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) / Tool Use in Horses.
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2022; 12(15); 1876; doi: 10.3390/ani12151876

Tool Use in Horses.

Abstract: Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used a crowdsourcing approach to gather data. We contacted equid owners and carers and asked them to report and video examples of "unusual" behaviour via a dedicated website. We also searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tool use. From 635 reports, including 1014 behaviours, we found 20 cases of tool use, 13 of which were unambiguous in that it was clear that the behaviour was not trained, caused by reduced welfare, incidental or accidental. We then assessed (a) the effect of management conditions on tool use and (b) whether the animals used tools alone, or socially, involving other equids or humans. We found that management restrictions were associated with corresponding tool use in 12 of the 13 cases ( = 0.01), e.g., equids using sticks to scrape hay within reach when feed was restricted. Furthermore, 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans, such as horses using brushes to groom others. The most frequent tool use was for foraging, with seven examples, tool use for social purposes was seen in four cases, and there was just one case of tool use for escape. There was just one case of tool use for comfort, and in this instance, there were no management restrictions. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is a rare occurrence.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2022-07-22 PubMed ID: 35892526PubMed Central: PMC9331065DOI: 10.3390/ani12151876Google 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 article studies evidence of tool use in equids, such as horses, mules, and donkeys. From a collection of reported behaviors and videos, the researchers identified a few cases where these animals appear to use tools, mostly in response to limited resources.

Overview of Research and Methodology

  • The researchers used an innovative approach – crowdsourcing – to gather data for their study since tool use in equids is a challenging area to study with conventional methods.
  • Equid owners and carers were contacted and asked to report “unusual” behaviors of their animals through a dedicated website. The researchers then looked for instances of tool use in these behaviors. Additionally, online platforms like YouTube and Facebook were scoured for relevant videos.

Findings from the Research

  • Out of 635 reports and 1014 behaviors, the researchers found 20 cases of tool use. Among these, 13 cases were unambiguous meaning they were clear that these tool uses were neither trained nor accidentally caused.
  • Then, these unique cases were examined to find out the effect of management conditions on tool use. The authors also studied whether the equids used the tools alone or in social contexts involving other equids or humans.
  • Most cases of tool use were attributed to response to management restrictions. For example, equids used sticks to bring hay within their reach when their feed was restricted.

Nature of Tool Use

  • Seven cases of tool use were for foraging purposes, four were for social purposes, and one was for escape.
  • Eight out of thirteen cases involved either other equids or humans. An example includes horses using brushes to groom others.
  • There was only one instance of tool use for comfort, where there were no management restrictions involved. It suggests that tool use for comfort might not necessarily stem from restricted conditions.

Conclusions of the Study

  • The research concludes that equids do demonstrate tool usage, mainly in response to resource restrictions. However, it’s a rare occurrence, pointing out the scope for future, in-depth research in this field.

Cite This Article

APA
Krueger K, Trager L, Farmer K, Byrne R. (2022). Tool Use in Horses. Animals (Basel), 12(15), 1876. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12151876

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 15
PII: 1876

Researcher Affiliations

Krueger, Konstanze
  • Department Zoology/Evolutionary Biology, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
  • Department Equine Economics, Faculty Agriculture, Economics and Management, Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622 Nürtingen, Germany.
Trager, Laureen
  • Department Equine Economics, Faculty Agriculture, Economics and Management, Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622 Nürtingen, Germany.
  • Department of Animal Welfare, Ethology, Animal Hygiene and Animal Husbandry, Veterinarian Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Veterinärstr. 13/R, 80539 München, Germany.
Farmer, Kate
  • Centre for Social Learning & Cognitive Evolution, School of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9JP, Scotland, UK.
Byrne, Richard
  • Centre for Social Learning & Cognitive Evolution, School of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9JP, Scotland, UK.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

This article includes 45 references
  1. Beck BB. Animal Tool Behaviour: The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals. Garland; New York, NY, USA: 1980.
  2. Krueger K, Esch L, Byrne R. Need or opportunity? A study of innovations in equids.. PLoS One 2021;16(9):e0257730.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257730pmc: PMC8476013pubmed: 34570831google scholar: lookup
  3. Bentley-Condit V, Smith EO. Animal tool use: Current definitions and an updated comprehensive catalog. Behaviour 2010;147:185-32A.
    doi: 10.1163/000579509X12512865686555google scholar: lookup
  4. Bandini E, Motes-Rodrigo A, Steele MP, Rutz C, Tennie C. Examining the mechanisms underlying the acquisition of animal tool behaviour.. Biol Lett 2020 Jun;16(6):20200122.
    doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2020.0122pmc: PMC7336849pubmed: 32486940google scholar: lookup
  5. 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
  6. Berger J. Wild Horses of the Great Basin. University of Chicago Press; Chicago, IL, USA: 1986.
  7. Heleski CR, Shelle AC, Nielsen BD, Zanella AJ. Influence of housing on weanling horse behavior and subsequent welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002;78:291–302.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00108-9google scholar: lookup
  8. 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
  9. Mills DS, McDonnell SM. The Domestic Horse. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 2005.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Mejdell CM, Buvik T, Jørgensen GHM, Bøe KE. Horses can learn to use symbols to communicate their preferences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;184:66–73.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.07.014google scholar: lookup
  13. Malavasi R, Huber L. Evidence of heterospecific referential communication from domestic horses (Equus caballus) to humans.. Anim Cogn 2016 Sep;19(5):899-909.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-0987-0pubmed: 27098164google scholar: lookup
  14. Ringhofer M, Yamamoto S. Domestic horses send signals to humans when they face with an unsolvable task.. Anim Cogn 2017 May;20(3):397-405.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-1056-4pubmed: 27885519google scholar: lookup
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Bouchard J. Is Social Learning Correlated with Innovation in Birds? An Inter- and an Intraspecific Test. Master’s Thesis. McGill University Montreal; Montreal, QC, Canada: 2002.
  19. 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
  20. Whiten A, Byrne RW. Tactical deception in primates. Behav. Brain Sci. 1988;11:233–244.
    doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00049682google scholar: lookup
  21. Byrne R, Whiten A. Tactical deception in primates: The 1990 database. Primate Rep. 1990;27:1–101.
  22. Byrne RW. Do larger brains mean greater intelligence?. Behav. Brain Sci. 1993;16:696–697.
    doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00032362google scholar: lookup
  23. Reader S, Laland K. Primate Innovation: Sex, Age and Social Rank Differences. Int. J. Primatol. 2001;22:787–805.
    doi: 10.1023/A:1012069500899google scholar: lookup
  24. Hiby EF, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS. Dog training methods: Their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Anim. Welf. 2004;13:63–69.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Nelson XJ, Fijn N. The use of visual media as a tool for investigating animal behaviour. Anim. Behav. 2013;85:525–536.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.12.009google scholar: lookup
  30. Bücheler T, Sieg JH. Understanding Science 2.0: Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation in the Scientific Method. Proc. Comp. Sci. 2011;7:327–329.
    doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2011.09.014google scholar: lookup
  31. 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.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.08.001google scholar: lookup
  32. 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.
    doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879pubmed: 14516251google scholar: lookup
  33. Sabou M, Bontcheva K, Scharl A. Crowdsourcing Research Opportunities: Lessons from Natural Language Processing. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies (i-KNOW ’12); New York, NY, USA. 5–7 September 2012; pp. 1–18.
    doi: 10.1145/2362456.2362479google scholar: lookup
  34. Wiggins A, Crowston K. From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; Kauai, HI, USA. 4–7 January 2011; pp. 1–10.
    doi: 10.1109/Hicss.2011.207google scholar: lookup
  35. Amant RS, Horton TE. Revisiting the definition of animal tool use. Anim. Behav. 2008;75:1199–1208.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.09.028google scholar: lookup
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. R Development Core Team. R Studio Version 0.99.484, Boston, MA, USA of the R-Project Statistical Environment and the Rcommander (Package Rcmdr). R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2021.
  39. Krueger K, Flauger B, Farmer K, Maros K. Horses (Equus caballus) use human local enhancement cues and adjust to human attention.. Anim Cogn 2011 Mar;14(2):187-201.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0352-7pubmed: 20845052google scholar: lookup
  40. Kornblith H. Knowledge and Its Place in Nature. Oxford University Press; Oxford, UK: 2002.
  41. Crowell-Davis SL, Houpt KA, Kane L. Play development in Welsh pony (Equus caballus) foals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1987;18:119–131.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(87)90186-9google scholar: lookup
  42. Carson K, Wood-Gush DGM. Equine behaviour: I. A review of the literature on social and dam—Foal behaviour. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1983;10:165–178.
    doi: 10.1016/0304-3762(83)90138-4google scholar: lookup
  43. Sigurjónsdóttir H, Snorrason S, van Dierendonck M, Thórhallsdóttir A. Social relationships in a group of horses without a mature stallion. Behaviour 2003;140:783–804.
    doi: 10.1163/156853903322370670google scholar: lookup
  44. Kiliç S, Cantürk G. Car Accident Due to Horse Crossing the Motorway: Two Case Reports. Bull. Leg. Med. 2017;22:73–76.
    doi: 10.17986/blm.2017227929google scholar: lookup
  45. Schwenk BK, Fürst AE, Bischhofberger AS. Traffic accident-related injuries in horses. Equine Med. 2016;32:192–199.
    doi: 10.21836/PEM20160301google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.