|
|
Janczarek, I., Wisniewska, A., Chruszczewski, M. H., Tkaczyk, E., & Górecka-Bruzda, A. (2020). Social Behaviour of Horses in Response to Vocalisations of Predators. Animals, 10(2331).
Abstract: We tested the hypothesis that social defensive responses to the vocalisation of a predator still exist in horses. The recordings of a grey wolf, an Arabian leopard and a golden jackal were played to 20 Konik polski and Arabian mares. Durations of grazing, standing still, standing alert and the number of steps in walk and trot/canter were measured. In one-minute scans, the distances of the focal horse from the reference horse (DIST-RH) and from the nearest loudspeaker (DIST-LS) were approximated. The vocalisation of a leopard aroused the Arabians more than the Koniks (less grazing, stand-still and walk, more stand-alert and trotting/cantering). Koniks showed more relaxed behaviours to the leopard vocalisation (more grazing, stand-still and walk), but high alertness to the wolf playback (stand-alert, trotting/cantering). Spatial formation of the herd of Koniks showed tight grouping (lower DIST-RH) and maintaining distance from the potential threat (DIST-LS) in response to the wolf howling, while the Arabians approached the loudspeakers in linear herd formation when the leopard growls were played. Adult horses responded to potential predation by changing spatial group formations. This ability to apply a social strategy may be one of the explanations for the least number of horses among all hunted farm animal species.
|
|
|
|
Sickler, J., Fraser, J., Webler, T., Reiss, D., Boyle, P., Lyn, H., et al. (2006). Social Narratives Surrounding Dolphins: Q Method Study. Society and Animals, 14, 351–382.
|
|
|
|
Bannikov, A. G. (1971). The Asiatic Wild Ass: neglected relative of the horse. Animals, 13, 580–585.
|
|
|
|
HAFEZ, E. S. E., WILLIAMS, M., & WIERZBOWSKI, S. (1962). The Behaviour of Horses..
|
|
|
|
Breummer, F. (1967). The wild horses of Sable Island. Animals, 10, 14–17.
|
|
|
|
Krueger, K., Trager, L., Farmer, K., & Byrne, R. (2022). Tool Use in Horses. Animals, 12(15), 1876.
Abstract: Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used a crowdsourcing approach to gather data. We contacted equid owners and carers and asked them to report and video examples of �unusual� behaviour via a dedicated website. We also searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tool use. From 635 reports, including 1014 behaviours, we found 20 cases of tool use, 13 of which were unambiguous in that it was clear that the behaviour was not trained, caused by reduced welfare, incidental or accidental. We then assessed (a) the effect of management conditions on tool use and (b) whether the animals used tools alone, or socially, involving other equids or humans. We found that management restrictions were associated with corresponding tool use in 12 of the 13 cases (p = 0.01), e.g., equids using sticks to scrape hay within reach when feed was restricted. Furthermore, 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans, such as horses using brushes to groom others. The most frequent tool use was for foraging, with seven examples, tool use for social purposes was seen in four cases, and there was just one case of tool use for escape. There was just one case of tool use for comfort, and in this instance, there were no management restrictions. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is a rare occurrence.
|
|
|
|
Heyes, C. M. (2002). Transformation and associative theories of imitation. In K. Dautenhahn, & C. L. Nehaniv (Eds.), Imitation in animals and artefacts (pp. 501–523). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
|
|
|
|
Allen, C. (2006). Transitive inference in animals: Reasoning or conditioned associations? In S. Hurley, & M. Nudds (Eds.), Rational Animals? (pp. 175–186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Abstract: It is widely accepted that many species of nonhuman animals appear to engage in transitive inference,
producing appropriate responses to novel pairings of non-adjacent members of an ordered series
without previous experience of these pairings. Some researchers have taken this capability as
providing direct evidence that these animals reason. Others resist such declarations, favouring instead
explanations in terms of associative conditioning. Associative accounts of transitive inference have
been refined in application to a simple 5-element learning task that is the main paradigm for
laboratory investigations of the phenomenon, but it remains unclear how well those accounts
generalise to more information-rich environments such as social hierarchies which may contain scores
of individuals, and where rapid learning is important. The case of transitive inference is an example of
a more general dispute between proponents of associative accounts and advocates of more cognitive
accounts of animal behaviour. Examination of the specific details of transitive inference suggests
some lessons for the wider debate.
|
|
|
|
McGreevy, P., Berger, J., De Brauwere, N., Doherty, O., Harrison, A., Fiedler, J., et al. (2018). Using the Five Domains Model to Assess the Adverse Impacts of Husbandry, Veterinary, and Equitation Interventions on Horse Welfare. Animals, 8(3), 41.
Abstract: The aim of this study was to conduct a series of paper-based exercises in order to assess the negative (adverse) welfare impacts, if any, of common interventions on domestic horses across a broad range of different contexts of equine care and training. An international panel (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement; n = 16) met over a four-day period to define and assess these interventions, using an adaptation of the domain-based assessment model. The interventions were considered within 14 contexts: C1 Weaning; C2 Diet; C3 Housing; C4 Foundation training; C5 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly medical); C6 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly surgical); C7 Elective procedures; C8 Care procedures; C9 Restraint for management procedures; C10 Road transport; C11 Activity—competition; C12 Activity—work; C13 Activity—breeding females; and C14 Activity—breeding males. Scores on a 1–10 scale for Domain 5 (the mental domain) gathered during the workshop were compared with overall impact scores on a 1–10 scale assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop. The most severe (median and interquartile range, IQR) impacts within each context were identified during the workshop as: C1 abrupt, individual weaning (10 IQR 1); C2 feeding 100% low-energy concentrate (8 IQR 2.5); C3 indoor tie stalls with no social contact (9 IQR 1.5); C4 both (i) dropping horse with ropes (9 IQR 0.5) and forced flexion (9 IQR 0.5); C5 long-term curative medical treatments (8 IQR 3); C6 major deep intracavity surgery (8.5 IQR 1); C7 castration without veterinary supervision (10 IQR 1); C8 both (i) tongue ties (8 IQR 2.5) and (ii) restrictive nosebands (8 IQR 2.5); C9 ear twitch (8 IQR 1); C10 both (i) individual transport (7.00 IQR 1.5) and group transport with unfamiliar companions (7 IQR 1.5); C11 both (i) jumps racing (8 IQR 2.5) and Western performance (8 IQR 1.5); C12 carriage and haulage work (6 IQR 1.5); C13 wet nurse during transition between foals (7.5 IQR 3.75); and C14 teaser horse (7 IQR 8). Associations between pre-workshop and workshop scores were high, but some rankings changed after workshop participation, particularly relating to breeding practices. Domain 1 had the weakest association with Domain 5. The current article discusses the use of the domain-based model in equine welfare assessment, and offers a series of assumptions within each context that future users of the same approach may make when assessing animal welfare under the categories reported here. It also discusses some limitations in the framework that was used to apply the model.
|
|
|
|
Hunt, G. R., Gray R.D., & Taylor, A. H. (2013). Why is tool use rare in animals? (Boesch C C. J. anz C, Ed.). Cambridge, MA.: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
