Cargando…

Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and Head Shapes Using Geometric Morphometrics

SIMPLE SUMMARY: With the increasing interest toward donkey breeding and equid welfare, the scales and methods of welfare assessment, which were successfully designed and validated for horses, are a starting point for the development of similar approaches for donkeys. As horses and donkeys are morpho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maśko, Małgorzata, Wierzbicka, Małgorzata, Zdrojkowski, Łukasz, Jasiński, Tomasz, Sikorska, Urszula, Pawliński, Bartosz, Domino, Małgorzata
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8997093/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35405919
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12070931
_version_ 1784684625638981632
author Maśko, Małgorzata
Wierzbicka, Małgorzata
Zdrojkowski, Łukasz
Jasiński, Tomasz
Sikorska, Urszula
Pawliński, Bartosz
Domino, Małgorzata
author_facet Maśko, Małgorzata
Wierzbicka, Małgorzata
Zdrojkowski, Łukasz
Jasiński, Tomasz
Sikorska, Urszula
Pawliński, Bartosz
Domino, Małgorzata
author_sort Maśko, Małgorzata
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: With the increasing interest toward donkey breeding and equid welfare, the scales and methods of welfare assessment, which were successfully designed and validated for horses, are a starting point for the development of similar approaches for donkeys. As horses and donkeys are morphometrically different, the current study aimed to compare donkey, pony, and horse dorsal profiles and head shapes. Geometric morphometrics (GM) was applied to characterize the shapes and sizes of the studied equids based on the analysis of the photographs of 14 donkeys, 14 ponies, and 14 horses. The donkeys differed from ponies and horses in the shape of the dorsal profile and the head shape, but only from horses in the size of the evaluated centroids. Moreover, the ponies and horses differed in size but not in the shape of the investigated lines reflecting the posture and head contour. When both lines were compared, the GM distances (the Mahalanobis and Procrustes distances) were higher between donkeys and ponies and horses than between ponies and horses. GM revealed the differences in dorsal profiles and head shapes between equids, which should be considered when adapting scales and methods of welfare assessment from horses to donkeys. ABSTRACT: Since donkey breeding has increased due to their variety of uses, welfare evaluation has become more important. This study aimed to compare donkey, pony, and horse dorsal profiles and head shapes using geometric morphometrics (GM). Photographs of 14 donkeys, 14 ponies, and 14 horses were analyzed using GM, including the sliding semilandmarks method. The variations in the first three principal components (PCs) were PC1: 57.16%, PC2: 16.05%, and PC3: 8.31% for the dorsal profiles and PC1: 44.77%, PC2: 13.46%, and PC3: 7.66% for the head shapes. Both the dorsal profiles and head shapes differed between donkeys and horses (p < 0.0001) but not between donkeys and ponies (p > 0.05). Moreover, both the dorsal profiles and head shapes differed in size between ponies and horses (p < 0.0001) but not in shape (p > 0.05). Higher Mahalanobis and Procrustes distances were noted between donkeys and horses as well between donkeys and ponies than between ponies and horses. The use of geometric morphometrics revealed the differences in the dorsal profiles and head shapes between the studied equids. These differences should be taken into account when adapting welfare scales and methods from horses to donkeys.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8997093
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89970932022-04-12 Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and Head Shapes Using Geometric Morphometrics Maśko, Małgorzata Wierzbicka, Małgorzata Zdrojkowski, Łukasz Jasiński, Tomasz Sikorska, Urszula Pawliński, Bartosz Domino, Małgorzata Animals (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: With the increasing interest toward donkey breeding and equid welfare, the scales and methods of welfare assessment, which were successfully designed and validated for horses, are a starting point for the development of similar approaches for donkeys. As horses and donkeys are morphometrically different, the current study aimed to compare donkey, pony, and horse dorsal profiles and head shapes. Geometric morphometrics (GM) was applied to characterize the shapes and sizes of the studied equids based on the analysis of the photographs of 14 donkeys, 14 ponies, and 14 horses. The donkeys differed from ponies and horses in the shape of the dorsal profile and the head shape, but only from horses in the size of the evaluated centroids. Moreover, the ponies and horses differed in size but not in the shape of the investigated lines reflecting the posture and head contour. When both lines were compared, the GM distances (the Mahalanobis and Procrustes distances) were higher between donkeys and ponies and horses than between ponies and horses. GM revealed the differences in dorsal profiles and head shapes between equids, which should be considered when adapting scales and methods of welfare assessment from horses to donkeys. ABSTRACT: Since donkey breeding has increased due to their variety of uses, welfare evaluation has become more important. This study aimed to compare donkey, pony, and horse dorsal profiles and head shapes using geometric morphometrics (GM). Photographs of 14 donkeys, 14 ponies, and 14 horses were analyzed using GM, including the sliding semilandmarks method. The variations in the first three principal components (PCs) were PC1: 57.16%, PC2: 16.05%, and PC3: 8.31% for the dorsal profiles and PC1: 44.77%, PC2: 13.46%, and PC3: 7.66% for the head shapes. Both the dorsal profiles and head shapes differed between donkeys and horses (p < 0.0001) but not between donkeys and ponies (p > 0.05). Moreover, both the dorsal profiles and head shapes differed in size between ponies and horses (p < 0.0001) but not in shape (p > 0.05). Higher Mahalanobis and Procrustes distances were noted between donkeys and horses as well between donkeys and ponies than between ponies and horses. The use of geometric morphometrics revealed the differences in the dorsal profiles and head shapes between the studied equids. These differences should be taken into account when adapting welfare scales and methods from horses to donkeys. MDPI 2022-04-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8997093/ /pubmed/35405919 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12070931 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Maśko, Małgorzata
Wierzbicka, Małgorzata
Zdrojkowski, Łukasz
Jasiński, Tomasz
Sikorska, Urszula
Pawliński, Bartosz
Domino, Małgorzata
Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and Head Shapes Using Geometric Morphometrics
title Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and Head Shapes Using Geometric Morphometrics
title_full Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and Head Shapes Using Geometric Morphometrics
title_fullStr Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and Head Shapes Using Geometric Morphometrics
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and Head Shapes Using Geometric Morphometrics
title_short Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and Head Shapes Using Geometric Morphometrics
title_sort comparison of donkey, pony, and horse dorsal profiles and head shapes using geometric morphometrics
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8997093/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35405919
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12070931
work_keys_str_mv AT maskomałgorzata comparisonofdonkeyponyandhorsedorsalprofilesandheadshapesusinggeometricmorphometrics
AT wierzbickamałgorzata comparisonofdonkeyponyandhorsedorsalprofilesandheadshapesusinggeometricmorphometrics
AT zdrojkowskiłukasz comparisonofdonkeyponyandhorsedorsalprofilesandheadshapesusinggeometricmorphometrics
AT jasinskitomasz comparisonofdonkeyponyandhorsedorsalprofilesandheadshapesusinggeometricmorphometrics
AT sikorskaurszula comparisonofdonkeyponyandhorsedorsalprofilesandheadshapesusinggeometricmorphometrics
AT pawlinskibartosz comparisonofdonkeyponyandhorsedorsalprofilesandheadshapesusinggeometricmorphometrics
AT dominomałgorzata comparisonofdonkeyponyandhorsedorsalprofilesandheadshapesusinggeometricmorphometrics