Abstract: Horses have always been animals used for companionship, work, transportation, and performance purposes over the history of humanity; there are different ways of managing horses, but studies on how horse welfare is influenced by different activities and managements are scanty. Understanding how the management, the environment, and the different uses of horses can affect the level of stress and well-being is important not only for people associated with horses. Three groups of horses with different management, environments, and activities were selected: (1) stabled horses ridden frequently, (2) horses that perform public order service under the Italian state police, and (3) free-ranging horses. Cortisol analysis was carried out on horsehair samples using liquid chromatography coupled to hybrid orbitrap high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS/MS), a laboratory technique used for the first time to quantify horsehair cortisol. The selection of horses to be included in the three groups was carried out by including only subjects with positive welfare assessment in accordance with the horse welfare assessment protocol (AWIN). These analyses demonstrated that the cortisol levels detected in the horsehair of free-ranging animals were significantly higher compared to those detected in stabled and working horses. These results may have been a consequence of complex environmental, managerial, and behavioral factors, which should be worth further investigation

Abstract: The ability of horses to learn through social observation may ease the implementation of new management systems, because the use of automatic feeders etc. by naive horses could be facilitated by observation of experienced horses. However, previous studies found no documentation for observational learning abilities in horses. This study aimed to investigate the ability of horses to learn an instrumental task from a familiar conspecific when social interaction was allowed during the demonstration. Two similar experiments were performed. In the first experiment, Observer horses (n=11) participated in ten successive demonstrations, where a trained Demonstrator opened an operant device by pushing a sliding lid aside with the muzzle in order to obtain a food reward. Immediately after the demonstrations the Observer horses were given the opportunity to operate the device alone. Control horses (n=11) were aware that the device contained food but were presented to the operant device without demonstration of the task. The learning criterion was at least two openings. Accomplishment of and latency to accomplish the learning criterion, and investigative behaviour towards the operant device were recorded. Five Observers and one Control, out of the eleven horses in each treatment group, accomplished the learning criterion. Even though this presents a high odds ratio (OR) in favour of the Observer treatment (OR=7.6), there was no significant difference between the treatment groups (P=0.15). Analysis of investigative behaviour showed, however, that the demonstrations increased the motivation of the Observer horses to investigate the device. Subsequently, a similar experiment was performed in a practical setting with 44 test horses (mixed age, gender and breed). We used the same operant device and the same number and type of demonstrations, although the horses were held on a loose rope to minimise aggression. In this second experiment, six of 23 Observer horses and five of 21 Control horses learned the instrumental task, representing no influence of the demonstration. Thus, this study did not demonstrate an ability of horses to learn an instrumental task through observation.

Abstract: In many of the studies reviewed in this book, eavesdropping takes the
following form: a subject has the opportunity to monitor, or eavesdrop upon, an
interaction between two other animals,Aand B. The subject then uses the information
obtained through these observations to assess A`s and B`s relative dominance
or attractiveness as a mate (e.g. Mennill et al., 2002; Ch. 2). For example, Oliveira
et al. (1998) found that male fighting fish Betta splendens that had witnessed two
other males involved in an aggressive interaction subsequently responded more
strongly to the loser of that interaction than the winner. Subjects-behaviour could
not have been influenced by any inherent differences between the two males, because
subjects responded equally strongly to the winner and the loser of competitive
interactions they had not observed. Similarly, Peake et al. (2001) presented
male great tits Parus major with the opportunity to monitor an apparent competitive
interaction between two strangers by simulating a singing contest using two
loudspeakers. The relative timing of the singing bouts (as measured by the degree
of overlap between the two songs) provided information about each “contestants”
relative status. Following the singing interaction, one of the “contestants” was
introduced into the male`s territory. Males responded significantly less strongly
to singers that had apparently just “lost” the interaction (see also McGregor &
Dabelsteen, 1996; Naguib et al., 1999; Ch. 2).
What information does an individual acquire when it eavesdrops on others?
In theory, an eavesdropper could acquire information of many different sorts:
about A, about B, about the relationship between A and B, or about the place of
Animal Communication Networks, ed. Peter K. McGregor. Published by Cambridge University Press.
c.
Cambridge University Press 2005.
583
P1: JZZ/... P2: JZZ/...
0521823617c25.xml CU1917B/McGregor 0 521 582361 7 October 7, 2004 22:31
584 D. L. Cheney & R. M. Seyfarth
A`s and B`s relationship in a larger social framework. The exact information acquired
will probably reflect the particular species social structure. For example,
songbirds like great tits live in communities in which six or seven neighbours
surround each territory-holding male. Males appear to benefit from the knowledge
that certain individuals occupy specific areas (e.g. Brooks & Falls, 1975), that
competitive interactions between two different neighbours have particular outcomes,
and that these outcomes are stable over time. We would, therefore, expect
an eavesdropping great tit not only to learn that neighbour A was dominant to
neighbour B, for example, but also to form the expectation that A was likely to
defeat B in all future encounters. More speculatively, because the outcome of territorial
interactions are often site specific (reviewed by Bradbury & Vehrencamp,
1998), we would expect eavesdropping tits to learn further that A dominates B
in some areas but B dominates A in others. In contrast, the information gained
from monitoring neighbours interactions would unlikely be sufficient to allow
the eavesdropper to rank all of its neighbours in a linear dominance hierarchy,
because not all neighbouring males would come into contact with one another.
Such information would be difficult if not impossible to acquire; it might also be
of little functional value.
In contrast, species that live in large, permanent social groups have a much
greater opportunity to monitor the social interactions of many different individuals
simultaneously. Monkey species such as baboons Papio cynocephalus, for
example, typically live in groups of 80 or more individuals, which include several
matrilineal families arranged in a stable, linear dominance rank order (Silk et al.,
1999). Offspring assume ranks similar to those of their mothers, and females maintain
close bonds with their matrilineal kin throughout their lives. Cutting across
these stable long-term relationships based on rank and kinship are more transient
bonds: for example, the temporary associations formed between unrelated
females whose infants are of similar ages, and the “friendships” formed between
adult males and lactating females as an apparent adaptation against infanticide
(Palombit et al., 1997, 2001). In order to compete successfully within such groups, it
would seem advantageous for individuals to recognize who outranks whom, who
is closely bonded to whom, and who is likely to be allied to whom (Harcourt, 1988,
1992; Cheney & Seyfarth, 1990; see below). The ability to adopt a third party`s perspective
and discriminate among the social relationships that exist among others
would seem to be of great selective benefit.
In this chapter, we review evidence for eavesdropping in selected primate
species and we consider what sort of information is acquired when one individual
observes or listens in on the interactions of others. We then compare eavesdropping
by primates with eavesdropping in other animal species, focusing on both
potential differences and directions for further research

Abstract: It is widely accepted that many species of nonhuman animals appear to engage in transitive inference,
producing appropriate responses to novel pairings of non-adjacent members of an ordered series
without previous experience of these pairings. Some researchers have taken this capability as
providing direct evidence that these animals reason. Others resist such declarations, favouring instead
explanations in terms of associative conditioning. Associative accounts of transitive inference have
been refined in application to a simple 5-element learning task that is the main paradigm for
laboratory investigations of the phenomenon, but it remains unclear how well those accounts
generalise to more information-rich environments such as social hierarchies which may contain scores
of individuals, and where rapid learning is important. The case of transitive inference is an example of
a more general dispute between proponents of associative accounts and advocates of more cognitive
accounts of animal behaviour. Examination of the specific details of transitive inference suggests
some lessons for the wider debate.