| |
Krueger, K., Esch, L., Farmer, K., & Marr, I. (2021). Basic Needs in Horses?--A Literature Review. Animals, 11(6), 1798.
Abstract: Every animal species has particular environmental requirements that are essential for its welfare, and when these so-called “basic needs” are not fulfilled, the animals suffer. The basic needs of horses have been claimed to be social contact, social companionship, free movement and access to roughage. To assess whether horses suffer when one or more of the four proposed basic needs are restricted, we examined several studies (n = 38) that reported behavioural and physiological reactions to these restrictions. We assigned the studies according to the four types of responses investigated: (a) Stress, (b) Active, (c) Passive, and (d) Abnormal Behaviour. Furthermore, the number of studies indicating that horses reacted to the restrictions were compared with the number of studies reporting no reaction. The limited number of studies available on single management restrictions did not allow conclusions to be drawn on the effect of each restriction separately, especially in the case of social companionship. However, when combinations of social contact, free movement and access to roughage were restricted, many of the horses had developed responses consistent with suffering. Passive Responses, indicating acute suffering, and Abnormal Behaviour, indicating suffering currently or at some time in the past, were especially clearly demonstrated. This provides further evidence of the usefulness of assessing behavioural parameters in combination with physiological measurements when evaluating horse welfare. This meta-analysis of the literature confirms that it is justified to claim that social contact, free movement and access to roughage are basic needs in horses.
|
|
Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A. - W., Cronin, E., et al. (2008). Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias. Plos One, 3(8), e3081.
Abstract: Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.
|
|
|
Hoelker, S. (2016). Typologie der deutschen Pferdehaltung – Eine empirische Studie mittels Two-Step-Clusteranalyse. Berichte über Landwirtschaft Zeitschrift für Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaft, 94(3).
|
|
Boyce, P. N., & McLoughlin, P. D. (2021). Ecological Interactions Involving Feral Horses and Predators: Review with Implications for Biodiversity Conservation. Jour. Wild. Mgmt., n/a(n/a).
Abstract: ABSTRACT For many ecosystems, feral horses are increasingly becoming an important if not dominant component of ungulate biomass and hence influence on community dynamics. Yet we still know little of how horses contribute to key ecological interactions including predator-prey and indirect competitive relationships at a community level. Notably, feral species like horses can exhibit life-history traits that differ from that of native (mainly artiodactyl) herbivore competitors. Artificial selection for traits like increased, early, or extended reproduction that have yet to be reversed by natural selection, coupled with naturally selected differences in anatomy and behavior, in addition to unique management objectives for horses compared to other species, means that the dynamics of feral horse populations are not likely to align with what might be expected of other large herbivores. Unexpected population dynamics and inherent biological asymmetries between native ungulates and feral horses may therefore influence the former via direct competition for shared resources and through enemy-mediated interactions like apparent competition. In several localities feral horses now co-exist with multiple native prey species, some of which are in decline or are species at risk. Compounding risks to native species from direct or indirect competitive exclusion by horses is the unique nature and socio-political context of feral horse management, which tends towards allowing horse populations to be limited largely by natural, density-dependent factors. We summarize the inherent asymmetries between feral horse biology and that of other ungulate prey species with consequences for conservation, focusing on predator-prey and emerging indirect interactions in multi-prey systems, and highlight future directions to address key knowledge gaps in our understanding of how feral horses may now be contributing to the (re)structuring of food webs. Observations of patterns of rapid growth and decline, and associated skews in sex ratios of feral horse populations, indicate a heightened potential for indirect interactions among large ungulate prey species, where there is a prevalence of feral horses as preferred prey, particularly where native prey are declining. In places like western North America, we expect predator-prey interactions involving feral horses to become an increasingly important factor in the conservation of wildlife. This applies not only to economically or culturally important game species but also at-risk species, both predators (e.g., wolves [Canis lupus], grizzly bears [Ursus arctos]) and prey (e.g., woodland caribou [Rangifer tarandus caribou]), necessitating an ecological understanding of the role of horses in natural environments that goes beyond that of population control. ? 2021 The Wildlife Society.
|
|
Bruns, A., Waltert, M., & Khorozyan, I. (2020). The effectiveness of livestock protection measures against wolves (Canis lupus) and implications for their co-existence with humans. Global Ecology and Conservation, 21, e00868.
Abstract: Wolves (Canis lupus) can kill domestic livestock resulting in intense conflicts with humans. Damage to livestock should be reduced to facilitate human-wolf coexistence and ensure positive outcomes of conservation efforts. Current knowledge on the effectiveness of livestock protection measures from wolves is limited and scattered in the literature. In this study, we compiled a dataset of 30 cases describing the application of 11 measures of protecting cattle and smaller livestock against wolves, estimated their effectiveness as a relative risk of damage, and identified the best measures for damage reduction. We found that: (1) lethal control and translocation were less effective than other measures, (2) deterrents, especially fladry which is a fence with ropes marked by hanging colored flags that sway in the wind and provide a visual warning signal, were more effective than guarding dogs; (3) deterrents, fencing, calving control and herding were very effective, but the last two measures included only one case each; and (4) protection of cattle was more effective than that of small stock (sheep and goats, or sheep only) and mixed cattle and small stock. In all of these cases, the relative risk of damage was reduced by 50-100%. Considering Germany as an example of a country with a recovering wolf population and escalating human-wolf conflicts, we suggest electric fences and electrified fladry as the most promising measures, which under suitable conditions can be accompanied by well-trained livestock guarding dogs, and the temporary use of deterrents during critical periods such as calving and lambing seasons. Further research in this field is of paramount importance to efficiently mitigate human-wolf conflicts.
|
|
|
