Effects of telemetry collars on two free-roaming feral equid species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".