FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and He...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2022; 12(7); 931; doi: 10.3390/ani12070931

Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and Head Shapes Using Geometric Morphometrics.

Abstract: Since donkey breeding has increased due to their variety of uses, welfare evaluation has become more important. This study aimed to compare donkey, pony, and horse dorsal profiles and head shapes using geometric morphometrics (GM). Photographs of 14 donkeys, 14 ponies, and 14 horses were analyzed using GM, including the sliding semilandmarks method. The variations in the first three principal components (PCs) were PC1: 57.16%, PC2: 16.05%, and PC3: 8.31% for the dorsal profiles and PC1: 44.77%, PC2: 13.46%, and PC3: 7.66% for the head shapes. Both the dorsal profiles and head shapes differed between donkeys and horses (p 0.05). Moreover, both the dorsal profiles and head shapes differed in size between ponies and horses (p 0.05). Higher Mahalanobis and Procrustes distances were noted between donkeys and horses as well between donkeys and ponies than between ponies and horses. The use of geometric morphometrics revealed the differences in the dorsal profiles and head shapes between the studied equids. These differences should be taken into account when adapting welfare scales and methods from horses to donkeys.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2022-04-05 PubMed ID: 35405919PubMed Central: PMC8997093DOI: 10.3390/ani12070931Google 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

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 article analyzes and compares the dorsal profiles and head shapes of donkeys, ponies, and horses. Using a method known as geometric morphometrics, the study finds significant differences in these features among the three types of equids, which are important considerations for their care and welfare.

Methodology and Sample

  • The study used photographs of 14 donkeys, 14 ponies, and 14 horses as their research basis.
  • The research method used was Geometric Morphometrics (GM), a statistical technique to quantify and analyze the shape and size of structures. It is of particular use in biological sciences because it analyzes shape independently from size, scale, and position.
  • Also included in this study is the Sliding Semilandmarks method, a technique in GM that allows the analysis of curves and outlines, which lack obvious homologous points or landmarks.

Results and Variations

  • The results showed variations captured as principal components (PCs). For the dorsal profiles, PC1 accounted for 57.16%, PC2 for 16.05%, and PC3 for 8.31%. For the head shapes, PC1 accounted for 44.77%, PC2 for 13.46%, and PC3 for 7.66% of the variations.
  • Principal components analysis is a method used to reduce data set dimensions and highlight the most significant patterns. Here, the majority of variation was captured within the first few components.
  • The dorsal profiles and head shapes differed significantly between donkeys and horses, whereas no significant differences were found between donkeys and ponies.

Implications and Conclusions

  • The researchers noted higher Mahalanobis and Procrustes distances between donkeys and horses and between donkeys and ponies than between ponies and horses. These measures are used in statistics to compare relative differences between shapes.
  • This research has important implications for animal welfare. Differences in shape and size might require adjustments in animal handling, tools use, welfare evaluation, or medical procedures.
  • The researchers conclude that the differences found using geometric morphometrics between the equids are important to consider when transferring welfare scales and methods from horses to donkeys.

Cite This Article

APA
Maśko M, Wierzbicka M, Zdrojkowski Ł, Jasiński T, Sikorska U, Pawliński B, Domino M. (2022). Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and Head Shapes Using Geometric Morphometrics. Animals (Basel), 12(7), 931. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070931

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 7
PII: 931

Researcher Affiliations

Maśko, Małgorzata
  • Department of Animal Breeding, Institute of Animal Science, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS-SGGW), 02-787 Warsaw, Poland.
Wierzbicka, Małgorzata
  • Department of Large Animal Diseases and Clinic, Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS-SGGW), 02-787 Warsaw, Poland.
Zdrojkowski, Łukasz
  • Department of Large Animal Diseases and Clinic, Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS-SGGW), 02-787 Warsaw, Poland.
Jasiński, Tomasz
  • Department of Large Animal Diseases and Clinic, Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS-SGGW), 02-787 Warsaw, Poland.
Sikorska, Urszula
  • Department of Animal Breeding, Institute of Animal Science, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS-SGGW), 02-787 Warsaw, Poland.
Pawliński, Bartosz
  • Department of Large Animal Diseases and Clinic, Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS-SGGW), 02-787 Warsaw, Poland.
Domino, Małgorzata
  • Department of Large Animal Diseases and Clinic, Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS-SGGW), 02-787 Warsaw, Poland.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 52 references
  1. Starkey P, Starkey M. Regional and world trends in donkey populations.. 2000;pp. 10–21.
  2. Norris SL, Little HA, Ryding J, Raw Z. Global donkey and mule populations: Figures and trends.. PLoS One 2021;16(2):e0247830.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247830pmc: PMC7906361pubmed: 33630957google scholar: lookup
  3. De Aluja AS. The welfare of working equids in Mexico.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998;59:19–29.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00117-8google scholar: lookup
  4. Kubasiewicz LM, Rodrigues JB, Norris SL, Watson TL, Rickards K, Bell N, Judge A, Raw Z, Burden FA. The Welfare Aggregation and Guidance (WAG) Tool: A New Method to Summarize Global Welfare Assessment Data for Equids.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Mar 25;10(4).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10040546pmc: PMC7222376pubmed: 32218133google scholar: lookup
  5. Rayner E, Airikkala-Otter I, Susheelan A, Gibson A, Itaba R, Mayani T, Mellanby RJ, Gamble L. Prevalence of skin wounds in working donkeys in Bukombe, Tanzania.. Vet Rec 2020 Mar 7;186(9):284.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.105399pubmed: 31554710google scholar: lookup
  6. Camillo F, Rota A, Biagini L, Tesi M, Fanelli D, Panzani D. The current situation and trend of donkey industry in Europe.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2018;65:44–49.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.11.008google scholar: lookup
  7. Miraglia N, Salimei E, Fantuz F. Equine Milk Production and Valorization of Marginal Areas-A Review.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Feb 22;10(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020353pmc: PMC7070972pubmed: 32098374google scholar: lookup
  8. D'Alessandro AG, Martemucci G. Lactation curve and effects of milking regimen on milk yield and quality, and udder health in Martina Franca jennies (Equus asinus).. J Anim Sci 2012 Feb;90(2):669-81.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2011-4283pubmed: 21965450google scholar: lookup
  9. Altomonte I, Salari F, Licitra R, Martini M. Donkey and human milk: Insights into their compositional similarities.. Int. Dairy J. 2019;89:111–118.
    doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2018.09.005google scholar: lookup
  10. Almeida A, Rodrigues J. Animal traction: New opportunities and new challenges. Proceedings of the IX International Scientific Symposium on Farm Machinery and Processes Management in Sustainable Agriculture; Lublin, Poland. 22–24 November 2017.
  11. Tully PAG, Carr N. Presenting the donkey at the seaside: A move towards tackling speciesism in the tourism industry.. Ann. Leis. Res. 2020;23:1–18.
    doi: 10.1080/11745398.2020.1737549google scholar: lookup
  12. Colombo E, Manti F, Milani L, Bernardini D. Assessing the effects of donkey-assisted therapy on adults with intellectual disabilities using the ICF framework.. Soc Anim. 2020;1:1–22.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-00001542google scholar: lookup
  13. Burn CC, Dennison TL, Whay HR. Environmental and demographic risk factors for poor welfare in working horses, donkeys and mules in developing countries.. Vet J 2010 Dec;186(3):385-92.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.09.016pubmed: 19926316google scholar: lookup
  14. Haddy E, Burden F, Proops L. Shelter seeking behavior of healthy donkeys and mules in a hot climate.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2020;222:104898.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104898google scholar: lookup
  15. van Dierendonck MC, Burden FA, Rickards K, van Loon JPAM. Monitoring Acute Pain in Donkeys with the Equine Utrecht University Scale for Donkeys Composite Pain Assessment (EQUUS-DONKEY-COMPASS) and the Equine Utrecht University Scale for Donkey Facial Assessment of Pain (EQUUS-DONKEY-FAP).. Animals (Basel) 2020 Feb 22;10(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020354pmc: PMC7070438pubmed: 32098391google scholar: lookup
  16. Burden F. Practical feeding and condition scoring for donkeys and mules.. Equine Vet. Educ. 2012;24:589–596.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.2011.00314.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  17. McLean AK, Gonzalez FJN. Can scientists influence donkey welfare? Historical perspective and a contemporary view.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2018;65:25–32.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.03.008google scholar: lookup
  18. Thiemann AK, Buil J, Rickards K, Sullivan RJ. A review of laminitis in the donkey.. Equine Vet. Educ. 2021:1–8.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.13533google scholar: lookup
  19. Valle E, Raspa F, Giribaldi M, Barbero R, Bergagna S, Antoniazzi S, Mc Lean AK, Minero M, Cavallarin L. A functional approach to the body condition assessment of lactating donkeys as a tool for welfare evaluation.. PeerJ 2017;5:e3001.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.3001pmc: PMC5372837pubmed: 28367363google scholar: lookup
  20. Maśko M, Wierzbicka M, Zdrojkowski Ł, Jasiński T, Pawliński B, Domino M. Characteristics of the Donkey's Dorsal Profile in Relation to Its Functional Body Condition Assessment.. Animals (Basel) 2021 Oct 29;11(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11113095pmc: PMC8614367pubmed: 34827827google scholar: lookup
  21. Broom DM. Animal welfare: concepts and measurement.. J Anim Sci 1991 Oct;69(10):4167-75.
    doi: 10.2527/1991.69104167xpubmed: 1778832google scholar: lookup
  22. Mendl M, Burman OHP, Parker RMA, Paul ES. Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: Emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009;118:161–181.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.023google scholar: lookup
  23. Sénèque E, Morisset S, Lesimple C, Hausberger M. Testing optimal methods to compare horse postures using geometric morphometrics.. PLoS One 2018;13(10):e0204208.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204208pmc: PMC6209139pubmed: 30379841google scholar: lookup
  24. Sénèque E, Lesimple C, Morisset S, Hausberger M. Could posture reflect welfare state? A study using geometric morphometrics in riding school horses.. PLoS One 2019;14(2):e0211852.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211852pmc: PMC6363216pubmed: 30721258google scholar: lookup
  25. Thiemann AK, Rickards KJ, Getachew M, Paraschou G. Colic in the donkey.. In: Blikslager AT, White NA, Moore JN, Mair TS, editors. The Equine Acute Abdomen. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2017. pp. 471–488.
  26. Burden F, Thiemann A. Donkeys are different.. J. Eq. Vet. Sci. 2015;35:376–382.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2015.03.005google scholar: lookup
  27. Hummel HI, Pessanha F, Salah AA, van Loon TJ, Veltkamp RC. Automatic pain detection on horse and donkey faces. Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition; Buenos Aires, Argentina. 16–20 November 2020.
  28. Ashley FH, Waterman-Pearson AE, Whay HR. Behavioural assessment of pain in horses and donkeys: application to clinical practice and future studies.. Equine Vet J 2005 Nov;37(6):565-75.
    doi: 10.2746/042516405775314826pubmed: 16295937google scholar: lookup
  29. Pritchard JC, Lindberg AC, Main DC, Whay HR. Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters.. Prev Vet Med 2005 Jul 12;69(3-4):265-83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002pubmed: 15907574google scholar: lookup
  30. Regan FH, Hockenhull J, Pritchard JC, Waterman-Pearson AE, Whay HR. Behavioural repertoire of working donkeys and consistency of behaviour over time, as a preliminary step towards identifying pain-related behaviours.. PLoS One 2014;9(7):e101877.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101877pmc: PMC4116118pubmed: 25076209google scholar: lookup
  31. Grint NJ, Murrell JC, Whay HR. Investigating the opinions of donkey owners and veterinary surgeons towards pain and analgesia in donkeys.. Equine Vet. Educ. 2015;27:365–371.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12330google scholar: lookup
  32. Bussières G, Jacques C, Lainay O, Beauchamp G, Leblond A, Cadoré JL, Desmaizières LM, Cuvelliez SG, Troncy E. Development of a composite orthopaedic pain scale in horses.. Res Vet Sci 2008 Oct;85(2):294-306.
    doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2007.10.011pubmed: 18061637google scholar: lookup
  33. Graubner C, Gerber V, Doherr M, Spadavecchia C. Clinical application and reliability of a post abdominal surgery pain assessment scale (PASPAS) in horses.. Vet J 2011 May;188(2):178-83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.04.029pubmed: 20627635google scholar: lookup
  34. van Loon JP, Van Dierendonck MC. Monitoring acute equine visceral pain with the Equine Utrecht University Scale for Composite Pain Assessment (EQUUS-COMPASS) and the Equine Utrecht University Scale for Facial Assessment of Pain (EQUUS-FAP): A scale-construction study.. Vet J 2015 Dec;206(3):356-64.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.08.023pubmed: 26526526google scholar: lookup
  35. Dalla Costa E, Minero M, Lebelt D, Stucke D, Canali E, Leach MC. Development of the Horse Grimace Scale (HGS) as a pain assessment tool in horses undergoing routine castration.. PLoS One 2014;9(3):e92281.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092281pmc: PMC3960217pubmed: 24647606google scholar: lookup
  36. Gleerup KB, Forkman B, Lindegaard C, Andersen PH. An equine pain face.. Vet Anaesth Analg 2015 Jan;42(1):103-14.
    doi: 10.1111/vaa.12212pmc: PMC4312484pubmed: 25082060google scholar: lookup
  37. Merkies K, Paraschou G, McGreevy PD. Morphometric Characteristics of the Skull in Horses and Donkeys-A Pilot Study.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jun 8;10(6).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10061002pmc: PMC7341236pubmed: 32521777google scholar: lookup
  38. Martin BB Jr, Klide AM. Physical examination of horses with back pain.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1999 Apr;15(1):61-70, vi.
    doi: 10.1016/S0749-0739(17)30163-3pubmed: 10218241google scholar: lookup
  39. Davidson EJ. Lameness Evaluation of the Athletic Horse.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2018 Aug;34(2):181-191.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2018.04.013pubmed: 30007446google scholar: lookup
  40. Klingenberg CP. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics.. Mol Ecol Resour 2011 Mar;11(2):353-7.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02924.xpubmed: 21429143google scholar: lookup
  41. Jerbi H, Rejeb A, Erdoğan S, Pérez W. Anatomical and morphometric study of gastrointestinal tract of donkey (Equus africanus asinus). J. Morphol. Sci. 2014;31:18–22.
    doi: 10.4322/jms.ao055613google scholar: lookup
  42. Jamdar MN, Ema AN. A note on the vertebral formula of the donkey.. Br Vet J 1982 May-Jun;138(3):209-11.
    doi: 10.1016/S0007-1935(17)31084-9pubmed: 7093650google scholar: lookup
  43. Dyce KM, Sack WO, Wensing CJG. The neck, back, and vertebral column of the horse.. In: Singh B, editor. Dyce, Sack, and Wensing’s Textbook of Veterinary Anatomy. 5th ed. Saunders; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 2017.
  44. Burnham SL. Anatomical differences of the donkey and mule. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the AAEP 2002; Orlando, FL, USA. 4–8 December 2002.
  45. McLean AN, Christensen JW. The application of learning theory in horse training.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017;190:18–27.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.020google scholar: lookup
  46. Grint NJ, Beths T, Yvorchuk-St Jean K, Whay HR, Murrell JC. Analysis of behaviors observed during mechanical nociceptive threshold testing in donkeys and horses.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;50:102–109.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2016.11.001google scholar: lookup
  47. Corrales-Hernández A, Mota-Rojas D, Guerrero-Legarreta I, Roldan-Santiago P, Rodríguez-Salinas S, Yáñez-Pizaña A, de la Cruz L, González-Lozano M, Mora-Medina P. Physiological responses in horses, donkeys and mules sold at livestock markets.. Int J Vet Sci Med 2018 Jun;6(1):97-102.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijvsm.2018.03.002pmc: PMC6145166pubmed: 30255085google scholar: lookup
  48. Davis E. Donkey and Mule Welfare.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2019 Dec;35(3):481-491.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2019.08.005pubmed: 31672200google scholar: lookup
  49. McLean AK, Navas González FJ, Canisso IF. Donkey and Mule Behavior.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2019 Dec;35(3):575-588.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2019.08.010pubmed: 31672203google scholar: lookup
  50. Maher MA, Farghali HAM, Abdelnaby EA, Emam IA. Gross Anatomical, Radiographic and Doppler Sonographic Approach to the Infra-auricular Parotid Region in Donkey (Equus asinus).. J Equine Vet Sci 2020 May;88:102968.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.102968pubmed: 32303329google scholar: lookup
  51. Charan J, Kantharia ND. How to calculate sample size in animal studies?. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2013 Oct;4(4):303-6.
    doi: 10.4103/0976-500X.119726pmc: PMC3826013pubmed: 24250214google scholar: lookup
  52. Brooks SA, Makvandi-Nejad S, Chu E, Allen JJ, Streeter C, Gu E, McCleery B, Murphy BA, Bellone R, Sutter NB. Morphological variation in the horse: defining complex traits of body size and shape.. Anim Genet 2010 Dec;41 Suppl 2:159-65.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2010.02127.xpubmed: 21070291google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 3 times.
  1. Yakubu A, Okpeku M, Shoyombo AJ, Onasanya GO, Dahloum L, Çelik S, Oladepo A. Exploiting morphobiometric and genomic variability of African indigenous camel populations-A review.. Front Genet 2022;13:1021685.
    doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.1021685pubmed: 36579332google scholar: lookup
  2. Salamanca-Carreño A, Parés-Casanova PM, Monroy-Ochoa NI, Vélez-Terranova M. Would the Cephalic Development in the Purebred Arabian Horse and Its Crosses Indicate a Paedomorphic Process?. Animals (Basel) 2022 Nov 16;12(22).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12223168pubmed: 36428393google scholar: lookup
  3. Salamanca-Carreño A, Parés-Casanova PM, Rangel-Pachón DE, Bentez-Molano J, Vélez-Terranova OM. No Morphological Integration of Dorsal Profiles in the Araucanian Horse (Colombia).. Animals (Basel) 2022 Jul 5;12(13).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12131731pubmed: 35804630google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.