| Home | [11–20] << 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 >> [31–40] |
|
Hansen, M. N., Estvan, J., & Ladewig, J. (2007). A note on resting behaviour in horses kept on pasture: Rolling prior to getting up. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 105(1-3), 265–269.
Abstract: In previous studies on lying behaviour in horses kept in individual boxes we observed that most horses that had been lying down resting sometimes made a rolling behaviour prior to getting up. The rolling behaviour was seen in approximately 30% of the times the horses stood up. To analyse whether the behaviour was caused by individual housing in a box or whether it is a behaviour occurring also under free range conditions, we observed a group of 43 horses kept on pasture throughout the day and night. The horses were observed from 03:00 to 10:00 h over four consecutive mornings, at a time when lying behaviour was frequent. Of the 43 horses observed, the rising procedure was seen in 41 horses, and 25 of these horses (60.9%) performed the rolling behaviour at least once. A total of 135 rising episodes were observed, and 41 followed the performance of a rolling behaviour (30.4%). In contrast to the rolling behaviour seen indoors, the behaviour was more varied outdoors in that some horses rolled anywhere from 45 to 180[degree sign], some even repeatedly, whereas horses in a box only rolled 90[degree sign] and back. In all cases when horses rolled 180[degree sign] they rolled back to the original side before getting up. Also in contrast to previous observations, no horse was observed changing position during the roll. We conclude that the behaviour is a kind of comfort behaviour but that further studies are necessary to explain its function.
|
|
Hare, B., Addessi, E., Call, J., Tomasello, M., & Visalberghi, E. (2003). Do capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella, know what conspecifics do and do not see? Anim. Behav., 65(1), 131–142.
Abstract: Capuchin monkeys were tested in five experiments in which two individuals competed over food. When given a choice between retrieving a piece of food that was visible or hidden from the dominant, subordinate animals preferred to retrieve hidden food. This preference is consistent with the hypotheses that either (1) the subordinate knew what the dominant could and could not see or (2) the subordinate was monitoring the behaviour of the dominant and avoiding the piece of food that it approached. To test between these alternatives, we released subordinates with a slight head start forcing them to make their choice (between a piece of food hidden or visible to the dominant) before the dominant entered the area. Unlike chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, subordinates that were given a head start did not preferentially approach hidden pieces of food first. Therefore, our experiments provide little support for the hypothesis that capuchin monkeys are sensitive to what another individual does or does not see. We compare our results with those obtained with chimpanzees in the same paradigm and discuss the evolution of primate social cognition. Copyright 2003 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
Hare, B., Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Anim. Behav., 59(4), 771–785.
Abstract: We report a series of experiments on social problem solving in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. In each experiment a subordinate and a dominant individual were put into competition over two pieces of food. In all experiments dominants obtained virtually all of the foods to which they had good visual and physical access. However, subordinates were successful quite often in three situations in which they had better visual access to the food than the dominant, for example, when the food was positioned so that only the subordinate (and not the dominant) could see it. In some cases, the subordinate might have been monitoring the behaviour of the dominant directly and simply avoided the food that the dominant was moving towards (which just happened to be the one it could see). In other cases, however, we ruled out this possibility by giving subordinates a small headstart and forcing them to make their choice (to go to the food that both competitors could see, or the food that only they could see) before the dominant was released into the area. Together with other recent studies, the present investigation suggests that chimpanzees know what conspecifics can and cannot see, and, furthermore, that they use this knowledge to devise effective social-cognitive strategies in naturally occurring food competition situations.
|
|
Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2001). Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Anim. Behav., 61(1), 139–151.
Abstract: We conducted three experiments on social problem solving by chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. In each experiment a subordinate and a dominant individual competed for food, which was placed in various ways on the subordinate's side of two opaque barriers. In some conditions dominants had not seen the food hidden, or food they had seen hidden was moved elsewhere when they were not watching (whereas in control conditions they saw the food being hidden or moved). At the same time, subordinates always saw the entire baiting procedure and could monitor the visual access of their dominant competitor as well. If subordinates were sensitive to what dominants did or did not see during baiting, they should have preferentially approached and retrieved the food that dominants had not seen hidden or moved. This is what they did in experiment 1 when dominants were either uninformed or misinformed about the food's location. In experiment 2 subordinates recognized, and adjusted their behaviour accordingly, when the dominant individual who witnessed the hiding was replaced with another dominant individual who had not witnessed it, thus demonstrating their ability to keep track of precisely who has witnessed what. In experiment 3 subordinates did not choose consistently between two pieces of hidden food, one of which dominants had seen hidden and one of which they had not seen hidden. However, their failure in this experiment was likely to be due to the changed nature of the competition under these circumstances and not to a failure of social-cognitive skills. These findings suggest that at least in some situations (i.e. competition with conspecifics) chimpanzees know what conspecifics have and have not seen (do and do not know), and that they use this information to devise effective social-cognitive strategies. Copyright 2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
|
|
Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2004). Chimpanzees are more skilful in competitive than in cooperative cognitive tasks. Anim. Behav., 68(3), 571–581.
Abstract: In a series of four experiments, chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, were given two cognitive tasks, an object choice task and a discrimination task (based on location), each in the context of either cooperation or competition. In both tasks chimpanzees performed more skilfully when competing than when cooperating, with some evidence that competition with conspecifics was especially facilitatory in the discrimination location task. This is the first study to demonstrate a facilitative cognitive effect for competition in a single experimental paradigm. We suggest that chimpanzee cognitive evolution is best understood in its socioecological context.
|
|
Hare, J. F. (2005). Lee Alan Dugatkin, Principles of Animal Behavior, Norton, New York (2004) Pp. xx+596. Price $80.00. Anim. Behav., 69(1), 247–248.
|
|
Harrington, F. H., & Mech, L. D. (1979). Wolf howling and its role in territory maintenance. Behaviour, 68.
|
|
Hartmann, E., Christensen, J. W., & Keeling, L. J. (2009). Social interactions of unfamiliar horses during paired encounters: Effect of pre-exposure on aggression level and so risk of injury. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 121(3-4), 214–221.
Abstract: Group housing of horses is not widely applied in practice despite the welfare advantages of keeping animals socially rather than individually. In particular, concerns have been raised about the possible increased risk of injury and how to introduce a new horse into an established group. This study investigated two hypotheses: (1) pre-exposure of young horses in neighbouring boxes reduces the frequency of aggressive interactions when the same horses are subsequently put together in a paddock compared to horses without this previous box experience, (2) the occurrence of aggressive behaviour, in particular contact aggression in the paddock can be predicted after observing the horses' social interactions in neighbouring boxes. Danish Warmblood mares (n = 20), 2 years old, were kept in two groups of 10 horses. In total, 60 encounters were arranged whereby each horse was confronted pair-wise with six horses from the other group, three according to each treatment: treatment I--box (B) and subsequent paddock meeting (BP), and treatment II--only paddock meeting (P). Horses met in neighbouring boxes for 5 min and together in the same paddock for 10 min. The frequencies of aggressive and non-aggressive interactions were analysed from video recordings. Total aggression levels between BP and P did not differ, but [`]contact aggression', i.e. bite, kick, strike, push, tended to be lower in BP compared to P (median BP = 1, P = 2; p = 0.083) and there were less bites in BP than P (median BP = 0, P = 1; p = 0.050). Frequencies of [`]non-aggressive' interactions, e.g. friendly approach, nasal sniff, were lower in BP than P (median BP = 2.5, P = 10; p < 0.01). Results further revealed that [`]bite threat' performed in boxes correlated with [`]contact aggression' in the paddock (r = 0.46, p = 0.011). In conclusion, pre-exposure of young horses in neighbouring boxes may reduce [`]contact aggression', especially biting, in the paddock and [`]bite threat' shown in boxes may help to predict contact aggression when horses are later turned out together. The reduced non-aggressive interactions in the paddock in the BP test were probably a consequence of horses having exchanged these behaviours in the preceding B test. Exposing young horses in boxes next to each other may be a helpful tool before mixing them because horses meet in a safe environment that could assist in reducing the type of aggression where horses are most at risk of being injured.
|
|
Hartmann, E., Søndergaard, E., & Keeling, L. J. (2012). Identifying potential risk situations for humans when removing horses from groups. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 136(1), 37–43.
Abstract: Removing a horse from its social group may be considered risky, both for the handler and the horse, because other horses can interfere in the catching process. The main aim of this study was to identify where and when these risk situations occur while removing a horse from its group. A potential risk situation was defined by the closeness of loose horses in the group or by any physical contact with them. Whether the number of horses following would be influenced by the social rank of the horse being led out, and whether more horses would follow to the gate when a larger proportion of the group was removed compared to when a single horse was taken out were also investigated. Thirty-two mares (1–2 years) were kept in groups of four. All horses were taken out of their home paddock twice alone (64 tests) and twice with a companion (32 tests). One handler (or two handlers when two horses were removed) was asked to approach (phase 1) and catch the target horse (phase 2), walk it to the centre of the paddock and remain stationary at a post for 30 s (phase 3), walk to the paddock entrance (phase 4) and through the gate (phase 5). The number of horses following, and the number of loose horses in proximity (<2 m, 2–5 m) to the target horse and handler was estimated, and horse–horse and horse–human interactions were recorded continuously for the five scoring phases. Significantly more loose horses were within 2 m of a single target horse during the phases approach (mean ± SD: 1.5 ± 0.8), catch (1.6 ± 0.9) and post (1.7 ± 0.7) than during walk (1.0 ± 0.5) and gate (1.1 ± 0.6). Rank did not influence the number of horses following to the gate (high rank: 2.4 ± 0.7; lower rank: 2.0 ± 1.0; P = 0.396) and interactions between horses were rare. A greater proportion of the loose horses followed when two horses (0.9 ± 0.2) were removed compared to when a single horse (0.7 ± 0.3) was taken out (P = 0.011). In conclusion, maintaining a distance to other horses in the group by reducing the time being relatively stationary, so giving loose horses fewer chances to approach, is likely to contribute to improved handler's safety. Removing a small proportion of the group may also decrease the probability of the other horses following.
|
|
Hartmann, E., Søndergaard, E., & Keeling, L. J. Keeping horses in groups: A review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., .
Abstract: Although husbandry conditions for horses have improved over the last decades, many horses are still kept singly with limited or no physical contact to other horses. This is surprising, given the fact that keeping horses in groups is recognised best to fulfil their physical and behavioural needs, especially their need for social contact with conspecifics, as well as to have a beneficial effect on horse–human interactions during training. Group housing of farm animals is widely applied in practice. As a consequence, scientists have investigated numerous aspects of group housing to help further improve animal welfare and human–animal interactions under these conditions. However, compared to this literature available in farm animals, and the plentiful studies conducted of feral horse populations, there is much less done when it comes to the management of horses kept in groups in the domestic environment. In particular, limited scientific information is available into the effect of group size and group composition on behaviour and methods of introducing new horses into established groups, even though problems related to social integration are repeatedly taken as arguments against keeping horses in groups. This review, therefore, aims to provide an overview of the current scientific knowledge regarding keeping horses in groups. Furthermore, it aims to give insight into whether or not some of the concerns related to keeping horses in groups are justified and to review scientifically based solutions that could be useful in practice to improve horse welfare and human safety.
|