Comparative analyses of tooth wear in free-ranging and captive wild equids.
Abstract: Captive breeding has played a crucial role in the conservation of threatened equid species. Grazing ruminants and rhinoceros in captivity have less abrasion-dominated tooth wear than their free-ranging conspecifics, with potential negative consequences for their health. However, a similar study on wild equids in captivity is missing. Objective: The aim was to establish if different tooth wear patterns are exhibited by free-ranging and captive equids. Methods: Cross-sectional study of museum specimens comparing free-ranging and captive equids. Methods: Dental casts of maxillary cheek teeth of 228 museum specimens (122 from free-ranging and 106 from captive individuals) of 7 wild equid species were analysed using the extended mesowear method. Although teeth showing specific abnormalities were not scored, the presence of focal overgrowths (hooks) of the rostral premolars (106, 206) was recorded. Results: Captive Equus ferus przewalskii, E. grevyi, E. hemionus, E. quagga boehmi and E. zebra hartmannae have less abrasion-dominated tooth wear on their premolars than their free-ranging conspecifics (P<0.001). Fewer differences were exhibited between populations in the molars. No differences were exhibited in the distal cusp of the molars (110, 210) between populations, except in a small sample of E. kiang. Captive equids exhibited more homogeneous wear along the tooth row whereas free-ranging equids exhibited a tooth wear gradient, with more abrasion on premolars than molars. There were more rostral hooks on the premolars (106, 206) in the captive than the free-ranging population (P = 0.02). Conclusions: Captive equids did experience less abrasion-dominated tooth wear than their free-ranging conspecifics, but the differences in tooth wear were less pronounced than those between captive and free-ranging wild ruminant and rhinoceros species. This indicates that feeding regimes for captive equids deviate less from natural diets than those for captive ruminants and rhinoceros but that factors leading to hook formation, in particular feeding height, should receive special attention. The Summary is available in Chinese - see Supporting information.
© 2015 EVJ Ltd.
Publication Date: 2015-04-22 PubMed ID: 25557934DOI: 10.1111/evj.12408Google 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.
- 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.
The research deals with a comparative study of tooth wear in wild horses known as equids, both in captivity and in the wild. The key objective was to determine if there are different patterns of tooth wear between these two populations.
Study Objectives
- The study aims to identify and compare tooth wear patterns in captive and free-roaming equids.
- The gap this study addresses is the lack of research on tooth wear in captive wild equids as compared to their free-ranging counterparts. Previous studies have looked into similar phenomena in other species such as ruminants and rhinoceroses, but none has extensively focused on equids.
Research Methods
- This study employed a cross-sectional analysis of dental casts of maxillary cheek teeth obtained from 228 museum specimens, comprising 122 from free-ranging equids and 106 from captive ones. The sample represented seven wild equid species.
- The extended mesowear method was utilized to examine and score tooth wear.
- In addition to tooth wear, the study also recorded the presence of overgrowths, or “hooks”, on rostral premolars.
Findings
- The analysis revealed that captive equids, specifically five species, underwent less abrasion-dominated tooth wear on their premolars compared to their free-ranging counterparts.
- Variations were less noticeable in the molar teeth of the captive and free-ranging populations.
- Captive equids manifested a more uniform pattern of wear across their teeth, in contrast to the gradient pattern exhibited by the free-ranging counterparts who showed more abrasion on premolars than molars.
- The study also found that there were more hooks on the premolars of captive equids than those in the wild.
Conclusions
- In conclusion, the research affirmed that captive equids indeed experience less abrasion-dominant tooth wear compared to their wild counterparts. However, these differences are less significant than those observed between captive and free-ranging ruminants and rhinoceros species.
- The smaller difference suggests that feeding habits for captive equids do no vary drastically from their natural diets unlike those of captive ruminants and rhinoceroses.
- Nonetheless, the study advises closer attention to factors leading to hook formation, in particular, feeding height.
Cite This Article
APA
Taylor LA, Müller DW, Schwitzer C, Kaiser TM, Castell JC, Clauss M, Schulz-Kornas E.
(2015).
Comparative analyses of tooth wear in free-ranging and captive wild equids.
Equine Vet J, 48(2), 240-245.
https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.12408 Publication
Researcher Affiliations
- Bristol Zoological Society, c/o Bristol Zoo Gardens, UK.
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, UK.
- Clinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
- National Park 'Bavarian Forest', Grafenau, Germany.
- Bristol Zoological Society, c/o Bristol Zoo Gardens, UK.
- Centre of Natural History (CeNak) - University of Hamburg, Germany.
- Veterinary Clinic Gessertshausen, Germany.
- Clinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
- Centre of Natural History (CeNak) - University of Hamburg, Germany.
- Max Planck Weizmann Center for Integrative Archaeology and Anthropology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
MeSH Terms
- Animals
- Animals, Wild
- Equidae / physiology
- Species Specificity
- Tooth Wear
Citations
This article has been cited 6 times.- Sterkenburgh T, Schulz-Kornas E, Nowak M, Staszyk C. A Computerized Simulation of the Occlusal Surface in Equine Cheek Teeth: A Simplified Model. Front Vet Sci 2021;8:789133.
- Ackermans NL, Winkler DE, Schulz-Kornas E, Kaiser TM, Martin LF, Hatt JM, Clauss M. Dental wear proxy correlation in a long-term feeding experiment on sheep (Ovis aries). J R Soc Interface 2021 Jul;18(180):20210139.
- Hohl CJM, Codron D, Kaiser TM, Martin LF, Müller DWH, Hatt JM, Clauss M. Chewing, dental morphology and wear in tapirs (Tapirus spp.) and a comparison of free-ranging and captive specimens. PLoS One 2020;15(6):e0234826.
- Ackermans NL. The history of mesowear: a review. PeerJ 2020;8:e8519.
- Karme A, Rannikko J, Kallonen A, Clauss M, Fortelius M. Mechanical modelling of tooth wear. J R Soc Interface 2016 Jul;13(120).
- Kohut G, Losey R, Kutz S, Khidas K, Nomokonova T. Assessing current visual tooth wear age estimation methods for Rangifer tarandus using a known age sample from Canada. PLoS One 2024;19(4):e0301408.
Use Nutrition Calculator
Check if your horse's diet meets their nutrition requirements with our easy-to-use tool Check your horse's diet with our easy-to-use tool
Talk to a Nutritionist
Discuss your horse's feeding plan with our experts over a free phone consultation Discuss your horse's diet over a phone consultation
Submit Diet Evaluation
Get a customized feeding plan for your horse formulated by our equine nutritionists Get a custom feeding plan formulated by our nutritionists
