Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34359229›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Use of Remote Camera Traps to Evaluate Animal-Based Welfare Indicators in Individual Free-Roaming Wild Horses.

Andrea M Harvey, John M Morton, David J Mellor, Vibeke Russell, Rosalie S Chapple, Daniel Ramp

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ethogram ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Automated Detection and Counting of Wild Boar in Camera Trap Images.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Rethinking the utility of the Five Domains model.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea M HarveyCentre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.
John M MortonJemora Pty Ltd., P.O. Box 2277, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8926-5942
David J MellorAnimal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand.
Vibeke RussellVeterinary Contractor, c/o Animal Emergency Australia, P.O. Box 1854, Springwood, QLD 4217, Australia.
Rosalie S ChappleBlue Mountains World Heritage Institute, 16 Dunmore Lane, Katoomba, NSW 2780, Australia.
Daniel RampCentre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3202-9898
University of Technology Sydney · AUBush Heritage Australia · AUMassey University · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We previously developed a Ten-Stage Protocol for scientifically assessing the welfare of individual free-roaming wild animals using the Five Domains Model. The protocol includes developing methods for measuring or observing welfare indices. In this study, we assessed the use of remote camera traps to evaluate an extensive range of welfare indicators in individual free-roaming wild horses. Still images and videos were collected and analysed to assess whether horses could be detected and identified individually, which welfare indicators could be reliably evaluated, and whether behaviour could be quantitatively assessed. Remote camera trapping was successful in detecting and identifying horses (75% on still images and 72% on video observation events), across a range of habitats including woodlands where horses could not be directly observed. Twelve indicators of welfare across the Five Domains were assessed with equal frequency on both still images and video, with those most frequently assessable being body condition score (73% and 79% of observation events, respectively), body posture (76% for both), coat condition (42% and 52%, respectively), and whether or not the horse was sweating excessively (42% and 45%, respectively). An additional five indicators could only be assessed on video; those most frequently observable being presence or absence of weakness (66%), qualitative behavioural assessment (60%), presence or absence of shivering (51%), and gait at walk (50%). Specific behaviours were identified in 93% of still images and 84% of video events, and proportions of time different behaviours were captured could be calculated. Most social behaviours were rarely observed, but close spatial proximity to other horses, as an indicator of social bonds, was recorded in 36% of still images, and 29% of video observation events. This is the first study that describes detailed methodology for these purposes. The results of this study can also form the basis of application to other species, which could contribute significantly to advancing the field of wild animal welfare.

Indexed as

animal-based welfare indicatorscamera trapswelfare assessmentwild horses

Identifiers

PMID34359229
PMCPMC8300222
OpenAlexW3180757779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.