|
|
Heitor, F., do Mar Oom, M., & Vicente, L. (2006). Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses Part I. Correlates of social dominance and contexts of aggression. Behav. Process., 73(2), 170–177.
Abstract: Factors related to dominance rank and the functions of aggression were studied in a herd of Sorraia horses, Equus caballus, under extensive management. Subjects were 10 adult mares 5-18 years old and a stallion introduced into the group for breeding. Dominance relationships among mares were clear, irrespective of rank difference, and remained stable after introduction of the stallion. The dominance hierarchy was significantly linear and rank was positively correlated with age and total aggressiveness. Higher-ranking mares received lower frequency and intensity of agonistic interactions. Nevertheless, higher-ranking dominants were not more likely to elicit submission from their subordinates than lower-ranking dominants. Neither close-ranking mares nor mares with less clear dominance relationships were more aggressive towards each other. Agonistic interactions seemed to be used more importantly in regulation of space than to obtain access to food or to reassert dominance relationships. Contexts of aggression were related to mare rank. The results suggest that dominance relationships based on age as a conventional criterion were established to reduce aggressiveness in a herd where the costs of aggression are likely to outweigh the benefits.
|
|
|
|
Hartmann, E., Keeling, L. J., & Rundgren, M. (2011). Comparison of 3 methods for mixing unfamiliar horses (Equus caballus). J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res, 6(1), 39–49.
Abstract: Horses are likely to exhibit aggression when meeting for the first time. Therefore, this study compared 3 methods for mixing horses to evaluate their effectiveness in reducing aggressive interactions: (1) mixing pairs of horses in a paddock (P, 10 minutes, 15 tests), (2) introducing 1 unfamiliar horse to a pair of familiar, resident horses in a paddock (PP, 10 minutes, 15 tests), (3) allowing limited physical contact between pairs of horses for a short period of pre-exposure in neighboring boxes (B, 5 minutes, 16 tests) before mixing them in a paddock (BP, 10 minutes 16 tests). A total of 16 Swedish Standardbred mares, aged 6-18 years (mean age ± SD: 11 ± 4.4), were included in the study. Half of the horses were familiar with each other (resident horses, n = 8), whereas the other half were bought in from a variety of sources (unfamiliar horses, n = 8). Social interactions, consisting of behaviors from the sender, the receiver, and the subsequent sender's response, were recorded continuously as frequencies. There were no differences in the frequencies of aggressive behaviors between the 3 mixing methods, including those aggressive behaviors in which physical contact had been attempted (kick, strike). Although resident horses were overall more aggressive (median number of aggressive behaviors per horse, 62; Q1, 36; Q3, 68.5) than unfamiliar horses (median per horse, 4; Q1, 2; Q3, 12.5) during all tests (U = 97, P = 0.003), none of the 62 tests needed to be terminated. Unfamiliar horses did not receive more aggression from resident horses in PP (mean per test ± SD: 5.1 ± 3.1) than in P (mean per test ± SD: 6.4 ± 4.9) (t = 0.63, P = 0.544). However, the behavior “attack” was more frequent in PP (median per test, 2; Q1, 0; Q3, 5) than in P (median per test, 0; Q1, 0; Q3, 1) (U = 282, P = 0.042), and “flee” was more frequent in PP (median per test, 6; Q1, 4; Q3, 8) than in P (median per test, 1; Q1, 0; Q3, 6) (U = 290, P = 0.018). Pre-exposure in boxes did not reduce aggression in BP (median per test, 7; Q1, 4.3; Q3, 11.8) as compared with P (median per test, 6; Q1, 2; Q3, 16) (U = 264, P = 0.767), but during pre-exposure in B tests, horses exchanged more nonaggressive (median per test, 2; Q1, 0.3; Q3, 4) than aggressive (median frequency of aggressive behavior, 0; Q1, 0; Q3, 1) (W = 71, P = 0.013) and mixed interactions (median per test, 0; Q1, 0; Q3, 1) (W = 92, P = 0.016) through the opening. Results suggest mixing an unfamiliar horse with 2 resident horses at the same time instead of one by one may be preferable. In this way, the total aggression received by the unfamiliar horse will potentially be less, even though aggressive interactions may be more intense.
|
|
|
|
Hartmann, E., Christensen, J. W., & McGreevy, P. D. (2017). Dominance and Leadership: Useful Concepts in Human-Horse Interactions? Proceedings of the 2017 Equine Science Symposium, 52, 1–9.
Abstract: Dominance hierarchies in horses primarily influence priority access to limited resources of any kind, resulting in predictable contest outcomes that potentially minimize aggressive encounters and associated risk of injury. Levels of aggression in group-kept horses under domestic conditions have been reported to be higher than in their feral counterparts but can often be attributed to suboptimal management. Horse owners often express concerns about the risk of injuries occurring in group-kept horses, but these concerns have not been substantiated by empirical investigations. What has not yet been sufficiently addressed are human safety aspects related to approaching and handling group-kept horses. Given horse's natural tendency to synchronize activity to promote group cohesion, questions remain about how group dynamics influence human-horse interactions. Group dynamics influence a variety of management scenarios, ranging from taking a horse out of its social group to the prospect of humans mimicking the horse's social system by taking a putative leadership role and seeking after an alpha position in the dominance hierarchy to achieve compliance. Yet, there is considerable debate about whether the roles horses attain in their social group are of any relevance in their reactions to humans. This article reviews the empirical data on social dynamics in horses, focusing on dominance and leadership theories and the merits of incorporating those concepts into the human-horse context. This will provide a constructive framework for informed debate and valuable guidance for owners managing group-kept horses and for optimizing human-horse interactions.
|
|
|
|
Hartmann, E. (2010). Managing horses in groups to improve horse welfare and human safety. Ph.D. thesis, , .
Abstract: Managing horses in groups to improve horse welfare and human safety
:
reactions to mixing and separation
Hartmann, Elke (2010) Managing horses in groups to improve horse welfare and human safety . Doctoral diss. Dept. of Animal Environment and Health, SLU. Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae vol. 2010:87.
Full text available as:
PDF
439 Kb
Abstract
The aim of this thesis was to investigate whether specific anecdotal concerns related to keeping horses in groups are supported by science and, if so, provide scientifically based recommendations that could be implemented in practice.
The aim of studies I and II was to identify methods for mixing unfamiliar horses that could minimise aggressive interactions and associated risk of injury. Results of study I revealed that pre-exposure of young horses in neighbouring boxes tended to lower contact-aggression (e.g. kicks, strikes) and biting behaviour in particular was reduced when the same pair of horses subsequently met in a paddock. This was not found when older horses were mixed (study II). Aggressive behaviour received by a new horse was not significantly different in meetings when it met one other horse compared to meeting two unfamiliar horses at the same time.
Removing a horse from a group of four in study III was generally unproblematic. Most horses approached the handler when she was catching the horse and while standing with it in the middle of the paddock. Thus, potential risk may be higher in situations when the handler remains relatively stationary, as other horses of the group have time to approach. Rank did not influence the number of horses following to the paddock gate and interactions between horses were rare.
Since horses naïve to social separation may be more difficult to handle away from the group, the objective in study IV was to investigate whether the initial presence of a companion horse would modify responses to separation. Results revealed no significant differences in heart rates and the number of training sessions required when the horses were subsequently trained in the absence of the partner compared to horses trained alone from the start.
In summary, results give little support for the original areas of concerns about mixing and separating horses. Risk of injury to both horses and humans should not be overestimated when handling horses in groups, but being aware of potential risk situations and being able to react accordingly is likely to increase horse welfare and human safety.
Faculty: Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science
Keywords:
equine, behaviour, welfare, housing, mixing, aggression, injury, separation, habituation, learning
Agrovoc terms:
horses, behaviour, bites, injurious factors, animal learning, animal welfare, sweden
ISBN: 978-91-576-7532-3
Series.: Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae
ISSN: 1652-6880
Volume: 2010:87
Papers/manuscripts:
I. Hartmann, E., Winther Christensen, J., Keeling, L.J. (2009). Social interactions of unfamiliar horses during paired encounters: Effect of pre-exposure on aggression level and so risk of injury. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 214-221.
II. Hartmann, E., Rundgren, M., Keeling, L.J. (in press). Comparison of 3 methods for mixing unfamiliar horses (Equus caballus). Journal of Equine Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research.
III. Hartmann, E., Søndergaard, E., Keeling, L.J. Identifying potential risk situations for humans when removing horses from groups. Manuscript.
IV. Hartmann, E., Christensen, J.W., Keeling, L.J. (in press). Training young horses to social separation: Effect of a companion horse on training efficiency. Equine Veterinary Journal.
Number of pages: 75
Year of publication: 2010
Language: eng
ID Code: 2396
Deposited By: Hartmann, Elke
Deposited On: 08 November 2010
|
|
|
|
Gruter, C. C. (2004). Conflict and postconflict behaviour in captive black-and-white snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus bieti). Primates, 45(3), 197–200.
Abstract: Black-and-white snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus bieti) have almost never been the subject of any behavioural observations in captivity. This study was aimed at providing preliminary information about agonistic and reconciliation behaviour in a group kept at the Kunming Institute of Zoology in China. Established procedures were used for this investigation (i.e., the postconflict/matched-control method and the time-rule method). Intra-group aggression rates were quite low. Postconflict affiliation as well as selective attraction of former opponents to each other following conflicts was demonstrated. Former opponents contacted each other earlier in postconflict periods than in matched-control periods. The average conciliatory tendency of all focal individuals combined was 54.5%. After an agonistic interaction, the first affiliative contact between former aggressors usually took place within the first minute. The behaviours most often shown as first affiliations after a conflict were body contact, mount, touch, and “hold-lumbar”, of which the latter is an explicit reconciliatory gesture. Furthermore, the adult male intervened non-aggressively in 84% of all conflicts (n=25) among the adult females. Overall, the patterns of aggression and reconciliation observed in R. bieti bear many of the traits that characterise tolerant primate species.
|
|
|
|
Grosenick, L., Clement, T. S., & Fernald, R. D. (2007). Fish can infer social rank by observation alone. Nature, 445(7126), 429–432.
Abstract: Transitive inference (TI) involves using known relationships to deduce unknown ones (for example, using A > B and B > C to infer A > C), and is thus essential to logical reasoning. First described as a developmental milestone in children, TI has since been reported in nonhuman primates, rats and birds. Still, how animals acquire and represent transitive relationships and why such abilities might have evolved remain open problems. Here we show that male fish (Astatotilapia burtoni) can successfully make inferences on a hierarchy implied by pairwise fights between rival males. These fish learned the implied hierarchy vicariously (as 'bystanders'), by watching fights between rivals arranged around them in separate tank units. Our findings show that fish use TI when trained on socially relevant stimuli, and that they can make such inferences by using indirect information alone. Further, these bystanders seem to have both spatial and featural representations related to rival abilities, which they can use to make correct inferences depending on what kind of information is available to them. Beyond extending TI to fish and experimentally demonstrating indirect TI learning in animals, these results indicate that a universal mechanism underlying TI is unlikely. Rather, animals probably use multiple domain-specific representations adapted to different social and ecological pressures that they encounter during the course of their natural lives.
|
|
|
|
Grandin, T. (1999). Safe handling of large animals. Occup Med, 14(2), 195–212.
Abstract: The major causes of accidents with cattle, horses, and other grazing animals are: panic due to fear, male dominance aggression, or the maternal aggression of a mother protecting her newborn. Danger is inherent when handling large animals. Understanding their behavior patterns improves safety, but working with animals will never be completely safe. Calm, quiet handling and non-slip flooring are beneficial. Rough handling and excessive use of electric prods increase chances of injury to both people and animals, because fearful animals may jump, kick, or rear. Training animals to voluntarily cooperate with veterinary procedures reduces stress and improves safety. Grazing animals have a herd instinct, and a lone, isolated animal can become agitated. Providing a companion animal helps keep an animal calm.
|
|
|
|
Giles, N., & Tupper, J. (2006). Equine interspecies aggression (Vol. 159).
|
|
|
|
Fureix, C., Bourjade, M., Henry, S., Sankey, C., & Hausberger, M. (2012). Exploring aggression regulation in managed groups of horses Equus caballus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 138(3–4), 216–228.
Abstract: Horses are highly social animals that have evolved to live in social groups. However, in modern husbandry systems, single housing prevails where horses experience social isolation, a challenge-to-welfare factor. One major reason for this single housing is the owners’ concerns that horses may injure each other during aggressive encounters. However, in natural conditions, serious injuries due to aggressive encounters are rare. What could therefore explain the claimed risks of group living for domestic horses? Basing our questioning on the current knowledge of the social life of horses in natural conditions, we review different practices that may lead to higher levels of aggression in horses and propose practical solutions. Observations of natural and feral horses mostly indicate a predominance of low frequencies and mild forms of aggression, based on subtle communication signals and ritualized displays and made possible by group stability (i.e. stable composition), dominance hierarchy and learning of appropriate social skills by young horses. Obviously, adults play a major role here in canalizing undesirable behaviours, and social experience during development, associated with a diversity of social partners, seems to be a prerequisite for the young horse to become socially skilled. Given the natural propensity of horses to have a regulation of aggression in groups, the tendency to display more aggression in groups of domestic horses under some management practices seems clearly related to the conditions offered. We therefore review the managing practices that could trigger aggressiveness in horses. Non social practices (space, resource availability) and social practices (group size, stability of membership, composition and opportunities for social experiences during development) in groups of domestic horses are discussed here. Finally, we propose simple practical solutions leading to more peaceful interactions in groups of domestic horses, based on the knowledge of horses’ natural social life which therefore should be enhanced (e.g. ensuring roughage availability, favouring group stability, introducing socially experienced adults in groups of young horses, etc.). The state of the art indicates that many questions still need to be answered. Given the importance of the associated welfare issues and the consequences on the use of horses, further research is required, which could benefit horses… and humans.
|
|
|
|
Fuentes, A., Malone, N., Sanz, C., Matheson, M., & Vaughan, L. (2002). Conflict and post-conflict behavior in a small group of chimpanzees. Primates, 43(3), 223–235.
Abstract: Chimpanzee research plays a central role in the discussions of conflict negotiation. Reconciliation, or the attraction and affiliation of former opponents following conflict, has been proposed as a central element of conflict negotiation in chimpanzees and various other taxa. In an attempt to expand the database of chimpanzee conflict resolution, conflict and post-conflict behavior were recorded for a small group of socially housed chimpanzees at the Chimpanzee and Human Communication Institute, at Central Washington University. Data were collected over six 6-week periods between 1997 and 2000, for a total of 840 hours of observation, resulting in a substantial post-conflict (PC) and matched control (MC) data set. The data demonstrate this group's tendencies to maintain visual contact and closer proximity after conflicts. Dyadic corrected conciliatory tendencies ranged between 0 – 37.5% and averaged 17.25% across all dyads. Individual corrected conciliatory tendencies ranged between 5.8 and 32%. The results of this study combined with recent publications on captive and free-ranging chimpanzee post-conflict behavior suggest that variation in post-conflict behavior may be important to our understanding of chimpanzee conflict negotiation, and may also have implications for the design and management of captive chimpanzee enclosures and social groups, respectively.
|
|
