|
Benz, B., Benitz, B., Krueger, K., & Winter, D. (2013). Weniger Einstreu bei gleichem Komfort. Pferdezucht und Haltung, 1, 66–71.
|
|
Krueger, K., & Flauger, B. (2009). Horses (Equus caballus) show respect and trust in their owners. In P. M. Kappeler, & M. Schwibbe (Eds.), Program of the 4. Thementagung der Ethologischen Gesellschaft, Februar 12 -14, 2009. (32). Göttingen: Dpz.
|
|
Flauger, B., Krueger, K., Gerhards, H., & Moestl, E. (2009). Measurement of glucocorticoid metabolites in horse faeces: the validation of different group specific enzymeimmunoassays and extraction methods. In S. Cremer, A. Schrempf, & J. Heinze (Eds.), Proceeding of the 102. Annual meeting of the Deutsche Zoologische Gesellschaft (DZG). (166). München: Dt. Zoologische Ges.
|
|
Krueger, K.. (2011). Soziales Lernen der Pferde. In Göttinger Pferdetage '11: Zucht, Haltung und Ernährung von Sportpferden (51). Warendorf: FN Verlag.
|
|
Trögel, D., Wolter, R., & Krueger, K. (2014). Fallstudie zum Platzangebot, Verhalten und Wohlbefinden der Pferde (Equus caballus) in Mehrraum-Außenlaufställen mit Aus-lauf und Bewegungsställen [A case study to space, behavior and well-being of horses (Equus caballus) in open stables and open active stables]. In KTBL Schriften. Darmstadt.
|
|
Krueger, K. (2017). Perissodactyla Cognition. In J. Vonk, & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior (pp. 1–10). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
|
|
Krueger, K., Hollenhorst, H., Schuetz, A., & Weil, S. (2015). Social learning and innovative learning in horses. In K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3. International Equine Science Meeting (Vol. 3). Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
|
Töpfer, D., Wolter, R., & Krueger, K. (2014). Fallstudie zum Platzangebot, Verhalten und Wohlbefinden der Pferde (Equus caballus) in Mehrraum-Außenlaufställen mit Aus-lauf und Bewegungsställen [A case study to space, behavior and well-being of horses (Equus caballus) in open stables and open active stables]. KTBL Schriften. Darmstadt: KTBL.
Abstract: Verhaltensbeobachtungen erfolgten an 112 Pferden in Mehrraum-Außenlaufställen mit Auslauf und Bewegungsställen. Bei vermehrtem Platzangebot sinkt das agonistische Verhalten in Bewegungsställen außerhalb des Fressbereiches. Mit zunehmender Stallgröße (überdachte Fläche und Auslauf) steigt in beiden Haltungsverfahren das affiliative Verhalten während das agonistische Verhalten mit Verletzungsrisiko sinkt. Daher wird für beide Haltungsverfahren ein möglichst großzügiger Stall je Pferd empfohlen. Die beobachteten Erkrankungen der letzten zwölf Monate zeigen vermehrt Hautkrankheiten in den Mehrraum-Außenlaufställen mit Auslauf, wohingegen Hufgeschwüre in Bewegungsställen auftraten. Wird der Fütterungsaspekt in den Bewegungsställen betrachtet, so ist die Transponderfütterung in Kombination mit ad libitum Fütterung aufgrund des deutlich geringeren, agonistischen Verhaltens beim Fressen, der reinen Transponderfütterung vorzuziehen. Mehrraum-Außenlaufställe mit Auslauf haben den Vorteil der synchronen Nahrungsaufnahme.
[The behaviour of 112 horses was observed in open stables and open active stables. Horses show less agonistic behaviour outside of the feeding area in open active stables as the space for each horse is augmented. Also the affiliative behaviour increases as a function of more space per horse while agonistic behaviour with a risk for injury decreases. These results are independent from the husbandry system. Due to this fact a stable with a larger area per horse is recommended. Diseases of the last twelve month were recorded and show skin diseases in open stables and abscesses in the hooves in open active stables. To consider the feeding in open active stables it was found that horses which were fed with hay controlled by transponders showed more agonistic behaviour in contrast to horses being fed using transponders but with access to hay ad libitum. Thus transponder feeding in combination with ad libitum feeding is recommended. Open stables have the advantage of synchronized feeding.]
|
Wolter, R., & Krueger, K. (2015). The analysis of social bonds in feral horses. In Proceedings of the 3. International Equine Science Meeting.
Abstract: In many social mammals, individuals preferentially affiliate with a small subset of available partners instead of distributing their social behaviors equally among all group members. The resulting social bonds have been investigated in several mammalian taxa, especially in primate societies, but also in other taxa such as birds, dolphins, rodents and ungulates. In feral horses, a great number of studies on social bonds can be found, but with a huge variety between methods for the analysis. There seems to be a lack of a clear and common definition of social bonds in horses and of comparable analyses. For example, there are irregularities between the studies regarding the research designs, the selection of recording methods and the interpretation of the measurements. Mutual grooming is used most often for the analysis of social relationships in many species. As mutual grooming is rare in horses, especially measurements of spatial proximity are commonly used for the analysis of social bonds in addition to other behavioral patterns. However, the combination of mutual grooming and nearest neighborhood analyses for the analysis of social bond is debatable, as in contrast to mutual grooming, which must occur deliberately by both grooming partners, the spatial distribution can be influenced by one partner alone, which may even force the other horse to keep a certain distance or to stay in close proximity.
In this study, we investigated the comparability of mutual grooming and nearest neighborhood data for social bond analyses in feral horses. Therefore, we observed five groups of semi-wild living Przewalski’s horses and six groups of feral horses.
We analysed the horses’ social ranks by applying an Average Dominance Index, we recorded the distances between the animals and observed the number of mutual grooming events as well as friendly approaches.
Our results show that there was only a weak correlation between the frequency of staying in nearest neighborhood and mutual grooming in all observed horse groups. In contrast to this, the correlation between the number of friendly approaches and mutual grooming events was higher in most groups.
Hierarchies did not affect social bonds, as mutual grooming was similarly induced by higher and lower ranking animals and the social rank did not affect the choice of the grooming partner. Similarly, likelihoods of staying in the neighborhood of particular animals were not affected by the animals’ social rank.
The grooming frequencies differed between the different horse groups and between the individual horses living in the particular groups. They seem to be effected by individual predisposition.
Altogether we suggest that the ratio of mutual grooming seems to be a better indicator for social bonds in feral horses than the frequency of staying in the nearest neighborhood. Mutual grooming occurs deliberately and is bidirectional, whereas nearest neighborhoods could be enforced and unidirectional. For the calculation of social bonds in horses, we consider it to be more reliable to combine the frequency of mutual grooming with the frequency of friendly approaches.
|
Hollenhorst, H., Weil, S., & Krueger, K. (2015). Innovative behavour in horses (Equus caballus). In , & K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3. International Equine Science Meeting. Proc. 3. Int. Equine. Sci. Mtg. Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
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.
|
