Abstract: The relationship between facial hair whorl position and reactivity, as assessed by behavioural measures (handling score = HS; startle reaction to a suddenly appearing novel object = SR; latency to touch a novel object = LNO) and heart rate measures (mean HR; increase in heart rate = IHR) were studied using 55 Konik horses reared either under conventional stable conditions or in the forest reserve. Horses were classified into four groups according to the whorl position and/or shape: (1) high, single whorl above the top eye line, n = 9; (2) medium, single whorl between the top and the bottom eye line, n = 30; (3) low, single whorl below the bottom eye line, n = 10; and (4) elongated or double whorl, n = 6. Horses with a high whorl position demonstrated a lesser degree of manageability as expressed by a lower HS compared to individuals with medium (P = 0.002) or low whorl positions (P = 0.016). Horses with different whorl positions did not differ significantly in their startle response to a suddenly appearing novel object (P = 0.685). The horses with an elongated or double whorl, which appeared only in the forest group, took significantly longer to approach the novel object than horses with medium (P = 0.006) or low (P = 0.005) whorl positions. No significant differences in mean HR and IHR between groups (HR: P = 0.629 and IHR: P = 0.214) were found. In conclusion, this study supports the relationship between the position of the hair whorl on the horses' head and their manageability during handling, as well as the latency to approach an unknown object.

Abstract: I investigated the behavioural background of the way horses learn to follow humans in the “round pen technique” suggested by “horse whisperers” as a gentle method for initial horse training. Though the practicability of this technique has been adequately demonstrated in the past, the horses' behaviour during such training has not yet been documented in detail. In a riding arena, horses, that did not follow the trainer immediately, were chased away so that they galloped around the trainer. Galloping horses showed specific behaviour such as turning the ear to the trainer, chewing, licking, and stretching head and throat downwards. In subsequent trials horses needed to be chased for less time and finally followed immediately, even when conditions were changed or the trainer was replaced by another person. This suggests that horses learn to follow in this particular situation and also show some generalisation. However, following did not occur on a pasture even after several successful trials in the riding arena.

Abstract: Relatively little is known about the relationship between social behavior and specific cognitive abilities of the chicken. It is uncertain whether dominant birds have a cognitive advantage over subordinate birds that might facilitate their superior position in the social hierarchy. Likewise, it is unknown whether subordinate birds compete successfully with higher ranking birds because their cognitive capacities compensate for physical deficits. In this study, the relationship between the chicken's position in the dominance hierarchy and its performance on a cognitive task was explored. Ten pairs of New Hampshire domestic roosters (Gallus gallus) were observed to determine dominance or subordinance within dyads. All birds were then trained and tested on a visual discrimination learning task. Discriminative stimuli were orange and green plastic discs. Correct stimuli (orange or green) were randomly assigned to birds. Placement of the discs (left or right of center) was also randomly assigned and counterbalanced to avoid a side bias. Birds were rewarded with food for pecking at the correct disc. Criterion for task completion was 80% correct responses on three consecutive test sessions or 86% correct on two consecutive sessions. All subjects met the test criterion. The number of trials to criterion was compared between dominant and subordinate birds using a paired t-test. No difference was found in performance between dominant and subordinate birds (p > 0.05) suggesting that in chickens, ability to learn a novel visual discrimination task is not well correlated with rank. Additional studies, particularly using different learning paradigms, are needed to confirm these results.

Abstract: The ovine arena test in conjunction with multivariate statistical analysis (factor analysis) may be a means of measuring ovine temperament for practical purposes. Stability of factor construction over time and between groups of animals is considered to demonstrate trait consistency and is, therefore, one of the first steps in validating a temperament/personality test from this perspective. The aim of this study, therefore, was to assess the stability of factor construction, as a measure of trait consistency, using arena test data from three groups of animals with one group (Group 1) tested repeatedly over three rounds (twice at 8 months and once at 22 months of age). Group 1 consisted of 193 mule (Bluefaced Leicester Sire x Scottish Blackface/Welsh Speckled Face dam), ewe lambs (8 months old). Groups 2 and 3 consisted of 189 and 185 mules, respectively (14 months old). All animals were tested for 6 min in a 13 m x 3 m arena. Factor analysis (varimax rotation) was performed twice on the behavioural data (latency to bleat, total number of vocalisations, distance travelled, time spent in different areas of the arena and number of times crossing in and out of pertinent areas), initially using all data recorded on a per minute basis (`Per Minute') for all 6 min of the test (10 factors extracted) and then using total values (`Total'), the summation of the 6 min for each behaviour measured (4 factors extracted). Stability of factor loadings between rounds and between groups was tested using Kendall's coefficient of concordance. For the `Per Minute' data, 5 out of the 10 factors showed significant (p < 0.05) concordance between rounds whilst 9 out of 10 factors showed significant (p < 0.05) concordance between groups. All four factors generated from the `Total' data demonstrated significant (p < 0.05) concordance between rounds and between groups. The four factors generated from the `Total' data were considered to be of potential merit for future studies. These factors were named--`conspecific motivation-fear', `conspecific motivation-distress', `activity' and `low conspecific motivation'.

Abstract: According to the socioecological framework, transitivity (or linearity) in dominance relationships is related to competition over critical resources. When a population is structured into groups, the intensity of between- versus within-group competition influences the form and function of its social organization. Few studies have compared the type and relative intensity of competition at these two levels. African elephants have well-structured social relations, providing an exemplary system for such a study. We report on dominance hierarchies among free-ranging elephants and evaluate the factors that drive their socioecological structure to lie in a region of the three-dimensional nepotism/despotism/tolerance space rarely observed among social species; namely, where non-nepotistic, transitive dominance hierarchies within groups emerge despite kin-based philopatry and infrequent agonistic interactions over widely distributed resources. We found significant transitivity in dominance hierarchies between groups. Dominance relations among the matriarchs of different social groups were primarily age based, rather than driven by physical or group size, and group matriarch rank influenced the dominance relationships among nonmatriarchal females in the population. Our results suggest that between-group dominance relationships induce tolerance among group members, which in combination with high group relatedness, reduces the benefits of nepotism. We postulate that cognitive abilities and high risk of injury in contests enhance winner and loser effects, facilitating the formation of transitive dominance relationships, despite widely distributed resources over which infrequent competition occurs. The interplay of cognitive abilities, winner and loser effects, resource distribution, and within- and between-group dominance relationships may produce behaviour in other strongly social mammals that differs from that predicted by a superficial application of current socioecological models.