Equine and Animal Cognition Reference Database -- Query Results

Winkelmayr, B., Peham, C., Fruhwirth, B., Licka, T., & Scheidl, M. (2006). Evaluation of the force acting on the back of the horse with an English saddle and a side saddle at walk, trot and canter. Equine Vet J Suppl, (36), 406–410. Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Force transmission under an English saddle (ES) at walk, trot and canter is commonly evaluated, but the influence of a side saddle (SS) on the equine back has not been documented. HYPOTHESIS: Force transmission under a SS, with its asymmetric construction, is different from an ES in walk, trot and canter, expressed in maximum overall force (MOF), force in the quarters of the saddle mat, and centre of pressure (COP). The biomechanics of the equine back are different under a SS compared to ES. METHODS: Thirteen horses without clinical signs of back pain ridden in an indoor riding school with both saddles were measured using an electronic saddle sensor pad. Synchronous kinematic measurements were carried out with tracing markers placed along the back in front of (withers, W) and behind the saddle (4th lumbar vertebra, L4). At least 6 motion cycles at walk, trot and canter with both saddles (ES, SS) were measured. Out of the pressure distribution the maximum overall force (MOF) and the location of the centre of pressure (COP) were calculated. RESULTS: Under the SS the centre of pressure was located to the right of the median and slightly caudal compared to the COP under the ES in all gaits. The MOF was significantly different (P<0.01) between saddles. At walk, L4 showed significantly larger (P<0.01) vertical excursions under the ES. Under the SS relative horizontal movement of W was significantly reduced (P<0.01) at trot, and at canter the transversal movement was significantly reduced (P<0.01) . In both trot and canter, no significant differences in the movement of L4 were documented. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: The results demonstrate that the load under a SS creates asymmetric force transmission under the saddle, and also influences back movement. To change the load distribution on the back of horses with potential back pain and as a training variation, a combination of both riding styles is suitable. Keywords: Animals; Back/physiology; Back Pain/etiology/veterinary; Biomechanics; Exercise Test/veterinary; Female; Gait/physiology; Horse Diseases/etiology; Horses/physiology; Humans; Locomotion/physiology; Male; Movement/physiology; Physical Conditioning, Animal/instrumentation/methods/physiology; Pressure; Weight-Bearing/physiology https://references.equine-behaviour.de/show.php?record=4007
Broekhuis, F., Madsen, E. K., & Klaassen, B. (2019). Predators and pastoralists: how anthropogenic pressures inside wildlife areas influence carnivore space use and movement behaviour. Anim Conserv, . Abstract: Abstract Across the globe, wildlife populations and their behaviours are negatively impacted by people. Protected areas are believed to be an antidote to increasing human pressures but even they are not immune to the impact of anthropogenic activities. Areas that have been set aside for the protection of wildlife therefore warrant more attention when investigating the impact of anthropogenic pressures on wildlife. We use cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus as a case study to explore how a large carnivore responds to anthropogenic pressures inside wildlife areas. Using GPS-collar data we investigate cheetah space use, both when moving and stationary, and movement parameters (speed and turn angles) in relation to human disturbance, distance to human settlement, livestock abundance and livestock site use inside wildlife areas. Space use was negatively influenced by human disturbance, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation and potentially reducing landscape permeability between neighbouring wildlife areas. Cheetahs were also less likely to stop in areas where livestock numbers were high, but more likely to stop in areas that were frequently used by livestock. The latter could reflect that cheetahs are attracted to livestock however, cheetahs in the study area rarely predated on livestock. It is therefore more likely that areas that are frequently used by livestock attract wild herbivores, which in turn could influence cheetah space use. We did not find any effects of people and livestock on cheetahs? speed and turn angles which might be related to the resolution of the data. We found that cheetahs are sensitive to human pressures and we believe that they could be an indicator species for other large carnivores facing similar challenges. We suggest that further research is needed to determine the levels of anthropogenic pressures needed to maintain ecological integrity, especially inside wildlife areas. Keywords: cheetah; livestock; movement; human pressure; protected areas; space use https://references.equine-behaviour.de/show.php?record=6522

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Force transmission under an English saddle (ES) at walk, trot and canter is commonly evaluated, but the influence of a side saddle (SS) on the equine back has not been documented. HYPOTHESIS: Force transmission under a SS, with its asymmetric construction, is different from an ES in walk, trot and canter, expressed in maximum overall force (MOF), force in the quarters of the saddle mat, and centre of pressure (COP). The biomechanics of the equine back are different under a SS compared to ES. METHODS: Thirteen horses without clinical signs of back pain ridden in an indoor riding school with both saddles were measured using an electronic saddle sensor pad. Synchronous kinematic measurements were carried out with tracing markers placed along the back in front of (withers, W) and behind the saddle (4th lumbar vertebra, L4). At least 6 motion cycles at walk, trot and canter with both saddles (ES, SS) were measured. Out of the pressure distribution the maximum overall force (MOF) and the location of the centre of pressure (COP) were calculated. RESULTS: Under the SS the centre of pressure was located to the right of the median and slightly caudal compared to the COP under the ES in all gaits. The MOF was significantly different (P<0.01) between saddles. At walk, L4 showed significantly larger (P<0.01) vertical excursions under the ES. Under the SS relative horizontal movement of W was significantly reduced (P<0.01) at trot, and at canter the transversal movement was significantly reduced (P<0.01) . In both trot and canter, no significant differences in the movement of L4 were documented. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: The results demonstrate that the load under a SS creates asymmetric force transmission under the saddle, and also influences back movement. To change the load distribution on the back of horses with potential back pain and as a training variation, a combination of both riding styles is suitable.

Keywords: Animals; Back/*physiology; Back Pain/etiology/veterinary; Biomechanics; Exercise Test/veterinary; Female; Gait/physiology; Horse Diseases/etiology; Horses/*physiology; Humans; Locomotion/physiology; Male; Movement/*physiology; *Physical Conditioning, Animal/instrumentation/methods/physiology; *Pressure; Weight-Bearing/*physiology

https://references.equine-behaviour.de/show.php?record=4007

Abstract: Abstract Across the globe, wildlife populations and their behaviours are negatively impacted by people. Protected areas are believed to be an antidote to increasing human pressures but even they are not immune to the impact of anthropogenic activities. Areas that have been set aside for the protection of wildlife therefore warrant more attention when investigating the impact of anthropogenic pressures on wildlife. We use cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus as a case study to explore how a large carnivore responds to anthropogenic pressures inside wildlife areas. Using GPS-collar data we investigate cheetah space use, both when moving and stationary, and movement parameters (speed and turn angles) in relation to human disturbance, distance to human settlement, livestock abundance and livestock site use inside wildlife areas. Space use was negatively influenced by human disturbance, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation and potentially reducing landscape permeability between neighbouring wildlife areas. Cheetahs were also less likely to stop in areas where livestock numbers were high, but more likely to stop in areas that were frequently used by livestock. The latter could reflect that cheetahs are attracted to livestock however, cheetahs in the study area rarely predated on livestock. It is therefore more likely that areas that are frequently used by livestock attract wild herbivores, which in turn could influence cheetah space use. We did not find any effects of people and livestock on cheetahs? speed and turn angles which might be related to the resolution of the data. We found that cheetahs are sensitive to human pressures and we believe that they could be an indicator species for other large carnivores facing similar challenges. We suggest that further research is needed to determine the levels of anthropogenic pressures needed to maintain ecological integrity, especially inside wildlife areas.