FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / PeerJ / Foraging efficiency, social status and body condition in gro...
PeerJ2020; 8; e10305; doi: 10.7717/peerj.10305

Foraging efficiency, social status and body condition in group-living horses and ponies.

Abstract: Individual animals experience different costs and benefits associated with group living, which may impact on their foraging efficiency in ways not yet well specified. This study investigated associations between social dominance, body condition and interruptions to foraging behaviour in a cross-sectional study of 116 domestic horses and ponies, kept in 20 discrete herds. Social dominance was measured for each individual alongside observations of winter foraging behaviour. During bouts of foraging, the duration, frequency and category (vigilance, movement, social displacements given and received, scratching and startle responses) of interruptions were recorded, with total interruption time taken as a proxy measure of foraging efficiency. Total foraging time was not influenced by body condition or social dominance. Body condition was associated with social dominance, but more strongly associated with foraging efficiency. Specifically, lower body condition was associated with greater vigilance. This demonstrates that factors other than social dominance can result in stable differences in winter body condition.
© 2020 Giles et al.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-11-09 PubMed ID: 33240636PubMed Central: PMC7659649DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10305Google 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 explored the connection between social status, body condition, and feeding efficiency in a group of 116 domestic horses and ponies. The study found that the social status and body condition of the horses had no significant effect on total feeding time, but body condition had a strong correlation with feeding efficiency, with leaner animals showing higher vigilance.

Study Design and Objective

  • The main purpose of this study was to understand the relationships between social hierarchy, physical condition, and foraging disruptions in domesticated horses and ponies.
  • Utilizing a sample of 116 domestic horses and ponies from 20 separate herds, the researchers observed these animals’ foraging habits during winter.

Social Dominance and Interrupted Foraging

  • The animals’ status on the social ladder was measured and compared with instances of interruptions during their feeding times.
  • The interruptions during feeding sessions were classified into various categories such as vigilance, movement, social displacements given and received, scratching, and startle responses.
  • The total amount of time spent not foraging as a result of these disruptions was regarded as an indication of the efficiency of foraging.

Observations and Findings

  • The researchers observed that both social status and body condition did not affect the total amount of time spent on foraging.
  • However, it was noted that body condition and social dominance were connected, with body condition having a stronger link to foraging efficiency.
  • Interestingly, horses and ponies that had lesser body conditions displayed a higher degree of vigilance during foraging.
  • These findings suggested that elements other than social dominance could lead to consistent differences in the winter body conditions of these animals.

Conclusion

  • Although the social hierarchy didn’t significantly affect total feeding time, it was apparent that an animal’s body condition had an impact on its feeding efficiency.
  • This implies that the body condition of an animal might be an essential factor to consider in future feeding and care strategies for group-living horses and ponies.

Cite This Article

APA
Giles SL, Harris P, Rands SA, Nicol CJ. (2020). Foraging efficiency, social status and body condition in group-living horses and ponies. PeerJ, 8, e10305. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10305

Publication

PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
NlmUniqueID: 101603425
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 8
Pages: e10305
PII: e10305

Researcher Affiliations

Giles, Sarah L
  • School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset, UK.
Harris, Pat
  • Equine Studies Group, WALTHAM Petcare Science Institute, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, UK.
Rands, Sean A
  • School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nicol, Christine J
  • Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, UK.

Conflict of Interest Statement

Christine Nicol is an Academic Editor for PeerJ. Pat Harris is an employee of WALTHAM Petcare Science Institute. The authors declare that they have no other competing interests.

References

This article includes 56 references
  1. Appleby MC. Social rank and food access in red deer stags.. Behaviour 1980;74:294–309.
  2. Bautista LM, Alonso Jc, Alonso JA. Foraging site displacement in common crane flocks.. Anim Behav 1998 Nov;56(5):1237-1243.
    pubmed: 9819341doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0882google scholar: lookup
  3. Berger A, Scheibe KM, Eichhorn K, Scheibe A, Streich J. Diurnal and ultradian rhythms of behaviour in a mare group of Przewalski horse (Equus ferus przewalskii), measured through one year under semi-reserve conditions.. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1999;64:1–17.
  4. Clark CW, Ekman J. Dominant and subordinate fattening strategies: a dynamic game.. Oikos 1995;72:205–212.
  5. Drews C. The concept and definition of dominance in animal behaviour.. Behaviour 1993;125:283–313.
  6. Duncan P. Time-budgets of Camargue horses II: time-budgets of adult horses and weaned sub-adults.. Behaviour 1980;72:26–48.
  7. Ekman J. Exposure and time use in willow tit flocks: the cost of subordination.. Animal Behaviour 1987;35:445–452.
  8. Elgar MA. Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence.. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 1989 Feb;64(1):13-33.
    pubmed: 2655726doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1989.tb00636.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  9. Fattorini N, Ferretti F. To scan or not to scan? Occurrence of the group-size effect in a seasonally nongregarious forager.. Ethology 2019;125:263–275.
  10. Fritz H, Guillemain M, Durant D. The cost of vigilance for intake rate in the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos): an approach through foraging experiments.. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 2002;14:91–97.
  11. Gilhaus K, Hoelzel N. Seasonal variations of fodder quality and availability as constraints for stocking rates in year-round grazing schemes.. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 2016;234(S1):5–15.
  12. Giles SL, Rands SA, Nicol CJ, Harris PA. Obesity prevalence and associated risk factors in outdoor living domestic horses and ponies.. PeerJ 2014;2:e299.
    pmc: PMC3970797pubmed: 24711963doi: 10.7717/peerj.299google scholar: lookup
  13. Giles SL, Nicol CJ, Harris PA, Rands SA. Dominance rank is associated with body condition in outdoor-living domestic horses (Equus caballus).. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2015 May;166:71-79.
    pmc: PMC4407901pubmed: 25937683doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.02.019google scholar: lookup
  14. Goodwin D. The importance of ethology in understanding the behaviour of the horse.. Equine Vet J Suppl 1999 Apr;(28):15-9.
    pubmed: 11314229doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05150.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  15. Goss-Custard JD, Caldow RWG, Clarke RT, West AD. Deriving population parameters from individual variations in foraging behaviour II: model tests and population parameters.. Journal of Animal Ecology 1995;64:277–289.
  16. Hamilton WD. Geometry for the selfish herd.. J Theor Biol 1971 May;31(2):295-311.
    pubmed: 5104951doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(71)90189-5google scholar: lookup
  17. Hartmann E, Christensen JW, McGreevy PD. Dominance and leadership: useful concepts in human-horse interactions?. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2017;52:1–9.
  18. Hemelrijk CK. Towards the integration of social dominance and spatial structure.. Anim Behav 2000 May;59(5):1035-1048.
    pubmed: 10860531doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1400google scholar: lookup
  19. Hemelrijk CK. Understanding social behaviour with the help of complexity science.. Ethology 2002;108:655–671.
  20. Henneke DR, Potter GD, Kreider JL, Yeates BF. Relationship between condition score, physical measurements and body fat percentage in mares.. Equine Vet J 1983 Oct;15(4):371-2.
    pubmed: 6641685doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1983.tb01826.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  21. Hoffmann G, Bockisch F-J, Kreimeier P. Einfluss des Haltungssystems auf die Bewegungsaktivität und Stressbelastung bei Pferden in Auslaufhaltungssystemen.. Landbauforsch Völk 2009;2:105–112.
  22. Houpt KA. Maintenance behaviours.. 2005. pp. 94–109.
  23. Houpt KA, Law K, Martinisi V. Dominance hierarchies in domestic horses.. Applied Animal Ethology 1978;4:273–283.
  24. Houston AI, McNamara JM. Models of adaptive behaviour: an approach based on state.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
  25. Hunter LTB, Skinner JD. Vigilance behaviour in African ungulates: the role of predation pressure.. Behaviour 1998;135:195–211.
  26. Ingólfsdóttir HB, Sigurjónsdóttir H. The benefits of high rank in the wintertime: a study of the Icelandic horse.. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2008;114:485–491.
  27. Jørgensen GH, Aanensen L, Mejdell CM, Bøe KE. Preference for shelter and additional heat in horses exposed to Nordic winter conditions.. Equine Vet J 2016 Nov;48(6):720-726.
    pubmed: 26509636doi: 10.1111/evj.12522google scholar: lookup
  28. Krause J, Ruxton GD. Living in groups.. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.
  29. Lamoot I, Hoffmann M. Do season and habitat influence the behaviour of Haflinger mares ina coastal dune area?. Belgian Journal of Zoology 2004;134:97–103.
  30. Maisonpierre IN, Sutton MA, Harris P, Menzies-Gow N, Weller R, Pfau T. Accelerometer activity tracking in horses and the effect of pasture management on time budget.. Equine Vet J 2019 Nov;51(6):840-845.
    pubmed: 31009100doi: 10.1111/evj.13130google scholar: lookup
  31. McDougall PL, Ruckstuhl KE. Doing what your neighbour does: neighbour proximity, familiarity and postural alignment increase behavioural mimicry.. Animal Behaviour 2018;135:177–185.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.11.009google scholar: lookup
  32. McNamara JM, Houston AI. The value of fat reserves and the tradeoff between starvation and predation.. Acta Biotheor 1990 Mar;38(1):37-61.
    doi: 10.1007/BF00047272pubmed: 2109917google scholar: lookup
  33. Marshal HH, Carter AJ, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G. Linking social foraging behaviour with individual time budgets and emergent group-level phenomena.. Animal Behaviour 2012;84(6):1295–1305.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.09.030google scholar: lookup
  34. Mayes E, Duncan P. Temporal patterns of feeding in free-ranging horses.. Behavior 1986;96(1–2):105–129.
    doi: 10.1163/156853986X00243google scholar: lookup
  35. Menzies-Gow NJ, Harris PA, Elliott J. Prospective cohort study evaluating risk factors for the development of pasture-associated laminitis in the United Kingdom.. Equine Vet J 2017 May;49(3):300-306.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12606pubmed: 27363591google scholar: lookup
  36. Mills D, Redgate S. Behaviour of horses.. 2017.
  37. Moore JL, Siciliano PD, Pratt-Phillips SE. Voluntary energy intake and expenditure in obese and lean horses consuming ad libitum forage.. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2019;74:13–20.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.12.020google scholar: lookup
  38. Pacheco MA, Herrera EA. Social structure of feral horses in the Llanos of Venezuela.. Journal of Mammalogy 1999;78(1):15–22.
    doi: 10.2307/1382634google scholar: lookup
  39. Petit O, Bon R. Decision-making processes: the case of collective movements.. Behav Processes 2010 Jul;84(3):635-47.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.04.009pubmed: 20435103google scholar: lookup
  40. Petrie A, Sabin C. Medical statistics at a glance.. 2009.
  41. Ralston SL, Squires EL, Nockels CF. Digestion in the aged horse.. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 1989;8(4):203–205.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(89)80052-8google scholar: lookup
  42. Rands SA. Approximating optimal behavioural strategies down to rules-of-thumb: energy reserve changes in pairs of social foragers.. PLoS One 2011;6(7):e22104.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022104pmc: PMC3134479pubmed: 21765938google scholar: lookup
  43. Rands SA. The effects of dominance on leadership and energetic gain: a dynamic game between pairs of social foragers.. PLoS Comput Biol 2011 Oct;7(10):e1002252.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002252pmc: PMC3197661pubmed: 22028645google scholar: lookup
  44. Rands SA, Cowlishaw G, Pettifor RA, Rowcliffe JM, Johnstone RA. Spontaneous emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs.. Nature 2003 May 22;423(6938):432-4.
    doi: 10.1038/nature01630pubmed: 12761547google scholar: lookup
  45. Rands SA, Pettifor RA, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G. State-dependent foraging rules for social animals in selfish herds.. Proc Biol Sci 2004 Dec 22;271(1557):2613-20.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2906pmc: PMC1691894pubmed: 15615688google scholar: lookup
  46. Rands SA, Pettifor RA, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G. Social foraging and dominance relationships: the effects of socially mediated interference.. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 2006;60(4):572–581.
    doi: 10.1007/s00265-006-0202-4google scholar: lookup
  47. Rands SA, Cowlishaw G, Pettifor RA, Rowcliffe JM, Johnstone RA. The emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs when the qualities of individuals differ.. BMC Evol Biol 2008 Feb 18;8:51.
    doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-8-51pmc: PMC2276478pubmed: 18282297google scholar: lookup
  48. Robin CA, Ireland JL, Wylie CE, Collins SN, Verheyen KL, Newton JR. Prevalence of and risk factors for equine obesity in Great Britain based on owner-reported body condition scores.. Equine Vet J 2015 Mar;47(2):196-201.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12275pubmed: 24735219google scholar: lookup
  49. Schneider KJ. Dominance, predation, and optimal foraging in white-throated sparrow flocks.. Ecology 1984;65(6):1820–1827.
    doi: 10.2307/1937778google scholar: lookup
  50. Stillman RA, Goss-Custard JD, Caldow RWG. Modelling interference from basic foraging behaviour.. Journal of Animal Ecology 1997;66(5):692–703.
    doi: 10.2307/5922google scholar: lookup
  51. Stillman RA, Caldow RW, Goss-Custard JD, Alexander MJ. Individual variation in intake rate: the relative importance of foraging efficiency and dominance.. Journal of Animal Ecology 2000;69(3):484–493.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2000.00410.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  52. Stillman RA, Bautista LM, Alonso JC, Alonso JA. Modelling state-dependent interference in common cranes.. Journal of Animal Ecology 2002;71(5):874–882.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00652.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  53. Sueur C, MacIntosh AJJ, Jacobs AT, Watanabe K, Petit O. Predicting leadership using nutrient requirements and dominance rank of group members.. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2013;67(3):457–470.
    doi: 10.1007/s00265-012-1466-5google scholar: lookup
  54. Underwood R. Vigilance behaviour in grazing African antelopes.. Behaviour 1982;79(2–4):81–107.
    doi: 10.1163/156853982X00193google scholar: lookup
  55. Van Dierendonck MC, De Vries H, Schilder MBH. An analysis of dominance, its behavioural parameters and possible determinants in a herd of Icelandic horses in captivity.. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 1995;45:362–385.
  56. Yngvesson J, Rey Torres JC, Lindholm J, Pättiniemi A, Andersson P, Sassner H. Health and Body Conditions of Riding School Horses Housed in Groups or Kept in Conventional Tie-Stall/Box Housing.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Feb 26;9(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9030073pmc: PMC6466050pubmed: 30813613google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 4 times.
  1. Foury A, Mach N, Ruet A, Lansade L, Moisan MP. Transcriptomic signature related to poor welfare of sport horses. Compr Psychoneuroendocrinol 2023 Nov;16:100201.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cpnec.2023.100201pubmed: 37655309google scholar: lookup
  2. Rands SA, Ioannou CC. Personality variation is eroded by simple social behaviours in collective foragers. PLoS Comput Biol 2023 Mar;19(3):e1010908.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010908pubmed: 36862622google scholar: lookup
  3. Hoyle ZE, Miller RA, Rands SA. Behavioural synchrony between fallow deer Dama dama is related to spatial proximity. BMC Ecol Evol 2021 May 6;21(1):79.
    doi: 10.1186/s12862-021-01814-9pubmed: 33957862google scholar: lookup
  4. Barnabé MA, Elliott J, Harris PA, Menzies-Gow NJ. Effects of pasture consumption and obesity on insulin dysregulation and adiponectin concentrations in UK native-breed ponies. Equine Vet J 2026 Jan;58(1):243-255.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.14507pubmed: 40257424google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.