Wolter Riccarda, Stefanski Volker, Krueger Konstanze
Department of Zoology, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
Department Equine Management, Faculty Agriculture, Economics and Management, Nürtingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622 Nuertingen, Germany.
Animals (Basel). 2018 Oct 27;8(11):191. doi: 10.3390/ani8110191.
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.
社会关系分析对于评估群居马匹的社会关系至关重要。然而,在马行为学文献中,关于社会关系分析的研究并不一致。常用的方法包括相互梳理毛发(马匹并肩站立,轻轻啃咬、蹭鼻或相互摩擦)、亲和行为(马匹相互靠近并保持在一个身体长度范围内)以及空间接近度测量(马匹身体接触站立或在两个马身长度范围内)。在本研究中,我们评估了这三个参数中哪一个最适合用于马匹的社会关系分析,以及社会关系是否受到个体和群体因素的影响。我们在一周内的三天里,对145匹野马、五组普氏野马(n = 36)和六组野马(n = 109)进行了观察,每组观察15小时,记录它们的社会行为和空间接近度。我们发现梳理毛发、友好行为和空间接近度是可靠的参数,因为它们的相关性仅受动物性别(广义线性混合模型:n = 145,χ² = 0.001,z = -2.7,P = 0.008)和群体大小(广义线性混合模型:n = 145,χ² < 0.001,z = 4.255,P < 0.001)的影响,而不受马的品种、攻击比例、社会等级、群体、群体组成和个体本身的影响。我们的结果显示,所有三个参数之间存在一种趋势性的对应关系(广义线性混合模型:n = 145,χ² = 0.004,z = 1.95,P = 0.053),相互梳理毛发和友好行为之间存在很强的对应关系(广义线性混合模型:n = 145,χ² = 0.021,z = 3.922,P < 0.001),而相互梳理毛发和空间接近度之间存在较弱的对应关系(广义线性混合模型:n = 145,χ² = 0.04,z = 1.15,P = 0.25)。因此,我们建议在有限的时间框架内,要么结合使用主动行为计数(相互梳理毛发和友好行为),要么使用紧密空间接近度测量来分析马匹的社会关系。