Britta Osthaus

Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task.

Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) were tested in four experiments for their understanding of means-end connections. In each of the experiments, the dogs attempted to retrieve a food treat that could be seen behind a barrier and which was connected, via string, to a within-reach wooden block. In the experiments, either one or two strings were present, but the treat was attached only to one string. Successful retrieval of the treat required the animals to pull the appropriate string (either by pawing or by grasping the wooden block in their jaws) until the treat emerged from under the barrier. The results showed that the dogs were successful if the treat was in a perpendicular line to the barrier, i.e. straight ahead, but not when the string was at an angle: in the latter condition, the typical response was a proximity error in that the dogs pawed or mouthed at a location closest in line to the treat. When two strings that crossed were present, the dogs tended to pull on the wrong string. The combined results from the experiments show that, although dogs can learn to pull on a string to obtain food, they do not spontaneously understand means-end connections involving strings.

Can dogs defy gravity? A comparison with the human infant and a non‐human primate

We conducted four experiments with 56 adult dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) involving tasks where food was dropped through an opaque tube connected either vertically or diagonally to one of two or three goal boxes. In the first experiment, modelled after studies with children and primates, the dogs first searched significantly more often in the location directly beneath the drop-off point (a gravity bias), although this box was not connected with the tube. These results are comparable to those of human infants and cotton-top tamarins. Experiments 2–4 tested which problem solving strategy the dogs applied to find the food. Results show that they do not understand the physical mechanism of the tube itself, and they apply one of three search strategies: search the gravity box (the one below the drop-off box); search the box in the middle; learn the correct location of the goal box. When the goal box was in the same location the dogs learned to search there over trials, that is, they learned to ‘defy gravity’, but when the location of the goal box changed over trials they showed no learning. These findings are compared with those from human infants and cotton-top tamarins: like these species, the dogs can learn to overcome a gravity bias, but only when the reward is to be found in a consistent location.

Minding the gap: spatial perseveration error in dogs.

We investigated a combination of perseveration and detour behaviour in 50 domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). They were required to make a detour through a gap at one end of a straight barrier in order to reach a target. After one, two, three or four repeats, the gap was moved to the opposite end of the barrier, and the detour behaviour of the dogs was recorded. Although the dogs could solve simple detour tasks (80% correct in the first trial), they committed a perseveration error of following the previously learned route despite the clearly visible change in the location of the gap. This ‘misbehaviour’ occurred in 29 of 30 dogs after only two learning trials. They never reached a 100% correct performance level again even after four runs through the second gap location. The results suggest that dogs are reluctant to unlearn acquired spatial motor responses and reinforced navigation, which has important implications for experimental design, everyday dog training and our understanding of their mental capacities.

Domestic cats (Felis catus) do not show causal understanding in a string-pulling task

This study explored how domestic cats perform in a horizontal string-pulling task to determine whether they understand this case of physical causality. Fifteen cats were tested on their ability to retrieve an unreachable food treat in three different set-ups: (a) a single baited string, (b) two parallel strings where only one was baited and (c) two crossed strings where only one was baited. All cats succeeded at pulling a single string to obtain a treat, but none consistently chose the correct string when two strings were parallel. When tested with two crossed strings one cat chose the wrong string consistently and all others performed at chance level. There was no evidence that cats understand the function of the strings or their physical causality.

Spatial cognition and perseveration by horses, donkeys and mules in a simple A not B detour task.

We investigated perseveration and detour behaviour in 36 equids (Equuscaballus, E. asinus, E. caballus × E. asinus) and compared these data to those of a previous study on domestic dogs (Canisfamiliaris). The animals were required to make a detour through a gap at one end of a straight barrier in order to reach a visible target. After one, two, three or four repeats (A trials), the gap was moved to the opposite end of the barrier (B trials). We recorded initial deviations from the correct solution path and the latency to crossing the barrier. In the A trials, mules crossed the barrier significantly faster than their parental species, the horses and donkeys. In the B trials, following the change of gap location, all species showed a reduction in performance. Both dogs and horses exhibited significant spatial perseveration, going initially to the previous gap location. Donkeys and mules, however, performed at chance level. Our results suggest that hybrid vigour in mules extends to spatial abilities.

Captive Coyotes Compared to Their Counterparts in the Wild: Does Environmental Enrichment Help?

This article attempts to determine the effects of environment (captive or wild) and a simple form of environmental enrichment on the behavior and physiology of a nonhuman animal. Specifically, analyses first compared behavioral budgets and stereotypic behavior of captive coyotes (Canis latrans) in kennels and pens to their counterparts in the wild. Second, experiments examined the effect of a simple form of environmental enrichment for captive coyotes (food-filled bones) on behavioral budgets, stereotypies, and corticosteroid levels. Overall, behavioral budgets of captive coyotes in both kennels and pens were similar to those observed in the wild, but coyotes in captivity exhibited significantly more stereotypic behavior. Intermittently providing a bone generally lowered resting and increased foraging behaviors but did not significantly reduce stereotypic behavior or alter corticosteroid levels. Thus, coyote behavior in captivity can be similar to that exhibited in the wild; in addition, although enrichment can affect proportions of elicited behaviors, abnormal behaviors and corticosteroid levels may require more than a simple form of environmental enrichment for their reduction.

Social relations in a mixed group of mules, ponies and donkeys reflect differences in equid type

Donkeys and mules are frequently kept as companion animals for horses and ponies, with these different equids often being considered a homogenous group. However, the extent to which domestic equids form inter-specific bonds and display similar social behaviour when living in a mixed herd has not previously been studied. Here we compare the social organization of these three (sub)species when housed together, providing the first systematic analysis of how genetic hybridization is expressed in the social behaviour of mules. A group of 16 mules, donkeys and ponies was observed for 70h and preferred associates, dominance rank and the linearity of the groups hierarchy was determined. The different equids formed distinct affiliative groups that were ordered in a linear hierarchy with ponies as the most dominant, mules in the middle ranks and donkeys in the lowest ranks. Within each equid subgroup, the strength of the hierarchy also varied. Thus in the present study, the three (sub)species displayed different social organization and levels of dominance and preferred to associate with animals of the same equid type, given the opportunity. These results suggest that different domestic equid (sub)species display variations in social behaviour that are likely to have a strong genetic basis.

In what sense are dogs special? Canine cognition in comparative context

The great increase in the study of dog cognition in the current century has yielded insights into canine cognition in a variety of domains. In this review, we seek to place our enhanced understanding of canine cognition into context. We argue that in order to assess dog cognition, we need to regard dogs from three different perspectives: phylogenetically, as carnivoran and specifically a canid; ecologically, as social, cursorial hunters; and anthropogenically, as a domestic animal. A principled understanding of canine cognition should therefore involve comparing dogs’ cognition with that of other carnivorans, other social hunters, and other domestic animals. This paper contrasts dog cognition with what is known about cognition in species that fit into these three categories, with a particular emphasis on wolves, cats, spotted hyenas, chimpanzees, dolphins, horses, and pigeons. We cover sensory cognition, physical cognition, spatial cognition, social cognition, and self-awareness. Although the comparisons are incomplete, because of the limited range of studies of some of the other relevant species, we conclude that dog cognition is influenced by the membership of all three of these groups, and taking all three groups into account, dog cognition does not look exceptional.

Hair coat properties of donkeys, mules and horses in a temperate climate

Summary Background There are clear differences between donkeys and horses in their evolutionary history, physiology, behaviour and husbandry needs. Donkeys are often kept in climates that they are not adapted to and as such may suffer impaired welfare unless protection from the elements is provided. Objectives To compare some of the hair coat properties of donkeys, mules and horses living outside, throughout the year, in the temperate climate of the UK. Study design Longitudinal study. Methods Hair samples were taken from 42 animals: 18 donkeys (4 females, 14 males), 16 horses (6 females, 10 males) and eight mules (5 females, 3 males), in March, June, September and December. The weight, length and width of hair were measured, across the four seasons, as indicators of the hair coat insulation properties. Results Donkeys’ hair coats do not significantly differ across the seasons. All three measurements of the insulation properties of the hair samples indicate that donkeys do not grow a winter coat and that their hair coat was significantly lighter, shorter and thinner than that of horses and mules in winter. In contrast, the hair coats of horses changed significantly between seasons, growing thicker in winter. Main limitations The measurements cover only a limited range of features that contribute to the thermoregulation of an animal. Further research is needed to assess shelter preferences by behavioural measures, and absolute heat loss via thermoimaging. Conclusions Donkeys, and to a lesser extent mules, appear not to be as adapted to colder, wet climates as horses, and may therefore require additional protection from the elements, such as access to a wind and waterproof shelter, in order for their welfare needs to be met.