Abstract: Die soziale Fellpflege wurde bei Equiden intensiv erforscht. Es stellte sich heraus, dass diverse Faktoren das Grooming-Verhalten beeinflussen können. Neben saisonalen Gegebenheiten sind dies vor allem soziale Faktoren, wie das Alter und Geschlecht der Tiere, die Hierarchie und Gruppenzusammensetzung sowie die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der Tiere untereinander. Diese Faktoren können sowohl bei der Häufigkeit der sozialen Fellpflege, als auch bei der Wahl des Partners eine entscheidende Rolle spielen. Zudem konnte gezeigt werden, dass auch das Aggressivitätslevel in einer Gruppe Einfluss auf das soziale Verhalten und die soziale Fellpflege nehmen kann. Inwiefern zwei Individuen, die sich häufig groomen, auch bevorzugt beieinander stehen, konnte bislang noch nicht eindeutig gezeigt werden, da es hierzu diverse Studien mit konträren Ergebnisse gibt. Dieser Aspekt sollte zukünftig dringend untersucht werden, da die beiden Datensätze häufig gemeinsam verwendet werden, um soziale Bindungen zu berechnen, ohne dass bislang ein eindeutiger Zusammenhang zwischen ihnen ermittelt werden konnte.
[Summary
Social grooming has been investigated intensively in Equids during the last years and several factors are known to influence the grooming behaviour. Beside seasonal conditions these are especially social factors as age and sex, hierarchy and group composition as well as kinship. These factors can affect the grooming frequencies and influence the choice of the grooming partner. Moreover, it could be demonstrated that the groups’
aggression level can influence the social behaviour and the grooming intensity. If individuals which show an increased grooming frequency often stand in close proximity as well, has not been affirmed, as, so far, no distinct correlation has been demonstrated. This aspect has to be investigated urgently, as both data sets are often used in combination for calculating social bonds.]

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: Contrary to the widely-spread assumption that horses just have restricted cognitive capacities and are not very flexible in their behaviors, we showed that horses display innovative behavior and even make use of tools (Krueger 2015, Krueger et al. 2015). These findings derive from a database (http://innovative-behaviour.org/) the Equine behavior team managed in the past two years. Some horses did not only show single innovations, but several different innovations. The number of innovations per individual varied from 1 to 10. 20 % of all innovative horses in the database showed more than one innovation. These individuals can be called the ‘true innovators’. Moreover innovations were dependent on age. Young horses were more innovative than older ones, whereby horses at the age of five to nine years were the most innovative. When considering the housing system innovative horses in a single housing (inside box, outside box, paddock box) had a slight majority towards horses in group housing (open stable, active stable, pasture day and night). But given the fact that ratings on housing system frequencies state 95% of the horses to be kept in individual housing, innovations in individual housing are rare. Nevertheless, horses kept in inside boxes without a window, opened doors more often than all other horses. Aside from this effect, housing systems did not trigger the frequency of innovative behavior. Innovations for gaining freedom and innovations in general were widespread among horses with daily access to pasture and daily contact with conspecifics. Innovations for gaining food were not more likely to occur in horses that were fed little amounts of roughage. In conclusion, the housing of horses does not seem to be the primary catalyst for developing innovative behavior in horses. What makes a “true innovator” in horses, in addition to age, remains to be seen.