References
- Dorey, N. R., Mehrkam, L. R., & Tacey, J. (2015). A method to assess relative preference for training and environmental enrichment in captive wolves (Canis lupus and Canis lupus arctos). Zoo Biology, 34, 513–517.
- Fernandez, E. J., Dorey, N. R., & Rosales-Ruiz, J. (2004). A two-choice preference assessment with five Cotton-Top Tamarins (Saguinus Oedipus). Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 7, 163–169.
- Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498.
- Gaalema, D. E., Perdue, B., & Kelling, A. (2011). Food preference, keeper ratings, and reinforce effectiveness in exotic animals: The value of systematic testing. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 14, 33–41.
- International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species (2018, November 4). Version 2018-1. 2307-8235.
- Mehrkam, L. R., & Dorey, N. R. (2014). Is preference a predictor of enrichment efficacy in Galapagos tortoises (Chelonoidid nigra)? Zoo Biology, 33, 275–284.
- Moleon, M., Sanchez-Zapata, J. A., Margalida, A., Carrete, M., Owen-Smith, N., & Donazar, J. A. (2014). Humans and scavengers: The evolution of interactions and ecosystem services. BioScience, 64, 394–403.
- Moreno-Opo, R., Trujillano, A., Arredono, A., Gonzalez, L. M., & Margalida, A. (2015). Manipulating size, amount and appearance of food inputs to optimize supplementary feeding programs for European vultures. Biological Conservation, 181, 27–35.
- Morris, K. L., & Slocum, S. K. (2019). Functional analysis and treatment of self-injurious feather plucking in a black vulture (Coragyps atratus). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52, 918–927.
- Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. L. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(249–255), 249–255.
- Penrod, B., Wallace, M. D., & Dyer, E. J. (2008). Assessing potency of high- and low-preference reinforcers with respect to response rate and response patters. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 177–188.
- Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., Bowman, L. G., & Toole, L. (1996). Using a choice assessment to predict reinforce effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(1), 1–9.
- Roscoe, E. M., Iwata, B. A., & Kahng, S. (1999). Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: Implications for preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 479–493.
- Sekercioglu, C. H., Daily, G. C., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2004). Ecosystem consequences of bird declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 18042–18047.
- Vicars, S. M., Miguel, C. F., & Sobie, J. L. (2014). Assessing preference and reinforcer effectiveness in dogs. Behavioural Processes, 103, 75–83.
- Vitale Shreve, K. R., Mehrkam, L. R., & Udell, M. A. R. (2017). Social interaction, food, scent or toys? A formal assessment of domestic pet and shelter cat (Felis silvestris catus) preferences. Behavioural Processes. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.03.016