FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / PLoS One / Animal behaviour in a human world: A crowdsourcing study on ...
PloS one2019; 14(6); e0218954; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218954

Animal behaviour in a human world: A crowdsourcing study on horses that open door and gate mechanisms.

Abstract: Anecdotal reports of horses opening fastened doors and gates are an intriguing way of exploring the possible scope of horses' problem-solving capacities. The species' natural environment has no analogues of the mechanisms involved. Scientific studies on the topic are missing, because the rate of occurrence is too low for exploration under controlled conditions. Therefore, we compiled from lay persons case reports of horses opening closed doors and gates. Additionally, we collected video documentations at the internet platform YouTube, taking care to select raw data footage of unedited, clearly described and clearly visible cases of animals with no distinct signs of training or reduced welfare. The data included individuals opening 513 doors or gates on hinges, 49 sliding doors, and 33 barred doors and gateways; mechanisms included 260 cases of horizontal and 155 vertical bars, 43 twist locks, 42 door handles, 34 electric fence handles, 40 carabiners, and 2 locks with keys. Opening was usually for escape, but also for access to food or stable-mates, or out of curiosity or playfulness. While 56 percent of the horses opened a single mechanism at one location, 44 percent opened several types of mechanism (median = 2, min. = 1, max. = 5) at different locations (median = 2, min. = 1, max. = 4). The more complex the mechanism was, the more movements were applied, varying from median 2 for door handles to 10 for carabiners. Mechanisms requiring head- or lip-twisting needed more movements, with significant variation between individuals. 74 horses reported in the questionnaire had options for observing the behaviour in stable mates, 183 did not, which indicates that the latter learned to open doors and gates either individually or from observing humans. Experience favours opening efficiency; subjects which opened several door types applied fewer movements per lock than horses which opened only one door type. We failed to identify a level of complexity of door-fastening mechanism that was beyond the learning capacity of the horse to open. Thus, all devices in frequent use, even carabiners and electric fence handles, are potentially vulnerable to opening by horses, something which needs to be considered in relation to keeping horses safely.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2019-06-26 PubMed ID: 31242266PubMed Central: PMC6594629DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218954Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research was focused on collecting and analyzing cases of horses independently opening different types of doors and gates. The results showed a surprising level of capacity for problem-solving and learning, with no door mechanism found to be too complex for a horse to eventually learn to open.

Research Purpose and Methodology

  • This study aimed to investigate the capabilities of horses to open different kinds of fastened doors and gates. This helps to understand their problem-solving capacities despite not having similar mechanisms in their natural environments.
  • Primarily using crowdsourcing, the researchers compiled case reports from lay individuals and video documentation from YouTube, making sure to select cases where there were no signs of the horse being trained or being under conditions of reduced welfare.

Findings

  • The study found that horses are capable of opening a variety of mechanisms, ranging from hinge doors to twist locks, electric fence handles, carabiners, and even locks with keys.
  • Most of the time, horses open these mechanisms to escape confinement or to access food and other horses, suggesting an understanding of the results of their actions, but sometimes it also appeared to be driven by curiosity or playfulness.
  • While a majority of the horses could only open one type of mechanism, a significant minority could open two or more types, with the maximum being five different mechanisms.
  • The complexity of the mechanism significantly increased the number of movements a horse had to make to open it, with door handles requiring the least movements and carabiners requiring the most.
  • How a horse learns to open these mechanisms was also explored, with results suggesting a mix of individual learning and learning from observing other horses or humans. For the latter, the more experience a horse had, the more efficient it became at opening doors and gates.

Implications

  • The researchers failed to find a door or gate mechanism that a horse could not learn to open, suggesting that all common mechanisms are potentially vulnerable.
  • These findings have importance for horse keeping, as it suggests that special care has to be taken when choosing door and gate mechanisms in order to prevent horses from escaping confinement.

Cite This Article

APA
Krueger K, Esch L, Byrne R. (2019). Animal behaviour in a human world: A crowdsourcing study on horses that open door and gate mechanisms. PLoS One, 14(6), e0218954. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218954

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 14
Issue: 6
Pages: e0218954

Researcher Affiliations

Krueger, Konstanze
  • Department Zoology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
  • Department Equine Economics, Section of Agriculture, Economics and Management, Nürtingen-Geislingen University, Nürtingen, Germany.
Esch, Laureen
  • Department Equine Economics, Section of Agriculture, Economics and Management, Nürtingen-Geislingen University, Nürtingen, Germany.
  • Department of Animal Welfare, Ethology, Animal Hygiene and Animal Husbandry Section of Veterinarian Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, München, Germany.
Byrne, Richard
  • Centre for Social Learning & Cognitive Evolution, School of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Behavior, Animal / physiology
  • Crowdsourcing / methods
  • Female
  • Horses / physiology
  • Humans
  • Male

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

This article includes 70 references
  1. Devenport JA, Patterson MR, Devenport LD. Dynamic averaging and foraging decisions in horses (Equus callabus). J Comp Psychol 2005;119: 352–358.
    doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.119.3.352pubmed: 16131264google scholar: lookup
  2. Berger J. Wild horses of the Great Basin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1986.
  3. Steidele N. Beobachtungen einer Przewalski-Junggesellenherde im Jahresverlauf unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Ruheverhalten und Rangordnung. Doctoral Thesis, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich. 2011.
  4. Griffin AS, Tebbich S, Bugnyar T. Animal cognition in a human-dominated world. Anim Cogn 2017;20: 1–6.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-1051-9pubmed: 27848045google scholar: lookup
  5. Schwenk BK, Fürst AE, Bischhofberger AS. Traffic accident-related injuries in horses. Pferdeheilkunde 2016;32: 192–199.
  6. Kiliç S, Cantürk G. Car accident due to horse crossing the motorway: two case reports. Bull Leg Med 2017;23: 73–76.
    doi: 10.17986/blm.2017227929google scholar: lookup
  7. Petherick JC, Rutter SM. Quantifying motivation using a computer-controlled push-door. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1990;27: 159–167.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(90)90015-6google scholar: lookup
  8. Koistinen T, Korhonen HT, Hämäläinen E, Mononen J. Blue foxes' (Vulpes lagopus) motivation to gain access and interact with various resources. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2016;176: 105–111.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.01.012google scholar: lookup
  9. Bartal IB-A, Decety J, Mason P. Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science 2011;334: 1427–1430.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1210789pmc: PMC3760221pubmed: 22158823google scholar: lookup
  10. Thorndike EL. Review of animal intelligence: an experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychol Rev 1898;5: 551–553.
    doi: 10.1037/h0067373google scholar: lookup
  11. Krueger K. Social Ecology of Horses. In: Korb J and Heinze J, editors. Ecology of Social Evolution. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2008. pp 195–206.
  12. Krueger K, Flauger B. Social feeding decisions in horses (Equus caballus). Behav Process 2008;78: 76–83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.01.009pubmed: 18313236google scholar: lookup
  13. Krueger K, Flauger B, Farmer K, Hemelrijk C. Movement initiation in groups of feral horses. Behav Process 2014;103: 91–101.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.10.007pubmed: 24220794google scholar: lookup
  14. Nicol CJ. Equine learning: progress and suggestions for future research. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2002;78: 193–208.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00093-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  15. Byrne R, Whiten A. Machiavellian Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press; 1988.
  16. Whiten A, Horner V, Litchfield CA, Marshall-Pescini S. How do apes ape?. Learn Behav 2004;32: 36–52.
    doi: 10.3758/BF03196005pubmed: 15161139google scholar: lookup
  17. Laland KN. Social learning strategies. Learn Behav 2004;32: 4–14.
    doi: 10.3758/BF03196002pubmed: 15161136google scholar: lookup
  18. 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.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0133-0pubmed: 18183432google scholar: lookup
  19. Krueger K, Farmer K, Heinze J. The effects of age, rank and neophobia on social learning in horses. Anim Cogn 2014;17: 645–655.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0696-xpubmed: 24170136google scholar: lookup
  20. Schuetz A, Farmer K, Krueger K. Social learning across species: horses (Equus caballus) learn from humans by observation. Anim Cogn 2017;20: 567–573.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-1060-8pubmed: 27866286google scholar: lookup
  21. Rørvang MV, Ahrendt LP, Christensen JW. A trained demonstrator has a calming effect on naïve horses when crossing a novel surface. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2015;171: 117–120.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.08.008google scholar: lookup
  22. Rørvang MV, Christensen JW, Ladewig J, McLean A. Social learning in horses—fact or fiction?. Front Vet Sci 2018;5: 212.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00212pmc: PMC6135911pubmed: 30238009google scholar: lookup
  23. Nelson XJ, Fijn N. The use of visual media as a tool for investigating animal behaviour. Anim Behav 2013;85: 525–536.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.12.009google scholar: lookup
  24. Hiby EF, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS. Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Anim Welf 2004;13: 63–69.
  25. Lefebvre L, Reader SM, Sol D. Brains, innovations and evolution in birds and primates. Brain Behav Evol 2004;63: 233–246.
    doi: 10.1159/000076784pubmed: 15084816google scholar: lookup
  26. Bouchard J. Is social learning correlated with innovation in birds? An inter-and an interspecific test. Master's thesis. Department of Biology McGill University Montréal, Québec. 2002.
  27. Whiten A, Byrne RW. Tactical deception in primates. Behav Brain Sci 1988;11: 233–244.
    doi: 10.1017/S0140525x00049682google scholar: lookup
  28. Byrne RW, Whiten A. Tactical deception in primates: the 1990 database. German Primate Center; 1990. 1–101.
  29. Byrne RW. Do larger brains mean greater intelligence?. Behav Brain Sci 1993;16; 696–697.
    doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00032362google scholar: lookup
  30. Reader SM, Laland KN. Primate innovation: sex, age and social rank differences. Int J Primatol 2001;22: 787–805.
    doi: 10.1023/A:1012069500899google scholar: lookup
  31. Reader SM, Laland KN. Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99: 4436–4441.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.062041299pmc: PMC123666pubmed: 11891325google scholar: lookup
  32. Bates LA, Byrne RW. Creative or created: Using anecdotes to investigate animal cognition. Methods 2007;42: 12–21.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.11.006pubmed: 17434411google scholar: lookup
  33. Baker PJ, Funk SM, Harris S, White PCL. Flexible spatial organization of urban foxes, Vulpes vulpes, before and during an outbreak of sarcoptic mange. Anim Behav 2000;59: 127–146.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1285pubmed: 10640375google scholar: lookup
  34. Bachmann I, Audige L, Staﾬher M. Risk factors associated with behavioural disorders of crib-biting, weaving and box-walking in Swiss horses. Equine Vet J 2003;35: 158–163.
    doi: 10.2746/042516403776114216pubmed: 12638792google scholar: lookup
  35. Burn CC. A vicious cycle: a cross-sectional study of canine tail-chasing and human responses to it, using a free video-sharing website. Plos One 2011;6: e26553.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026553pmc: PMC3212522pubmed: 22096487google scholar: lookup
  36. Momozawa Y, Ono T, Sato F, Kikusui T, Takeuchi Y, Mori Y. Assessment of equine temperament by a questionnaire survey to caretakers and evaluation of its reliability by simultaneous behavior test. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2003;84: 127–138.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.08.001google scholar: lookup
  37. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 2002;85: 879–903.
    pubmed: 14516251
  38. Sabou M, Bontcheva K, Scharl A. Crowdsourcing research opportunities: lessons from natural language processing. proceedings of the 12th international conference on knowledge management and knowledge technologies 2012;17–1.
    doi: 10.1145/2362456.2362479google scholar: lookup
  39. Bücheler T, Sieg JH. Understanding science 2.0: Crowdsourcing and open innovation in the scientific method. Proceedings of the 2nd european future technologies conference and exhibition 2011 (FET 11) 2011;7: 327–329.
    doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2011.09.014google scholar: lookup
  40. Wiggins A, Crowston K. From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences 2011; 1–10.
    doi: 10.1109/Hicss.2011.207google scholar: lookup
  41. Whalen A, Cownden D, Laland K. The learning of action sequences through social transmission. Anim Cogn 2015;18: 1093–1103.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-015-0877-xpubmed: 26006723google scholar: lookup
  42. McLean AN. Short-term spatial memory in the domestic horse. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2004;85: 93–105.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.09.009google scholar: lookup
  43. Houpt KA. Equine behavior problems in relation to humane management. Int J Stud Anim Prob 1981;2: 329–337.
  44. Mills D, Clarke A. Housing, Management and Welfare. The Welfare of Horses. 2002. pp 77–97.
  45. Henderson AJZ. Don't fence me in: managing psychological well being for elite performance horses. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2007;10: 309–329.
    doi: 10.1080/10888700701555576pubmed: 17970632google scholar: lookup
  46. Creswell JW. Research design. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014. XXIX, 273 Seiten.
  47. Petersen JL, Mickelson JR, Cothran EG, Andersson LS, Axelsson J, Bailey E. Genetic diversity in the modern horse illustrated from genome-wide SNP data. Plos One 2013;8; e54997.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054997pmc: PMC3559798pubmed: 23383025google scholar: lookup
  48. Pirault P, Danvy S, Verrier E, Leroy G. Genetic structure and gene flows within horses: A genealogical study at the French population scale. Plos One 2013;8: e61544.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061544pmc: PMC3632587pubmed: 23630596google scholar: lookup
  49. Hanggi EB. Discrimination learning based on relative size concepts in horses (Equus caballus). Appl Anim Behav Sci 2003;83: 201–213.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00136-9google scholar: lookup
  50. Webster MM, Laland KN. Social learning strategies and predation risk: minnows copy only when using private information would be costly. Proc R Soc Lond B 2008;275: 2869–2876.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0817pmc: PMC2605836pubmed: 18755676google scholar: lookup
  51. Reader SM. Innovation and social learning: individual variation and brain evolution. Anim Biol Leiden 2003;53: 147–158.
    doi: 10.1163/157075603769700340google scholar: lookup
  52. Reader SM, Laland KN. Animal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
  53. Mersmann D, Tomasello M, Call J, Kaminski J, Taborsky M. Simple mechanisms can explain social learning in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Ethology 2011;117: 675–690.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.01919.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  54. Henderson JV, Warant NK. Reducing equine stereotypies using an equiball. Anim Welfare 2001;10: 73–80.
  55. Löckener S, Reese S, Erhard M, Wöhr A-C. Pasturing in herds after housing in horseboxes induces a positive cognitive bias in horses. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2016;11: 50–55.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2015.11.005google scholar: lookup
  56. Mench JA, Morrow-Tesch J, Chu L-R. Environmental enrichment for farm animals. Lab Anim 1998;27: 32–36.
  57. Biondi LM, Bó MS, Vassallo AI. Inter-individual and age differences in exploration, neophobia and problem-solving ability in a Neotropical raptor (Milvago chimango). Anim Cogn 2010;13: 701–710.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0319-8pubmed: 20300791google scholar: lookup
  58. Wolff A, Hausberger M. Learning and memorisation of two different tasks in horses: the effects of age, sex and sire. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1996;46: 137–143.
  59. Schwartz LP, Silberberg A, Casey AH, Kearns DN, Slotnick B. Does a rat release a soaked conspecific due to empathy?. Anim Cogn 2017;20: 299–308.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-1052-8pmc: PMC5570553pubmed: 27822786google scholar: lookup
  60. Kusunose R, Yamanobe A. The effect of training schedule on learned tasks in yearling horses. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2002;78: 225–233.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00089-8google scholar: lookup
  61. McCall CA, Salters MA, Simpson SM. Relationship between number of conditioning trials per training session and avoidance learning in horses. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1993;36: 291–299.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(93)90127-Bgoogle scholar: lookup
  62. Rubin L, Oppegard C, Hindz HF. The effect of varying the temporal distribution of conditioning trials on equine learning behavior. J Anim Sci 1980;50: 1184–1187.
    doi: 10.2527/jas1980.5061184xpubmed: 7400060google scholar: lookup
  63. Esch L, Wöhr C, Erhard M, Krueger K. Horses’ (Equus Caballus) Laterality, Stress Hormones, and Task Related Behavior in Innovative Problem-Solving. Animals 2019;9; 265.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9050265pmc: PMC6562608pubmed: 31121937google scholar: lookup
  64. Maros K, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á. Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 2008;11;:457–466.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0136-5pubmed: 18247069google scholar: lookup
  65. Proops L, Walton M, McComb K. The use of human-given cues by domestic horses, Equus caballus, during an object choice task. Anim Behav 2010;79: 1205–1209.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.02.015pubmed: 19588176google scholar: lookup
  66. Proops L, Rayner J, Taylor AM, McComb K. The responses of young domestic horses to human-given cues. PLoS ONE 2013;8: e67000 EP -.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067000pmc: PMC3686775pubmed: 23840572google scholar: lookup
  67. Smith AV, Proops L, Grounds K, Wathan J, McComb K. Functionally relevant responses to human facial expressions of emotion in the domestic horse (Equus caballus). Biol Lett 2016;12.
    doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0907pmc: PMC4780548pubmed: 26864784google scholar: lookup
  68. Proops L, McComb K. Attributing attention: the use of human-given cues by domestic horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 2010;13: 197–205.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0257-5pubmed: 19588176google scholar: lookup
  69. Krueger K, Flauger B, Farmer K, Maros K. Horses (Equus caballus) use human local enhancement cues and adjust to human attention. Anim Cogn 2011;14: 187–201.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0352-7pubmed: 20845052google scholar: lookup
  70. Pfungst O. Der Kluge Hans. Ein Beitrag zur nichtverbalen Kommunikation. Frankfurt am Main: Frankfurter Fachbuchhandlung für Psychologie; 1907.

Citations

This article has been cited 8 times.
  1. Bastos APM, Claessens S, Nelson XJ, Welch D, Atkinson QD, Taylor AH. Evidence of self-care tooling and phylogenetic modeling reveal parrot tool use is not rare. iScience 2025 Apr 18;28(4):112156.
    doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.112156pubmed: 40171485google scholar: lookup
  2. Vardi R, Soriano-Redondo A, Gutiérrez JS, Dylewski Ł, Jagiello Z, Mikula P, Berger-Tal O, Blumstein DT, Jarić I, Sbragaglia V. Leveraging social media and other online data to study animal behavior. PLoS Biol 2024 Aug;22(8):e3002793.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002793pubmed: 39208351google scholar: lookup
  3. Bungum HZ, Johns P. The influence of pups on aggressive interactions between smooth-coated otters and water monitor lizards in Singapore. Ecol Evol 2022 Nov;12(11):e9514.
    doi: 10.1002/ece3.9514pubmed: 36407907google scholar: lookup
  4. Greeson JL, Gabriel KI, Mulcahy JB, King Hendrickson B, Lonborg SD, Holloway JC. An Evaluation of Ethograms Measuring Distinct Features of Enrichment Use by Captive Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Animals (Basel) 2022 Aug 10;12(16).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12162029pubmed: 36009618google scholar: lookup
  5. Krueger K, Trager L, Farmer K, Byrne R. Tool Use in Horses. Animals (Basel) 2022 Jul 22;12(15).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12151876pubmed: 35892526google scholar: lookup
  6. Krueger K, Esch L, Byrne R. Need or opportunity? A study of innovations in equids. PLoS One 2021;16(9):e0257730.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257730pubmed: 34570831google scholar: lookup
  7. Pickering P, Hockenhull J. Optimising the Efficacy of Equine Welfare Communications: Do Equine Stakeholders Differ in Their Information-Seeking Behaviour and Communication Preferences?. Animals (Basel) 2019 Dec 20;10(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10010021pubmed: 31861909google scholar: lookup
  8. Esch L, Wöhr C, Erhard M, Krüger K. Horses' (Equus Caballus) Laterality, Stress Hormones, and Task Related Behavior in Innovative Problem-Solving. Animals (Basel) 2019 May 22;9(5).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9050265pubmed: 31121937google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.