Abstract
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.
Highlights
IntroductionOne hypothesis is that need is the driving force behind animal innovation [1, 5, 6]
We investigated whether innovations (ii) differed with respect to the equids’ sex [10,11,12,13], age [2, 10, 12, 15], breed type and species [46, 50,51,52,53,54] and (iii) was affected by the equids’ management [16,17,18, 20,21,22,23]
After the animals showed the innovation the first time, the frequency of repeating this behaviour was not affected by the data source the behaviours were collected from, by the equids’ sex, age, breed type or species, or whether they were stabled in single or group housing, had limited or unlimited access to roughage feed, or daily access to pasture or only on a limited number of days (GLM: N = 746, all p > 0.05)
Summary
One hypothesis is that need is the driving force behind animal innovation [1, 5, 6] From this perspective, individuals with poor access to resources, potentially caused by high competition for resources, by poor competitive abilities or by resource shortage, are forced to develop novel solutions [5]. Individuals with poor access to resources, potentially caused by high competition for resources, by poor competitive abilities or by resource shortage, are forced to develop novel solutions [5] This hypothesis is supported by the notion that, in frequently changing environments, food availability, access to mating partners and social contact may be problematic and induce the development of novel goal-directed behaviours [1, 3, 7,8,9]. Experience higher competition for mating partners than females and are consistently more innovative than females in accessing new sexual partners and in improving their rank [10, 12, 13]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call