The assessment of animal welfare poses numerous challenges, yet an emerging approach is the consolidation of existing knowledge into new frameworks which can offer standardised approaches to welfare assessment across a variety of contexts. Multiple tools exist for measuring the welfare of equids, but such tools have typically been developed for specific contexts. There is no ‘one size fits all’ which means that resulting datasets are generally non-comparable, creating a barrier to knowledge-sharing and collaboration between the many organisations working to improve equid welfare around the globe. To address this, we developed the Equid Assessment, Research and Scoping (EARS) tool, which incorporates pre-existing validated welfare assessment methods alongside new welfare indicators to deliver a larger and more comprehensive series of welfare indicators than currently exists, creating a single resource that can be used to assess equid welfare in any context. We field-trialled three welfare assessment protocols within the EARS tool, and applied these to welfare assessment of equids in a variety of contexts across nineteen countries. The EARS tool proved a useful, versatile and rapid method for collecting welfare assessment data and we collected 7464 welfare assessments in a period of fifteen months. We evaluate the EARS tool and provide ideas for future development.

Giraffe populations in East Africa have declined in the past thirty years yet there has been limited research on this species. This study had four objectives: i) to provide a baseline population assessment for the two largest populations of Rothschild’s giraffes in Kenya, ii) to assess whether there are differences in population structure between the two enclosed populations, iii) to assess the potential and possible implications of different management practices on enclosed giraffe populations to inform future decision-making, and iv) to add to the availability of information available about giraffes in the wild. I used individual identification to assess the size and structure of the two populations; in Soysambu Conservancy between May 2010 and January 2011, I identified 77 giraffes; in Lake Nakuru National Park between May 2011 and January 2012, I identified 89. Population structure differed significantly between the two sites; Soysambu Conservancy contained a high percentage of juveniles (34%) and subadults (29%) compared to Lake Nakuru NP, which contained fewer juveniles (5%) and subadults (15%). During the time of this study Soysambu Conservancy contained no lions while Lake Nakuru NP contained a high density of lions (30 lions per 100km²). Lions are the main predator of giraffes, and preferential predation on juvenile giraffes has previously been identified in Lake Nakuru NP. My results suggest that high lion density in Lake Nakuru NP may have influenced the structure of the giraffe population by removing juveniles and, consequently, may affect future population growth. I suggest that wildlife managers consider lion densities alongside breeding plans for Endangered species, since the presence of lions appears to influence the population structure of giraffes in enclosed habitats.

Giraffe group sizes appear to vary in response to localized ecological and environmental factors, but there has been little investigation of how social factors or predation risk affect group size in giraffes. We studied two adjacent, enclosed populations of Rothschild's giraffes in Kenya, and used 591 records of groups to determine the relative influence of a series of variables on group size. One population was free from any risk of predation, while the other area contained a high density of lions. Mean group size was smaller in the population with lions, but a series of Generalized Linear Mixed Models accounting for habitat and age/sex class of individuals showed that the presence of high numbers of juveniles in the area free from lions artificially inflated group sizes. Removing juveniles from the analysis showed that contrary to the existing creche hypothesis, adult females were found in smaller groups when they had calves. We found no evidence that predation risk influenced grouping behaviour. Rather, recruitment and habitat type had a stronger influence on group sizes, but the results were complex and varied between different age and sex classes of individual. We conclude that predation is not an important driver of giraffe grouping, and that further research is necessary to understand the complex behaviour and ecology of this prominent yet understudied species.

Until around 2000, giraffeGiraffa camelopardaliswere believed to have no social structure. Despite a resurgence of interest in giraffe behaviour in around 2010, most studies are of isolated populations, making it difficult to draw general conclusions. Although it is now well established that giraffe social organisation is non‐random, there is little consensus as to what influences preferred and avoided associations or the underpinning mechanisms. We test two hypotheses: first, giraffe have a complex cooperative social system, exhibited by 1) stable groups of females, 2) offspring that stay in their natal group for part or all of their lives, 3) support by non‐mothers in rearing young, and 4) non‐reproductive females in the group; and second, giraffe form matrilineal societies, evidenced by 1) male dispersal, 2) female philopatry, 3) assistance in raising or protecting offspring, and 4) individual benefits gained from social foraging. We reviewed 404 papers on giraffe behaviour and social organisation; captive studies were included where they supplemented information from free‐living populations. We show that giraffe exhibit many of the features typical of mammals with complex cooperative social systems and matrilineal societies. However, the social complexity hypothesis posits that such species also require complex communication systems to regulate interactions and relations among group members; giraffe communication systems are poorly understood. Quantifying the fitness and survival benefits of the giraffe’s social organisation is necessary to ensure its long‐term survival. Giraffe numbers have declined by 40% since 1985, they have been declared extinct in seven (possibly nine) countries and are listed as Vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. We identify research areas that will advance our understanding of giraffe behaviour and conservation requirements.