Abstract: Abstract Conservation agencies within the European Union promote the restoration of traditional land uses as a cost-effective way to preserve biodiversity outside reserves. Although the European Union pursues the integration of the environment into strategic decision-making, it also dictates sectoral policies that may damage farmland biodiversity. We illustrate this point by outlining the socioeconomic factors that allow the persistence of traditional free-ranging horse husbandry in Galicia, northwestern Spain. Free-ranging Galician mountain ponies provide ecological and socioeconomic services including the prevention of forest fires, the maintenance of heathlands and wolves, and the attenuation of wolf-human conflicts. This traditional livestock system may have persisted because it entails negligible costs for farmers. Wolf predation upon Galician mountain ponies does not threaten farmer's economies and seems to be tolerated better than attacks to more valuable stock. Recently, European Union's regulations on animal welfare, carcass management, or meat production put new economic and administrative burdens on farmers, make free-ranging horse rearing economically unsustainable, and incentivize its abandonment. The aim of the European Union to integrate environmental policies may be successful to preserve farmland biodiversity only through careful anticipation of the side effects of apparently unrelated regulations on the fragile equilibrium that sustain traditional land uses.

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.

Abstract: Additional measures of well-being would be beneficial to the management of a variety of species in human care, including elephants. Immunoglobulin A (IgA) is an immune protein associated with pathogen defense, which has been demonstrated to decrease during times of stress, and increase in response to positive stimuli. This paper describes the development and validation of an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for the quantification of Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) IgA in feces, saliva, urine, and serum. Samples were collected weekly from four females for 6 months to assess IgA and glucocorticoid (GC) concentrations, establish relationships between these two biomarkers, and determine variability in IgA within and between individuals, and across sample types. IgA was quantified in all four sample types, although urinary concentrations were low and sometimes undetectable in individual samples. Concentrations were highly variable within and between individuals, with fecal, salivary and serum IgA, and fecal, salivary and urinary GCs all differing significantly across individuals. Contrary to previous findings, IgA and GC were generally not correlated. Serum IgA was less variable within individuals, with the exception of one female that experienced a brief illness during the study. However, marked inter-individual differences were still apparent. When data from all individuals were combined, fecal IgA was significantly predicted by salivary and urinary IgA; however, this relationship did not hold when individuals were analyzed separately. Analysis of a fifth female that exhibited a more severe systemic illness demonstrated clear increases in fecal IgA and GC, suggesting these may also be useful health biomarkers. Further investigation is needed to determine what sample type is most reflective of biological state in elephants, and how IgA concentrations are associated with health and positive and negative welfare states. Based on observed variability, a longitudinal approach likely will be necessary to use IgA as a measure of well-being.

Abstract: An Gitterstäben, die in der Pferdehaltung an verschiedenen Stellen verwendet werden, können sich Pferde verletzen, wenn sie ihre Köpfe oder ihre Hufe hindurchstecken und nicht zurückziehen können. Um das Verletzungsrisiko zu reduzieren sind lichte Weiten und Materialstärken von Gitterstäben so zu wählen, dass Pferdeköpfe und -hufe entweder nicht zwischen den Freiräumen hindurchpassen oder aber gefahrlos wieder zurückgezogen werden können. Die bisherige Forschung liefert jedoch keine belastbaren Aussagen zu Stababständen (senkrecht und waagerecht), die für Pferde ungefährlich sind. Die in der Praxis verwendeten und in der Literatur empfohlenen Gitterstababstände beruhen auf Erfahrungswerten und technischen Materialeigenschaften. In der vorliegenden Untersuchung wurden Pferdeköpfe und -hufe von insgesamt 480 Pferden (233 Stuten, 204 Wallache und 43 Hengste) von 23 verschiedenen Rassen vermessen, um auf Grundlage der Anatomie der Pferde Aussagen über die Eignung von marktüblichen Stababständen in der Praxis treffen zu können. Es stellte sich heraus, dass bei senkrechten Gitterstäben eine lichte Weite von nicht mehr als 5 cm für alle Pferde ab einem Stockmaß von 110 cm und einem Alter von zwei Jahren als sicher bezeichnet werden kann. Bei waagerechten Gitterstäben erwies sich eine lichte Weite von genau 17 cm als sicher. Dies gilt für alle Pferde ab einem Alter von zwei Jahren oder ab einem Stockmaß von 148 cm.
Kritisch sind die lichten Weiten von Panels zu beurteilen. Hier zeigte sich, dass die handelsüblichen Abstände der Gitterstäbe für die meisten Pferde eine erhebliche Gefahr darstellen. Wenn die Pferde beispielsweise versuchen außerhalb der Panels zu fressen und dabei ihren Kopf durch die Gitterstäbe stecken, kann es leicht passieren, dass sie sich mit dem Kopf zwischen den Gitterstäben verklemmen.
[At bars, used in various places in horse husbandry, horses can hurt themselves when retracting their heads or hooves after pushing them through the interspaces. In order to reduce the risk of injury, the clear widths and material thicknesses of bars should be chosen so that horse heads and hooves either cannot pass between the spaces or can be retracted safely. However, research to date has not provided any reliable information on bar width (vertical and horizontal) that is safe for horses. Grid bar width used in practice and recommended in the literature is based on empirical values and technical material properties. In this study, heads and hooves of 480 horses (233 mares, 204 geldings and 43 stallions) of 23 breeds were measured for making statements about the suitability of standard bar width, when considering the anatomy of the horse. It turned out that for vertical bars, an interspace of no more than five centimetres can be considered to be safe for all horses of a height of 110 centimetres and an age of two years and more. With horizontal lattice bars, a clear width of exactly 17 centimetres proved to be safe. This applies to all horses of a height of 148 centimetres and an age of two years or more. The clear widths of panels must be considered critical for horse welfare. When horses, for example, try to eat outside the panels and put their head through the bars, they may get stuck.]

Abstract: Anecdotal reports of horses opening fastened doors and gates are an intriguing way of exploring the possible scope of horses' problem-solving capacities. The species' natural environment has no analogues of the mechanisms involved. Scientific studies on the topic are missing, because the rate of occurrence is too low for exploration under controlled conditions. Therefore, we compiled from lay persons case reports of horses opening closed doors and gates. Additionally, we collected video documentations at the internet platform YouTube, taking care to select raw data footage of unedited, clearly described and clearly visible cases of animals with no distinct signs of training or reduced welfare. The data included individuals opening 513 doors or gates on hinges, 49 sliding doors, and 33 barred doors and gateways; mechanisms included 260 cases of horizontal and 155 vertical bars, 43 twist locks, 42 door handles, 34 electric fence handles, 40 carabiners, and 2 locks with keys. Opening was usually for escape, but also for access to food or stable-mates, or out of curiosity or playfulness. While 56 percent of the horses opened a single mechanism at one location, 44 percent opened several types of mechanism (median = 2, min. = 1, max. = 5) at different locations (median = 2, min. = 1, max. = 4). The more complex the mechanism was, the more movements were applied, varying from median 2 for door handles to 10 for carabiners. Mechanisms requiring head- or lip-twisting needed more movements, with significant variation between individuals. 74 horses reported in the questionnaire had options for observing the behaviour in stable mates, 183 did not, which indicates that the latter learned to open doors and gates either individually or from observing humans. Experience favours opening efficiency; subjects which opened several door types applied fewer movements per lock than horses which opened only one door type. We failed to identify a level of complexity of door-fastening mechanism that was beyond the learning capacity of the horse to open. Thus, all devices in frequent use, even carabiners and electric fence handles, are potentially vulnerable to opening by horses, something which needs to be considered in relation to keeping horses safely.