Effects of telemetry collars on two free-roaming feral equid species
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There are two species of free-roaming feral equids in North America: horses (Equus caballus) and donkeys or "burros" (E. asinus). Both species were introduced as domestic animals to North America in the early 1500s and currently inhabit rangelands across the western United States, Canada, and all continents except Antarctica. Despite their global distribution, little is known about their fine scale spatial ecology. Contemporary research tools to assess space use include global positioning system (GPS) tracking collars, but older models were problematic due to stiff collar belting causing poor fit. We tested modern designs of GPS collars on n = 105 horses and n = 60 burros for 4 years in five populations (3 horse, 2 burro) across the western United States, to assess whether collars posed welfare risks to horses or burros. We found no difference in survival of collared versus uncollared mares and jennies, and no difference in survival of their foals. In 4036 of 4307 observations for horses (93.7%) and 2115 of 2258 observations for burros (93.6%), collars were observed symmetrical, maintaining proper fit on the neck. Fur effects from collars (sweaty neck, indented fur, broken fur) were seen in 3% of horse observations and 25% of burro observations. Superficial effects (chafes and marks on skin surface) were seen in 2% of horse observations and 11% of burro observations; no severe effects from collars were seen. Body condition was not affected by collars; mean body condition of collared horses was 4.70 ± 0.54 (mean ± s.d) and 4.71 ± 0.65 for collared burros. Behavior results indicated minimal effects; collared horses stood slightly more than uncollared, and collared burros stood and foraged more in one population, but not in the other. For 6.3% of observations of horses and 6.4% of observations of burros, we found an effect of time wearing a collar on the cumulative sum of fur effects which increased over time (burros: rs = 0.87, P = <0.0001; horses: rs = 0.31, P = 0.002). Burros also showed an increase over time in the number of superficial effects, but horses did not. Collars occasionally moved into the wrong position, shifting forward over the ears; we observed this on 19 horses and 1 burro. Of those, most collars went over the ears in summer (n = 12). All collars were equipped with a remote release mechanism as well as a timed-release mechanism for redundancy, thus removed when observed in wrong position to avoid rubbing or discomfort. Our finding of no consequential physical effects in 98% of horse observations, and 89% of burro observations suggests the consequences of collars on free-roaming equid welfare and survival is biologically insignificant, although collars should be monitored regularly and continue to be equipped with a remote release mechanism to remove a collar if needed. With frequent welfare-driven, visual monitoring, collaring of free-roaming equids can be a safe and useful tool to increase our understanding of their spatial ecology, demography, habitat use, behavior, and interactions with other wildlife.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».