Animal behaviour in a human world: A crowdsourcing study on horses that open door and gate mechanisms

Evidence of self-care tooling and phylogenetic modeling reveal parrot tool use is not rare

Putatively rare behaviors like tool use are difficult to study because absence of evidence can arise from a species' inability to produce the behavior or from insufficient research. We combine data from digital platforms and phylogenetic modeling to estimate rates of tool use in parrots. Videos on YouTube revealed novel instances of self-care tooling in 17 parrot species, more than doubling the number of tool-using parrots from 11 (3%) to 28 (7%). Phylogenetic modeling suggests 11-17% of extant parrot species may be capable of tool use and identifies likely candidates. These discoveries impact our understanding of the evolution of tool use in parrots, revealing associations with relative brain size and feeding generalism and indicating likely ancestral tool use in several genera. Our findings challenge the assumption that current sampling efforts fully capture the distribution of putatively rare animal behaviors and offer a fruitful approach for investigating other rare behaviors.

The influence of pups on aggressive interactions between smooth-coated otters and water monitor lizards in Singapore

Smooth-coated otters (Lutrogale perspicillata) and Malayan water monitor lizards (Varanus salvator) occupy similar habitats and interact regularly in Singapore's waterways. These interactions have a range of potential outcomes and are sometimes lethal. Few formal behavioral studies exist for either species. We analyzed interactions between otters and monitor lizards by gleaning data from publicly available videos from citizen scientists to examine what factors influence aggressive and defensive behaviors and what influences vigilance in otters. Behavioral sequence analysis revealed no obvious monitor lizard behavior that predicted otter aggression toward monitors. We found that the presence and number of otter pups are positively associated with otter aggression. Otters also tended to be more vigilant in groups with more pups and more vigilant on land than water. Monitor lizards almost always displayed aggressive and defensive behaviors, regardless of whether otters were aggressive toward the lizards. These observations suggest that otters vary their aggression and vigilance levels depending on their group composition and the physical environment of their interactions with monitor lizards.

An Evaluation of Ethograms Measuring Distinct Features of Enrichment Use by Captive Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Simple Summary

Environmental enrichment for chimpanzees is important in order to minimize boredom and stress in captivity and to provide opportunities to engage in species-typical behaviors. However, few studies have investigated potential associations between enrichment objects, manipulation behaviors, and social contexts, nor have they examined if individual chimpanzees vary in their enrichment object preferences. In the current study, three ethograms were used to code the use of enrichment objects, engagement in manipulation behaviors, and social contexts of enrichment use of captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Data mining from a video archive consisting of 2054 videos collected over a decade allowed the ethograms to be applied to 732 min and 58 s of videos. Some enrichment objects were more often associated with specific manipulation behaviors and social contexts, indicating that enrichment objects might serve distinct social and behavioral purposes. The chimpanzees differed in their enrichment object preferences, suggesting that caregivers of captive chimpanzees should consider individual needs when providing enrichment in order to improve chimpanzees’ experiences in captivity. Finally, the majority of enrichment object use and manipulation behaviors were able to be categorized, indicating that our ethograms were largely effective in coding enrichment use.

Abstract

Environmental enrichment provides mental stimulation and minimizes abnormal behaviors in captive animals. In captive chimpanzees, individual animals may vary in the ways in which they benefit from enrichment or use enrichment devices, so investigating nuances in enrichment use may improve the welfare of captive chimpanzees. In the current study, three ethograms measuring distinct features of enrichment use (i.e., enrichment object, manipulation behavior, and social context) were evaluated by coding videos of captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) at Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest in Cle Elum, WA. A total of 732 min and 58 s of video footage was coded from a larger video archive (i.e., 2054 videos) of enrichment use that spanned a decade. A principal component analysis (PCA) revealed that different categories of enrichment objects were more often associated with specific manipulation behaviors and social contexts, suggesting that enrichment objects might fulfill different behavioral and social needs in captivity. Specifically, toy objects were associated with active tactile behaviors in affiliative contexts while oral behaviors were used with foraging objects in solitary contexts. Additionally, individual chimpanzees showed unique preferences for enrichment objects, indicating that caregivers of captive chimpanzees should consider individual needs instead of a “one size fits all” approach to enrichment provisions.

Tool Use in Horses

Simple Summary

Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used crowdsourcing to gather data. We asked equid owners and carers to report and video examples of “unusual” behaviour via a dedicated website, and we searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tools. From 635 reports, including 1014 actions, we found 13 unambiguous cases of tool use. Tool use was associated with restricted management conditions in 12 of the 13 cases, and 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans. The most frequent tool use, with seven examples, was for foraging, for example, equids using sticks to scrape hay into reach. There were four cases of tool use for social purposes, such as horses using brushes to groom others, just one case of tool use for escape, in which a horse threw a halter when it wished to be turned out, and one case of tool use for comfort, in which a horse scratched his abdomen with a stick. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is rare.

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 (p = 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.

Need or opportunity? A study of innovations in equids

Debate persists over whether animals develop innovative solutions primarily in response to needs or conversely whether they innovate more when basic needs are covered and opportunity to develop novel behaviour is offered. We sourced 746 cases of "unusual" behaviour in equids by contacting equid owners and caretakers directly and via a website (https://innovative-behaviour.org), and by searching the internet platforms YouTube and Facebook for videos. The study investigated whether differences in need or opportunity for innovation were reflected in the numbers of different types of innovations and in the frequencies of repeating a once-innovative behaviour (i) with respect to the equids' sex, age, and breed type, (ii) across behavioural categories, and whether (iii) they were affected by the equids' management (single vs group housing, access to roughage feed, access to pasture, and social contact). We found that the numbers of different types of innovation and the frequency of displaying specific innovations were not affected by individual characteristics (sex, age, breed or equid species). Few types of innovation in escape and foraging contexts were observed, whilst the comfort, play, and social contexts elicited the greatest variety of innovations. We also found higher numbers of different types of innovations in horses kept in groups rather than in individual housing, and with unlimited rather than with restricted access to pasture and roughage. Equids in permanent social contact performed high rates of once-innovative behaviour. We suggest that equids produce goal-directed innovations and repeat the behaviour at high frequency in response to urgent needs for food and free movement or when kept in conditions with social conflict. However, equids devise the greatest variety of innovations when opportunity to play and to develop comfort behaviour arises and when kept in good conditions.

Optimising the Efficacy of Equine Welfare Communications: Do Equine Stakeholders Differ in Their Information-Seeking Behaviour and Communication Preferences?

Information on the management of animals within domestic environments is freely available to animal owners and caregivers either online, or in paper form by request. However, awareness is growing within the animal welfare sector that simply providing written guidelines or educational material is not enough to affect a positive change in owners in relation to animal welfare. In the quest to improve equine welfare, understanding the way that owners and other stakeholders seek information and their communication preferences is key to effective dissemination of up to date equine welfare information and research findings. Three UK equine stakeholder groups-horse owners, livery yard owners, and equine veterinarians-were surveyed online to find out where they sought equine information. Their awareness of equine welfare Codes of Practice, how they respond when they are asked to give advice to horse owners and their communication preferences were included within the survey. All three stakeholder groups tended to seek information from people rather than from organisations, or digital and printed resources. Veterinarians were the most used information source across all three stakeholder groups This highlighted the importance of ensuring that equine veterinarians have access to up to date, evidence-based equine welfare information. While the majority of participants were aware of the equine welfare Code of Practice, fewer had actually read it, this was true particularly amongst horse owners. The primary reasons for this were the features of the Code as well as the issuing organisation. The stakeholders expressed a preference for information to be communicated in a neutral or positive way rather than focusing on negative aspects. Our findings suggest that industry professionals, particularly veterinarians, have an important role to play in knowledge transfer and the dissemination of research findings to horse owners. The efficacy of equine welfare communication could be improved if the information delivery preferences of equine stakeholders are were taken into consideration.