|
Galef, B. G., & Laland, K. N. (2005). Social Learning in Animals: Empirical Studies and Theoretical Models. BioScience, 55(6), 489–499.
Abstract: AbstractThe last two decades have seen a virtual explosion in empirical research on the role of social interactions in the development of animals' behavioral repertoires, and a similar increase in attention to formal models of social learning. Here we first review recent empirical evidence of social influences on food choice, tool use, patterns of movement, predator avoidance, mate choice, and courtship, and then consider formal models of when animals choose to copy behavior, and which other animals' behavior they copy, together with empirical tests of predictions from those models.
|
|
|
Fenner, K., Freire, R., McLean, A., & McGreevy, P. (2018). Behavioral, demographic and management influences on equine responses to negative reinforcement. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, .
Abstract: Understanding the factors that influence horse learning is critical to ensure horse welfare and rider safety. In this study, data were obtained from horses (n=96) training to step backwards through a corridor in response to bit pressure. Following training, learning ability was determined by the latency to step backwards through the corridor when handled on the left and right reins. Additionally, horse owners were questioned about each horse's management, training, behavior and signalment (such as horse breed, age and sex). Factors from these four broad domains were examined using a multiple logistic regression (MLR) model, following an Information Theoretic approach, for associations between horses' behavioral attributes and their ability to learn the task. The MLR also included estimates of the rider's ability and experience as well as owner's perceptions of their horse's trainability and temperament. Results revealed several variables including explanatory variables that correlated significantly with rate of learning. Horses were faster at backing, a behavioral trait, when handled on the right (t = 3.65, df = 94, P < 0.001) than the left side. Thoroughbred horses were slower at completing the tests than other breeds of horses when handled on the left side (LM, F1,48=4.5, P=0.04) and right side (LM, F1,45=6.0, P=0.02). Those in regular work, a training factor, did not learn faster than their unworked counterparts on the right rein but completed the task faster on the left rein (F1,44=5.47, P=0.02). This may reflect differences in laterality and habituation effects. In contrast, more anxious horses were faster at completing the test when handled from the right (Spearman, r=-0.22, P=0.04). It is possible that these horses have an increased arousal level when interacting with handlers, resulting in more engagement with the lesson, accounting for the improved performance results. The findings of this study will help clarify how horse behavior, training and management may influence learning and how their application may optimize learning outcomes. Future equine behavior assessment and research questionnaires should include items that assess these qualities.
|
|
|
Kruska, D. C. T. (2014). Comparative quantitative investigations on brains of wild cavies (Cavia aperea) and guinea pigs (Cavia aperea f. porcellus). A contribution to size changes of CNS structures due to domestication. Mamm Biol, 79(4), 230–239.
Abstract: Intraspecific allometric calculations of the brain to body size relation revealed distinct differences between 127 (67; 60) ancestral wild cavies and 82 (37; 45) guinea pigs, their domesticated relatives. The dependency of both measures from one another remained the same in both animal groups but the brains of guinea pigs were by 14.22% smaller at any net body weight. Consistent with results in other species the domestication of Cavia aperea is also characterized by a decrease of brain size. Fresh tissue sizes of the five brain parts medulla oblongata, cerebellum, mesencephalon, diencephalon and telencephalon were determined for 6 cavies and 6 guinea pigs by the serial section method. Additionally the sizes of 16 endbrain structures and those of the optic tract, the lateral geniculate body and the cochlear nucleus were measured. Different decrease values resulted for all these structures concomitant with domestication as was calculated from the amount of total brain size decrease and average relative structure values in the wild as well as the domesticated brain. The size decrease of the entire telencephalon (-13.7%) was within the range of the mean overall reduction as similarly was the case for the total neocortex (-10.7%) whereas the total allocortex (-20.9%) clearly was more strongly affected. The size decrease of the olfactory bulb (-41.9%) was extreme and clearly higher than found for the secondary olfactory structures (around -11%). The primary nuclei of other sensory systems (vision, audition) were decreased to less extent (lateral geniculate: -18.1%; cochlear nucleus: -12.6%). Mass decreases of pure white matter parts were nearly twice as high in contrast to associated grey matter parts (neocortex white versus grey matter; tractus opticus versus lateral geniculate body). The relatively great decrease values found for the limbic structures hippocampus (-26.9%) and schizocortex (-25.9%) are especially notable since they are in good conformity with domestication effects in other mammalian species. The findings of this study are discussed with regard to results of similar investigations on wild and domesticated gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus), the encephalization of the wild form, the special and species-specific mode and duration of domestication and in connection with certain behavioral changes as resulted from comparative investigations in ethology, socio-biology, endocrinology and general physiology.
|
|
|
Jerison H. J. (1988). Intelligence and Evolutionary Biology (J. J. Jerison H. J., Ed.).
|
|
|
Van Horik, J., Clayton, N., & Emery, N. Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology (J. Vonk, & T. Shackelford, Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
Blatz, S., Krüger, K., & Zanger, M. (2018). Der Hufmechanismus – was wir wirklich wissen! Eine historische und fachliche Auseinandersetzung mit der Biomechanik des Hufes. Wald: Xenophon Verlag e.K.
Abstract: Der Hufmechanismus – wir alle glauben ihn zu kennen und zu wissen wie er funktioniert. Doch wussten Sie, dass nach über 250 Jahren der Forschung immer noch keine eindeutige Aussage dazu getroffen werden kann, wie der Hufmechanismus genau entsteht, vonstattengeht und wie er bei der Hufbearbeitung berücksichtigt werden muss?
Die Ergebnisse von 50 Studien unterstützen die Elastizitätstheorie. Sie beschreibt einen individuellen Hufmechanismus, der von Pferd zu Pferd unterschiedlich und von mannigfaltigen Faktoren abhängig ist.
Der Hufmechanismus zeigt sich als ebenso anpassungsfähig wie die Hufform selbst. Daher sollte bei der Hufbearbeitung und beim Beschlag mit Maß und Weitblick die optimale und individuelle Lösung für jedes Pferd gefunden werden.
|
|
|
Krueger., K., & Farmer, K. (2018). Social learning in Horses: Differs from individual learning only in the learning stimulus and not in the learning mechanisms. In 14th Meeting of the Internatinoal Society for Equitation Science.
Abstract: Equine welfare can be enhanced by applying species specific training. This may incorporate social learning, as horses are highly social and social stimuli are of primary importance. Social learning is comparable to individual learning in its learning mechanisms, differing primarily in the way it is stimulated. Our initial study showed that horses of different breeds (N = 38) follow humans after observing other horses doing so, but only if the observed horse was familiar to and higher ranking than the observer (Fisher's exact test: N = 12, P = 0.003). A second study showed that horses and ponies (N = 25) learned to pull a rope to open a feeding apparatus after observing demonstrations by conspecifics, again, only if the demonstrating horse was older and higher ranking than the observer (Fisher's combination test, N = 3, v2 = 27.71, p = 0.006). Our third approach showed that horses and ponies (N = 24) learned to press a switch to open a feeding apparatus after observing a familiar person (GzLM: N = 24, z = 2.33, P = 0.02). Most recently, we confronted horses and ponies (N = 50) with persons demonstrating different techniques for opening a feeding apparatus. In this study we investigated whether the horses would copy the demonstrators' techniques or apply their own. Here only some horses copied the technique, and most of the successful learners used their mouths irrespective of the demonstrators' postures (Chi Square Test: N = 40, df = 2, χ2 = 31.4, p < 0.001). In all the approaches social stimuli elicited learning processes in the test horses, while only a few individuals in the control groups mastered the tasks by individual learning. The following behaviour observed in the initial study may have been facilitated by a social stimuli (social facilitation), and the opening of the feed boxes in the subsequent studies appear to be mostly the result of enhancement (social enhancement). Some horses may have used the social stimuli at first and continued their learning process by individual trial and error. However, the horses were also selective in whom and some in how to copy. This may have been conditioned (socially conditioned) or the result of simple forms of reasoning on the reliability of the particular information provided by demonstrators of certain social ranks or social positions, as high ranking and familiar horses and familiar persons were copied and some imitated exactly.
Lay person message: Traditional riding instructions suggest that horses learn by observing other horses. For example, older, more experienced driving horses are used for initial training of young driving horses. We have shown that horses indeed use learning stimuli provided by other horse, as well as by humans. Horses readily accept stimuli observed in high ranking and familiar horses, and familiar persons. Such stimuli elicit learning processes which are comparable to individual learning. We suggest applying social learning whenever possible, as it is much faster and less stressful than individual learning, where learners experience negative outcomes in trial and error learning.
|
|
|
Dalla Costa, E., Dai, F., Lebelt, D., Scholz, P., Barbieri, S., Canali, E., et al. (2016). Welfare assessment of horses: the AWIN approach. Anim. Welf., 25(4), 481–488.
Abstract: The EU-funded Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) research project (2011-2015) aimed to improve animal welfare through the development of practical on-farm animal welfare assessment protocols. The present study describes the application of the AWIN approach to the development of a welfare assessment protocol for horses (Equus caballus). Its development required the following steps: (i) selection of potential welfare indicators; (ii) bridging gaps in knowledge; (iii) consulting stakeholders; and (iv) testing a prototype protocol on-farm. Compared to existing welfare assessment protocols for other species, the AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses introduces a number of innovative aspects, such as implementation of a two-level strategy focused on improving on-farm feasibility and the use of electronic tools to achieve standardised data collection and so promote rapid outcomes. Further refinement to the AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses is needed in order to firstly gather data from a larger reference population and, secondly, enhance the welfare assessment protocol with reference to different horse housing and husbandry conditions.
|
|
|
Sato, S. (1984). Social licking pattern and its relationships to social dominance and live weight gain in weaned calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 12(1), 25–32.
Abstract: Social licking patterns of heifer and steer herds were observed and recorded during periods of resting and intermittent feeding. The results revealed the following features: (1) heifers and steers had 15.0 and 15.2 social licking interactions per hour which lasted for 37.8 and 41.0 s on average, respectively. The average time an animal spent licking was about 25 s per hour; (2) all the animals in the herds were licked by others, but only 72.3% of the animals licked other animals; (3) the animals close in the social hierarchy tended to lick each other for a longer time than did remote animals; (4) the time receiving l licking and weight gain tended to be positively correlated. The observations suggest that (1) the motivation of giving licking may be individual-specific and may be influenced by genetic factors, while that of receiving licking appears to be general, and that (2) social licking may mean not only cleaning the skin and hair of a passive partner, but also leading it to psychological stability.
|
|
|
Sato, S., Sako, S., & Maeda, A. (1991). Social licking patterns in cattle (<em>Bos taurus</em>): influence of environmental and social factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 32(1), 3–12.
Abstract: To investigate the functions of social licking in cattle, four calves (one heifer and one steer in each of two herds), known to exhibit frequent social licking were observed continuously for 2 h before sunset for 13 days, using the focal animal sampling method. Calves were observed under various environmental conditions. Social licking significantly decreased on rainy days and tended to increase in a dirty barn and when food was restricted. Solicitation for social licking occurred not only from dominant animals of pairs but also from subordinates. Of the licking interactions, 31% occurred following solicitation, and these accounted for 39% of the total time spent licking. Following solicitation, 78% of social licking was oriented to the head and the neck regions that were inaccessible to self-licking animals. Unsolicited licking, however, was oriented not only to the head and the neck but also to the back and the rump regions, and these two latter regions were the major ones to receive licking. The effect of social relationships on social licking was investigated using least-squares analysis of variance. Social factors investigated were the difference of dominance values, the dominance-subordinance relationship, and kinship and familiarity; the sex of calves involved was also considered. Only familiarity had a significant effect on licking; exchanges of social licking increased with length of cohabitation. We suggest that social licking may have a cleaning effect, a tension-reducing effect and a bonding effect.
|
|