FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Sci Rep / The role of space availability and affiliation in shaping eq...
Scientific reports2025; 15(1); 10273; doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-92943-4

The role of space availability and affiliation in shaping equine social distances and dynamics.

Abstract: Horses confined to enclosures with limited opportunities for spatial avoidance and escape experience heightened social stress and conflict. While forced proximity can pose welfare risks, voluntary social proximity is considered a positive indicator of well-being. To investigate the effects of space availability on spatiotemporal dynamics, social network structure and agonistic interactions, this study used ultra-wideband sensors to continuously (1 Hz) measure interindividual distances in 34 horses across three groups under paddock and field conditions. Interindividual distances increased in larger enclosures (paddock: median 8.3 m, field: 19 m), but closest associates remained nearer to each other than other dyads (paddock: 3.6 m vs. 8.3 m, field: 13.6 m vs. 19 m) and spent more time within 3 m (paddock: 42.34% vs. 20.59%, field: 9.81% vs. 1.85%). However, horses did not disperse maximally in larger spaces, staying within range of even their least frequent associates, suggesting a threshold distance for group cohesion. Network analysis revealed higher closeness centrality in the paddock, indicating a more integrated social network. Agonistic interactions were more frequent between close associates, occurred more often in the paddock than the field, and correlated negatively with absolute interindividual distances. These findings highlight the complex interplay between space availability and social dynamics and their importance for equine welfare.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-03-25 PubMed ID: 40133443PubMed Central: PMC11937558DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-92943-4Google 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 research article studies the impact of space availability on the social distances and dynamics in horses. It suggests that limited space can cause heightened social stress among horses, while voluntary social proximity is considered beneficial for their welfare.

Objectives and Methods

  • The study aimed to understand the effects of space availability on horses’ spatiotemporal dynamics, social network structure, and agonistic interactions.
  • For the research, ultra-wideband sensors were used to continuously measure the distances between the horses.
  • The experiment was conducted on 34 horses across three groups in two different conditions – paddock (smaller enclosures) and field (larger enclosures).

Findings

  • It was observed that the distances between individual horses increased in larger enclosures. The median distance increased from 8.3 meters in the paddock to 19 meters in the field.
  • However, horses that were closely associated remained nearer to each other than other pairs. These close associates spent more time within 3 meters of each other, both in the paddock and field settings.
  • In contrast, horses did not maximally disperse in larger spaces, indicating a certain threshold distance that they maintained for group cohesion.
  • In terms of network analysis, higher closeness centrality was observed in the paddock scenario, suggesting a more integrated social network among the horses in smaller spaces.
  • Agonistic (conflict-driven) interactions were seen more often in smaller spaces and were more frequent between close associates. These interaction frequencies were also inversely correlated with the distances between the horses.

Implication and Significance

  • The study emphasizes the complex relationship between the availability of space and social dynamics among horses.
  • The findings are fundamental for improving understandings of equine welfare, suggesting that while smaller spaces may cause more social stress, these environments also promote closer social bonds among the horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Torres Borda L, Auer U, Jenner F. (2025). The role of space availability and affiliation in shaping equine social distances and dynamics. Sci Rep, 15(1), 10273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-92943-4

Publication

Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
NlmUniqueID: 101563288
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 15
Issue: 1
Pages: 10273
PII: 10273

Researcher Affiliations

Torres Borda, Laura
  • Department for Small Animals and Horses, Centre for Equine Health and Research, Equine Surgery Unit, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, Vienna, 1210, Austria.
Auer, Ulrike
  • Department for Small Animals and Horses, Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Intensive Care Medicine Unit, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Jenner, Florien
  • Department for Small Animals and Horses, Centre for Equine Health and Research, Equine Surgery Unit, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, Vienna, 1210, Austria. Florien.Jenner@vetmeduni.ac.at.

MeSH Terms

  • Horses / physiology
  • Horses / psychology
  • Animal Husbandry / standards
  • Stress, Psychological
  • Male
  • Female
  • Population Density
  • Agonistic Behavior
  • Behavior, Animal / physiology
  • Time Factors
  • Animal Welfare
  • Social Behavior

Conflict of Interest Statement

Declarations. Competing interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Ethics approval: This study was non-invasive and entailed only monitoring the horses under their current conditions of life. No specific veterinary treatments or interventions were carried out for the purpose of this study. The Institutional Ethics Committee of the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna waived ethical approval for the study (ETK-152/09/2019) in accordance with the “Good Scientific Practice. Ethics in Science and Research” guidelines implemented at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna and national legislation. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

References

This article includes 81 references
  1. Hennig J, Beck J, Derek JD. Spatial ecology observations from feral horses equipped with global positioning system transmitters. Human–Wildlife Interact. 12, 9 (2018).
  2. Feist JD, McCullough DR. Behavior patterns and communication in feral horses. Z. Für Tierpsychol. 41, 337–371 (1976).
    pubmed: 983427
  3. Salter RE, Hudson RJ. Social organization of feral horses in Western Canada. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 8, 207–223 (1982).
  4. Wells SM, von Goldschmidt-Rothschild B. Social behaviour and relationships in a herd of Camargue horses. Z. Für Tierpsychol. 49, 363–380 (1979).
  5. Linklater W, Cameron E, Stafford K, Veltman C. Social and Spatial structure and range use by Kaimanawa wild horses (Equus Caballus: Equidae). New. Z. J. Ecol. 24, 139–152 (2000).
  6. 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).
  7. Maeda T et al. Aerial drone observations identified a multilevel society in feral horses. Sci. Rep. 11, 71 (2021).
    pmc: PMC7794487pubmed: 33420148
  8. Mendonça RS et al. Population characteristics of feral horses impacted by anthropogenic factors and their management implications. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10, 848741 (2022).
  9. Dawson M. The Population Ecology of Feral Horses in the Australian Alps Management Summary. (2005).
    doi: 10.26191/sx2r-hc98google scholar: lookup
  10. Krueger K, Flauger B, Farmer K, Hemelrijk C. Movement initiation in groups of feral horses. Behav. Process. 103, 91–101 (2014).
    pubmed: 24220794
  11. Berger J. Organizational systems and dominance in feral horses in the grand Canyon. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2, 131–146 (1977).
  12. Vernes K, Freeman M, Nesbitt B. Estimating the density of free-ranging wild horses in rugged Gorges using a photographic mark–recapture technique. Wildl. Res. 36, 361–367 (2009).
  13. Wallace ZP et al. An abundance estimate of Free-Roaming horses on the Navajo Nation. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 74, 100–109 (2021).
  14. 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).
  15. Feh C. Social behaviour and relationships of Prezewalski horses in Dutch semi-reserves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 21, 71–87 (1988).
  16. McDonnell SM, Haviland JCS. Agonistic ethogram of the equid bachelor band. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 43, 147–188 (1995).
  17. Houpt KA, Wolski TR. Stability of equine hierarchies and the prevention of dominance related aggression. Equine Vet. J. 12, 15–18 (1980).
    pubmed: 7189148
  18. 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).
  19. Rutberg AT, Greenberg SA. Dominance, aggression frequencies and modes of aggressive competition in feral pony mares. Anim. Behav. 40, 322–331 (1990).
  20. 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).
  21. 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).
    pmc: PMC3559779pubmed: 23382940
  22. Heitor F, Oom M, Vicente L do M. Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses Part I. Correlates of social dominance and contexts of aggression. Behav. Process. 73, 170–177 (2006).
    pubmed: 16815645
  23. 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).
  24. Flauger B, Krueger K. Aggression level and enclosure size in horses (Equus caballus). Pferdeheilkunde Equine Med. 29 (504-), 495 (2013).
  25. Sigurjónsdóttir H, Haraldsson H. Significance of group composition for the welfare of pastured horses. Animals 9, 14 (2019).
    pmc: PMC6356279pubmed: 30621272
  26. Hogan ES, Houpt KA, 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. 21, 147–168 (1988).
  27. Morgan N, Randle H. Personal space requirements of mares versus geldings (Equus caballus): welfare implications and visual representation of spatial data via Spatial Web diagrams). BSAP Occas Publ. 35, 203–206 (2006).
  28. 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).
  29. Majecka K, Klawe A. Influence of paddock size on social relationships in domestic horses. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 21, 8–16 (2018).
    pubmed: 28820613
  30. Suagee-Bedore JK, Linden DR, Bennett-Wimbush K. Effect of pen size on stress responses of Stall-Housed horses receiving one hour of daily turnout. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 98, 103366 (2021).
    pubmed: 33663718
  31. 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).
  32. Wolter R, Stefanski V, Krueger K. Parameters for the analysis of social bonds in horses. Animals 8, 191 (2018).
    pmc: PMC6262610pubmed: 30373257
  33. Sigurjónsdóttir H, van Dierendonck M, Snorrason S, Thórhallsdóttir A. Social relationships in a group of horses without a mature stallion. Behaviour 140, 783–804 (2003).
  34. van Dierendonck M. The Importance of Social Relationships in Horses. (Utrecht University, 2006).
  35. 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).
  36. 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. 273, 106236 (2024).
  37. Borda LT, Roth P, Lumetzberger J, Auer U, Jenner F. Proximity tracking using ultra-wideband technology for equine social behaviour research. Sci. Rep. 14, 9971 (2024).
    pmc: PMC11063072pubmed: 38693325
  38. 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).
  39. Borda LT, Kelemen Z, Auer U, Jenner F. Video ethogram of equine social behaviour. Animals 14, 1179 (2024).
    pmc: PMC11047489pubmed: 38672327
  40. 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).
  41. Epping A. Captive Chimpanzee Group and Individual Space Use in a Naturalist Enclosure. (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2016).
  42. Zeitler-Feicht MH, Baumgartner M. Which behavioural patterns are suitable as indicators for well-being in horses considering the aspects of validity and feasibility?. Pferdeheilkunde Equine Med. 32, 501–507 (2016).
  43. Feh C. Alliances and reproductive success in Camargue stallions. Anim. Behav. 57, 705–713 (1999).
    pubmed: 10196062
  44. Clayton HM. The extended canter: A comparison of some kinematic variables in horses trained for dressage and for racing. Cells Tissues Organs. 146, 183–187 (1993).
    pubmed: 8470464
  45. Deuel NR, Lawrence LM. Gallop velocity and limb contact variables of quarter horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 6, 143–147 (1986).
  46. RStudio T. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. (RStudio, 2020).
  47. Mishra P et al. Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Ann. Card Anaesth. 22, 67–72 (2019).
    pmc: PMC6350423pubmed: 30648682
  48. Hothorn T, Hornik K, van de Wiel MA. Zeileis, A. A Lego system for conditional inference. Am. Stat. 60, 257–263 (2006).
  49. Warburton K, Lazarus J. Tendency-distance models of social cohesion in animal groups. J. Theor. Biol. 150, 473–488 (1991).
    pubmed: 1943130
  50. Whitehead H. Analysing animal social structure. Anim. Behav. 53, 1053–1067 (1997).
  51. Perna A, Grégoire G, Mann RP. On the duality between interaction responses and mutual positions in flocking and schooling. Mov. Ecol. 2, 22 (2014).
    pmc: PMC4337765pubmed: 25709831
  52. Couzin ID, Krause J, James R, Ruxton GD, Franks NR. Collective memory and Spatial sorting in animal groups. J. Theor. Biol. 218, 1–11 (2002).
    pubmed: 12297066
  53. Dostie MJ et al. Proof of principle: the adaptive geometry of social foragers. Anim. Behav. 119, 173–178 (2016).
  54. Calvão AM, Brigatti E. The role of neighbours selection on cohesion and order of swarms. PLoS ONE. 9, e94221 (2014).
    pmc: PMC4014465pubmed: 24809718
  55. Lee NS, Beery AK. Selectivity and sociality: aggression and affiliation shape vole social relationships. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 16, 826831 (2022).
    pmc: PMC8940285pubmed: 35330842
  56. Lukeman R, Li YX, Edelstein-Keshet L. Inferring individual rules from collective behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 12576–12580 (2010).
    pmc: PMC2906562pubmed: 20616032
  57. Farine DR et al. Both nearest neighbours and Long-term affiliates predict individual locations during collective movement in wild baboons. Sci. Rep. 6, 27704 (2016).
    pmc: PMC4904494pubmed: 27292778
  58. Hollingdale E, Pérez-Barbería FJ, Walker DM. Inferring symmetric and asymmetric interactions between animals and groups from positional data. PLoS ONE. 13, e0208202 (2018).
    pmc: PMC6291231pubmed: 30540835
  59. Eftimie R, de Vries G, Lewis MA. Complex Spatial group patterns result from different animal communication mechanisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 6974–6979 (2007).
    pmc: PMC1855397pubmed: 17438269
  60. Shamay-Tsoory SG, Kanterman A. Away from the herd: loneliness as a dysfunction of social alignment. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 19, nsae005 (2024).
    pmc: PMC10873844pubmed: 38287695
  61. Schlägel UE et al. Estimating interactions between individuals from concurrent animal movements. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1234–1245 (2019).
  62. Kimura R. Mutual grooming and preferred associate relationships in a band of free-ranging horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 59, 265–276 (1998).
  63. Proops L, McComb K. Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus) extends to familiar humans. Proc. R Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 279, 3131–3138 (2008).
    pmc: PMC3385734pubmed: 22593108
  64. Inoue S et al. Spatial positioning of individuals in a group of feral horses: a case study using drone technology. Mammal Res. 64, 249–259 (2019).
  65. Ballerini M et al. Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: evidence from a field study. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 1232–1237 (2008).
    pmc: PMC2234121pubmed: 18227508
  66. Parrish JK, Edelstein-Keshet L. Complexity Pattern, and evolutionary Trade-Offs in animal aggregation. Science 284, 99–101 (1999).
    pubmed: 10102827
  67. del Delgado M. The importance of individual variation in the dynamics of animal collective movements. Philos. Trans. R Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 373, 20170008 (2018).
    pmc: PMC5882978pubmed: 29581393
  68. Maple TL, Finlay TW. Primates, the road to Self-Sustaining populations. Proc. Life Sci. 479-48810.1007/978-1-4612-4918-4_38 (1986).
  69. Webber QMR, Laforge MP, Bonar M, Wal EV. The adaptive value of density-dependent habitat specialization and social network centrality. Nat. Commun. 15, 4423 (2024).
    pmc: PMC11126670pubmed: 38789438
  70. Nuñez CMV, Adelman JS, Rubenstein DI. Sociality increases juvenile survival after a catastrophic event in the feral horse (Equus caballus). Behav. Ecol. 26, 138–147 (2015).
  71. Mendonça RS et al. Social determinants of affiliation and cohesion in a population of feral horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 245, 105496 (2021).
  72. Rørvang MV, Nielsen BL, McLean AN. Sensory abilities of horses and their importance for equitation science. Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 633 (2020).
    pmc: PMC7509108pubmed: 33033724
  73. Raspa F et al. Stocking density affects welfare indicators in horses reared for meat production. Animals 10, 1103 (2020).
    pmc: PMC7341190pubmed: 32604808
  74. Benhajali H et al. A note on the time budget and social behaviour of densely housed horses A case study in Arab breeding mares. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 112, 196–200 (2008).
  75. Kolter L, Zimmermann W. Social behaviour of Przewalski horses (Equus P. P.zewalskii) in the Cologne zoo and its consequences for management and housing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 21, 117–145 (1988).
  76. Boyd LE. Time budgets of adult Przewalski horses: effects of sex, reproductive status and enclosure. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 21, 19–39 (1988).
  77. Ross SR, Schapiro SJ, Hau J, Lukas KE. Space use as an indicator of enclosure appropriateness: A novel measure of captive animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 121, 42–50 (2009).
  78. Heitor F, do Oom M, Vicente L. Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses part II. Factors affecting affiliative relationships and sexual behaviours. Behav. Process. 73, 231–239 (2006).
    pubmed: 16828984
  79. Hildebrandt F, Büttner K, Salau J, Krieter J, Czycholl I. Area and resource utilization of Group-Housed horses in an active stable. Animals 11, 2777 (2021).
    pmc: PMC8532945pubmed: 34679799
  80. Vervaecke H, Stevens JMG, Vandemoortele H, Sigurjónsdóttir H, Vries HD. Aggression and dominance in matched groups of subadult Icelandic horses (Equus caballus). J. Ethol. 25, 239–248 (2007).
  81. McDonnell SM, Poulin A. Equid play ethogram. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 78, 263–290 (2002).

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.