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 / Need or opportunity? A study of innovations in equids.
PloS one2021; 16(9); e0257730; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257730

Need or opportunity? A study of innovations in equids.

Abstract: Debate persists over whether animals develop innovative solutions primarily in response to needs or conversely whether they innovate more when basic needs are covered and opportunity to develop novel behaviour is offered. We sourced 746 cases of "unusual" behaviour in equids by contacting equid owners and caretakers directly and via a website (https://innovative-behaviour.org), and by searching the internet platforms YouTube and Facebook for videos. The study investigated whether differences in need or opportunity for innovation were reflected in the numbers of different types of innovations and in the frequencies of repeating a once-innovative behaviour (i) with respect to the equids' sex, age, and breed type, (ii) across behavioural categories, and whether (iii) they were affected by the equids' management (single vs group housing, access to roughage feed, access to pasture, and social contact). We found that the numbers of different types of innovation and the frequency of displaying specific innovations were not affected by individual characteristics (sex, age, breed or equid species). Few types of innovation in escape and foraging contexts were observed, whilst the comfort, play, and social contexts elicited the greatest variety of innovations. We also found higher numbers of different types of innovations in horses kept in groups rather than in individual housing, and with unlimited rather than with restricted access to pasture and roughage. Equids in permanent social contact performed high rates of once-innovative behaviour. We suggest that equids produce goal-directed innovations and repeat the behaviour at high frequency in response to urgent needs for food and free movement or when kept in conditions with social conflict. However, equids devise the greatest variety of innovations when opportunity to play and to develop comfort behaviour arises and when kept in good conditions.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-09-27 PubMed ID: 34570831PubMed Central: PMC8476013DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257730Google 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.

The research investigates whether horses and other equids invent new behaviors primarily in response to necessities or whether they demonstrate more creativity when basic needs are met and have the opportunity to develop new actions. The findings showed that horses in group settings and those with plentiful access to food and free movement displayed a higher number of innovative behaviors.

Methodology

  • The research gathered 746 cases of “unusual” behavior in equids. This was accomplished through direct communication with equid owners and caretakers, and through the website innovative-behaviour.org.
  • The researchers also scoured platforms like YouTube and Facebook for videos demonstrating this behavior.
  • The study examined the connection between an equids’ gender, age, and breed with the kinds of innovative behavior they displayed.
  • The team also observed whether the equids’ housing setup, their access to food, and social interaction impacted their capacity to innovate.

Findings

  • The study concluded there was no significant correlation between the horse’s individual characteristics (sex, age, breed, or species) and the types of innovative behavior exhibited.
  • It was noticed that innovative behaviors were limited in situations where the equids need to escape or forage for food.
  • Situations where the horses were comfortable, playing, or interacting socially, brought out a wide range of innovative behavior.
  • The research found that equids in group settings and those with abundant access to food and movement exhibited more innovative behaviors than their counterparts.
  • Equids with constant social interaction also showed a high frequency of repeated innovative behavior.

Conclusion

  • The research suggests that equids come up with innovative behaviors when they have urgent needs like food and freedom to move, especially when kept in conditions with social conflict.
  • However, the study also highlights that equids exhibit the most varied innovative behaviors when they have opportunities to play and develop comfortable behaviors in suitable conditions.

Cite This Article

APA
Krueger K, Esch L, Byrne R. (2021). Need or opportunity? A study of innovations in equids. PLoS One, 16(9), e0257730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257730

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 16
Issue: 9
Pages: e0257730
PII: e0257730

Researcher Affiliations

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

MeSH Terms

  • Adaptation, Psychological
  • Animals
  • Behavior, Animal
  • Creativity
  • Equidae / psychology
  • Female
  • Horses / psychology
  • Male

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

This article includes 84 references
  1. Lee P. Adaptation to environmental change: an evolutionary perspective.. In: Box HO, editor. Primate responses to environmental changes. London: Chapmann and Hall; 1991. pp. 39–56.
  2. Kummer H, Goodall J. Conditions of Innovative Behaviour in Primates.. Philos Trans R Soc Lond. B Biol Sci 1985; 308: 203–214.
  3. Tebbich S, Griffin AS, Peschl MF, Sterelny K. From mechanisms to function: an integrated framework of animal innovation.. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2016 Mar 19;371(1690).
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0195pmc: PMC4780537pubmed: 26926285google scholar: lookup
  4. Amici F, Widdig A, Lehmann J, Majolo B. A meta-analysis of interindividual differences in innovation.. Anim Behav 2019; 155: 257–268.
  5. Reader SM, Laland KN. Animal Innovation.. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
  6. Lee PC, de Antonio CA. Necessity, unpredictability and opportunity: An exploration of ecological and social drivers of behavioral innovation.. Anim Creativity Innov 2015; 317–333.
  7. Sol D. Behavioural flexibility: a neglected issue in the ecological and evolutionary literature.. In: Reader SM, Laland KN, editors. Animal innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. pp. 63–82.
  8. Sol D, Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Lefebvre L. Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005 Apr 12;102(15):5460-5.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0408145102pmc: PMC556234pubmed: 15784743google scholar: lookup
  9. Giraldeau LA, Lefebvre L. Exchangeable producer and scrounger roles in a captive flock of feral pigeons: a case for the skill pool effect.. Anim Behav 1986; 34: 797–803.
    doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80064-1google scholar: lookup
  10. Lee PC. Innovation as a behavioural response to environmental challenges.. In: Reader SM, Laland KN, editors. Animal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. pp. 261–279.
  11. Lonsdorf EV. Sex differences in the development of termite-fishing skills in the wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii, of Gombe National Park, Tanzania.. Anim Behav 2005; 70: 673–683.
  12. Reader S, Laland KN. Primate Innovation: Sex, Age and Social Rank Differences.. Int J Primatol 2001; 22: 787–805.
  13. Laland KN, van Bergen Y. Experimental studies of innovation in the guppy.. Animal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. pp. 155–174.
  14. Preiszner B, Vincze E, Seress G, Papp S, Bókony V, Liker A. Necessity or capacity? Physiological state predicts problem-solving performance in house sparrows.. Behav Ecol 2013; 25: 124–135.
  15. Kendal RL, Coe RL, Laland KN. Age differences in neophilia, exploration, and innovation in family groups of callitrichid monkeys.. Am J Primatol 2005 Jun;66(2):167-88.
    doi: 10.1002/ajp.20136pubmed: 15940712google scholar: lookup
  16. Liker A, Bókony V. Larger groups are more successful in innovative problem solving in house sparrows.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009 May 12;106(19):7893-8.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900042106pmc: PMC2683070pubmed: 19416834google scholar: lookup
  17. Morand-Ferron J, Quinn JL. Larger groups of passerines are more efficient problem solvers in the wild.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011 Sep 20;108(38):15898-903.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1111560108pmc: PMC3179046pubmed: 21930936google scholar: lookup
  18. Bond EU, Walker BA, Hutt MD, Reingen PH. Reputational Effectiveness in Cross-Functional Working Relationships.. J Prod Innov Manag 2004; 21: 44–60.
  19. Greenberg R. The role of neophobia and neophilia in the development of innovative behavour in birds.. In: Reader SM, Laland KN, editors. Animal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
  20. Reader SM, MacDonald K. Environmental variability and primate behavioural flexibiity.. In: In: Reader SM, Laland KN, editors. Animal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. pp. 83–116.
  21. Dunbar RI. The social brain hypothesis and its implications for social evolution.. Ann Hum Biol 2009 Sep-Oct;36(5):562-72.
    doi: 10.1080/03014460902960289pubmed: 19575315google scholar: lookup
  22. Miyata H, Gajdon GK, Huber L, Fujita K. How do keas (Nestor notabilis) solve artificial-fruit problems with multiple locks?. Anim Cogn 2011 Jan;14(1):45-58.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0342-9pubmed: 20640911google scholar: lookup
  23. HARLOW HF. Learning and satiation of response in intrinsically motivated complex puzzle performance by monkeys.. J Comp Physiol Psychol 1950 Aug;43(4):289-94.
    doi: 10.1037/h0058114pubmed: 15436888google scholar: lookup
  24. Bateson P. Play, playfulness, creativity and innovation.. Anim Behav Cogn 2014; 1: 99–112.
  25. Shettleworth SJ. Cognition, Evolution and Behaviour.. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.
  26. BIRCH HG. The relation of previous experience to insightful problem-solving.. J Comp Psychol (Baltim) 1945 Dec;38:367-83.
    doi: 10.1037/h0056104pubmed: 21010765google scholar: lookup
  27. Krueger K, Esch L, Farmer K, Marr I. Basic Needs in Horses?-A Literature Review.. Animals (Basel) 2021 Jun 16;11(6).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11061798pmc: PMC8235049pubmed: 34208615google scholar: lookup
  28. Moehlman PD. Equids: zebras, asses and horses: status survey and conservation action plan.. Gland: IUCN Publishing; 2002.
  29. Berger J. Wild horses of the Great Basin.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1986.
  30. Mills DS, McDonnell SM. The Domestic Horse.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
  31. Klingel H. A comparison of the Social Behaviour of the Equidae.. In Geist V, Walther FR, editors. The Behaviour of Ungulates and its Relation to Management. Gland: IUCN Publishing; 1974. pp. 124–132.
  32. Krueger K. Social Ecology of Horses.. In: Korb J, Heinze J, editors. Ecology of Social Evolution. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 2008. pp. 195–206.
  33. Schneider G, Krueger K. Third-party interventions keep social partners from exchanging affiliative interactions with others.. Anim Behav 2012; 83: 377–387.
  34. Krueger K, Flauger B, Farmer K, Hemelrijk C. Movement initiation in groups of feral horses.. Behav Processes 2014 Mar;103:91-101.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.10.007pubmed: 24220794google scholar: lookup
  35. Krueger K, Schneider G, Flauger B, Heinze J. Context-dependent third-party intervention in agonistic encounters of male Przewalski horses.. Behav Processes 2015 Dec;121:54-62.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.10.009pubmed: 26478251google scholar: lookup
  36. Hoffmann G, Bockisch F-J, Kreimeier P. Einfluss des Haltungssystems auf die Bewegungsaktivität und Stressbelastung bei Pferden in Auslaufhaltungssystemen.. Landbauforschung–vTI Agriculture and Forestry Research 2009; 2: 105–112.
  37. d'Ingeo S, Quaranta A, Siniscalchi M, Stomp M, Coste C, Bagnard C, Hausberger M, Cousillas H. Horses associate individual human voices with the valence of past interactions: a behavioural and electrophysiological study.. Sci Rep 2019 Aug 9;9(1):11568.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47960-5pmc: PMC6689011pubmed: 31399629google scholar: lookup
  38. Nicol CJ, Davidson HP, Harris PA, Waters AJ, Wilson AD. Study of crib-biting and gastric inflammation and ulceration in young horses.. Vet Rec 2002 Nov 30;151(22):658-62.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.151.22.658pubmed: 12498408google scholar: lookup
  39. McGreevy PD, Cripps PJ, French NP, Green LE, Nicol CJ. Management factors associated with stereotypic and redirected behaviour in the thoroughbred horse.. Equine Vet J 1995 Mar;27(2):86-91.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1995.tb03041.xpubmed: 7607155google scholar: lookup
  40. 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(6):e39280.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039280pmc: PMC3386251pubmed: 22761752google scholar: lookup
  41. Krueger K, Esch L, Byrne R. Animal behaviour in a human world: A crowdsourcing study on horses that open door and gate mechanisms.. PLoS One 2019;14(6):e0218954.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218954pmc: PMC6594629pubmed: 31242266google scholar: lookup
  42. Reader SM, Laland KN. Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Apr 2;99(7):4436-41.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.062041299pmc: PMC123666pubmed: 11891325google scholar: lookup
  43. Lefebvre L, Whittle P, Lascaris E, Finkelstein A. Feeding innovations and forebrain size in birds.. Anim Behav 1997; 53: 549–560.
  44. Mader DR, Price EO. Discrimination learning in horses: effects of breed, age and social dominance.. J Anim Sci 1980 May;50(5):962-5.
    doi: 10.2527/jas1980.505962xpubmed: 7390949google scholar: lookup
  45. Haag EL, Rudman R, Houpt KA. Avoidance, maze learning and social dominance in ponies.. J Anim Sci 1980; 50: 329–35.
  46. Lindberg AC, Kelland A, Nicol CJ. Effects of observational learning on acquisition of an operant response in horses.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1999; 61: 187–99.
  47. Krueger K, Heinze J. Horse sense: social status of horses (Equus caballus) affects their likelihood of copying other horses' behavior.. Anim Cogn 2008 Jul;11(3):431-9.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0133-0pubmed: 18183432google scholar: lookup
  48. Krueger K, Farmer K, Heinze J. The effects of age, rank and neophobia on social learning in horses.. Anim Cogn 2014 May;17(3):645-55.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0696-xpubmed: 24170136google scholar: lookup
  49. 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.
  50. Hausberger M, Bruderer C, Le Scolan N, Pierre JS. Interplay between environmental and genetic factors in temperament/personality traits in horses (Equus caballus).. J Comp Psychol 2004 Dec;118(4):434-46.
    doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.118.4.434pubmed: 15584780google scholar: lookup
  51. Lloyd AS, Martin JE, Bornett-Gauci HLI, Wilkinson RG. Horse personality: Variation between breeds.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008; 112: 369–383.
  52. Proops L, Burden F, Osthaus B. Mule cognition: a case of hybrid vigour?. Anim Cogn 2009 Jan;12(1):75-84.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0172-1pubmed: 18636282google scholar: lookup
  53. Osthaus B, Proops L, Hocking I, Burden F. Spatial cognition and perseveration by horses, donkeys and mules in a simple A-not-B detour task.. Anim Cogn 2013 Mar;16(2):301-5.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0589-4pubmed: 23271641google scholar: lookup
  54. Baragli P, Paoletti E, Vitale V, Sighieri C. Looking in the correct location for a hidden object: brief note about the memory of donkeys (Equus asinus).. Ethol Ecol Evol 2011; 23: 187–192.
  55. Rivera E, Benjamin S, Nielsen B, Shelle J, Zanella AJ. Behavioral and physiological responses of horses to initial training: the comparison between pastured versus stalled horses.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2002; 78: 235–252.
  56. Sondergaard E, Ladewig J. Group housing exerts a positive effect on the behaviour of young horses during training.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2004; 87: 105–118.
  57. Griffin AS, Guez D. Innovation and problem solving: a review of common mechanisms.. Behav Processes 2014 Nov;109 Pt B:121-34.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.027pubmed: 25245306google scholar: lookup
  58. 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/ani9050265pmc: PMC6562608pubmed: 31121937google scholar: lookup
  59. Bates LA, Byrne RW. Creative or created: using anecdotes to investigate animal cognition.. Methods 2007 May;42(1):12-21.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.11.006pubmed: 17434411google scholar: lookup
  60. Griffin AS, Tebbich S, Bugnyar T. Animal cognition in a human-dominated world.. Anim Cogn 2017 Jan;20(1):1-6.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-1051-9pubmed: 27848045google scholar: lookup
  61. Briefer EF, Haque S, Baciadonna L, McElligott AG. Goats excel at learning and remembering a highly novel cognitive task.. Front Zool 2014 Mar 26;11(1):20.
    doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-11-20pmc: PMC3987177pubmed: 24666734google scholar: lookup
  62. Nelson XJ, Fijn N. The use of visual media as a tool for investigating animal behaviour.. Anim Behav 2013; 85: 525–536.
  63. Hiby EF, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS. Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare.. Anim Welf 2004; 13: 63–69.
  64. Bouchard J. Is social learning correlated with innovation in birds? An inter-and an interspecific test.. M. Sc. thesis. McGili University Montréal. 2002.
  65. Lefebvre L, Reader SM, Sol D. Brains, innovations and evolution in birds and primates.. Brain Behav Evol 2004;63(4):233-46.
    doi: 10.1159/000076784pubmed: 15084816google scholar: lookup
  66. Whiten A, Byrne RW. Tactical deception in primates.. Behav Brain Sci 1988; 11: 233–244.
  67. Byrne RW. Do larger brains mean greater intelligence?. Behav Brain Sci 1993; 16: 696–697.
  68. Bachmann I, Audigé L, Staﾬher M. Risk factors associated with behavioural disorders of crib-biting, weaving and box-walking in Swiss horses.. Equine Vet J 2003 Mar;35(2):158-63.
    doi: 10.2746/042516403776114216pubmed: 12638792google scholar: lookup
  69. Baker PJ, Funk SM, Harris S, White PC. Flexible spatial organization of urban foxes, Vulpes vulpes, before and during an outbreak of sarcoptic mange.. Anim Behav 2000 Jan;59(1):127-146.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1285pubmed: 10640375google scholar: lookup
  70. 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(11):e26553.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026553pmc: PMC3212522pubmed: 22096487google scholar: lookup
  71. 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; 7: 327–329.
  72. Momozawa Y, Ono T, Sato F, Kikusui T, Takeuchi Y, Mori Y, Kusunose R. 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.
  73. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.. J Appl Psychol 2003 Oct;88(5):879-903.
    pubmed: 14516251doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879google scholar: lookup
  74. Sabou M, Bontcheva K, Scharl A. Crowdsourcing Research Opportunities: Lessons from Natural Language Processing.. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies. 2012; Graz: Acm. 978-1-4503-1242-4/12/09.
  75. Wiggins A, Crowston K. From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science.. In: 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2011. pp. 1–10.
  76. Thorpe WH. Learning and Instinct in Animals.. London: Methuen; 1963.
  77. Petersen JL, Mickelson JR, Cothran EG, Andersson LS, Axelsson J, Bailey E, Bannasch D, Binns MM, Borges AS, Brama P, da Câmara Machado A, Distl O, Felicetti M, Fox-Clipsham L, Graves KT, Guérin G, Haase B, Hasegawa T, Hemmann K, Hill EW, Leeb T, Lindgren G, Lohi H, Lopes MS, McGivney BA, Mikko S, Orr N, Penedo MC, Piercy RJ, Raekallio M, Rieder S, Røed KH, Silvestrelli M, Swinburne J, Tozaki T, Vaudin M, M Wade C, McCue ME. Genetic diversity in the modern horse illustrated from genome-wide SNP data.. PLoS One 2013;8(1):e54997.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054997pmc: PMC3559798pubmed: 23383025google scholar: lookup
  78. 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(4):e61544.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061544pmc: PMC3632587pubmed: 23630596google scholar: lookup
  79. Creswell JW. Research design.. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014.
  80. Rogers LJ. Advantages and disadvantages of lateralization.. In: Rogers LJ, Andrew R, editors. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 126–153.
  81. Rogers LJ. Relevance of brain and behavioural lateralization to animal welfare.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2010; 127: 1–11.
  82. Rogers LJ. A Matter of Degree: Strength of Brain Asymmetry and Behaviour.. Symmetry 2017; 9: 57.
    doi: 10.3390/sym9040057google scholar: lookup
  83. Murphy J, Arkins S. Equine learning behaviour.. Behav Processes 2007 Sep;76(1):1-13.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2006.06.009pubmed: 17400403google scholar: lookup
  84. Benson-Amram S, Holekamp KE. Innovative problem solving by wild spotted hyenas.. Proc Biol Sci 2012 Oct 7;279(1744):4087-95.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1450pmc: PMC3427591pubmed: 22874748google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. 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
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.