Equine Social Behaviour: Love, War and Tolerance
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Sources and Searches
2.2. Data Extraction and Risk of Bias Assessment
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
3.2. Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment
3.3. Data Synthesis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tyler, S.J. The behaviour and social organization of the New Forest ponies. Anim. Behav. Monogr. 1972, 5, 87–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collery, L. Observations of equine animals under farm and feral conditions. Equine Veter. J. 1974, 6, 170–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feist, J.D.; McCullough, D.R. Behavior and communication patterns in feral horses. Z. Tierpsychol. 1976, 41, 337–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salter, R.E.; Hudson, R.J. Social organization of feral horses in western Canada. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1982, 8, 207–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wells, S.M.; von Goldschmidt-Rothschild, B. Social behaviour and relationships in a herd of Camargue horses. Z. Tierpsychol. 1979, 49, 363–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaseda, Y.; Khalil, A.M.; Ogawa, H. Harem stability and reproductive success of Misaki feral mares. Equine Veter. J. 1995, 27, 368–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaseda, Y.; Ogawa, H.; Khalil, A.M. Causes of natal dispersal and emigration and their effects on harem formation in Misaki feral horses. Equine Veter. J. 1997, 29, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glade, M.J. “Social sleeping” among confined horses. J. Equine Veter. Sci. 1986, 6, 156–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollock, J. Welfare lessons of equine social behaviour. Equine Veter. J. 1987, 19, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowell-Davis, S.L. Social behaviour of the horse and its consequences for domestic management. Equine Veter. Educ. 1993, 5, 148–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linklater, W.; Cameron, E.; Stafford, K.; Veltman, C. Social and spatial structure and range use by Kaimanawa wild horses (Equus caballus: Equidae). N. Z. J. Ecol. 2000, 24, 139–152. [Google Scholar]
- Christensen, J.W.; Ladewig, J.; Søndergaard, E.; Malmkvist, J. Effects of individual versus group stabling on social behaviour in domestic stallions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 75, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, J.W.; Zharkikh, T.; Ladewig, J.; Yasinetskaya, N. Social behaviour in stallion groups (Equus przewalskii and Equus caballus) kept under natural and domestic conditions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 76, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heitor, F.; Oom, M.D.M.; Vicente, L. Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses: Part I. Correlates of social dominance and contexts of aggression. Behav. Process. 2006, 73, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Dierendonck, M.C. The Importance of Social Relationships in Horses; Utrecht University: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Linklater, W.L.; Cameron, E.Z. Social dispersal but with philopatry reveals incest avoidance in a polygynous ungulate. Anim. Behav. 2009, 77, 1085–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maeda, T.; Ochi, S.; Ringhofer, M.; Sosa, S.; Sueur, C.; Hirata, S.; Yamamoto, S. Aerial drone observations identified a multilevel society in feral horses. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mendonça, R.S.; Pinto, P.; Maeda, T.; Inoue, S.; Ringhofer, M.; Yamamoto, S.; Hirata, S. Population Characteristics of Feral Horses Impacted by Anthropogenic Factors and Their Management Implications. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 848741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berger, J. Organizational systems and dominance in feral horses in the Grand Canyon. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1977, 2, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanley, C.R.; Mettke-Hofmann, C.; Hager, R.; Shultz, S. Social stability in semiferal ponies: Networks show interannual stability alongside seasonal flexibility. Anim. Behav. 2018, 136, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, S.R.; Schoenecker, K.A.; Cole, M.J. Effect of adult male sterilization on the behavior and social associations of a feral polygynous ungulate: The horse. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2022, 249, 105598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sigurjónsdóttir, H.; Snorrason, S.; van Dierendonck, M.; Thórhallsdóttir, A. Social relationships in a group of horses without a mature stallion. Behaviour 2003, 140, 783–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cameron, E.Z.; Setsaas, T.H.; Linklater, W.L. Social bonds between unrelated females increase reproductive success in feral horses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 13850–13853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granquist, S.M.; Thorhallsdottir, A.G.; Sigurjonsdottir, H. The effect of stallions on social interactions in domestic and semi feral harems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 141, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimura, R. Mutual grooming and preferred associate relationships in a band of free-ranging horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998, 59, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heitor, F.; Vicente, L. Affiliative relationships among Sorraia mares: Influence of age, dominance, kinship and reproductive state. J. Ethol. 2010, 28, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolter, R.; Stefanski, V.; Krueger, K. Parameters for the Analysis of Social Bonds in Horses. Animals 2018, 8, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bouskila, A.; Lourie, E.; Sommer, S.; de Vries, H.; Hermans, Z.M.; van Dierendonck, M. Similarity in sex and reproductive state, but not relatedness, influence the strength of association in the social network of feral horses in the Blauwe Kamer Nature Reserve. Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 61, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellard, M.-E.; Crowell-Davis, S.L. Evaluating equine dominance in draft mares. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1989, 24, 55–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heitor, F.; Oom, M.D.M.; Vicente, L. Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses: Part II. Factors affecting affiliative relationships and sexual behaviours. Behav. Process. 2006, 73, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, H.; Fragoso, S.; Heitor, F. The relevance of affiliative relationships in horses: Review and future directions. Pet Behav. Sci. 2019, 8, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendonça, R.S.; Pinto, P.; Inoue, S.; Ringhofer, M.; Godinho, R.; Hirata, S. Social determinants of affiliation and cohesion in a population of feral horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021, 245, 105496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shimada, M.; Suzuki, N. The contribution of mutual grooming to affiliative relationships in a feral misaki horse herd. Animals 2020, 10, 1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schneider, G.; Krueger, K. Third-party interventions keep social partners from exchanging affiliative interactions with others. Anim. Behav. 2012, 83, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, E.; Søndergaard, E.; Keeling, L.J. Keeping horses in groups: A review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 136, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burger, D.; Wedekind, C.; Wespi, B.; Imboden, I.; Meinecke-Tillmann, S.; Sieme, H. The potential effects of social interactions on reproductive efficiency of stallions. J. Equine Veter. Sci. 2012, 32, 455–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonnell, S.M.; Haviland, J.C.S. Agonistic ethogram of the equid bachelor band. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1995, 43, 147–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilson, R.L.; Sweeny, K.A.; Binczik, G.A.; Reindl, N.J. Buddies and bullies: Social structure of a bachelor group of Przewalski horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1988, 21, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heitor, F.; Vicente, L. Dominance relationships and patterns of aggression in a bachelor group of Sorraia horses (Equus caballus). J. Ethol. 2010, 28, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krueger, K.; Esch, L.; Farmer, K.; Marr, I. Basic Needs in Horses?—A Literature Review. Animals 2021, 11, 1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krueger, K.; Flauger, B.; Farmer, K.; Hemelrijk, C. Movement initiation in groups of feral horses. Behav. Process. 2014, 103, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wascher, C.A.F.; Kulahci, I.G.; Langley, E.J.G.; Shaw, R.C. How does cognition shape social relationships? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018, 373, 20170293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maeda, T.; Sueur, C.; Hirata, S.; Yamamoto, S. Behavioural synchronization in a multilevel society of feral horses. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0258944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Proops, L.; McComb, K.; Reby, D. Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 947–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lemasson, A.; Boutin, A.; Boivin, S.; Blois-Heulin, C.; Hausberger, M. Horse (Equus caballus) whinnies: A source of social information. Anim. Cogn. 2009, 12, 693–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stomp, M.; Leroux, M.; Cellier, M.; Henry, S.; Lemasson, A.; Hausberger, M. An unexpected acoustic indicator of positive emotions in horses. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nawroth, C.; Langbein, J.; Coulon, M.; Gabor, V.; Oesterwind, S.; Benz-Schwarzburg, J.; Von Borell, E. Farm animal cognition—Linking behavior, welfare and ethics. Front. Veter. Sci. 2019, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Péron, F.; Ward, R.; Burman, O. Horses (Equus caballus) discriminate body odour cues from conspecifics. Anim. Cogn. 2014, 17, 1007–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krueger, K.; Flauger, B. Olfactory recognition of individual competitors by means of faeces in horse (Equus caballus). Anim. Cogn. 2011, 14, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Murray, L.M.; Byrne, K.; D’eath, R.B. Pair-bonding and companion recognition in domestic donkeys, Equus asinus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 143, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krueger, K.; Heinze, J. Horse sense: Social status of horses (Equus caballus) affects their likelihood of copying other horses’ behavior. Anim. Cogn. 2008, 11, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krueger, K.; Schneider, G.; Flauger, B.; Heinze, J. Context-dependent third-party intervention in agonistic encounters of male Przewalski horses. Behav. Process. 2015, 121, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cozzi, A.; Sighieri, C.; Gazzano, A.; Nicol, C.J.; Baragli, P. Post-conflict friendly reunion in a permanent group of horses (Equus caballus). Behav. Process. 2010, 85, 185–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jørgensen, G.H.M.; Borsheim, L.; Mejdell, C.M.; Søndergaard, E.; Bøe, K.E. Grouping horses according to gender—Effects on aggression, spacing and injuries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 120, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keiper, R.; Receveur, H. Social interactions of free-ranging Przewalski horses in semi-reserves in the Netherlands. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1992, 33, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freymond, S.B.; Briefer, E.F.; Niederhäusern, R.V.; Bachmann, I. Pattern of social interactions after group integration: A possibility to keep stallions in group. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e54688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, E.; Christensen, J.W.; Keeling, L.J. Social interactions of unfamiliar horses during paired encounters: Effect of pre-exposure on aggression level and so risk of injury. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 121, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, J.W.; Søndergaard, E.; Thodberg, K.; Halekoh, U. Effects of repeated regrouping on horse behaviour and injuries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 133, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VanDierendonck, M.C.; Spruijt, B.M. Coping in groups of domestic horses—Review from a social and neurobiological perspective. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 138, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGreevy, P.D.; Cripps, P.J.; French, N.P.; Green, L.E.; Nicol, C.J. Management factors associated with stereotypic and redirected behaviour in the thoroughbred horse. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1995, 44, 270–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourjade, M.; Moulinot, M.; Henry, S.; Richard-Yris, M.-A.; Hausberger, M. Could adults be used to improve social skills of young horses, Equus caballus? Dev. Psychobiol. 2008, 50, 408–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierard, M.; McGreevy, P.; Geers, R. Effect of density and relative aggressiveness on agonistic and affiliative interactions in a newly formed group of horses. J. Veter. Behav. 2019, 29, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, V.E.; Arnott, G.; Turner, S.P. Social behavior in farm animals: Applying fundamental theory to improve animal welfare. Front. Veter. Sci. 2022, 9, 932217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yarnell, K.; Hall, C.; Royle, C.; Walker, S.L. Domesticated horses differ in their behavioural and physiological responses to isolated and group housing. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 143, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Placci, M.; Marliani, G.; Sabioni, S.; Gabai, G.; Mondo, E.; Borghetti, P.; De Angelis, E.; Accorsi, P.A. Natural horse boarding vs. traditional stable: A comparison of hormonal, hematological and immunological parameters. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2020, 23, 366–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marliani, G.; Sprocatti, I.; Schiavoni, G.; Bellodi, A.; Accorsi, P.A. Evaluation of horses’ daytime activity budget in a model of ethological stable: A case study in Italy. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2020, 24, 200–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schmucker, S.; Preisler, V.; Marr, I.; Krüger, K.; Stefanski, V. Single housing but not changes in group composition causes stress-related immunomodulations in horses. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0272445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McAfee, L.M.; Mills, D.S.; Cooper, J.J. The use of mirrors for the control of stereotypic weaving behaviour in the stabled horse. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 78, 159–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Søndergaard, E.; Jensen, M.B.; Nicol, C.J. Motivation for social contact in horses measured by operant conditioning. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 132, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waters, A.J.; Nicol, C.J.; French, N.P. Factors influencing the development of stereotypic and redirected behaviours in young horses: Findings of a four year prospective epidemiological study. Equine Veter. J. 2002, 34, 572–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lesimple, C.; Poissonnet, A.; Hausberger, M. How to keep your horse safe? An epidemiological study about management practices. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 181, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagy, K.; Schrott, A.; Kabai, P. Possible influence of neighbours on stereotypic behaviour in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 111, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicol, C. Understanding equine stereotypies. Equine Vet. J. 1999, 31 (Suppl. S28), 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hothersall, B.; Casey, R. Undesired behaviour in horses: A review of their development, prevention, management and association with welfare. Equine Veter. Educ. 2012, 24, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heleski, C.R.; Shelle, A.C.; Nielsen, B.D.; Zanella, A.J. Influence of housing on weanling horse behavior and subsequent welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 78, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jørgensen, G.H.M.; Bøe, K.E. A note on the effect of daily exercise and paddock size on the behaviour of domestic horses (Equus caballus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 107, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jørgensen, G.H.M.; Liestøl, S.H.-O.; Bøe, K.E. Effects of enrichment items on activity and social interactions in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 129, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visser, E.K.; Ellis, A.D.; Van Reenen, C.G. The effect of two different housing conditions on the welfare of young horses stabled for the first time. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 114, 521–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feh, C. Social behaviour and relationships of Prezewalski horses in Dutch semi-reserves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1988, 21, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flauger, B.; Krueger, K. Aggression level and enclosure size in horses (Equus caballus). Pferdeheilkunde Equine Med. 2013, 29, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raspa, F.; Tarantola, M.; Bergero, D.; Bellino, C.; Mastrazzo, C.M.; Visconti, A.; Valvassori, E.; Vervuert, I.; Valle, E. Stocking density affects welfare indicators in horses reared for meat production. Animals 2020, 10, 1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neethirajan, S.; Kemp, B. Social network analysis in farm animals: Sensor-based approaches. Animals 2021, 11, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hall, K.; Bryant, J.; Staley, M.; Whitham, J.; Miller, L. Behavioural diversity as a potential welfare indicator for professionally managed chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Exploring variations in calculating diversity using species-specific behaviours. Anim. Welf. 2021, 30, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Methley, A.M.; Campbell, S.; Chew-Graham, C.; McNally, R.; Cheraghi-Sohi, S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014, 14, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kennedy, C.E.; Fonner, V.A.; Armstrong, K.A.; Denison, J.A.; Yeh, P.T.; O’reilly, K.R.; Sweat, M.D. The Evidence Project risk of bias tool: Assessing study rigor for both randomized and non-randomized intervention studies. Syst. Rev. 2019, 8, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villafaina-Domínguez, B.; Collado-Mateo, D.; Merellano-Navarro, E.; Villafaina, S. Effects of dog-based animal-assisted interventions in prison population: A systematic review. Animals 2020, 10, 2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arnold, G.W.; Grassia, A. Ethogram of agonistic behaviour for thoroughbred horses. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1982, 8, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood-Gush, D.G.M.; Galbraith, F. Social relationships in a herd of 11 geldings and two female ponies. Equine Veter. J. 1987, 19, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolter, L.; Zimmermann, W. Social behaviour of Przewalski horses (Equus p. przewalskii) in the Cologne Zoo and its consequences for management and housing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1988, 21, 117–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keiper, R.R. Social interactions of the Przewalski horse (Equus przewalskii Poliakov, 1881) herd at the Munich Zoo. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1988, 21, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zharkikh, T.L.; Andersen, L. Behaviour of bachelor males of the Przewalski horse (Equus ferus przewalskii) at the reserve Askania Nova. Der Zoöl. Gart. 2009, 78, 282–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Górecka-Bruzda, A.; Fureix, C.; Ouvrard, A.; Bourjade, M.; Hausberger, M. Investigating determinants of yawning in the domestic (Equus caballus) and Przewalski (Equus ferus przewalskii) horses. Sci. Nat. 2016, 103, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Majecka, K.; Klawe, A. Influence of paddock size on social relationships in domestic horses. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2017, 21, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fureix, C.; Bourjade, M.; Henry, S.; Sankey, C.; Hausberger, M. Exploring aggression regulation in managed groups of horses Equus caballus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 138, 216–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sigurjónsdóttir, H.; Haraldsson, H. Significance of Group Composition for the Welfare of Pastured Horses. Animals 2019, 9, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourjade, M.; Tatin, L.; King, S.R.B.; Feh, C. Early reproductive success, preceding bachelor ranks and their behavioural correlates in young Przewalski’s stallions. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 2009, 21, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Methot, J.R.; Melwani, S.; Rothman, N.B. The space between us: A social-functional emotions view of ambivalent and indifferent workplace relationships. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 1789–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Briefer, E.F.; Maigrot, A.-L.; Mandel, R.; Freymond, S.B.; Bachmann, I.; Hillmann, E. Segregation of information about emotional arousal and valence in horse whinnies. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 9989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Windsor, T.D.; Butterworth, P. Supportive, aversive, ambivalent, and indifferent partner evaluations in midlife and young-old adulthood. J. Gerontol. Ser. B 2010, 65, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fureix, C.; Jego, P.; Henry, S.; Lansade, L.; Hausberger, M. Towards an ethological animal model of depression? A study on horses. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e39280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kent, R.G.; Uchino, B.N.; Cribbet, M.R.; Bowen, K.; Smith, T.W. Social relationships and sleep quality. Ann. Behav. Med. 2015, 49, 912–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uchino, B.N.; Holt-Lunstad, J.; Uno, D.; Flinders, J.B. Heterogeneity in the social networks of young and older adults: Prediction of mental health and cardiovascular reactivity during acute stress. J. Behav. Med. 2001, 24, 361–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holt-Lunstad, J.; Uchino, B.N.; Smith, T.W.; Olson-Cerny, C.; Nealey-Moore, J.B. Social relationships and ambulatory blood pressure: Structural and qualitative predictors of cardiovascular function during everyday social interactions. Health Psychol. 2003, 22, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhaoyang, R.; Sliwinski, M.J.; Martire, L.M.; Smyth, J.M. Social interactions and physical symptoms in daily life: Quality matters for older adults, quantity matters for younger adults. Psychol. Health 2019, 34, 867–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gasper, K.; Spencer, L.A.; Hu, D. Does neutral affect exist? How challenging three beliefs about neutral affect can advance affective research. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Linklater, W.L.; Cameron, E.Z. Tests for cooperative behaviour between stallions. Anim. Behav. 2000, 60, 731–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, R.A.; van Leeuwen, E.J.; Whiten, A. Chimpanzees’ behavioral flexibility, social tolerance, and use of tool-composites in a progressively challenging foraging problem. iScience 2021, 24, 102033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt-Lunstad, J.; Uchino, B.N. Social ambivalence and disease (SAD): A theoretical model aimed at understanding the health implications of ambivalent relationships. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 14, 941–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bestelmeyer, P.E.G.; Kotz, S.A.; Belin, P. Effects of emotional valence and arousal on the voice perception network. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2017, 12, 1351–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, C.; Randle, H.; Pearson, G.; Preshaw, L.; Waran, N. Assessing equine emotional state. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 205, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kremer, L.; Holkenborg, S.K.; Reimert, I.; Bolhuis, J.E.; Webb, L.E. The nuts and bolts of animal emotion. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2020, 113, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smith, A.V.; Proops, L.; Grounds, K.; Wathan, J.; Scott, S.K.; McComb, K. Domestic horses (Equus caballus) discriminate between negative and positive human nonverbal vocalisations. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 13052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Briefer, E.F.; Mandel, R.; Maigrot, A.L.; Freymond, S.B.; Bachmann, I.; Hillmann, E. Perception of emotional valence in horse whinnies. Front. Zool. 2017, 14, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, N.; Randle, H. Personal space requirements of mares versus geldings (Equus caballus): Welfare implications and visual representation of spatial data via Spatial Web diagrams). BSAP Occas. Publ. 2006, 35, 203–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craig, J.V. Measuring social behavior: Social dominance. J. Anim. Sci. 1986, 62, 1120–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weeks, J.W.; Crowell-Davis, S.L.; Caudle, A.B.; Heusner, G.L. Aggression and social spacing in light horse (Equus caballus) mares and foals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 68, 319–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inoue, S.; Yamamoto, S.; Ringhofer, M.; Mendonça, R.S.; Pereira, C.; Hirata, S. Spatial positioning of individuals in a group of feral horses: A case study using drone technology. Mammal Res. 2019, 64, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salau, J.; Hildebrandt, F.; Czycholl, I.; Krieter, J. “HerdGPS-Preprocessor”—A Tool to Preprocess Herd Animal GPS Data; Applied to Evaluate Contact Structures in Loose-Housing Horses. Animals 2020, 10, 1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hildebrandt, F.; Büttner, K.; Salau, J.; Krieter, J.; Czycholl, I. Proximity between horses in large groups in an open stable system—Analysis of spatial and temporal proximity definitions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021, 242, 105418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, K.C.; Nascimento-Emond, S.D.; Hixson, C.L.; Miller-Cushon, E.K. Social networks respond to a disease challenge in calves. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 9119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benhajali, H.; Richard-Yris, M.A.; Leroux, M.; Ezzaouia, M.; Charfi, F.; Hausberger, M. A note on the time budget and social behaviour of densely housed horses: A case study in Arab breeding mares. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 112, 196–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Estevez, I.; Andersen, I.-L.; Nævdal, E. Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 103, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stockmaier, S.; Bolnick, D.I.; Page, R.A.; Carter, G.G. An immune challenge reduces social grooming in vampire bats. Anim. Behav. 2018, 140, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazlauskas, N.; Klappenbach, M.; Depino, A.M.; Locatelli, F.F. Sickness behavior in honey bees. Front. Physiol. 2016, 7, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirsten, K.; Soares, S.M.; Koakoski, G.; Kreutz, L.C.; Barcellos, L.J.G. Characterization of sickness behavior in zebrafish. Brain Behav. Immun. 2018, 73, 596–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, L.-M.; Wu, B.; Chen, C.-C.; Wang, J.; Peng, M.-S.; Zhang, Z.-J.; Wang, X.-Q. Association of Chronic Low Back Pain with Personal Space Regulation. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 719271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopes, P.C.; Block, P.; König, B. Infection-induced behavioural changes reduce connectivity and the potential for disease spread in wild mice contact networks. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 31790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willette, A.A.; Lubach, G.R.; Coe, C.L. Environmental context differentially affects behavioral, leukocyte, cortisol, and interleukin-6 responses to low doses of endotoxin in the rhesus monkey. Brain Behav. Immun. 2007, 21, 807–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberger, N.I.; Inagaki, T.K.; Mashal, N.M.; Irwin, M.R. Inflammation and social experience: An inflammatory challenge induces feelings of social disconnection in addition to depressed mood. Brain Behav. Immun. 2010, 24, 558–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inagaki, T.K.; Muscatell, K.A.; Irwin, M.R.; Moieni, M.; Dutcher, J.M.; Jevtic, I.; Breen, E.C.; Eisenberger, N.I. The role of the ventral striatum in inflammatory-induced approach toward support figures. Brain Behav. Immun. 2015, 44, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Author(s), Publication Year | Study Design | Control Group | Observation Method(s) | Observation Duration | Observation Time Window | Number of Incl. Behaviours |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wells & Goldschmidt-Rothschild 1979 [5] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Random order, direct in the field, focal and scan sampling (15 min 3×/day per horse) | 16 weeks (4 × 3 blocks, 1 × 4-week block) | 7:00–19:00 | 8 |
Arnold & Grassia 1982 [88] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Random order, direct in the field, focal sampling (4 h/day) | Between October and December | 2 h in the morning and 2 h in the afternoon | 2 |
Wood-Gush & Galbraith 1987 [89] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Random order, direct in the field, focal and scan sampling (1×/h or 1×/15 min all positions + 15 min continuously of activity and social interaction) | 11.5 weeks (36 h) | 8:30–16:30 | 10 |
Feh 1988 [79] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Direct in the field, focal and scan sampling (1×/10 min/horse all positions) | 4 h/day, 5 weeks | 8:00–19:00 | 17 |
Keiper 1988 [91] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Random order, direct in the field, focal sampling (15 min/horse) | 2 months, 44.5 h in total | 4–5 h, between 9:00 and 16:00 | 9 |
Kolter & Zimmermann 1988 [90] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Random order, direct in the field, all occurrence sampling technique | 113 h in total, throughout the year | 2 h in the morning + 2 h in the afternoon | 16 |
Ellard & Crowell-Davis 1989 [29] | Experimental study—Pre-post study design. Randomized pairs for testing | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Direct in the field, all occurrence sampling techniques and scan sampling (nearest neighbour every 15 min) | 56.7 h in total (2 h/day, 5 d/week, 6 weeks) | 15.00–17.00 | 9 |
Keiper & Receveur 1992 [55] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Direct in the field, all occurrence sampling techniques | 159 h in total (4.5 h/day, 41 days) | 4 or 5 h, between 5:00 and 24:00 | 16 |
McDonnell & Haviland 1995 [37] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Direct in the field, ad libitum sampling technique | 50 h in total, 4 weeks | daylight hours | 23 |
Christensen et al., 2002 (a) [12] | Experimental study—Randomized controlled trial study design | Horses randomly assigned, individual vs. group stabling | Direct in the field, focal sampling (social interaction: 3 h/day/group) and scan sampling (nearest neighbours: every 10 min for 1 h, 4 days/week) | 192 h in total, 28 h/week for 6 weeks | 3 h, 6:00 and 22:00 | 14 |
Christensen et al., 2002 (b) [13] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Comparison between two non-randomized groups, no interventions | Direct in the field, focal sampling (social interaction: 3–4 h/day/group) and scan sampling (nearest neighbour: every 10 min) | 72 h/group | 3 or 4 h windows during daylight hours | 14 |
Snorrason et al., 2003 [22] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Random order, focal sampling (social interaction: 15 min) and scan sampling (nearest neighbour: every 30 min) | 488 h in total, 5 weeks | throughout 24 h | 11 |
Heitor et al., 2006a (part I) [14] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution. | Random order, direct in field, focal sampling for social interactions, scan sampling every 5 min for activity and nearest neighbour | 386 h, 80.4 h per mare (range 74.9–88.1) and 54.5 h for the stallion | between 07:30 and 16:30 h | 14 |
Heitor et al., 2006b (part II) [30] | 14 | |||||
Jørgensen et al., 2009 [54] | Observational study (farm)-ecological study design | Comparison between three groups with non-randomized composition, no interventions | Direct in the field, focal sampling for social interactions (2 h/day for 3 days, 4 horses/group), scan sampling for nearest neighbour every 10 min | 6 h/group | between 8:00–11:00 and 12:00–15:00 | 18 |
Zharkikh & Andersen 2009 [92] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Random order, direct in the field, focal sampling (15 min, 3×/horse/day) and scan sampling for nearest neighbour every 10 min | 216 h, 18 days | between 6:00 and 18:00 | 22 |
Heitor & Vicente 2010 [26] | Observational study (farm)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Random order, direct in the field, focal sampling (social interaction: 25 min/horse/day) scan sampling for nearest neighbour every 5 min and ad libitum | 141 h in total, 5 months | between 6:30 and 18:30 | 15 |
Christensen et al., 2011 [58] | Experimental study-Randomized controlled trial study design | Horses were randomly assigned, stable group vs. unstable group | Direct in the field, focal sampling (2 × 20 min/group/day) | 3 months per year for 2 years | between 8.00–11:00 and 12:00–15:00 | 16 |
Schneider & Krueger 2012 [34] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Direct in the field, ad libidum sampling of third-party interventions and scan sampling (1×/h group spatial map) | 44 h over three months (non-consecutive) | daylight hours (max. 6.5 h/day) | 11 |
Flauger & Krueger 2013 [80] | Experimental study—Pre-post study design | Absent. No randomization. Groups measured before and after intervention (change of paddock size) | Focal sampling (4 h/group) and focal sampling (introduction of new horses (2 h/introduction) | variable number of observations between groups (average 6 times, range 1 to 13) | NA | 7 |
Freymond et al., 2013 [56] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Behaviour sampling of social interactions | 23 days: 109 h/horse, 17 days: 87 h/horse | either 9–11; 13–15; 17–18 or 7–9; 11–13; 15–17 | 14 |
Krueger et al., 2014 [41] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Direct in the field, ad libidum sampling (social interaction: 14 h/group) and scan sampling (spatial organization: map drawn 1×/h for 15 h/group | May 2009 and May 2010 | daylight hours (max 6.5 h/day) | 12 |
Krueger et al., 2015 [52] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Direct in the field, ad libidum sampling (social interaction: 9 × 4 h) and focal sampling (newly introduced horse 4 × 2 h/horse) | between April 2008 and May 2010 | for 4 h approximatively, daylight hours | 11 |
Górecka-Bruzda et al., 2016 [93] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Comparison between two groups with non-randomized composition with no interventions | Przewalski: twice/day during 5 time slots, 10 min/focal horse, 10 h/horse in total Domestic horses: 3 time slots, 5 min/focal horse, 4.16 h/horse in total | Przewalski horses: 10 h/horse; Domestic horses: 4.16 h/horse | Przewalski: daylight hours (7:00–21:00); Domestic Horses: daylight hours (6:00–19:30) | 9 |
Majecka & Klawe 2017 [94] | Experimental study—Pre-post study design | Absent. No randomization. Measurements before and after intervention (=change of paddock size) | Direct in the field, focal sampling (social interaction, 30 min once or twice/group/day) | between March and July 2011, 43 × 30 min | 9 a.m.–12 p.m. | 13 |
Wolter et al., 2018 [27] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Direct in the field, continuous ad libitum sampling (social interaction) and scan sampling (spatial proximity every 10 min) | 165 h in total | daylight hours | 9 |
Pierard et al., 2019 [62] | Observational study (field)-ecological study design | Absent. No randomization for group constitution | Direct in the field, all occurrence sampling (social interaction: 90–120 min, 2–4×/day) and scan sampling (spatial position every 15 min) | 17 days; 54 h 25 min | not fixed | 12 |
Author(s), Publication Year | Total Horses (n) | Number of Herds | Horses/Herd | Type and Breed | Sex | Age (Years) Mean +/− s.d. (Range) | Size of Enclosure | Feeding |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wells & Goldschmidt-Rothschild 1979 [5] | 18 | 1 | 18 | semi-feral (Camargue) | 8 mares, 2 stallions, 22-year-old stallions, 6 yearlings, 7 foals | NA | 300 ha | NA |
Arnold & Grassia 1982 [88] | study 1: 17; study 2: 12 | 1 | study 1: 17; study 2: 12 | domesticated (NA) | study1: 16 mares/1 male; study 2: 11 mares/1 male | study 1: 10.3 +/− 7 (3–24); study2: 19.6 +/− 7.5 (4–32) | 12 ha, 15 ha | chaff, grains, hay |
Wood-Gush & Galbraith 1987 [89] | 13 | 1 | 13 | domesticated (Exmoor, Highland) | 2 mares, 11 males | 14 +/− 5.2 (6–22; one NA) | 2 ha | daily hay |
Feh 1988 [79] | 9 | 2 | 4; 5 | semi-feral (Przewalski) | 4 mares, 5 males | 3 +/− 1.2 (2–5) | 4 ha, 16 ha | grass, hay, pellets |
Keiper 1988 [91] | 6 | 1 | 6 | semi-feral (Przewalski) | 5 mares, 1 male, 3 foals | 8 +/− 8.9 (0–21) | NA | NA |
Kolter & Zimmermann 1988 [90] | 7 | 1 | 7 | semi-feral (Przewalski) | 6 mares, 1 male | 9.75 +/− 7.5 (1–22) | 2800 m2 | hay, oats, pellets |
Ellard & Crowell-Davis 1989 [29] | 12 | 1 | 12 | domesticated (Belgian, Percheron) | 12 mares | 6.9 +/− 3.6 (2–13) | 10 ha | daily hay |
Keiper & Receveur 1992 [55] | 10 | 2 | 5; 5 | semi-feral (Przewalski) | 6 mares, 4 stallions | 3 +/− 2.8 (0–8) | 37 ha, 350 ha | grass, hay, pellets |
McDonnell & Haviland 1995 [37] | 15 | 1 | 15 | domesticated (NA) | 15 stallions | (2–21) | 2 acres | NA |
Christensen et al., 2002 (a) [12] | 19 | 2 | 12; 7 | domesticated (Danish Warmblood) | 19 stallions | 2 years old | group 1: 5.6 × 4.8 m boxes + 40 × 90 m paddocks; group 2: 3.6 × 2.5 m boxes + 20 × 40 m paddocks; 2 ha/group; 4 ha | barley straw, concentrate, grass, hay, molasses, silage |
Christensen et al., 2002 (b) [13] | 32 | 1; 1 | 19; 13 | domesticated (NA); semi-feral (Przewalski) | 32 stallions | group 1: 2; group 2: 5.2 +/− 3.3 (2–13) | 4 ha, 75 ha | grass |
Snorrason et al., 2003 [22] | 33 | 1 | 33 | domesticated (Icelandic) | 17 mares, 2 geldings, 14 yearlings and 8 foals (sex not specified) | 9 +/− 6.7 (1–20) | 8 ha | grass, silage |
Heitor et al., 2006a (part I) [14] | 11 | 1 | 11 | domesticated (Sorraia) | 10 mares, 1 stallion | 11 +/− 3.6 (5–18) | 5.5 ha, 17.2 ha | grass, hay |
Heitor et al., 2006b (part II) [30] | 11 | 1 | 11 | domesticated (Sorraia) | 10 mares, 1 stallion | 11 +/− 3.6 (5–18) | 5.5 ha, 17.2 ha | grass, hay |
Jørgensen et al., 2009 [54] | 66 | 3 × 6 rounds | 3; 3; 4; 4; 5; 3; 3; 3; 4; 4; 6; 4; 4; 4; 4; 5; 9; 3 | domesticated (Warmblood, Norwegian Fjord) | 22 mares, 24 males. Composition of one group unspecified | (1–26) | from 100 to 75,000 m2/horse | grass, roughage |
Zharkikh & Andersen 2009 [92] | 16 | 1 | 16 | semi-feral (Przewalski) | 16 males | (5–16) | 3.5 ha | grass |
Heitor & Vicente 2010 [26] | 11 | 1 | 11 | domesticated (Sorraia) | 11 mares | (4–22) | 5.5 ha, 17.2 ha | grass, hay |
Christensen et al., 2011 [58] | 45 | 15 | 3 | domesticated (Danish Warmblood) | 45 mares | 2-years-old | 80 × 80 m | barley, barley straw, grass, seed cake and minerals, silage |
Schneider & Krueger 2012 [34] | 84 | 4 | 14; 20; 30; 20 | feral (Espéra ponies) | group 1: 13 mares/1 stallion; group 2: 19 mares/1 stallion; group 3: 27 mares/3 stallions; group 4: 19 mares/1 stallion | (1–28) | free-ranging | mountain pastures |
Flauger & Krueger 2013 [80] | 68 | 11 | 3; 4; 3; 8; 14; 3; 3; 15; 4; 8; 3 | domesticated (Warmblood, Quarter horses, Trotters, Haflingers, ponies) | NA | (1–30) | 402 m2, 17,882 m2 | NA |
Freymond et al., 2013 [56] | 9 | 2 | 5; 9 (four were included in both groups) | domesticated (Franches-Montagnes) | 9 stallions | (8–19) | 4 ha | hay |
Krueger et al., 2014 [41] | 55 | 3 | 11; 19; 25 | feral (Espéra ponies) | group 1: 10 mares/1 stallion; group 2: 18 mares/1 stallion; group 3: 22 mares/3 stallions | (1–23) | free-ranging | hay |
Krueger et al., 2015 [52] | 11 | 1 | 11 | semi-feral (Przewalski) | 11 stallions | (2–8) | 50 ha | hay, horse feed |
Górecka-Bruzda et al., 2016 [93] | 27 | 2; 4 | 4–6, 4–6; 5, 2, 8, 4 | semi-feral; domesticated | semi-feral groups: 4–6 adult males; domestic group 1: 2 males + 3 geldings; group 2: 2 males; group 3: 1 male + 7 females; group 4: 1 male + 3 females | NA | from 2 to 1600 ha | hay |
Majecka & Klawe 2017 [94] | 78 | 3 | 26; 28; 24 | domesticated (Friesian, Arabian, Shetland, Warmblood) | 41 mares, 25 geldings, 12 stallions | group 1: 10.2 (2–21); group 2: 8.8 (2 months-30 years); group 3: 5.3 (3 months-16 years) | from 0.35 to 8.1 ha | hay |
Wolter et al., 2018 [27] | 145 | 11 | 5; 7; 6; 9; 9; 23; 10; 12; 19; 26; 19 | semi-feral (Przewalski)—feral (Equus ferus caballus) | 113 mares, 32 males | group 1: 2.6; group 2: 8.7; group 3: 8.5; group 4: 6.2; group 5: 10.4; NA for other groups | free-ranging | hay |
Pierard et al., 2019 [62] | 11 | 1 | 11 | domesticated (Irish Cob, Arabian, Warmblood) | 10 mares, 1 gelding | 10 +/− 7.3 (1–29) | from 160 m2 to 610 m2 | hay |
Social Behaviour Category | Social Behaviour | Definition | Differences in the Definition | Used by n/27 Papers | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Approach eliciting retreat [12,13,14,26,27,29,34,37,41,52,55,58,91,92]/Displacement [54] | Approach of one horse with ears back causes another to move away so that distance is maintained or increased | “Approach within 2 m distance” [29]/two body-length distance14 | 15 | Displacement is used variably either to describe “eliciting retreat” or “supplant”; to minimize ambiguity, we propose avoiding “displace” and differentiate the two types of agonistic approach as approach-retreat and approach-supplant | |
agonistic–aggressive | (Approach with) Supplantation [29,79]/Displacement [64] | Horse moving toward another horse and taking the exact same place after the other horse moved away | Either individual may have laid back ears [29] | 3 | |
Arched neck threat [37] | Neck tightly flexed with the muzzle drawn toward the chest; observed during close aggressive encounters and ritualized interactions | 1 | |||
Attack [14,22,26,30,90]/Lunge [37,56] | Fast movement toward another horse, with ears flattened, head stretched horizontal | “One horse rears with the forelegs in the direction of another horse, ears laid back” [56] | 7 | ||
Backing [54] | Backward movement towards another horse with ears oriented backwards | 1 | |||
Bite [5,12,13,14,22,26,27,29,30,34,37,41,52,54,55,56,58,64,79,80,88,89,90,91,92,93,94] | Ears are laid back and teeth are closed on some body part of another animal. Lips retracted and contact is made with the target horse | 27 | Bite is considered as a grasp if the hold is maintained | ||
Bite threat [5,12,13,14,22,26,27,29,30,34,37,41,52,54,55,56,58,64,80,88,89,90,91,92,93,94] | Ears are laid back, the mouth is opened, and a biting motion is made while head or full body motion toward another animal, no contact is made. A bite intention movement and neck extended | 26 | |||
Chase [14,22,26,27,29,30,34,37,41,52,54,55,56,58,64,80,90,91,92,93,94] | With its ears pinned back, the aggressor chases another individual | Specification of “for at least 1” [29] or “3 [64] strides”; “at a gallop“ [92]; “The movement can be either at a walk, trot or gallop” [80] | 21 | We propose limiting “chase” to fast gaits to differentiate between “agonistic approach” and “chase” | |
Circling [37,56] | Two horses circle each other head-to-tail, trying to nip or bite each other’s body parts | 2 | Can also be part of play behaviour | ||
Fight [92] | High-level prolonged mutual aggression involves bites, strikes, kicks, chase, etc. Usually, the opponents squeal | 1 | |||
Head bump [37] | A rapid lateral toss of the head that forcefully contacts the head and neck of another horse. Usually, the eyes remain closed and the ears forward | 1 | |||
Head-threat [5,29,37,54,64,79,90,94] | The extension of the aggressor’s head and neck towards another individual while laying the ears against its head | 8 | |||
Herding [14,26,30,37,41,55,90,91]/Driving [5]/Snaking [92] | Combination of head threat with the ears back and forward locomotion directing the movement of another horse | Swinging head sideways [14,91,92] | 10 | ||
Kick [12,13,14,22,26,27,29,30,34,37,41,52,54,55,56,58,64,79,80,88,89,90,91,92,93,94] | With its ears laid back, one or both hindlegs of the aggressor are extended backwards rapidly and strike another animal with apparent intent to make contact | 26 | |||
Kick-threat [5,12,13,14,22,26,27,29,30,34,37,41,52,54,55,56,58,64,79,80,88,89,90,91,92,93,94] | The aggressor, with its ears laid back, either (1) makes a rapid movement to place its hindquarters near another animal; or (2) raises a hind limb to potentially strike another; or (3) kicks with 1 or both hindlimbs towards another animal, but no contact is made | Vigorous tail switching, production of a harsh squeal [37,93] | 27 | ||
Mild threat [14,26,30] | Ears laid back and looking or walking towards another horse | 3 | Definition lacks details; combined with movement analogous to an agonistic approach | ||
Push [12,13,37,54,56,58,89,92,94] | Pressing of the head, neck, shoulder, body, or croup against another in an apparent attempt to displace the target animal | 9 | |||
Strike [37,54,55,56,58,64,91,92] | A rapid motion of one or both forelegs in the anterior direction | Arched neck threat and posturing [37,58] | 8 | ||
Strike-threat [37,64] | The aggressor’s ears are laid back, and its head and shoulders are oriented toward another individual. One or both forelimbs move out- and forward toward the other animal, but no contact is made | 2 | |||
Agonistic submissive | Avoidance/Withdrawal [14,22,26,30,37,64,90,92] | Movement that maintains or increases the distance to an approaching horse (which does not threaten). While making way, the subordinate usually lays its ears back | Only head turn away from the initiator [14,30] | 8 | These three terms are used interchangeably → clarification of the definitions is required. We propose using avoidance/withdrawal to indicate increase/maintenance of distance to a non-threatening approaching horse, retreat as a reaction to an agonistic approach at the walk or trot, and flight as a rapid increase/maintenance of distance in response to an attack |
Retreat [27,34,37,41,52,80] | One individual immediately moves away from an animal that approaches to within 2 m of it to maintain or increase the distance | 6 | |||
Flight [22,56] | Avoiding, retreating from another horse, usually with ears laid back | Walking, trotting or galloping [56] | 2 | ||
Balk [37] | Abrupt halt or reversal of direction with movement of the head and neck in a rapid sweeping dorsolateral motion away from an apparent threat while the hind legs remain stationary. The forelegs may simultaneously lift off the ground | 1 | |||
Snapping [5,12,13,22,37,54,55,58,79] | Corners of the open mouth are pulled back, showing teeth and gums, making chewing motions. Hindlegs may be slightly bent in a cringing position. Head and neck are extended, the ears are oriented back or laterally | An appeasement act delivered to older/higher-ranked animals [55] | 9 | ||
affiliative | (Affiliative) Approach [5,14,27,30,55,64,80,90,93] | Moving to within 1 m [5]/1 [27]/2 [14,26,30] body-lengths of another horse that does not immediately move away and staying there for at least 5 [64]/10 [14,26,30] s without agonistic interaction | Across one [27]/two [14,26,30] body-length distance | 9 | |
Grooming approach [34,41,52] | Approach with subsequent mutual grooming | 3 | |||
Mutual approach [34,41,52] | Both animals approach each other | 3 | |||
Following [14,26,30,37,55,56,79,90] | Moving immediately behind another horse that had just initiated locomotion and stay within three body-lengths for at least 10 s without agonistic interaction and without initiating physical contact | Head low without any attempt to attack or bite [56] | 8 | ||
Friendly body contact/Touching [5,14,26,30,55,79,89,92] | Touch made with ears forward or laterally positioned | Lightly with the nose or lips, also called nose-body contact [55,79,89] | 8 | ||
Head contact [37,54,58,79,90,92,93] | A position where a horse puts its chin on the back or rear of a companion | 7 | |||
Mutual grooming [5,12,13,14,22,26,27,30,34,37,41,52,54,55,56,58,64,79,88,89,90,91,92,93,94] | Two horses stand head to tail and chew or nuzzle each other’s coats | After introductory sniffing [93], by gently nipping, nuzzling or rubbing [27,37,54,56,64,95] | 25 | ||
Pairing/Stand resting together [26,90] | Standing together (in antiparallel position), less than 0.5–1 m apart | 2 | |||
Pass the mane/Under the neck [92] | A horse passes (its mane) under its companion’s chin and neck. The other horse may or may not reciprocate | 1 | |||
Play [5,12,13,22,54,55,56,58,79,89,90,92,94] | Play includes playful nips, pounces, etc. A playful character of the interaction is indicated by the ears oriented forward or laterally, lips protruded, and teeth covered. Vocalization (squeal or scream) is not produced | 13 | |||
Play fight [12,13,54,58,94] | High-intensity play, which is reciprocated by one or more partners, includes vigorous play movements such as rearing, boxing, nipping, circling, grasping, kneeling and chasing | 5 | |||
Rubbing with the head/chin/body [79,92] | Rubbing up and down with the forehead/cheek/chin/itself against a companion | 2 | |||
investigative | Head bowing [37,92] | Repeated, exaggerated, rhythmic flexing of the neck such that the muzzle is brought toward the point of the breast. Usually occurs synchronously between two horses when they first approach each other head to head | A squeal is emitted [92] | 2 | These behaviours can be investigative or agonistic depending on whether or not they are followed by squeals and stomping |
Nose-nose interaction [55,79,89,92] | Two horses approach each other with arched necks and touch noses standing either opposite each other or side by side | Squeal always follows, and a stomp almost always occurs [92] | 4 | ||
Olfactory investigation (nasal/genital/body sniff) [12,13,37,54,56,58,79,90,91,92,93,94] | Sniffing various parts of another horse’s body, including the head, neck, flank, genitals, and tail or perineal region. Another horse may or may not reciprocate | Squeal produced during the behavioural ritual “sniff and squeal” [56] | 11 | ||
neutral | Neutral approach [34,41,52,79] | One animal approaching another without subsequent agonistic or affiliative interactions | 4 |
Quantitative Assessment | Formula | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|
Frequency of Behaviours | Social interactions | Total number of affiliative and agonistic behaviours observed/per horse and or per hour | [12,13,14,34,55,56,64,80,89,92,93,94] |
Mean number of social interactions per week | [58] | ||
Social interactions in %: (Number of observations of a behaviour/total number of observed behaviours) × 100 | [5,54,55] | ||
Aggressiveness, aggressive score | Total number of agonistic behaviours observed | [27,29,79,90] | |
Count of agonistic acts received and given | [55] | ||
Aggression rate per group per horse/total number of aggressions per group per horse | [27] | ||
Activity similarity | (Number of observations including A and B)/(Total number of observations of A + total number of observations of B) | [22,89] | |
Time percentage when two horses were first neighbours and engaged in the same activity | [5] | ||
Nearest neighbour | Nearest neighbour per activity = Time that individuals were first neighbour to each other when engaged in same activity/time that individuals were first neighbour to each other × 100 | [5,89] | |
Frequency of two individuals being observed as “being close” or “being far” | [79] | ||
Number of observations including A and B/total number of observations of A + total number of observations of B | [89,92] | ||
Observations of an individual at a specific distance/Total observations of that individual at any distance × 100 | [22,54] | ||
Total number of observations in which an individual was either the first or second neighbour of a particular one (single link cluster analyses) | [5] | ||
Duration | Duration of a behaviour/interaction | Time in seconds from start to end | [37,90] |
Dominance Relationships | Ranking index | Number of agonistic encounters won by A against B/total number of agonistic encounters in which A and B were involved | [27,29,34,52,55,90,92] |
Highest rank = individual with least threats possible from individuals below it | [5,55] | ||
Comparison between the number of threats received by individuals and the number of threats initiated | [22,91] | ||
[(Number of horses that this male dominates—number of horses that this male is dominated by + group size + 1)/2] | [56] |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Torres Borda, L.; Auer, U.; Jenner, F. Equine Social Behaviour: Love, War and Tolerance. Animals 2023, 13, 1473. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13091473
Torres Borda L, Auer U, Jenner F. Equine Social Behaviour: Love, War and Tolerance. Animals. 2023; 13(9):1473. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13091473
Chicago/Turabian StyleTorres Borda, Laura, Ulrike Auer, and Florien Jenner. 2023. "Equine Social Behaviour: Love, War and Tolerance" Animals 13, no. 9: 1473. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13091473
APA StyleTorres Borda, L., Auer, U., & Jenner, F. (2023). Equine Social Behaviour: Love, War and Tolerance. Animals, 13(9), 1473. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13091473