Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 231–241 | Cite as

Test of four hypotheses to explain the function of overmarking in foals of four equid species

  • Jan PluháčekEmail author
  • Vladimíra Tučková
  • Sarah R. B. King
  • Radka Šárová
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Overmarking occurs when one individual places its scent mark directly on top of the scent mark of another individual. Although it is almost ubiquitous among terrestrial mammals, we know little about the function of overmarking. In addition, almost all studies on mammalian overmarking behaviour dealt with adult individuals. Reports on this behaviour in juveniles are extremely rare, yet may elucidate the function of this behaviour. We tested four mutually non-exclusive hypotheses which might explain this behaviour in juveniles: (1) conceal the individual’s scent identity, (2) announcement of association with other group members, especially the mother—i.e., sharing identity with the mother, (3) to prevent the next conception of the mother, i.e., parent-offspring conflict, and (4) an early expression of male sexual behaviour. We observed 43 foals (out of 108 individuals) from all African equid species (Equus africanus, E. grevyi, E. quagga, E. zebra) in five zoos. In total, we recorded 3340 eliminations; 260 of these events were overmarked by 38 individual foals representing all species. This represents one of the highest rates of overmarking ever recorded by mammalian juveniles. Foals of all species except African wild ass overmarked the mother more often than another herdmate: with male foals overmarked at a higher rate than female foals. Mothers preferred to overmark foals, but not exclusively their own foal. Our results provide support for the hypotheses that overmarking serves to share identity between foal and mother, and that it is an early expression of male sexual behaviour.

Keywords

Equus Marking behaviour Olfactory communication Social bonds Zebra 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Zoological Garden staff at Dvůr Králové, Brno, Liberec, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem, in particular Luděk Čulík, Markéta Čulíková, Aleš Kopecký, Jiří Soumar, Miroslava Kubelková, Miroslava Doležalová, Pavel Moucha, Radek Hlávka, Lubomír Melichar, Jiří Vítek, Petra Padalíková, Pavel Král, Jaroslav Novák, Rostislav Střižík, Eva Zajoncová, and Lenka Málcová. This work was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (MZE-RO0719) and by grant no. 2011/008 of the Student Grant Agency of the University of South Bohemia.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was designed according to laws of the European Union and Czech Republic.

References

  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown RE, Macdonald DW (1985) Social odours in mammals, vol 2. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Crowell-Davis SL, Houpt KA (1985) The ontogeny of flehmen in horses. Anim Behav 33:739–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. D’Aniello B, Semin GR, Alterisio A, Aria M, Scandurra A (2018) Interspecies transmission of emotional information via chemosignals: from humans to dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim Cogn 21:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feist JD, McCullough D (1976) Behaviour patterns and communication in feral horses. Zeit Tierpsychol 41:337–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferkin MH, Pierce AA (2007) Perspectives on over-marking: is it good to be on top? J Ethol 25:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gosling LM (1982) A reassessment of the function of scent-marking in territories. Zeit Tierpsychol 60:89–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gosling LM (1985) The even-toed ungulates: order Artiodactyla. In: Brown RE, Macdonald DW (eds) Social odours in mammals, vol 2, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 550–618Google Scholar
  9. Grange S, Duncan P, Gaillard JM, Sinclair ARE, Gogan PJP, Packer C, Hofer H, East M (2004) What limits the Serengeti zebra population? Oecologia 140:523–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gray ME, Cameron EZ, Peacock MM, Thain DS, Kirchoff VS (2012) Are low infidelity rates in feral horses due to infanticide? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:529–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hothersall B, Harris P, Sortoft L, Nicol CJ (2010) Discrimination between conspecific odour samples in the horse (Equus caballus). Appl Anim Behav Sci 126:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hughes NK, Kelley JL, Banks PB (2012) Dangerous liaisons: the predation risks of receiving social signals. Ecol Lett 15:1326–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hurst JL (1990a) Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty 2. Communications between females. Anim Behav 40:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hurst JL (1990b) Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty. 1. Communication between males. Anim Behav 40:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hurst JL (1990c) Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty. 3. Communication between sexes. Anim Behav 40:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson RP (1973) Scent marking in mammals. Anim Behav 21:521–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnston RE (2008) Individual odors and social communication: Individual recognition, kin recognition, and scent over-marking. In: Brockmann HJ, Roper TJ, Naguib M, Wynne-Edwards KE, Barnard C, Mitani JC (eds) Advances in the Study of Behavior, vol 38, Academic Press, New York, pp 439–505Google Scholar
  18. Johnston RE, Chiang G, Tung C (1994) The information in scent over-marks of golden hamsters. Anim Behav 48:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jordan NR, Manser MB, Mwanguhya F, Kyabulima S, Ruedi P, Cant MA (2011a) Scent marking in wild banded mongooses: 1. Sex-specific scents and overmarking. Anim Behav 81:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jordan NR, Mwanguhya F, Furrer RD, Kyabulima S, Ruedi P, Cant MA (2011b) Scent marking in wild banded mongooses: 2. Intrasexual overmarking and competition between males. Anim Behav 81:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jordan NR, Mwanguhya F, Kyabulima S, Ruedi P, Hodge SJ, Cant MA (2011c) Scent marking in wild banded mongooses: 3. Intrasexual overmarking in females. Anim Behav 81:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kimura R (2000) Relationship of the type of social organization to scent-marking and mutual-grooming behaviour in Grevy’s (Equus grevyi) and Grant’s zebra (Equus burchelli bohmi). J Equine Sci 11:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kimura R (2001) Volatile substances in feces, urine and urine/marked feces of feral horses. Can J Anim Sci 81:411–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King SRB, Gurnell J (2007) Scent-marking behaviour by stallion: an assessment of function in a reintroduced population of Przewalski horses (Equus ferus przewalskii). J Zool 272:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klingel H (1974) Soziale Organisation und Verhalten des Grevy-Zebras (Equus grevyi). Zeit Tierpsychol 36:36–70Google Scholar
  26. Klingel H (1975) A comparison of the social behaviour of the Equidae. In: Geist V, Walther F (eds) The papers of an international symposium on the behaviour of ungulates and its relation to management. IUCN, pp 124–132Google Scholar
  27. Koivula M, Korpimäki E (2001) Do scent marks increase predation risk of microtine rodents? Oikos 95:275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lanata A, Nardelli M, Valenza G, Baragli P, D’Aniello B, Alterisio A, Scandurra A, Semin GR, Scilingo EP (2018) A case for the interspecies transfer of emotions: a preliminary investigation on how humans odors modify reactions of the autonomic nervous system in horses. 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC):522–525Google Scholar
  29. Liang KY, Zeger SL (1986) Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miquelle DG (1991) Are moose mice—the function of scent urination in moose. Am Nat 138:460–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moehlman PD (1985) The odd-toed ungulates: order Perrisodactyla. In: Brown RE, Macdonald DW (eds) Social odours in mammals, vol 2, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 531–549Google Scholar
  32. Moehlman PD (1998) Behavioral patterns and communication in feral asses (Equus africanus). Appl Anim Behav Sci 60:125–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Müller-Schwarze D (2006) The chemical ecology of vertebrates. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oom MdM, Reis MS (1986) Ecology, social organization and behaviour of the feral horses in the Peneda-Geres national park. Arquivos do Museu Bocage serie A 3:169–195Google Scholar
  35. Pastro LA, Banks PB (2006) Foraging responses of wild house mice to accumulations of conspecific odor as a predation risk. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Penzhorn BL (1984) A long-term study of social organization and behaviour of Cape mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra). Zeit Tierpsychol 64:97–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pluháček J, Bartoš L, Víchová J (2006) Variation in incidence of male infanticide within subspecies of plains zebra (Equus burchelli). J Mammal 87:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pluháček J, Bartoš L, Doležalová M, Bartošová-Víchová J (2007) Sex of the foetus determines the time of weaning of the previous offspring of captive plains zebra (Equus burchelli). Appl Anim Behav Sci 105:192–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Porton I (1983) Bush dog urine-marking—its role in pair forming and maintenance. Anim Behav 31:1061–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ralls K (1971) Mammalian scent marking. Science 171:443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roberts SC (2007) Scent marking. In: Wolff JO, Sherman PW (eds) Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 255–266Google Scholar
  42. Rothman RJ, Mech LD (1979) Scent marking in lone wolves and newly formed pairs. Anim Behav 27:750–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schilder MBH (1992) Stability and dynamics of group composition in a herd of captive plains zebra. Ethology 90:145–154Google Scholar
  44. Siniscalchi M, d’Ingeo S, Minunno M, Quaranta A (2018) Communication in dogs. Animals 8:131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trivers RL (1974) Parent-offspring conflict. Am Zool 14:249–264Google Scholar
  46. Tučková V, Šárová R, Bartošová J, King SRB, Pluháček J (2018) Overmarking by adult females in four equid species: social bonds and group cohesion. J Zool 306:180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Turner JW, Perkins A, Kirkpatrick JF (1981) Elimination marking behavior in feral horses. Can J Zool 59:1561–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tyler SJ (1972) The behaviour and social organisation of the new forest ponies. Anim Behav Monogr 5:85–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Viitala J, Korpimaki E, Palokangas P, Koivula M (1995) Attraction of kestrels to vole scent marks visible in ultraviolet-light. Nature 373:425–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wright S (1922) Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. Am Nat 56:330–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wronski T, Apio A, Plath M, Ziege M (2013) Sex difference in the communicatory significance of localized defecation sites in Arabian gazelles (Gazella arabica). J Ethol 31:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Pluháček
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Vladimíra Tučková
    • 4
  • Sarah R. B. King
    • 5
  • Radka Šárová
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EthologyInstitute of Animal SciencePragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Ostrava ZooOstravaCzech Republic
  3. 3.Departement of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of OstravaOstravaCzech Republic
  4. 4.Department of Zoology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  5. 5.Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Warner College of Natural ResourcesColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options