4.5 Article

Limb preferences and lateralization of aggression, reactivity and vigilance in feral horses, Equus caballus

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 83, 期 1, 页码 239-247

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.033

关键词

aggression; behavioural asymmetry; Equus caballus; eye preference; feral horse; limb preference; reactivity; side bias

资金

  1. University of New England

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Observational field studies were conducted on two remote populations of feral horses in Australia to determine whether lateralization is a characteristic of Equus caballus as a species or results from handling by humans. Group 1 had been feral for two to five generations and Group 2 for 10-20 generations. In both groups, left-side biases were present during agonistic interactions and in reactivity and vigilance. Therefore, as in other vertebrates, the right hemisphere appears to be specialized to control agonistic behaviour and responses to potential threats. The leftwards bias was stronger in measures of behaviour involving more aggression and reactivity. Preferences to place one forelimb in front of the other during grazing were also determined. No population bias of forelimb preference was found, suggesting that such limb preferences present in domestic horses may be entrained. Since stronger individual limb preferences were found in immature than in adult feral horses, limb preference may be modified by maturation or experience in the natural habitat. Stronger limb preference was associated significantly with elevated attention to the environment but only in younger feral horses. No sex differences in lateralization were found. The findings are evidence that horses show visual lateralization, as in other vertebrates, not dependent on handling by humans. Limb preference during grazing, by contrast, does appear to depend on experience. (C) 2011 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据