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) / Parameters for the Analysis of Social Bonds in Horses.
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2018; 8(11); 191; doi: 10.3390/ani8110191

Parameters for the Analysis of Social Bonds in Horses.

Abstract: Social bond analysis is of major importance for the evaluation of social relationships in group housed horses. However, in equine behaviour literature, studies on social bond analysis are inconsistent. Mutual grooming (horses standing side by side and gently nipping, nuzzling, or rubbing each other), affiliative approaches (horses approaching each other and staying within one body length), and measurements of spatial proximity (horses standing with body contact or within two horse-lengths) are commonly used. In the present study, we assessed which of the three parameters is most suitable for social bond analysis in horses, and whether social bonds are affected by individual and group factors. We observed social behaviour and spatial proximity in 145 feral horses, five groups of Przewalski's horses ( = 36), and six groups of feral horses ( = 109) for 15 h per group, on three days within one week. We found grooming, friendly approaches, and spatial proximity to be robust parameters, as their correlation was affected only by the animals' sex (GLMM: = 145, = 0.001, = -2.7, = 0.008) and the group size (GLMM: = 145, < 0.001, = 4.255, < 0.001), but not by the horse breed, the aggression ratio, the social rank, the group, the group composition, and the individuals themselves. Our results show a trend for a correspondence between all three parameters (GLMM: = 145, = 0.004, = 1.95, = 0.053), a strong correspondence between mutual grooming and friendly approaches (GLMM: = 145, = 0.021, = 3.922, < 0.001), and a weak correspondence between mutual grooming and spatial proximity (GLMM: = 145, = 0.04, = 1.15, = 0.25). We therefore suggest either using a combination of the proactive behaviour counts mutual grooming and friendly approaches, or using measurements of close spatial proximity, for the analysis of social bonds in horses within a limited time frame.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2018-10-27 PubMed ID: 30373257PubMed Central: PMC6262610DOI: 10.3390/ani8110191Google 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.

The study investigates the best parameters to determine social bonds in group housed horses. The researchers observed three behaviors: mutual grooming, friendly approaches, and spatial proximity, within a population of feral horses and Przewalski’s horses. The results showed that these parameters were robust and influenced mostly by the animals’ sex and group size, recommending using a combination of these behaviors or spatial proximity measurements to evaluate social bonds in horses.

Explanation of the Study

This research was carried out with the intent of determining the most reliable parameters for observing and evaluating social bonds in horses. Since the selected parameters have been inconsistently used in studies within equine behaviour literature, the work aimed to investigate their reliability and suitability.

  • The study focused on three primary behaviors or parameters that are commonly used in equine social bond analysis: mutual grooming, friendly approaches, and spatial proximity. Mutual grooming refers to horses nipping, nuzzling, or rubbing each other gently; affiliative approaches are characterized by horses getting close to each other; spatial proximity refers to horses physically touching each other or standing within two horses-lengths of one another.
  • In order to carry out this analysis, the researchers observed 145 feral horses, including five groups of Przewalski’s horses (36 in total) and six groups of feral horses (109 in total), for a total of 15 hours per group over three days within a week.

Results of the Study

Key findings from the study include:

  • The three parameters chosen for analysis (grooming, friendly approaches, and spatial proximity) were found to be reliable. The researchers discovered that any correlation of these behaviors was primarily influenced by the animals’ sex and the group size, rather than the breed of the horse, aggression ratios, social rank, group composition, and the individual animals themselves.
  • The study found a trend for correspondence between all three parameters, a strong correlation between mutual grooming and friendly approaches, and a weaker correlation between mutual grooming and spatial proximity.

Recommendations from the Study

Based on these results, the authors suggest that either a combination of behavior counts (specifically mutual grooming and friendly approaches) or measurements of spatial proximity should be used to analyze social bonds in horses, within a confined time frame. Their findings help to eliminate confusion and inconsistency in equine behavior studies by providing a clearer method to assess social relationships in horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Wolter R, Stefanski V, Krueger K. (2018). Parameters for the Analysis of Social Bonds in Horses. Animals (Basel), 8(11), 191. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8110191

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 8
Issue: 11
PII: 191

Researcher Affiliations

Wolter, Riccarda
  • Department of Zoology, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053 Regensburg, Germany. Riccarda.Wolter@gmx.de.
  • Department Equine Management, Faculty Agriculture, Economics and Management, Nürtingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622 Nuertingen, Germany. Riccarda.Wolter@gmx.de.
Stefanski, Volker
  • Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Breeding, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstr. 17, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany. volker.stefanski@uni-hohenheim.de.
Krueger, Konstanze
  • Department of Zoology, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053 Regensburg, Germany. Konstanze.Krueger@hfwu.de.
  • Department Equine Management, Faculty Agriculture, Economics and Management, Nürtingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622 Nuertingen, Germany. Konstanze.Krueger@hfwu.de.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 59 references
  1. Hoffmann G, Bockisch F-J, Kreimeier P. Einfluss des Haltungssystems auf die Bewegungsaktivität und Stressbelastung bei Pferden in Auslaufhaltungssystemen. Landbauforsch. vTI Agric. For. Res. 2009;2:105–112.
  2. Gibbs P.G., Cohen N.D.. Early management of race-bred weanlings and yearlings on farms. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2001;21:279–283.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(01)70057-3google scholar: lookup
  3. Baumgartner M., Frank V., Gandorfer J., Ramoser A., Seiler S., Zeitler-Feicht M.H.. Feasible animal-based indicators for assessing equine welfare. In: Krüger K., editor. Proceedings of the 3rd International Equine Science Meeting; Nürtingen University, Nürtingen, Germany. 28–29 May 2015; Wald, Germany: Xenophon Publishing; 2015.
  4. Dalla Costa E., Dai F., Lebelt D., Scholz P., Barbieri S., Canali E., Zanella A.J., Minero M.. Welfare assessment of horses: The AWIN approach. Anim. Welf. 2016;25:481–488.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.4.481google scholar: lookup
  5. Cameron EZ, Setsaas TH, Linklater WL. Social bonds between unrelated females increase reproductive success in feral horses.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009 Aug 18;106(33):13850-3.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900639106pmc: PMC2728983pubmed: 19667179google scholar: lookup
  6. Altmann M.. A study of behaviour in a horse-mule group. Sociometry 1951;14:351–354.
    doi: 10.2307/2785319google scholar: lookup
  7. Silk JB, Alberts SC, Altmann J. Social bonds of female baboons enhance infant survival.. Science 2003 Nov 14;302(5648):1231-4.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1088580pubmed: 14615543google scholar: lookup
  8. Van Dierendonck M.C., de Vries H., Schilder M.B.H.. An analysis of dominance, its behavioural parameters and possible determinants in a herd of icelandic orses in captivity. Netherl. J. Zool. 1995;45:362–385.
    doi: 10.1163/156854295X00366google scholar: lookup
  9. Sigurjónsdóttir H., van Dierendonck M.C., Snorrason S., Thórhallsdóttir A.G.. Social relationships in a group of horses without a mature stallion. Behaviour 2003;140:783–804.
    doi: 10.1163/156853903322370670google scholar: lookup
  10. Bourjade M, Moulinot M, Henry S, Richard-Yris MA, Hausberger M. Could adults be used to improve social skills of young horses, Equus caballus?. Dev Psychobiol 2008 May;50(4):408-17.
    doi: 10.1002/dev.20301pubmed: 18393282google scholar: lookup
  11. Schneider G., Krueger K.. Third-party interventions keep social partners from exchanging affiliative interactions with others. Anim. Behav. 2012;83:377–387.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.11.007google scholar: lookup
  12. Fedurek P., Dunbar R.I.M.. What does mutual grooming tell us about why chimpanzees groom?. Ethology 2009;115:566–575.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01637.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  13. Sueur C, Jacobs A, Amblard F, Petit O, King AJ. How can social network analysis improve the study of primate behavior?. Am J Primatol 2011 Aug;73(8):703-19.
    doi: 10.1002/ajp.20915pubmed: 21181869google scholar: lookup
  14. Schino G, Aureli F. Reciprocity in group-living animals: partner control versus partner choice.. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2017 May;92(2):665-672.
    doi: 10.1111/brv.12248pubmed: 26733357google scholar: lookup
  15. Kimura R.. Mutual grooming and preferred associate relationships in a band of free-ranging horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998;59:265–276.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00129-9google scholar: lookup
  16. Berger J.. Organizational systems and dominance in feral horses in the Grand Canyon. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1977;2:131–146.
    doi: 10.1007/BF00361898google scholar: lookup
  17. Keiper RR. Social structure.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1986 Dec;2(3):465-84.
    doi: 10.1016/S0749-0739(17)30701-0pubmed: 3492240google scholar: lookup
  18. Linklater WL, Cameron EZ, Minot EO, Stafford KJ. Stallion harassment and the mating system of horses.. Anim Behav 1999 Aug;58(2):295-306.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1155pubmed: 10458881google scholar: lookup
  19. Heitor F., Vicente L.. Affiliative relationships among Sorraia mares: Influence of age, dominance, kinship and reproductive state. J. Ethol. 2010;28:133–140.
    doi: 10.1007/s10164-009-0165-9google scholar: lookup
  20. Boyd L., Houpt K.A.. Przewalski’s Horse. The History and Biology of an Endangered Species. SUNY Press; Albany, NY, USA: 1994.
  21. Mazak V.. Die Hautpflege bei dem Przewalski—Urwildpferd (Equus przewalskii Poliakow). Equus 1961;1:105–121.
  22. Feist JD, McCullough DR. Behavior patterns and communication in feral horses.. Z Tierpsychol 1976 Aug;41(4):337-71.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1976.tb00947.xpubmed: 983427google scholar: lookup
  23. Heitor F, do Mar Oom M, Vicente L. Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses Part II. Factors affecting affiliative relationships and sexual behaviours.. Behav Processes 2006 Nov 1;73(3):231-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2006.05.005pubmed: 16828984google scholar: lookup
  24. Crowell-Davis S.L., Houpt K.A., Carini C.M.. Mutual grooming and nearest-neighbor relationships among foals of Equus caballus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1986;15:113–123.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(86)90057-2google scholar: lookup
  25. Christensen J.W., Zharkikh T., Ladewig J., Yasinetskaya N.. Social behaviour in stallion groups (Equus przewalskii and Equus caballus) kept under natural and domestic conditions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002;76:11–20.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00208-8google scholar: lookup
  26. Gaunitz C, Fages A, Hanghøj K, Albrechtsen A, Khan N, Schubert M, Seguin-Orlando A, Owens IJ, Felkel S, Bignon-Lau O, de Barros Damgaard P, Mittnik A, Mohaseb AF, Davoudi H, Alquraishi S, Alfarhan AH, Al-Rasheid KAS, Crubézy E, Benecke N, Olsen S, Brown D, Anthony D, Massy K, Pitulko V, Kasparov A, Brem G, Hofreiter M, Mukhtarova G, Baimukhanov N, Lõugas L, Onar V, Stockhammer PW, Krause J, Boldgiv B, Undrakhbold S, Erdenebaatar D, Lepetz S, Mashkour M, Ludwig A, Wallner B, Merz V, Merz I, Zaibert V, Willerslev E, Librado P, Outram AK, Orlando L. Ancient genomes revisit the ancestry of domestic and Przewalski's horses.. Science 2018 Apr 6;360(6384):111-114.
    doi: 10.1126/science.aao3297pubmed: 29472442google scholar: lookup
  27. Hogan E.S., Houpt K.A., Sweeney K.. The effect of enclosure size on social interactions and daily activity patterns of the captive Asiatic wild horse (Equus przewalskii). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1988;21:147–168.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(88)90105-0google scholar: lookup
  28. Tyler S.J.. The behaviour and social organisation of the new Forest ponies. Anim. Behav. Monogr. 1972;5:85–196.
    doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(72)90003-6google scholar: lookup
  29. Clutton-Brock TH, Greenwood PJ, Powell RP. Ranks and relationships in Highland ponies and Highland Cows.. Z Tierpsychol 1976 Jun;41(2):202-16.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1976.tb00477.xpubmed: 961125google scholar: lookup
  30. Ellard M-E., Crowell-Davis S.L.. Evaluating equine dominance in draft mares. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1989;24:55–75.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(89)90125-1google scholar: lookup
  31. Wells S., von Goldschmidt-Rotschild B.. Social behaviour and relationships in a herd of Camargue horses. Z. Tierpsychol. 1979;49:363–380.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1979.tb00299.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  32. Feh C., de Mazières J.. Grooming at a preferred site reduces heart rate in horses. Anim. Behav. 1993;46:1191–1194.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.1993.1309google scholar: lookup
  33. 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
  34. Araba B.D., Crowell-Davis S.L.. Dominance relationships and aggression of foals (Equus caballus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1994;41:1–25.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)90048-5google scholar: lookup
  35. Martin P., Bateson P.. Measuring Behaviour—An Introductory Guide. 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 1993.
  36. McDonnell S.M., Haviland J.C.S.. Agonistic ethogram of the equid bachelor band. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1995;43:147–188.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)00550-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  37. McDonnell S.M.. The Equid Ethogram: A Practical Field Guide to Horse Behavior. Eclipse Press Custom Publishing; Lexington, KY, USA: 2003.
  38. Hemelrijk C.K., Wantia J., Gygax L.. The construction of dominance order: Comparing performance of five methods using an individual-based model. Behaviour 2005;142:1043–1064.
    doi: 10.1163/156853905774405290google scholar: lookup
  39. Feh C.. Social behaviour and relationships of Prezewalski horses in Dutch semi-reserves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1988;21:71–87.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(88)90101-3google scholar: lookup
  40. Langergraber K, Mitani J, Vigilant L. Kinship and social bonds in female chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).. Am J Primatol 2009 Oct;71(10):840-51.
    doi: 10.1002/ajp.20711pubmed: 19475543google scholar: lookup
  41. Mitani J.C.. Male chimpanzees form enduring and equitable social bonds. Anim. Behav. 2009;77:633–640.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.11.021google scholar: lookup
  42. Frère CH, Krützen M, Mann J, Connor RC, Bejder L, Sherwin WB. Social and genetic interactions drive fitness variation in a free-living dolphin population.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010 Nov 16;107(46):19949-54.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1007997107pmc: PMC2993384pubmed: 21041638google scholar: lookup
  43. Beery AK, Kaufer D. Stress, social behavior, and resilience: insights from rodents.. Neurobiol Stress 2015 Jan 1;1:116-127.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ynstr.2014.10.004pmc: PMC4281833pubmed: 25562050google scholar: lookup
  44. Emery NJ, Seed AM, von Bayern AM, Clayton NS. Cognitive adaptations of social bonding in birds.. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2007 Apr 29;362(1480):489-505.
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1991pmc: PMC2346513pubmed: 17255008google scholar: lookup
  45. Schülke O, Bhagavatula J, Vigilant L, Ostner J. Social bonds enhance reproductive success in male macaques.. Curr Biol 2010 Dec 21;20(24):2207-10.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.10.058pubmed: 21093261google scholar: lookup
  46. Sato S.. Social licking pattern and its relationships to social dominance and live weight gain in weaned calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1984;12:25–32.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(84)90093-5google scholar: lookup
  47. 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
  48. Laister S., Stockinger B., Regner A-M., Zenger K., Knierim U., Winckler C.. Social licking in dairy cattle—Effects on heart rate in performers and receivers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011;130:81–90.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.12.003google scholar: lookup
  49. Kolter L., Zimmermann W.. Social behaviour of Przewalski horses (Equus p. przewalskii) in the Cologne Zoo and its consequences for management and housing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1988;21:117–145.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(88)90104-9google scholar: lookup
  50. Roubová V, Konečná M, Šmilauer P, Wallner B. Whom to groom and for what? Patterns of grooming in female Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus).. PLoS One 2015;10(2):e0117298.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117298pmc: PMC4323340pubmed: 25668722google scholar: lookup
  51. Keiper R.R.. Social interactions of the Przewalski horse (Equus przewalskii Poliakov, 1881) herd at the Munich Zoo. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1988;21:89–97.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(88)90102-5google scholar: lookup
  52. Franks D., James R., Noble J., Ruxton G.. A foundation for developing a methodology for social network sampling. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009;63:1079–1088.
    doi: 10.1007/s00265-009-0729-2google scholar: lookup
  53. Fureix C., Bourjade M., Henry S., Sankey C., Hausberger M.. Exploring aggression regulation in managed groups of horses Equus caballus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012;138:216–228.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.009google scholar: lookup
  54. Lim MM, Young LJ. Neuropeptidergic regulation of affiliative behavior and social bonding in animals.. Horm Behav 2006 Nov;50(4):506-17.
    doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.06.028pubmed: 16890230google scholar: lookup
  55. Rutberg A.T.. Horse fly harassment and the social behavior of feral ponies. Ethology 1987;75:145–154.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1987.tb00648.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  56. Dindo M, De Waal FB. Partner effects on food consumption in brown capuchin monkeys.. Am J Primatol 2007 Apr;69(4):448-56.
    doi: 10.1002/ajp.20362pubmed: 17146793google scholar: lookup
  57. Flack JC, Girvan M, de Waal FB, Krakauer DC. Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates.. Nature 2006 Jan 26;439(7075):426-9.
    doi: 10.1038/nature04326pubmed: 16437106google scholar: lookup
  58. Pusey A.E., Packer C.. The ecology of relationships. In: Krebs J.R., Davis N.B., editors. Behavioural Ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publication; Oxford, UK: 2009. pp. 254–283.
  59. Barton R.A.. Sociospatial mechanisms of feeding competition in female olive baboons, Papio anubis. Anim. Behav. 1993;46:791–802.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.1993.1256google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.