Abstract: The traditional way to train horses is by the application of negative reinforcement (NR). In the past few years, however, the use of positive reinforcement (PR) has become more common. To evaluate the effectiveness and the possible stressor effect of the 2 training methods, 12 horses showing severe trailer-loading problems were selected and exposed to trailer-loading. They were randomly assigned to one of the 2 methods. NR consisted of various degrees of pressure (lead rope pulling, whip tapping). Pressure was removed as soon as the horse complied. PR horses were exposed to clicker training and taught to follow a target into the trailer. Heart rate (HR) was recorded every 5 seconds and behavior denoting discomfort was observed using one-zero sampling with 10 seconds sampling intervals. Training was completed when the horse could enter the trailer upon a signal, or was terminated after a maximum of 15 sessions. Of the 12 horses, 10 reached the criterion within the 15 sessions. One horse was eliminated from the study because of illness and 1 PR horse failed to enter the trailer. A Mann-Whitney U-test indicated that the horses trained with NR displayed significantly more discomfort behavior per training session than horses trained with PR (NR: 13.26 ± 3.25; PR: 3.17 ± 8.93, P < 0.0001) and that horses in the PR group spent less time (second) per session to complete the training criterion (NR: 672.9 ± 247.12; PR: 539.81 ± 166.37, P < 0.01). A Mann-Whitney U-test showed that no difference existed in mean HR (bpm) between the 2 groups (NR: 53.06 ± 11.73 bpm; PR: 55.54 ± 6.7 bpm, P > 0.05), but a Wilcoxon test showed a difference in the PR group between the baseline of HR and mean HR obtained during training sessions (baseline PR: 43 ± 8.83 bpm; PR: 55.54 ± 6.7 bpm, P < 0.05). In conclusion, the PR group provided the fastest training solution and expressed less stress response. Thus, the PR procedure could provide a preferable training solution when training horses in potentially stressing situations.

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: We studied wolfCanis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 -- livestock conflict in central Greece by investigating patterns of 267 verified wolf attacks on livestock for 21 months. Wolves attacked adult goats 43% and cattle 218% more than expected, whereas sheep 41% less than expected from their availability. Wolves killed less than four sheep or goats in 79%, and one cow or calf in 74% of depredation events, respectively. We recorded higher attack rates during wolf post-weaning season. Wolf attacks on strayed, or kept inside non predator-proof enclosures, sheep and goats, were on average two to four times respectively more destructive than those when livestock was guarded by a shepherd. Sheepdog use reduced losses per attack. Optimal sheepdog number ranged from 3 to 9 animals depending on flock size. Losses per attack were positively related to the number of wolves involved. Total losses per farm were positively correlated with the size of livestock unit but percentage losses per capita increased with decreasing flock size. Management implications to mitigate livestock depredation are discussed.

Abstract: A previous study demonstrated that horses can learn socially from observing humans, but could not draw any conclusions about the social learning mechanisms. Here we develop this by showing horses four different human action sequences as demonstrations of how to press a button to open a feed box. We tested 68 horses aged between 3 and 12 years. 63 horses passed the habituation phase and were assigned either to the group Hand Demo (N = 13) for which a kneeling person used a hand to press the button, Head Demo (N = 13) for which a kneeling person used the head, Mixed Demo (N = 12) for which a squatting person used both head and hand, Foot Demo (N = 12) in which a standing person used a foot, or No Demo (N = 13) in which horses did not receive a demonstration. 44 horses reached the learning criterion of opening the feeder twenty times consecutively, 40 of these were 75% of the Demo group horses and four horses were 31% of the No Demo group horses. Horses not reaching the learning criterion approached the human experimenters more often than those who did. Significantly more horses used their head to press the button no matter which demonstration they received. However, in the Foot Demo group four horses consistently preferred to use a hoof and two switched between hoof and head use. After the Mixed Demo the horses' actions were more diverse. The results indicate that only a few horses copy behaviours when learning socially from humans. A few may learn through observational conditioning, as some appeared to adapt to demonstrated actions in the course of reaching the learning criterion. Most horses learn socially through enhancement, using humans to learn where, and which aspect of a mechanism has to be manipulated, and by applying individual trial and error learning to reach their goal.