This study aimed at assessing the effect of the observation method (direct or from video) and the effect of the presence of an observer on the behavioural results in veal calves kept on a commercial farm. To evaluate the effect of the observation method, 20 pens (four to five calves per pen) were observed by an observer for 60 min (two observation sessions of 30 min) and video-recorded at the same time. To evaluate the effect of the presence of the observer in front of the pen, 24 pens were video-recorded on 4 consecutive days and an observer was present in front of each pen for 60 min (two observation sessions of 30 min) on the third day. Behaviour was recorded using instantaneous scan sampling. For the study of the observer's effect, the analysis was limited to the posture, abnormal oral behaviour and manipulation of substrates. The two observation methods gave similar results for the time spent standing, but different results for all other behaviours. The presence of an observer did not affect the behaviour of calves at day level; however, their behaviour was affected when the observer was actually present in front of the pens. A higher percentage of calves were standing and were manipulating substrate in the presence of the observer, but there was no effect on abnormal oral behaviour. In conclusion, direct observations are a more suitable observation method than observations from video recordings for detailed behaviours in veal calves. The presence of an observer has a short-term effect on certain behaviours of calves that will have to be taken into consideration when monitoring these behaviours.

Animals must eat, necessitating their encounter with food. At least one of the two, predator or prey, must move for the two to meet. Many predators forage for prey by one of two strategies, or foraging modes. They forage either actively, in which case their prey may be mobile or sessile, or passively by waiting in ambush, depending on prey motility. These two foraging modes have been studied extensively in lizards as a model organism (Cooper 1995, Huey & Pianka 1981, Pianka 1966, Pietruzska 1986). Many aspects of a species' biology are correlated with its foraging mode. For example, active foragers employ their chemosensory apparatus for following the prey's trail. Sit-and-wait foragers rely on their eyes to identify approaching prey (Cooper 1995). Other differences are briefly referenced elsewhere (Werner et al. 1997, 2004).

Experience in aggressive contests often affects behaviour during, and the outcome of, later contests. This review discusses evidence for, variations in, and consequences of such effects. Generally, prior winning experiences increase, and prior losing experiences decrease, the probability of winning in later contests, reflecting modifications of expected fighting ability. We examine differences in the methodologies used to study experience effects, and the relative importance and persistence of winning and losing experiences within and across taxa. We review the voluminous, but somewhat disconnected, literature on the neuroendocrine mechanisms that mediate experience effects. Most studies focus on only one of a number of possible mechanisms without providing a comprehensive view of how these mechanisms are integrated into overt behaviour. More carefully controlled work on the mechanisms underlying experience effects is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Behavioural changes during contests that relate to prior experience fall into two general categories. Losing experiences decrease willingness to engage in a contest while winning experiences increase willingness to escalate a contest. As expected from the sequential assessment model of contest behaviour, experiences become less important to outcomes of contests that escalate to physical fighting.

A limited number of studies indicate that integration of multiple experiences can influence current contest behaviour. Details of multiple experience integration for any species are virtually unknown. We propose a simple additive model for this integration of multiple experiences into an individual's expected fighting ability. The model accounts for different magnitudes of experience effects and the possible decline in experience effects over time.

Predicting contest outcomes based on prior experiences requires an algorithm that translates experience differences into contest outcomes. We propose two general types of model, one based solely on individual differences in integrated multiple experiences and the other based on the probability contests reach the escalated phase. The difference models include four algorithms reflecting possible decision rules that convert the perceived fighting abilities of two rivals into their probabilities of winning. The second type of algorithm focuses on how experience influences the probability that a subsequent contest will escalate and the fact that escalated contests may not be influenced by prior experience. Neither type of algorithm has been systematically investigated.

Finally, we review models for the formation of dominance hierarchies that assume that prior experience influences contest outcome. Numerous models have reached varied conclusions depending on which factors examined in this review are included. We know relatively little about the importance of and variation in experience effects in nature and how they influence the dynamics of aggressive interactions in social groups and random assemblages of individuals. Researchers should be very active in this area in the next decade. The role of experience must be integrated with other influences on contest outcome, such as prior residency, to arrive at a more complete picture of variations in contest outcomes. We expect that this integrated view will be important in understanding other types of interactions between individuals, such as mating and predator-prey interactions, that also are affected significantly by prior experiences.