FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Scientific reports2024; 14(1); 9971; doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-60805-0

Proximity tracking using ultra-wideband technology for equine social behaviour research.

Abstract: Sociopositive interactions with conspecifics are essential for equine welfare and quality of life. This study aimed to validate the use of wearable ultra-wideband (UWB) technology to quantify the spatial relationships and dynamics of social behaviour in horses by continuous (1/s) measurement of interindividual distances. After testing the UWB devices' spatiotemporal accuracy in a static environment, the UWB measurement validity, feasibility and utility under dynamic field conditions was assessed in a group of 8 horses. Comparison of the proximity measurements with video surveillance data established the measurement accuracy and validity (r = 0.83, p < 0.0001) of the UWB technology. The utility for social behaviour research was demonstrated by the excellent accordance of affiliative relationships (preferred partners) identified using UWB with video observations. The horses remained a median of 5.82 m (95% CI 5.13-6.41 m) apart from each other and spent 20% (median, 95% CI 14-26%) of their time in a distance ≤ 3 m to their preferred partner. The proximity measurements and corresponding speed calculation allowed the identification of affiliative versus agonistic approaches based on differences in the approach speed and the distance and duration of the resulting proximity. Affiliative approaches were statistically significantly slower (median: 1.57 km/h, 95% CI 1.26-1.92 km/h, p = 0.0394) and resulted in greater proximity (median: 36.75 cm, 95% CI 19.5-62 cm, p = 0.0003) to the approached horse than agonistic approaches (median: 3.04 km/h, 95% CI 2.16-3.74 km/h, median proximity: 243 cm, 95% CI 130-319 cm), which caused an immediate retreat of the approached horse at a significantly greater speed (median: 3.77 km/h, 95% CI 3.52-5.85 km/h, p < 0.0001) than the approach.
© 2024. The Author(s).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-04-30 PubMed ID: 38693325PubMed Central: 2630083DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-60805-0Google 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.

This study uses ultra-wideband technology (UWB) worn by horses to gain a nuanced understanding of the social dynamics in horses, including how closely they choose to interact with their preferred companions, and how they react to others in the herd by measuring interindividual distances.

Overview

In their quest to understand equine social behavior better, the researchers embarked on a project to validate the use of wearable ultra-wideband technology to measure the spatial relationships among horses. After first testing the accuracy of the UWB devices in a static setting, they moved on to measure the spatial relationships and dynamics of a group of eight horses under real-world conditions.

Methodology and Findings

  • The researchers compared their UWB measurements to video surveillance data to cross-check the accuracy and reliability of the technology. The close correlation (r = 0.83) between the two methods demonstrates the validity of the UWB technology.
  • The researchers discovered that horses generally stayed approximately 5.82 meters apart from each other. They spent about 20% of the observed time in a distance of 3 meters or less to their preferred associate in the group.

Distinctive behaviors

  • The team identified that horses approached other horses either in a friendly (affiliative) or competitive/antagonistic way. The UWB data revealed key differences in the approach speed, distance, and duration of these two types of approaches.
  • Affiliative behaviours, which involve social bonding and friendly interactions, were associated with slower approach speeds and close proximity to the approached horse.
  • On the other hand, agonistic behaviors, which include contest and rivalry behaviors, involved faster approach speeds and a larger distance maintained from the approached horse. These approaches also caused the recipient horse to retreat at a significantly faster speed.

Conclusion

The results indicated that UWB can provide valuable insights into understanding equine social behavior accurately by highlighting spatial dynamics, affiliation patterns and encounter types. This information is crucial for the welfare and quality of life of horses as it highlights the essentiality of their sociopositive interactions with other equines. Future research can reinforce these findings and explore other features of equine behavior using this technology.

Cite This Article

APA
Torres Borda L, Roth P, Lumetzberger J, Auer U, Jenner F. (2024). Proximity tracking using ultra-wideband technology for equine social behaviour research. Sci Rep, 14(1), 9971. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60805-0

Publication

Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
NlmUniqueID: 101563288
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 14
Issue: 1
Pages: 9971

Researcher Affiliations

Torres Borda, Laura
  • Equine Surgery Unit, Department of Companion Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria.
Roth, Peter
  • Computational Medicine, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Lumetzberger, Jennifer
  • Computational Medicine, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Auer, Ulrike
  • Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Intensive Care Medicine Unit, Department of Companion Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Jenner, Florien
  • Equine Surgery Unit, Department of Companion Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria. Florien.Jenner@vetmeduni.ac.at.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses
  • Social Behavior
  • Behavior, Animal
  • Male
  • Female
  • Wearable Electronic Devices
  • Video Recording

References

This article includes 78 references
  1. Feh C. Social behaviour and relationships of Prezewalski horses in Dutch semi-reserves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 21, 71–87 (1988).
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(88)90101-3google scholar: lookup
  2. Feh C, De-Mazières J. Grooming at a preferred site reduces heart rate in horses. Anim. Behav. 46, 1191–1194 (1993).
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.1993.1309google scholar: lookup
  3. van Dierendonck M. The Importance of Social Relationships in Horses. Utrecht University, 2006.
  4. Snorrason S, Sigurjónsdóttir H, Thórhallsdóttir A, Van-Dierendonck M. Social relationships in a group of horses without a mature stallion. Behaviour 140, 783–804 (2003).
    doi: 10.1163/156853903322370670google scholar: lookup
  5. Fureix C, Bourjade M, Henry S, Sankey C, Hausberger M. Exploring aggression regulation in managed groups of horses Equus caballus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 138, 216–228 (2012).
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.009google scholar: lookup
  6. Borda LT, Auer U, Jenner F. Equine social behaviour: Love, war and tolerance. Animals 13, 1473 (2023).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13091473google scholar: lookup
  7. Freymond SB, Briefer EF, Niederhäusern RV, Bachmann I. Pattern of social interactions after group integration: A possibility to keep stallions in group. PLoS ONE 8, e54688 (2013).
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054688google scholar: lookup
  8. Krueger K, Heinze J. Horse sense: Social status of horses (Equus caballus) affects their likelihood of copying other horses’ behavior. Anim. Cogn. 11, 431–439 (2008).
    pubmed: 18183432doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0133-0google scholar: lookup
  9. Proops L, McComb K, Reby D. Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 947–951 (2008).
    pubmed: 19075246pmc: 2630083doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809127105google scholar: lookup
  10. Sankey C, Richard-Yris M-A, Leroy H, Henry S, Hausberger M. Positive interactions lead to lasting positive memories in horses, Equus caballus. Anim. Behav. 79, 869–875 (2010).
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.037google scholar: lookup
  11. Hannan M, Draganova I, Dumbell L. Factors affecting mutual grooming and play behaviour in a group of domestic horses (Equus caballus). BSAP Occas. Publ. 35, 193–197 (2018).
    doi: 10.1017/S0263967X00042701google scholar: lookup
  12. Sigurjónsdóttir H, Haraldsson H. Significance of group composition for the welfare of pastured horses. Animals 9, 14 (2019).
    pubmed: 30621272pmc: 6356279doi: 10.3390/ani9010014google scholar: lookup
  13. Fureix C, Jego P, Henry S, Lansade L, Hausberger M. Towards an ethological animal model of depression? A study on horses. Plos One 7, e39280 (2012).
    pubmed: 22761752pmc: 3386251doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039280google scholar: lookup
  14. Houpt KA, Wolski TR. Stability of equine hierarchies and the prevention of dominance related aggression. Equine Vet. J. 12, 15–18 (1980).
    pubmed: 7189148doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1980.tb02288.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  15. Feist JD, McCullough DR. Behavior patterns and communication in feral horses. Zeitschr. Für Tierpsychol. 41, 337–371 (1976).
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1976.tb00947.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  16. Hartmann E, Christensen JW, Keeling LJ. Social interactions of unfamiliar horses during paired encounters: Effect of pre-exposure on aggression level and so risk of injury. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 121, 214–221 (2009).
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.10.004google scholar: lookup
  17. Cozzi A, Sighieri C, Gazzano A, Nicol CJ, Baragli P. Post-conflict friendly reunion in a permanent group of horses (Equus caballus). Behav. Process. 85, 185–190 (2010).
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.07.007google scholar: lookup
  18. Christensen JW, Søndergaard E, Thodberg K, Halekoh U. Effects of repeated regrouping on horse behaviour and injuries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 133, 199–206 (2011).
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.05.013google scholar: lookup
  19. Wathan J, Proops L, Grounds K, McComb K. Horses discriminate between facial expressions of conspecifics. Sci. Rep.-uk 6, 38322 (2016).
    doi: 10.1038/srep38322google scholar: lookup
  20. Péron F, Ward R, Burman O. Horses (Equus caballus) discriminate body odour cues from conspecifics. Anim. Cogn. 17, 1007–1011 (2014).
    pubmed: 24305997doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0717-9google scholar: lookup
  21. Krueger K, Flauger B. Olfactory recognition of individual competitors by means of faeces in horse (Equus caballus). Anim. Cogn. 14, 245–257 (2011).
    pubmed: 21132447doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0358-1google scholar: lookup
  22. Guarneros M, Sánchez-García O, Martínez-Gómez M, Arteaga L. The underexplored role of chemical communication in the domestic horse, Equus caballus. J. Vet. Behav. 38, 89–95 (2020).
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2020.05.008google scholar: lookup
  23. Schrimpf A, Single M-S, Nawroth C. Social referencing in the domestic horse. Anim. Open Access J. Mdpi 10, 164 (2020).
  24. Murray LMA, Byrne K, D’Eath RB. Pair-bonding and companion recognition in domestic donkeys, Equus asinus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 143, 67–74 (2013).
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.005google scholar: lookup
  25. Lemasson A, Boutin A, Boivin S, Blois-Heulin C, Hausberger M. Horse (Equus caballus) whinnies: A source of social information. Anim. Cogn. 12, 693–704 (2009).
    pubmed: 19449192doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0229-9google scholar: lookup
  26. Stomp M. An unexpected acoustic indicator of positive emotions in horses. Plos One 13, e0197898 (2018).
    pubmed: 29995876pmc: 6040684doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197898google scholar: lookup
  27. Nawroth C. Farm animal cognition—linking behavior, welfare and ethics. Front. Vet. Sci. 6, 24 (2019).
    pubmed: 30838218pmc: 6383588doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00024google scholar: lookup
  28. Costa H, Fragoso S, Heitor F. The relevance of affiliative relationships in horses: Review and future directions. Pet Behav. Sci. 2019, 11–26 (2019).
    doi: 10.21071/pbs.v0i8.11463google scholar: lookup
  29. Berger J. Organizational systems and dominance in feral horses in the Grand Canyon. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2, 131–146 (1977).
    doi: 10.1007/BF00361898google scholar: lookup
  30. McDonnell SM, Haviland JCS. Agonistic ethogram of the equid bachelor band. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 43, 147–188 (1995).
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)00550-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  31. Christensen JW, Ladewig J, Søndergaard E, Malmkvist J. Effects of individual versus group stabling on social behaviour in domestic stallions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 75, 233–248 (2002).
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00196-4google scholar: lookup
  32. Christensen JW, 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. 76, 11–20 (2002).
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00208-8google scholar: lookup
  33. Tilson RL, Sweeny KA, Binczik GA, Reindl NJ. Buddies and bullies: Social structure of a bachelor group of Przewalski horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 21, 169–185 (1988).
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(88)90106-2google scholar: lookup
  34. Rutberg AT, Greenberg SA. Dominance, aggression frequencies and modes of aggressive competition in feral pony mares. Anim. Behav. 40, 322–331 (1990).
    doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80927-3google scholar: lookup
  35. Ellard M-E, Crowell-Davis SL. Evaluating equine dominance in draft mares. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 24, 55–75 (1989).
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(89)90125-1google scholar: lookup
  36. Weeks JW, Crowell-Davis SL, Caudle AB, Heusner GL. Aggression and social spacing in light horse (Equus caballus) mares and foals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 68, 319–337 (2000).
    pubmed: 10844156doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00126-4google scholar: lookup
  37. Jørgensen GHM, Borsheim L, Mejdell CM, Søndergaard E, Bøe KE. Grouping horses according to gender—effects on aggression, spacing and injuries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 120, 94–99 (2009).
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.05.005google scholar: lookup
  38. Majecka K, Klawe A. Influence of paddock size on social relationships in domestic horses. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 21, 1–9 (2017).
  39. Pierard M, McGreevy P, Geers R. Effect of density and relative aggressiveness on agonistic and affiliative interactions in a newly formed group of horses. J. Vet. Behav. 29, 61–69 (2019).
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.03.008google scholar: lookup
  40. Wolter R, Stefanski V, Krueger K. Parameters for the analysis of social bonds in horses. Animals 8, 191 (2018).
    pubmed: 30373257pmc: 6262610doi: 10.3390/ani8110191google scholar: lookup
  41. Bartlett E, Cameron LJ, Freeman MS. A preliminary comparison between proximity and interaction-based methods to construct equine (Equus caballus) social networks. J. Vet. Behav. 50, 36–45 (2022).
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2022.01.005google scholar: lookup
  42. Hildebrandt F, Büttner K, Salau J, Krieter J, Czycholl I. Proximity between horses in large groups in an open stable system—analysis of spatial and temporal proximity definitions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 242, 105418 (2021).
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105418google scholar: lookup
  43. Hauschildt V, Gerken M. Temporal stability of social structure and behavioural synchronization in Shetland pony mares (Equus caballus) kept on pasture. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. Anim. Sci. 65, 33–41 (2015).
  44. Hausberger M, Fureix C, Lesimple C. Detecting horses’ sickness: In search of visible signs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 175, 41–49 (2016).
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.09.005google scholar: lookup
  45. Zeitler-Feicht MH, Hartmann E, Erhard MH, Baumgartner M. Which affiliative behaviour can be used as a valid, reliable and feasible indicator of positive welfare in horse husbandry?. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2024, 106236.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106236google scholar: lookup
  46. Auer U, Kelemen Z, Engl V, Jenner F. Activity time budgets—a potential tool to monitor equine welfare?. Animals 11, 850 (2021).
    pubmed: 33802908pmc: 8002676doi: 10.3390/ani11030850google scholar: lookup
  47. Chopra K. Proximity interactions in a permanently housed dairy herd: Network structure, consistency, and individual differences. Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 583715 (2020).
    pubmed: 33365334pmc: 7750390doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.583715google scholar: lookup
  48. Cattuto C. Dynamics of person-to-person interactions from distributed RFID sensor networks. PLoS ONE 5, e11596 (2010).
    pubmed: 20657651pmc: 2904704doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011596google scholar: lookup
  49. Ozella L. Close encounters between infants and household members measured through wearable proximity sensors. PLoS ONE 13, e0198733 (2018).
    pubmed: 29879196pmc: 5991752doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198733google scholar: lookup
  50. Wilson-Aggarwal JK. High-resolution contact networks of free-ranging domestic dogs Canis familiaris and implications for transmission of infection. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 13, e0007565 (2019).
    pubmed: 31306425pmc: 6658143doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007565google scholar: lookup
  51. Ozella L. Wearable proximity sensors for monitoring a mass casualty incident exercise: Feasibility study. J. Med. Internet Res. 21, e12251 (2019).
    pubmed: 31025944pmc: 6658323doi: 10.2196/12251google scholar: lookup
  52. Ozella L. The effect of age, environment and management on social contact patterns in sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 225, 104964 (2020).
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2020.104964google scholar: lookup
  53. Düking P, Fuss FK, Holmberg H-C, Sperlich B. Recommendations for assessment of the reliability, sensitivity, and validity of data provided by wearable sensors designed for monitoring physical activity. JMIR mHealth uHealth 6, e102 (2018).
    pubmed: 29712629pmc: 5952119doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9341google scholar: lookup
  54. Zhang Z. A flexible new technique for camera calibration. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 22, 1330–1334 (2021).
    doi: 10.1109/34.888718google scholar: lookup
  55. Hartley R, Zisserman A. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. 25–64 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
    doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511811685.005google scholar: lookup
  56. Clayton HM. The extended canter: A comparison of some kinematic variables in horses trained for dressage and for racing. Acta Anat. 146, 183–187 (1993).
    pubmed: 8470464doi: 10.1159/000147443google scholar: lookup
  57. Heitor F, Do-Oom MM, Vicente L. Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses. Part I. Correlates of social dominance and contexts of aggression. Behav. Process. 73, 170–177 (2006).
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2006.05.004google scholar: lookup
  58. Heitor F, Vicente L. Affiliative relationships among Sorraia mares: Influence of age, dominance, kinship and reproductive state. J. Ethol. 28, 133–140 (2010).
    doi: 10.1007/s10164-009-0165-9google scholar: lookup
  59. Heitor F, Do-Oom MM, Luis V. Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses. Part II Factors affecting affiliative relationships and sexual behaviours. Behav. Process. 73, 231–239 (2006).
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2006.05.005google scholar: lookup
  60. Wolter R, Stefanski V, Krueger K. Parameters for the analysis of social bonds in horses. Anim. Open Access J. Mdpi 8, 191 (2018).
  61. Kieson E, Goma AA, Radi M. Tend and befriend in horses: Partner preferences, lateralization, and contextualization of allogrooming in two socially stable herds of quarter horse mares. Animals 13, 225 (2023).
    pubmed: 36670764pmc: 9854972doi: 10.3390/ani13020225google scholar: lookup
  62. van Dierendonck MC, Sigurjónsdóttir H, Colenbrander B, Thorhallsdóttir AG. Differences in social behaviour between late pregnant, post-partum and barren mares in a herd of Icelandic horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 89, 283–297 (2004).
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.06.010google scholar: lookup
  63. Kieson E. A preliminary investigation of preferred affiliative interactions within and between select bonded pairs of horses: A first look at equine “Love Languages”. Int. J. Zool. Anim. Biol. 4, 1456 (2021).
  64. Wang F, Tang H, Chen J. Survey on NLOS identification and error mitigation for UWB indoor positioning. Electronics 12, 1678 (2023).
    doi: 10.3390/electronics12071678google scholar: lookup
  65. Liu A, Lin S, Wang J, Kong X. A succinct method for non-line-of-sight mitigation for ultra-wideband indoor positioning system. Sensors 22, 8247 (2022).
    pubmed: 36365945pmc: 9657962doi: 10.3390/s22218247google scholar: lookup
  66. Maghdid SM, Maghdid HA. A comprehensive review of indoor/outdoor localization solutions in IoT era: Research challenges and future perspectives. (2021).
    doi: 10.36227/techrxiv.15138609.v1google scholar: lookup
  67. Fortes J, Švingál M, Porteleky T, Jurík P, Drutarovský M. Positioning and tracking of multiple humans moving in small rooms based on a one-transmitter–two-receiver UWB radar configuration. Sensors 22, 5228 (2022).
    pubmed: 35890910pmc: 9324171doi: 10.3390/s22145228google scholar: lookup
  68. van Dierendonck MC, Bandi N, Batdorj D, Dügerlham S, Munkhtsog B. Behavioural observations of reintroduced Takhi or Przewalski horses (Equus ferus przewalskii) in Mongolia. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 50, 95–114 (1996).
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(96)01089-1google scholar: lookup
  69. Kimura R. Mutual grooming and preferred associate relationships in a band of free-ranging horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 59, 265–276 (1998).
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00129-9google scholar: lookup
  70. Krueger K, Flauger B, Farmer K, Hemelrijk C. Movement initiation in groups of feral horses. Behav. Process. 103, 91–101 (2014).
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.10.007google scholar: lookup
  71. Maeda T. Aerial drone observations identified a multilevel society in feral horses. Sci. Rep.-u.k. 11, 71 (2021).
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79790-1google scholar: lookup
  72. Inoue S. Spatial positioning of individuals in a group of feral horses: A case study using drone technology. Mammal Res. 64, 249–259 (2019).
    doi: 10.1007/s13364-018-0400-2google scholar: lookup
  73. Mendonça RS. Social determinants of affiliation and cohesion in a population of feral horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 245, 105496 (2021).
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105496google scholar: lookup
  74. Inoue S, Yamamoto S, Ringhofer M, Mendonça RS, Hirata S. Lateral position preference in grazing feral horses. Ethology 126, 111–119 (2020).
    doi: 10.1111/eth.12966google scholar: lookup
  75. Boyd LE, Carbonaro DA, Houpt KA. The 24-hour time budget of Przewalski horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 21, 5–17 (1988).
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(88)90098-6google scholar: lookup
  76. Raspa F. Time-budget of horses reared for meat production: Influence of stocking density on behavioural activities and subsequent welfare. Animals 10, 1334 (2020).
    pubmed: 32752257pmc: 7460472doi: 10.3390/ani10081334google scholar: lookup
  77. Weinert JR, Werner J, Williams CA. Validation and implementation of an automated chew sensor-based remote monitoring device as tool for equine grazing research. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 88, 102971 (2020).
    pubmed: 32303328doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.102971google scholar: lookup
  78. Rochais C, Fureix C, Lesimple C, Hausberger M. Lower attention to daily environment: A novel cue for detecting chronic horses’ back pain?. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–7 (2016).
    doi: 10.1038/srep20117google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Torres Borda L, Auer U, Jenner F. The role of space availability and affiliation in shaping equine social distances and dynamics. Sci Rep 2025 Mar 25;15(1):10273.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-92943-4pubmed: 40133443google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,658 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.