Abstract: Abstract One mechanism to resolve conflict among group members is third party intervention, for which several functions, such as kin protection, alliance formation, and the promotion of group cohesion have been proposed. Still, empirical research on the function of intervention behaviour is rare. We studied 40 cases of intervention behaviour in a field study on 13 semi-wild bachelor horses (Equus ferus przewalskii) in (a) standard social situations, and (b) when new horses joined the group (i.e. introductions). Only interventions in agonistic encounters were analysed. Eight of 13 animals directed intervention behaviour toward threatening animal in agonistic encounters of group members. One stallion was particularly active. The stallions did not intervene to support former group mates or kin and interventions were not reciprocated. In introduction situations and in standard social situations, the interveners supported animals which were lower in rank, but targeted, threatening animals of comparable social rank. After introductions, stallions received more affiliative behaviour from animals they supported and thus appeared to intervene for alliance formation. In standard social situations, interveners did not receive more affiliative behaviour from animals they supported and may primarily have intervened to promote group cohesion and to reduce social disruption within the group.

Abstract: Horses are a highly social species living in complex social systems which should require them to memorise and generalise social experiences and distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics. In the main part of my thesis I concentrated on the specific conflict situation of a horse being introduced into a new social group, and investigated its behaviour and stress level. Horses were either introduced (1) immediately, (2) after an observation period, or (3) together with an integration horse after an observation period. Additionally, in the second part of my thesis I arranged several experiments to elaborate additional aspects which could affect the behaviour of horses during introductions. In this study I could describe a simplified method for measuring stress through the analysis of faecal GCMs in horses. An enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for 11-oxoaetiocholanolone using 11-oxoaetiocholanolone-17-CMO: BSA (3?,11-oxo-A EIA) as antigen showed high amounts of immunoreactive substances. The new assay increases the accuracy of the test and lowers the expenses per sample; also storing of samples at room temperature after collection is less critical. This is a big advantage both in the field of wildlife management of equids and in the field of equestrian sports (chapter 1). Comparing the different introduction techniques, the introduction with an integration horse led to significantly less total interactions and lower levels of aggression than the introduction of single horses, both immediately and after several days of observing the new group. Additionally, by observing the behaviour of the horses during everyday sociality I could develop a formula describing the interrelationship between expected aggression level and enclosure size per horse. The curve takes an exponential shape. Starting from a space allowance of 300 m2 and more per horse, the amount of aggressions per hour approaches zero. For the reduction of aggression levels and injury risks in socially kept horses I recommend an enclosure size of at least 300 m2 per horse (chapter 2). I further investigated the stress level of the introduced animals. Horses which were immediately introduced did not show elevated faecal GCMs. In contrast, horses which were introduced after an observation period had slightly elevated values 2 and 3 days after the introduction. For horses introduced together with an integration horse faecal GCMs were significantly above the baseline value on the day of introduction and 1 day after it. These differences between introduction techniques indicate that the introduction event itself is not as stressful as previously assumed. Rather standing together with an integration horse and not being able to integrate immediately into the complete group elicits stress in horses (chapter 3). In the commentary of chapter 4 several studies are discussed which failed to demonstrate social learning in horses. It is argued that they did not consider important aspects which could have an influence, such as the dominance status or the social background of the horses (chapter 4). In chapter 5 a social feeding situation was investigated. The social rank as well as the position of conspecifics affected the feeding strategy of horses. Domestic horses used social cognition and strategic decision making in order to decide where to feed. When possible they tended to return to the same, continuously supplied feeding site and switched to an ?avoidance tendency? in the presence of dominant horses or when another horse was already feeding there (chapter 5). One possibility to recognize group members is through olfactory recognition. In chapter 6 it is shown that horses are able to distinguish their own from their conspecifics? faeces. In addition, they paid most attention to the faeces of those group members from which they received the highest amount of aggressive behaviour (chapter 6). Horses show cognitive abilities because they are able to use humans as local enhancement cues when searching for food, independently of their body posture or gaze consistency when the persons face them. Moreover, they seem to orientate on the attention of familiar persons more than of unfamiliar persons (chapter 7). Altogether, the results of this thesis provide further support for the view that horses show good conflict resolution strategies. They are perfectly able to deal with the conflict situation of being introduced to new group members, and the introduction event itself is not as stressful as previously assumed. It is rather suggested that standing together with an integration horse and not being able to integrate immediately into the complete group elicits stress in horses. All additional experimental set-ups could demonstrate that horses are well capable of social cognition.

Abstract: Viele Pferdebesitzer bevorzugen aus Angst vor aggressiven Interaktionen und Verletzungsgefahr der Tiere untereinander die Einzelhaltung, obwohl von Tierschutzorganisationen die Gruppenhaltung für Pferde empfohlen wird. In dieser Studie beobachteten wir während des alltäglichen Soziallebens als auch bei der Eingliederung von neuen Gruppenmitgliedern das Sozialverhalten, insbesondere das Aggressionsverhalten, von elf Gruppen domestizierter Pferde (Equus caballus) verschiedener Größe und Zusammensetzung. Während des alltäglichen Soziallebens hatten die Gruppe und der Paddock-Typ (Gras / kein Gras) keinen Einfluss auf die Verhaltensweisen, wohingegen die Paddockgröße unter 10000 m2 einen signifikanten Einfluss auf die submissiven Verhaltensweisen (GzLM; n=56; t=-2.061, P=0.044) und einen nicht signifikanten Einfluss auf die aggressiven Verhaltensweisen (GzLM; n=56; t=-1.782, P=0.081) hatte. Allerdings verringerten sich sowohl die aggressiven als auch die submissiven Verhaltensweisen mit steigendem Platzangebot bis zu 10000 m2 (Spearman rank Korrelation; n=56; aggressive Verhaltensweisen: r = -0.313, P = 0.019; submissive Verhaltensweisen: r = -0.328, P = 0.014). Während den Eingliederungen reduzierten sich die Aggressionen pro Stunde mit der Vergrößerung des Platzangebotes (Spearman rank Korrelation; n=28; r=-0.402, P=0.034). Dies zeigte sich noch deutlicher, wenn Beobachtungen mit einem Platzangebot von über 10000 m2 ausgeschlos- sen wurden (Spearman rank Korrelation; n=23; r=-0.549, P=0.007). Während des alltäglichen Soziallebens näherte sich der Aggressionslevel der Nulllinie an, wenn das Platzangebot pro Pferd mehr als 331 m2 betrug. Deshalb empfehlen wir zur Reduzierung des Aggressionslevels und des Verletzungsrisikos von sozial gehaltenen Pferdegruppen ein Platzangebot von mindestens 331 m2 pro Pferd.
[Even though animal welfare organisations propose group housing for horse welfare, many owners stable horses individually for fear of aggressive interactions and injury risks. In the present study we observed social behaviour, and especially aggressiveness, in eleven domestic horse groups (Equus caballus) of different size and composition, in basic social situations and when new group members were introduced. During basic social situations, the group and the type of paddock (grass / no grass) had no effect on any of the behaviours, where- as the enclosure size below 10,000 m2 had a significant effect on submissive behaviour (GzLM; n=56; t=-2.061, P=0.044) and an insignificant effect on aggressive behaviour (GzLM; n=56; t=-1.782, P=0.081). However, aggressive and submissive behaviour dimi- nished with the increase of enclosure sizes up to 10,000 m2 (Spearman rank correlation; n = 56; aggressive behaviour: r = -0.313, P=0.019; submissive behaviour: r=-0.328, P=0.014). During introductions, aggression levels per hour decreased with any increase of enclosure size (Spearman rank correlation; n=28; r=-0.402, P=0.034) and even more when enclosure sizes above 10,000 m2 were excluded (Spearman rank correlation; n=23; r=-0.549, P=0.007). During basic social situations the aggression level approached zero when the space allowance was more than 331 m2 per horse. We therefore recommend keeping horse groups in an enclosure with at least 331 m2 per horse to reduce aggression and injuries.]

Abstract: Domestic horses are kept in so-called “fate societies” where they have to deal with frequent mixing. Several studies have evaluated and discussed the aggression level and injury risk during the introduction of horses into new groups, but nothing is known about the endocrine responses and thus if horses experience stress during introduction.
In this study we analysed the efficiency of four approved introduction techniques and evaluated the introduction of 30 horses into 11 different groups. Horses were introduced: 1) immediately, 2) after observing the new group for several days, 3) together with an “integration horse” after several days of observation, or 4) with a mixed strategy. Aggressive as well as positive social behaviour between the introduced horses and the group members were analysed the two hours following the introduction event. In addition, we focussed on the glucocorticoid production of the newcomer horses by measuring faecal cortisol metabolites (FCM) on the day of the introduction as well as the following three days.
For the four introduction techniques we found significant differences in the horses’ aggressive and submissive behaviour as well as in their total interactions. The introduction together with an integration horse led to significantly lower levels of aggression and less total interactions than the immediate introduction of single horses.
Horses which were introduced immediately or after an observation period showed significantly elevated levels of FCM on the first, second and third day after the introduction. For horses introduced together with an integration horse FCM were already significantly higher on the day of the introduction, indicating a stressful event before the introduction itself. In contrast, FCM levels were always very low when using the mixed technique.
In sum, horses have the ability to deal with conflict when they are introduced to new group members. The introduction event itself appears not to be as stressful as previously assumed. Standing together with an “integration horse” on a separate paddock and not being able to integrate immediately into a new group appears to be stressful for the newcomer. Based on the findings of our study we suggest to introduce new horses in group management together with a new group mate, a so-called “integration horse”. This would reduce the number of total social interactions as well as the aggression level. While this technique may be stressful for the newcomer, it lowers aggressive behaviour between the introduced horse and the group members and consequently reduces injury risks.