|
|
Goodwin, D. (2002). Horse Behaviour: Evolution, Domestication and Feralisation. In The Welfare of Horses (pp. 1–18).
Abstract: The evolution of the horse began some 65 million years ago. The horse"s survival has depended on adapative behaviour patterns that enabled it to exploit a diverse range of habitats, to successfully rear its young and to avoid predation. Domestication took place relatively recently in evolutionary time and the adaptability of equine behaviour has allowed it to exploit a variety of domestic environments. Though there are benefits associated with the domestic environment, including provision of food, shelter and protection from predators, there are also costs. These include restriction of movement, social interaction, reproductive success and maternal behaviour. Many aspects of domestication conflict with the adaptive behaviour of the horse and may affect its welfare through the frustration of highly motivated behaviour patterns. Horse behaviour appears little changed by domestication, as evidenced by the reproductive success of feral horse populations around the world.
|
|
|
|
Rutberg, A. T. (1987). Horse Fly Harassment and the Social Behavior of Feral Ponies. Ethology, 75(2), 145–154.
Abstract: Abstract Horse flies (Tabanidae) on and around feral ponies in harem groups were counted at Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland, U.S.A., between June and August 1985. Harem stallions attracted the most flies; adult mares showed intermediate fly numbers, while few flies landed on foals under any circumstances. The use of thermal and chemical cues by flies selecting a host may have helped create this disparity. When flies were abundant, ponies reduced spacing within the group. Ponies in larger groups suffered from fewer flies than ponies in smaller groups. There was, however, no evidence that ponies merged into larger groups in response to fly harassment, suggesting that biting flies play little role in structuring pony social organization.
|
|
|
|
Harman, A. M., Moore, S., Hoskins, R., & Keller, P. (1999). Horse vision and an explanation for the visual behaviour originally explained by the 'ramp retina'. Equine Vet J, 31(5), 384–390.
Abstract: Here we provide confirmation that the 'ramp retina' of the horse, once thought to result in head rotating visual behaviour, does not exist. We found a 9% variation in axial length of the eye between the streak region and the dorsal periphery. However, the difference was in the opposite direction to that proposed for the 'ramp retina'. Furthermore, acuity in the narrow, intense visual streak in the inferior retina is 16.5 cycles per degree compared with 2.7 cycles per degree in the periphery. Therefore, it is improbable that the horse rotates its head to focus onto the peripheral retina. Rather, the horse rotates the nose up high to observe distant objects because binocular overlap is oriented down the nose, with a blind area directly in front of the forehead.
|
|
|
|
McGreevy, P., & Yeates, J. (2018). Horses (Equus caballus). In Companion Animal Care and Welfare. Companion Animal Care and Welfare.
Abstract: Summary Domestic horses are equid members of the class Mammalia, order Perissodactyla, and family Equidae. Horses are obligate herbivores, with nutritional requirements as listed in a table. Adequate space is necessary for exercise, exploration, flight, sharing resources, play, and rolling. Company is essential for all horses, including stallions. Company provides opportunities for mutual grooming and play and allows horses to stand head-to-tail to remove flies. Unhandled horses may respond to humans as they would to predators, whereas handled horses' responses depend on their previous interactions with humans. Horses can suffer from several diseases as listed in another table. The best method of euthanasia of horses is usually sedation followed by either cranial shooting or the injection of an overdose of pentobarbitone into the jugular vein. Behavioural signs of distress can include increased locomotory activity, vigilance behaviours, neighing, snorting, pawing, nibbling walls and buckets, defaecation, rearing, kicking stable walls or doors, and high-stepping 'prancing'.
|
|
|
|
Freitas, J., Lagos, L., & Álvares, F. (2021). Horses as prey of wolves. CDPnews, 23, 1–9.
|
|
|
|
d'Ingeo, S., Quaranta, A., Siniscalchi, M., Stomp, M., Coste, C., Bagnard, C., et al. (2019). Horses associate individual human voices with the valence of past interactions: a behavioural and electrophysiological study. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 11568.
Abstract: Brain lateralization is a phenomenon widely reported in the animal kingdom and sensory laterality has been shown to be an indicator of the appraisal of the stimulus valence by an individual. This can prove a useful tool to investigate how animals perceive intra- or hetero-specific signals. The human-animal relationship provides an interesting framework for testing the impact of the valence of interactions on emotional memories. In the present study, we tested whether horses could associate individual human voices with past positive or negative experiences. Both behavioural and electroencephalographic measures allowed examining laterality patterns in addition to the behavioural reactions. The results show that horses reacted to voices associated with past positive experiences with increased attention/arousal (gamma oscillations in the right hemisphere) and indicators of a positive emotional state (left hemisphere activation and ears held forward), and to those associated with past negative experiences with negative affective states (right hemisphere activation and ears held backwards). The responses were further influenced by the animals' management conditions (e.g. box or pasture). Overall, these results, associating brain and behaviour analysis, clearly demonstrate that horses' representation of human voices is modulated by the valence of prior horse-human interactions.
|
|
|
|
Mejdell, C. M., Buvik, T., Jørgensen, G. H. M., & Bøe, K. E. (2016). Horses can learn to use symbols to communicate their preferences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 184, 66–73.
Abstract: Abstract This paper describes a method in which horses learn to communicate by touching different neutral visual symbols, in order to tell the handler whether they want to have a blanket on or not. Horses were trained for 10–15 min per day, following a training program comprising ten steps in a strategic order. Reward based operant conditioning was used to teach horses to approach and touch a board, and to understand the meaning of three different symbols. Heat and cold challenges were performed to help learning and to check level of understanding. At certain stages, a learning criterion of correct responses for 8–14 successive trials had to be achieved before proceeding. After introducing the free choice situation, on average at training day 11, the horse could choose between a “no change” symbol and the symbol for either “blanket on” or “blanket off” depending on whether the horse already wore a blanket or not. A cut off point for performance or non-performance was set to day 14, and 23/23 horses successfully learned the task within this limit. Horses of warm-blood type needed fewer training days to reach criterion than cold-bloods (P < 0.05). Horses were then tested under differing weather conditions. Results show that choices made, i.e. the symbol touched, was not random but dependent on weather. Horses chose to stay without a blanket in nice weather, and they chose to have a blanket on when the weather was wet, windy and cold (χ2 = 36.67, P < 0.005). This indicates that horses both had an understanding of the consequence of their choice on own thermal comfort, and that they successfully had learned to communicate their preference by using the symbols. The method represents a novel tool for studying preferences in horses.
|
|
|
|
Mejdell, C. M., Buvik, T., Jørgensen, G. H. M., & Bøe, K. E. (2016). Horses can learn to use symbols to communicate their preferences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 184, 66–73.
Abstract: This paper describes a method in which horses learn to communicate by touching different neutral visual symbols, in order to tell the handler whether they want to have a blanket on or not. Horses were trained for 10-15min per day, following a training program comprising ten steps in a strategic order. Reward based operant conditioning was used to teach horses to approach and touch a board, and to understand the meaning of three different symbols. Heat and cold challenges were performed to help learning and to check level of understanding. At certain stages, a learning criterion of correct responses for 8-14 successive trials had to be achieved before proceeding. After introducing the free choice situation, on average at training day 11, the horse could choose between a “no change” symbol and the symbol for either “blanket on” or “blanket off” depending on whether the horse already wore a blanket or not. A cut off point for performance or non-performance was set to day 14, and 23/23 horses successfully learned the task within this limit. Horses of warm-blood type needed fewer training days to reach criterion than cold-bloods (P<0.05). Horses were then tested under differing weather conditions. Results show that choices made, i.e. the symbol touched, was not random but dependent on weather. Horses chose to stay without a blanket in nice weather, and they chose to have a blanket on when the weather was wet, windy and cold (χ2=36.67, P<0.005). This indicates that horses both had an understanding of the consequence of their choice on own thermal comfort, and that they successfully had learned to communicate their preference by using the symbols. The method represents a novel tool for studying preferences in horses.
|
|
|
|
Mejdell, C. M., Buvik, T., Jørgensen, G. H. M., & Bøe, K. E. (2016). Horses can learn to use symbols to communicate their preferences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 184, 66–73.
Abstract: This paper describes a method in which horses learn to communicate by touching different neutral visual symbols, in order to tell the handler whether they want to have a blanket on or not. Horses were trained for 10-15min per day, following a training program comprising ten steps in a strategic order. Reward based operant conditioning was used to teach horses to approach and touch a board, and to understand the meaning of three different symbols. Heat and cold challenges were performed to help learning and to check level of understanding. At certain stages, a learning criterion of correct responses for 8-14 successive trials had to be achieved before proceeding. After introducing the free choice situation, on average at training day 11, the horse could choose between a “no change” symbol and the symbol for either “blanket on” or “blanket off” depending on whether the horse already wore a blanket or not. A cut off point for performance or non-performance was set to day 14, and 23/23 horses successfully learned the task within this limit. Horses of warm-blood type needed fewer training days to reach criterion than cold-bloods (P<0.05). Horses were then tested under differing weather conditions. Results show that choices made, i.e. the symbol touched, was not random but dependent on weather. Horses chose to stay without a blanket in nice weather, and they chose to have a blanket on when the weather was wet, windy and cold (χ2=36.67, P<0.005). This indicates that horses both had an understanding of the consequence of their choice on own thermal comfort, and that they successfully had learned to communicate their preference by using the symbols. The method represents a novel tool for studying preferences in horses.
|
|
|
|
Rørvang, M. V., Ahrendt, L. P., & Christensen, J. W. (2015). Horses fail to use social learning when solving spatial detour tasks. Anim.Cogn., 18(4), 847–854.
Abstract: Social animals should have plenty of opportunities to learn from conspecifics, but most studies have failed to document social learning in horses. This study investigates whether young Icelandic horses can learn a spatial detour task through observation of a trained demonstrator horse of either the same age (Experiments 1 and 2, n = 22) or older (Experiment 3, n = 24). Observer horses were allowed to observe the demonstrator being led three times through the detour route immediately before being given the opportunity to solve the task themselves. Controls were allowed only to observe the demonstrator horse eating at the final position, but not the demonstration of the route. Although we found a tendency towards better performance by observer horses in the second experiment, we were unable to repeat this result in a similar set-up with a new group of horses and older, dominant demonstrator horses. We conclude that horses exposed to prior demonstration did not perform better than control horses in solving spatial detour tasks.
|
|
