future use, there is little evidence yet that they can also do so in other contexts. To investigate this question further, we presented the apes with a planning token-exchange task that differed from standard tool-use tasks. Additionally, we manipulated the future outcome of the task to investigate planning flexibility. In the Exchange condition, subjects had to collect, save and transport tokens because they would need them 30 min later to exchange them for food with a human, i.e., "bring-back" response. In the Release condition, the collection and transport of tokens were not needed as no exchange took place after 30 min. Out of 13 subjects, eight solved the task at least once in the Exchange condition, with chimpanzees appearing less successful than the other species. Importantly, three individuals showed a clear differential response between conditions by producing more "bring-back" responses in the Exchange than in the Release conditions. Those bonobo and orangutan individuals hence adapted their planning behavior according to changing needs (i.e., they brought tokens back significantly more often when they would need them). Bonobos and orangutans, unlike chimpanzees, planned outside the context of tool-use, thus challenging the idea that planning in these species is purely domain-specific.