Guidelines for CSEtS conference abstracts
1. General requirements
- Length: The abstract must not exceed 2,500 characters including spaces (excluding title, author names and affiliations).
- Language: The abstract may be written in Czech, Slovak, or English.
- Presenting author: The first listed author should also be the presenting author of the contribution.
2. Abstract title
- The title must be concise, informative, and specific.
- For project proposals, the title must clearly indicate this (e.g. “Project proposal: ...”).
3. Structure and content of the abstract
The abstract text should be compact, comprehensible, and include all key parts of the study:
- Introduction: Brief overview of the current state of knowledge.
- Research aim: Clearly defined objectives and contribution of the study (e.g. how it advances current knowledge).
- Hypotheses and variables: Explicit statement of hypotheses, dependent variables, and factors tested.
- Methods: Short description of the procedure:
- subject selection including relevant details (e.g. species, age, sex),
- number of subjects,
- testing protocol,
- main statistical method used.
- Results: Verbal description of main findings, optionally supported by key outputs of statistical analyses.
- Conclusion: Interpretation of results in the context of the research field and formulation of a take-home message. A brief outline of future research directions may also be included.
4. Style and language
- Tense: The abstract should be written mainly in the past tense. The present tense is recommended especially for interpretation of results and in the conclusion.
- Clarity and specificity:
Avoid vague and general statements. For example, do not write: - "... changes were caused by several factors" (without specifying which),
- "... there were differences between groups" (without specifying the nature of the differences – e.g. which group was larger, faster, etc.).
5. Formatting and technical details
- Formatting: Do not use illustrations, tables, or advanced formatting in the abstract. The only exception is italics for scientific names of organisms.
- Abbreviations: Except for generally known abbreviations (e.g. DNA), write out the full term on first use, followed by the abbreviation in brackets.
- References: Allowed only exceptionally, e.g. in replication studies. Use them in shortened form directly in the text, e.g.: "Forand et al. (1985, J. Mammal. 66:58–62) found the same in white-tailed deer."
6. Specific contribution types
- Project proposals:
These abstracts do not contain results or conclusions, but must include: - research hypotheses,
- proposed methodology including statistical evaluation.
- Plenary lectures:
Abstracts for plenary lectures may follow different form, at the author’s discretion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checklist for authors
1. Content structure
☐ Is the title concise, informative, and specific?
☐ Does the introduction provide basic context and current state of knowledge?
☐ Are the research objectives clearly stated?
☐ Are specific hypotheses and variables mentioned?
☐ Is the methodology briefly described (subjects, protocol, main statistical method)?
☐ Are results described verbally, including the most important directions of change?
☐ Does the conclusion interpret the results in the context of the research?
☐ Is the main take-home message stated?
2. Language and style
☐ Is the entire abstract (except conclusion/interpretation) written in past tense?
☐ Does it avoid vague or generic statements without specific details? (e.g. “differences were found” → what, where, in what direction?)
☐ Are abbreviations introduced correctly (full term + abbreviation in brackets)?
☐ Are scientific names of living organisms italicised?
☐ Is the language clear and understandable even for readers outside the narrow field?
3. Format and length
☐ Does the abstract not exceed 2,500 characters including spaces (without title and authors)?
☐ Does it contain no figures, tables, or other formatting except italics?
☐ Is the text written in Czech, Slovak, or English?
☐ If it is a project proposal, is this clear from the title and is the text free of results?
☐ Is the first author also the presenting author?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of abstracts from previous years that meet these requirements
Better sow housing during lactation promotes piglet social play behaviour, indicating positive welfare in piglets
Play in young farm animals is a candidate indicator of positive animal welfare. So far it is unclear whether improved housing conditions for lactating sows increase piglet play behaviour and could indicate enhanced positive animal welfare for piglets. Permanent crating during lactation impairs sow welfare. Temporary crating, with the sow being only confined over the first 3-4 days post-partum, is more acceptable. It is unknown whether piglet play behaviour is higher in temporary compared to permanent crating system. This study compared piglet play behaviour at day 25 post-partum in 10 litters housed in temporary crating with 10 litters housed with permanently crated sows. Piglet play was counted every 10 min for 16 hours. Solitary play, social play and play with mother was quantified as mean per piglet. Solitary play did not differ between housing systems but social play (t-test, n=10 versus 10, t=2.92, P<0.01) and play with mother (t=-2.39, P<0.05) were higher in temporary crating. The results indicate that social play among littermates and with the mother is increased by providing better housing for the sow. Thus, positive animal welfare is promoted in sucking piglets through giving the lactating mother free movement within days after birth.
Keywords: play behaviour; positive emotions, piglet , positive welfare
Dracula versus Van Helsing: Strange features are no better than no features in predator recognition by untrained birds
Predator recognition is essential for prey survival, allowing for appropriate antipredator strategies. Previous research indicates that eye colour, beak shape, talons, and other features are pivotal in predator recognition. Here we tested to ascertain whether the presence of the “incorrect key features” of a harmless pigeon (Columba livia) placed on a common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) body impairs predator recognition more efficiently than the absence of any key features. We conducted experiments with wild red-backed shrikes (Lanius collurio) defending nests (N = 18) in Western Bohemia, Czech Republic. Using life-sized kestrel dummies, we presented three variations: an unmodified kestrel, a kestrel with the harmless pigeon’s key features (eyes, beak, claws), and a kestrel with no key features. The shrikes’ aggression, measured through the number of attacks on each dummy, provided insights into predator recognition. To explain the variation in the number of attacks, we used linear mixed-effects models (LMM) with nest identity as a random factor. Dummy type and presentation order were entered sequentially as predictors using stepwise forward selection. Model comparisons were made using the likelihood-ratio test (χ² test), and pairwise comparisons were conducted with the Tukey HSD post-hoc test with Tukey correction for repeated measures. The analysis of shrike behaviour revealed that the unmodified kestrel was attacked more than both modified versions (Z>3.5, P<0.01), but no significant difference was observed between the dummy with pigeon features and the featureless dummy (Z<1, P>0.99). These results suggest that the absence and replacement of key features have an equally dampening effect on predator recognition. This finding implies that both scenarios render the predator less threatening or unrecognisable to the shrikes. Our conclusions, supported by previous research, suggest that predator recognition in red-backed shrikes is a complex process that requires the integration of multiple key features, such as eyes, talons, and beak, for accurate identification. This study contributes to the understanding of predator-prey interactions and has implications for ecological research on animal behaviour and cognition.
Keywords: antipredator behaviour; Lanius collurio; predator-prey interactions; recognition