Revista Cienfica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV Recibido: 28/06/2025 Aceptado:27/08/2025 Publicado: 04/10/2025 hps://doi.org/10.52973/rcfcv-e35650 UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico 1 of 9 Revista Cienfica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV hps://doi.org/10.52973/rcfcv-e35730 UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico Morphometric characteriscs of the Barb horse in Algeria and associated variaon factors Caracteríscas morfométricas del caballo Barbado en Argelia y factores de variación asociados Aimene Zakaria Chaabi 1 * , Said Boukhechem 1 , Larbi Afoutni 1 , Hithem Bougherara 1 , Alaeddine Djeghar 1 , Maya Boukerrou 1 , Aya Sofia Bouchoukh 1 , Faïza Tekkouk-Zemmouchi 1 , Roberta Blake 2 . ¹University of Constanne 1 Frères MENTOURI, Instute of Veterinary Sciences, Laboratory Geson de la Santé et Producons animales GSPA. Constanne, Algeria. ²Anglia Ruskin University, School of Agriculture, Animal and Environmental Sciences. Lordship Road, CM1 3RR, Chelmsford, United Kingdom Correspondence author: aimenezakaria.chaabi@doc.umc.edu.dz ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to contribute to the morphometric characterizaon of Algerian’s Barb, to update its dimensional variables, to explore its specific traits and diversity, and to assess certain variaon factors. For this purpose, a total of 52 Barb horses registered in the Algerian Studbook aged 3 years and older were subjected to 24 body measurements. Stascal analyses were conducted using a general linear model to assess the variaon in these variables according to age, sex, head profile, and coat color. In addion, a principal component analysis was performed. The results were categorized into height, length, girth, weight, and body indices. The mean withers height and croup height were 150.8 ± 3.38 cm and 150.7 ± 3.50 cm, respecvely, with an average body length of 150.0 ± 4.73 cm. These nearly equal values resulted in a profile body index of 1.01 ± 0.02, indicang a square shaped conformaon. The mean chest girth and Fore cannon girth were 177.8 ± 8.73 cm and 19.63 ± 0.95 cm, respecvely, resulng in a dactyl-thoracic index of 1.18 ± 0.05, reflecng a skeletal robustness consistent with the esmated body mass of 441.61 ± 50.85 kg. Analysis of the measurement variaon revealed some significant differences (p < 0.05), parcularly for the sub-sternal gap, shoulder height, shoulder length, arm length, distance between the inner eye angles, and cannon bone girth (Fore cannon girth and Hind cannon girth). In conclusion, all measured parameters were in accordance with the breed standard. However, comparison similar studies reveals noceable disparies, reflecng a wide range of morphological expressions within the populaon classified as Barb horses. Key words: Body indice; coat color; head profil; studbook; phenotypic variaon. RESUMEN El objevo de este invesgacion era contribuir a la caracterización morfométrica del caballo Barb de Argelia, estudiar sus variables dimensionales, explorar sus caracteríscas específicas y su diversidad, y evaluar sus determinados factores de variación. Un total de 52 caballos Barb registrados en el Studbook argelino y con una edad de 3 años o más, estaban objeto de una evaluación basada en 24 parámetros corporales. El estudio estadisco se realizó conforme a un modelo lineal general para evaluar la variación de las variables morfométricas en función de la edad, el sexo, el perfil cefálico y el color de la capa. Además, se realizó un análisis de componentes principales. Los resultados se clasificaron en variables de altura, longitud, perímetro, peso e índices corporales. La altura media a la cruz y la altura de la grupa estaban de 150,8 ± 3,38 cm y 150,7 ± 3,50 cm, respecvamente, con una longitud corporal media de 150,0 ± 4,73 cm. Estos valores casi iguales indicaron un índice corporal de perfil de 1,01 ± 0,02, lo que revela una conformación de proporciones cuadradas. El perímetro torácico medio y la circunferencia del hueso del cañón estaban de 177,8 ± 8,73 cm y 19,63 ± 0,95 cm, respecvamente, lo que condujo a un índice dáclo-torácico de 1,18 ± 0,05, demostrando una robustez esqueléca coherente con un peso corporal esmado de 441,61 ± 50,85 kg. El análisis de la variación de las medidas reveló algunas diferencias significavas (p < 0,05), en parcular para la distancia subesternal, la altura del hombro, la longitud del hombro, la longitud del brazo, la distancia entre los ángulos internos de los ojos, y las circunferencias del hueso del cañón (circunferencia del hueso del cañón y HCG). En conclusión, todos los parámetros medidos estaban en conformidad con el estándar racial. Sin embargo, la comparación con estudios similares revela disparidades notables, lo que indica una amplia gama de expresiones morfológicas dentro de la población clasificada como caballos Barb. Palabras clave: Indice corporal; studbook; perfil cefálico; color de capa; variación fenopica

Morphometric characteriscs of Algerian’s Barb horse / Chaabi et al. UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico INTRODUCTION The Barb horse (Equus caballus) is a prominent representave of the equine heritage of Algeria and North Africa. This animal is renewed for its historical significance, docility, endurance, and its ability to adapt easily to a wide range of climates, from sub- Saharan Africa to Europe including the Maghreb, which is the cradle of the breed [1]. In Algeria, the Barb horse populaon, esmated at approximately 10,000 individuals [1 ,[2], is not fully documented. It includes both horses that are officially idenfied and registered in the naonal studbook, as well as others exhibing Barb-type characteriscs but remaining unregistered. According to the FAO classificaon (DAD-IS database) [3], the breed is therefore considered not at risk of exncon. Despite the existence of a World Organizaon known as the OMCB (Oranisaon Mondiale du Cheval Barbe), established in 1989 in Algiers, which manages the breed standard [4 , 5], significant morphological variaon is observed among horses classified as Barb, as shown by morphometric studies conducted in Algeria and North Africa [1 , 6 , 7 , 8]. This variaon is shaped by environmental adaptaons and human-driven selecon pressures [2 , 5 , 9]. This phenotypic diversity presents challenges for standardized breed idenficaon and conservaon strategies. The combinaon of linear and volumetric measurements, along with body indices, offers a replicable and objecve means of assessing equine conformaon. These parameters enable precise differenaon of skeletal and thoracic traits, reflect funconal aptudes related to speed, strength, and endurance, and assist in detecng structural anomalies [10 , 11]. The aim of this study is to contribute to the morphometric characterizaon of the Barb horse in Algeria, to update its dimensional parameters, and to explore its specific traits and morphological diversity through a standardized methodological approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS Animal material and study site The study involved 52 purebred Barb horses aged ≥3 years, officially registered in the Algerian Studbook as purebred breeding stock. Sampling was purposive, based on verified pedigree. The animals were sourced from: 1) The Naonal Stud farm of Chaouchaoua (Tiaret, NW Algeria); 2) ONDEEC (Naonal Office for the Development of Equine and Camel Breeding) breeding depots in Tiaret and Constanne; 3) Private owners in Tébessa, Tiaret, El Bayadh, Mascara, and Aflou, with horses registered by ONDEEC. Methodology a) Idenficaon: Each horse was idenfied by name, sex, age, birthplace, and photographs. b) Qualitave Traits: Visual assessment included two traits: cephalic profile (straight, sub-convex, convex) and coat color (Chestnut, Bay, Black and other coat colors ) [12]. c) Body Measurements: Twenty-four morphometric traits were recorded (FIG 1). The following calibrated equipment was used: 1) A measuring sck (Old Mill Saddlery, Aluminium Horse Measuring Sck, United Kingdom [Northern Ireland]), for height measurements; 2) A spring tape (Prym, Spring Tape Measure Jumbo 300 cm/120 inch, Germany) for girth measurements; 3) A caliper (Aerospace, Stainless Steel Analog Vernier Caliper A120VC 0–3000 mm, China) for linear dimensions. Each horse was placed squarely on flat even ground while being measured. d) Data Processing: Descripve stascs (mean, SD, min, max) were computed, considering the symbols are showed below FIG1. Body mass (BM) was esmated using INRA (Instut Naonal de Recherche Agronomique) formulas Marn-Rosset (1990) [13]: 1) Growing horses: BM = 4.5 × CG – 370; 2) Adults: BM = 4.3 × CG + 3.0 × WH – 785; 3) Brood mares: BM = 5.2 × CG + 2.6 × WH – 855. Morphometric indices were calculated using formulas from several authors [8], 9 , 10 , 11], including: 1) Body Index (BI) = CG / WH; 2) Body Profile Index (BPI) = WH / BL; 3) Compactness Index (CI) = BM / WH; 4) Relave Body Index (RBI) = BL / CG; 5) Dactyl-thoracic Index (DTI) = FCG / CG; 6) Chest Depth Index (CDI) = ChH / WH × 100; 7) Front-Back Height Index (FBH) = WH / CH. FIGURE 1. Morphometric measurements: 1- Height at the withers (WH); 2- Height at the croup (CH); 3- Chest height (ChH); 4- Sub-sternal gap (SSG); 5- Elbow height (EH); 6- Shoulder height (ShH); 7- Total body length (BL); 8- Scapulo-iliac length (SIL); 9- Head length (HL); 10- Distance between the inner eye angles (IEA); 11- Neck length (NL); 12- Shoulder length (SL); 13- Arm length (AL); 14- Fore-arm length (FAL); 15- Canon length (CL); 16- Thigh length (TL); 17- Chest girth (CG); 18- Fore-arm girth (FAG); 19- Knee girth (KnG);; 20- Front cannon girth (FCG); 21-Hind cannon girth (HCG); 22- Fetlock girth (FG); 23-Pastern girth (PG); 24- Neck girth (NG) 2 of 9

Revista Cienfica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico Stascal analysis Analyses were performed in RStudio® (version 2024.09.1+394). A main effects model was fied by using the General Linear Model (GLM) for tesng the influence of age, sex, head profile, and coat color on the parameters: In that model: refers to the morphometric traits ; is the overall mean ; : refers to the age effect (young < 5 yr; adult ≥ 5 yr); : refers to the sex effect (male, female) ; : stans for head profile effect (straight, sub-convex, convex); : refers to the coat color effect (chestnut, bay, grey); and finally : is the residual effects of the uncontrolled sources of variaon. As stated above, all terms of the model were considered fixed except for the error, which was assumed to be random and normal and independent distributed with mean 0 and common variance . Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed on standardized data to explore variable interrelaonships, retaining components with eigenvalues ≥1, using the FactoMineR and factoextra packages. Pearson correlaon coefficients were also computed. Significance thresholds were: P<0.05 (significant), P<0.01 (highly significant), P<0.001 (very highly significant), and 0.05 ≤ P < 0.10 (trend towards significaon). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Height measurements The descripve stascs for measurements are presented in TABLE I. The average withers height (WH) was 150.8 ± 3.38 cm, ranging from 144.0 to 159.5 cm. This value falls within the official breed standard (150–160 cm), although it remains slightly below the standard’s mean of 155 cm [4 ,[7]. It is comparable to the values reported by Rahal et al. [1], who described Barb horse WH as ranging between 147 and 157 cm. The average height at the croup (CH) was 150.7 ± 3.50 cm. Although CH is not explicitly listed as a standalone trait in the official breed standard, the Barb is described as a square- shaped horse meaning WH, CH, and body length (BL) should be approximately equal. This proporonal balance is confirmed by the present data (FIG. 2). FIGURE 2. Distribuon of Withers Height (WH), Croup Height (CH), and Body Length (BL) Mean WH and CH in this study (150.8 and 150.7 cm, respecvely) are slightly lower than previously reported values for Algerian Barb horses: 151.8 / 151.6 cm [1], 151.3 / 150.7 cm [8], and 152.5 / 150.1 cm [7]. They also fall below the averages recorded in Tunisia (155.7 / 154.9 cm) [6] and Morocco (155.1 / 155.9 cm) [1]. These differences likely reflect a combinaon of genec and environmental influences, as well as sample composion. A gradual decline in Barb horse height from east to west across Algeria has been documented [14 ,[15]. While this trend may partly explain the difference observed with the Tunisian sample (from eastern side of Algeria), it does not apply to the Moroccan sample, which, despite located further west, did not include shorter horses. These regional discrepancies raise quesons about the comparability and representaveness of the Barb horse samples studied across North Africa. Although the measurement methods used in the three studies were similar, differences in sampling strategy, parcularly regarding sex rao, may account for the variaon. Notably, the samples studied in Tunisia and Morocco involved predominantly breeding stallions (sex raos of 2.73 and 4.11, respecvely), whereas the present sample had a sex rao of 1.73. This is parcularly relevant, in light of the sex- related height differences reported in previous research [16]. WH and CH in Barb horses of this study are slightly lower than those recorded in Arabian Thoroughbreds born and raised in Algeria (152.15 cm and 151.61 cm respecvely [17]). These findings confirm that Barb horses have a comparavely smaller stature. When considered alongside breeds historically influenced by the Barb, such as the Pure Spanish Horse, Lusitano, and Mustang [18], as well as those from regions near its cradle (e.g., Iranian types), the Barb’s WH places it in an intermediate phenotypic range. It is comparable to the Lusitano (151.20 cm) [19] and Spanish-Arabian (149.01 cm) [20], but lower than the Andalusian (157.8 cm) [21]. Barb horses also stand taller than Kurdish (145.9 cm) and Persian Arabian Thoroughbreds (146.9 cm), slightly below Turkmen Akhal-Teke (154.1 cm), and similar in height to Dareshouri (149.1 cm) and Egypan Arabian Horses (149.7 cm) [22]. Length Measurements The average body length (BL) was 150.0 ± 4.73 cm, nearly equal to the withers height (150.8 cm), confirming the square- shaped conformaon described in the Barb breed standard, where WH, CH, and BL are expected to be approximately equal [4]. This mediolinear profile, typical of working horses, echoes the proporonal balance already noted in the height measurements secon and is supported by data from Tunisia [6] and Morocco [1], though it differs slightly from Algerian reports. Compared to prior studies, the present BL is higher than that reported by Guedaoura et al. [8] (148.2 cm), but lower than the values reported by Rahal et al. [1] (157 cm), Benhamadi et al. [7] (160 cm), Chabchoub et al. [6] (155.5 cm) and Jary (151.1 cm) [1]. These discrepancies may stem from differences in sample composion, environmental condions, genec variability, or measurement technique. Notably, these earlier studies employed flexible measuring tapes which, by following the animal’s contours, potenally inflate linear measurements. In 3 of 9

Morphometric characteriscs of Algerian’s Barb horse / Chaabi et al. UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico contrast, the present study used a caliper, which provides more anatomically precise, straight-line values. Compared to other breeds, Barb horses exhibit longer BL than Hispano-Arabians (147.64 cm) [20] and Egypan Arabians (147.1 cm) [22], but slightly less than Algerian Thoroughbred Arabians (152.82 cm) [17], and substanally shorter than Turkmen Yamut (162.5 cm), Akhal-Teke (163.9 cm), Iranian Arab (155.6 cm), and Dareshouri (155.0 cm) horses [22]. These findings confirm the Barb’s compact morphology. Limb measurements showed an average shoulder length (SL) of 58.28 ± 3.33 cm, arm length (AL) of 37.25 ± 1.58 cm, and forearm length (FAL) of 42.59 ± 1.96 cm. The SL was lower than that of Algerian Thoroughbred Arabians (63.01 cm) [17], a trait correlated with longer strides in sport horses. Conversely, the Barb shows greater AL than Arabians (30.90 cm) [17] and Lusitanos (30.44 cm) [19], suggesng enhanced stride amplitude and endurance. Similarly, FAL exceeds values in Arabians (31.8 cm) [17] and Lusitanos (37.36 cm) [17], highlighng breed- specific traits. Cannon bone length (CL) in Barb horses averaged 26.62 cm, notably longer than in Algerian Arabians (18.8 cm) [17] and Lusitanos (22.06 cm) [19]. This reflects a funconal adaptaon: elongated distal limb bones are linked to stride length and endurance. Indeed, recent studies show a strong associaon between third metacarpal elongaon and enhanced locomotor efficiency in modern equids [23]. Neck length (NL) was 70.27 cm, close to Hispano-Arabians (70.43 cm) [20] and slightly longer than in Algerian Arabians (67.75 cm) [19]. Head length (HL) reached 59.8 cm, exceeding that of Algerian Arabians (52.04 cm) [17], Hispano-Arabians (54.61 cm) [20], and several Iranian breeds [20], indicang a more elongated and robust cranial profile. Scapulo-iliac length (SIL) averaged 112.6 ± 5.14 cm, indicave of a relavely short and stable back [24], consistent with the Barb breed standard [4]. In contrast, longer backs, while favouring stride amplitude, are associated with increased energy expenditure [25]. Peripheral Measurements The average chest girth (CG) was 177.8 ± 8.73 cm, which meets the minimum threshold (≥170 cm) specified by the Barb breed standard [4], aligns closely with data reported in Algeria (177.6 cm) and Morocco (178.6 cm) [1], but exceeds those recorded in other Algerian studies (175 cm, 171.4 cm) [7 , 8], while remaining below the 181.6 cm observed in Tunisia [6]. This intra-breed variability may reflect differences in sample composion, conformaon, muscular development, age, reproducve status, and environmental or management condions [26]. Compared with other breeds, the Barb’s CG is similar to that of the Hispano-Arabian (179.26 cm) [20], slightly higher than Akhal-Teke (174.6 cm) [22], and markedly greater than Algerian Arabians (166.44 cm) [17], Kurdish (170.2 cm), and Egypan Arabians (163.3 cm) [22]. However, it remains lower than the Andalusian average (191.3 cm) [21]. A wider thorax anatomically accommodates larger cardiopulmonary structures, which may support increased athlec capacity and endurance [27]. Knee girth (KnG) averaged 30.81 ± 1.59 cm, surpassing Algerian Arabians (27.0 cm) [17], Knee girth (KnG) averaged 30.81 ± 1.59 cm, surpassing Algerian Arabians (27.03 cm) [17], and suggesng greater carpal development. While external girth does not necessarily reflect internal bone strength, enlarged carpal dimensions may be associated with enhanced joint stability, beneficial for locomoon on uneven terrain [28]. Fore cannon girth (FCG) was 19.63 ± 0,95 cm, exceeding both the 18 cm breed minimum [4] and Algerian Arabian’s (18.3 cm) [17], a trait posively linked to enhanced load-bearing capacity and reduced post-exercise soreness [29]. Pastern girth (PG) reached 21.1 ± 0.92 cm outstriping Algerian Arabians (19.68 cm) [17], reflecng a robust leg thickness morphotype associated with jumping performance and mechanical resilience [27]. Taken together, these girth measures confirm the Barb horse’s solid skeletal conformaon, opmized for endurance, weight- bearing, and agility over challenging terrain [30]. Body Mass and Body Indices The mean esmated body mass (BM) of Barb horses was 441.6 ± 24.6 kg (range: 341.5–570.6 kg), aligning with the values reported in Algeria [1 , 7 , 8], but exceeding those recorded in Tunisia [6] and in Morocco [1]. The presence of pregnant mares, whose thoracic dimensions tend to be broader, likely contributed to this higher mean (TABLE I). Barb horses proved heavier than Lusitano (415.5 kg) [19], Akhal-Teke (420.5 kg) [22], Algerian Thoroughbred Arabians (395.8 kg) [17], and Egypan Arabians (328.7 kg) [22], yet remained lighter than Andalusians (511.0 kg) [21]. Their compactness index (CI) of 2.93 kg/cm exceeded the values reported by Chabchoub et al. [6] (2.795) and Benhamadi et al. (2.688) [7], as well as those of Algerian Arabians (2.60 kg/cm) [17], confirming a notably solid skeletal structure that reflects the breed’s historical workhorse aptude. The average body index (BI) was 1.18 ± 0.05, indicang compact conformaon. This value closely matches the Andalusian average (1.21) [21] and surpasses that of Algerian Arabians (1.09) [17]. The profile body index (PBI) was 1.01 ± 0.02, which is close to those previously reported values [1],[9], and consistent with the square-shaped morphology of the breed [31], while the relave body index (RBI) was 0.84, lower than that of Algerian Arabian horses (0.91 ± 0.03) [17], again emphasizing compactness. Other indices reinforced this trend: the height rao index (HRI) balanced at 1.00 ± 0.01, poinng to structural symmetry compable with endurance [6 ,[18]; and the dactyl-thoracic index (DTI) averaged 0.11 ± 0.005, within the range that suggests adequate bone mass relave to thoracic volume [11]. 4 of 9

Revista Cienfica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico TABLE I Morphometric measurements and indices of Barb horses in Algeria (n=52) Parameter M + SD Min Max Parameter M + SD Min Max WH 150.8 ± 3.38 144.0 159.5 CG 177.8 ±8.73 159 199 CH 150.7 ± 3.50 143.0 159.0 FAG 42.18 ±3.16 35.5 48.3 ChH 72.02 ± 2.88 66.2 81.5 KnG 30.81 ±1.59 28.5 34.2 SSG 78.81 ± 3.36 68.0 85.5 FCG 19.63 ±0.95 18 22 EH 87.69 ± 2.57 81.0 94.0 HCG 21.10 ±0.92 19 23.4 ShH 103.3 ± 2.70 98.00 110.0 FG 26.79 ±1.21 24 29.2 BL 150.0 ± 4.73 140.5 159.6 PG 18.98 ±1.00 17.2 21 SIL 112.6 ± 5.14 98.8 124.6 NG 120±8.71 102 137.5 HL 59.80 ± 1.71 56.0 63.0 BM 441.6 ± 50.9 341.5 570,6 IEA 16.20 ± 0.61 15.0 18.0 BI 1.18 ± 0.05 1.06 1.32 NL 70.27 ± 2.48 64.6 75.7 PBI 1.01 ± 0.02 0.95 1.07 SL 58.28 ±3.33 50.2 64.2 RBI 0.84 ± 0.03 0.78 0.92 AL 37.25 ±1.58 34.9 41.0 FBH 1.00 ± 0.01 0.98 1.02 FAL 42.59 ±1.96 39.5 48.2 CI 2.93 ± 0.31 2.3 3.8 CL 26.62 ±1.46 23.5 30.7 DTI 0.11 ± 0.005 0.098 0.126 TL 37.57 ±2.20 32.0 42.5 CDI 47.75 ± 1.74 44.07 53.1 WH = Height at the withers; CH = Height at the croup; ShH = Shoulder height; ChH = Chest height; SSG = Sub-sternal gap; EH = Elbow height; BL = Total body length; SIL = Scapulo-iliac length; HL = Head length; NL = Neck length; SL = Shoulder length; AL = Arm length; FAL = Fore-arm length; CL = Cannon length; PL = Pastern length; TL = Thigh length; IEA = Distance between the inner eye angles; CG = Chest girth; NG = Neck girth; FAG = Fore-arm girth; KnG = Knee girth; FCG = Front cannon girth; HCG = Hind cannon girth; FG = Fetlock girth; PG = Pastern girth.BM= body mass; BI=Body Index ; BPI=Body Profile Index; RBI= Relave Body Index; FBH= Front-Back Height Index; CI= Compactness Index ; DTI= Dactyl-thoracic Index; CDI= Chest Depth Index Variaon factors a) Effect of Age The Morphometric comparison between young (< 5 years) and adult (≥ 5 years) horses revealed overall similarity in most height and length parameters. This is likely due to the predominance of selected riding-type individuals, a low number and the male-biased sample of young horses. However, younger horses showed a significantly wider SSG and greater EH (p<0.05), indicang a narrower chest and relavely longer limbs. In contrast, adults had significantly thicker fore cannon bones, along with non-significant increases in CG, HCG, and FG (TABLE III) consistent with advancing skeletal maturity. These paerns mirror findings in Arabian horses, where PG and FCG connue to increase past age four while other traits such as WH and BL stabilize [27]. Pantaneiro horses likewise show lower CG and FCG girths in 2 to 3 year olds compared to those aged 4 to 9 years, aributed to ongoing postural and musculoskeletal development [32]. Although the present CG differences did not reach significance, the similar tendencies reinforce that conformaon assessments are most reliable aſter four years of age. While morphometric traits plateau by age five, composite indices reveal connued skeletal maturaon in Barb horses. Adults show significantly higher values in BM, BI, PBI, CI, and CDI (TABLE II), reflecng thoracic and mass distribuon shiſts which were not detected by isolated metrics. Leveraging such indices could refine the ming of performance assessments and breeding selecons. b) Effect of Sex Males generally exhibited higher values than females across most morphometric traits and greater morphological variability, whereas females were more homogeneous. Only ShH differed significantly (103.9 cm vs. 102.3 cm, P < 0.05). These results concur with those of Benhamadi et al. [7] but differ from those of Chabchoub et al. [6], likely due to selecon-criteria differences between breeding and ulity horses. In terms of length, SIL was marginally greater in males, yet only SL (P < 0.05) and AL (P < 0.01) reached significance, contribung to the elevated ShH and EH observed. These differences are consistent with the known effects of sex hormones on skeletal growth and performance traits [6]. Peripheral measurements showed clear sexual dimorphism. Except for CG and FAG both higher in females, males had significantly larger values overall, indicang a more robust skeletal frame. The higher CG and FAG in females may result from the inclusion of pregnant mares, as gestaon induces thoracic expansion through hormonal and postural changes [33]. Chest-girth–derived indices (BM, BI, RBI, CI, CDI) were significantly higher in females, whereas DTI was higher in males (TABLE II). These trends reflect gestaonal mass redistribuon and thoracic inflaon in late-term mares. No sex differences emerged for Body Profile or Front-Back Height Indices indicang that overall body symmetry and front-back proporons are preserved across sexes reaffirming the Barb’s conformaonal balance. 5 of 9

Morphometric characteriscs of Algerian’s Barb horse / Chaabi et al. UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico c) Effect of Cephalic Profile the horses in this study were classified into three cephalic profile types: straight (32.7%), sub- convex (30.8%), and convex (36.5%). The predominance of convex and sub-convex profiles (67.3%) aligns with previous findings [4],8], which reported around 60% convex profiles. The proporon of straight profiles (~33%) was lower than the 40% reported by the Guedaoura et al. [8] and the 49% noted by Rahal et al. [1]. Concave or sub- concave profiles were absent, consistent with earlier reports in Algeria [1 , 7 , 8] and Tunisia [6]. Morphometric differences among head types were generally subtle. However, two traits varied significantly: the sub-sternal gap (SSG) and interorbital width (AIE). Convex-headed horses exhibited the widest SSG (80.06 ± 3.11 cm) compared to straight (78.99 ± 3.05 cm) and sub-convex types (77.14 ± 3.43 cm), hinng at a link between cranial curvature and thoracic depth. AIE was greater in straight-headed individuals (16.49 ± 0.76 cm; P < 0.01), possibly reflecng a broader cranial base. All other linear and peripheral traits remained consistent across profiles. Peripheral traits did not differ significantly between groups, though convex-headed horses tended to have slightly higher FCG, suggesng possible variaons in mass distribuon. In terms of indices, convex-headed horses displayed significantly higher RBI and DTI (p < 0.05), while CDI peaked in sub-convex individuals (TABLE III). These paerns support previous suggesons that cephalic profile may correlate with certain thoracic and skeletal proporons [34],[35]. d) Effect of coat color According to the updated coat color classificaon [12], grey was the most prevalent color in the studied populaon, represenng 70% of the horses. Bay and chestnut coats followed, represenng 17.30% and 11.53%, respecvely, while black and white coats were rarely observed. This distribuon is consistent with historical data from the Algerian Studbook [4], as well as studies [1 , 8], which reported 71% and 88% grey horses, respecvely. Similar findings were also recorded in Moroccan populaons [1]. Conversely, a predominantly chestnut coat (73%) was reported among Tunisian Barb horses [6], possibly reflecng regional variaon in selecon preferences. Morphometric comparisons revealed no stascally significant differences across coat color groups for most traits, suggesng that pigmentaon had minimal impact on overall conformaon within this populaon. Neverthless, emerging research has highlighted the potenal for pleiotropic genes to affect both coat color and morphologic characteriscs [36 ,[37], warranng further exploraon. Among linear measurements, only AIE differed significantly, with chestnut horses displaying broader skulls (16.77 ± 0.87 cm; p < 0.01). Height traits remained unaffected. In peripheral measurements, only FAG showed a significant variaon, being higher in bay horses (p = 0.002), which may reflect underlying links between coat color and muscular development or due to sampling effects. Esmated body weight and morphometric indices did not vary significantly by coat color, reinforcing the conclusion that pigmentaon alone is not a reliable predictor of conformaon in Barb horses. TABLE II Morphometric Measurements and Indices in Barb Horses: Descripve Stascs by Variaon Factors Variaon Factor Age Sex Cephalic Profile Coatcolor parameter Adult (43) Young (9) Males (n=33) Females (n=19) Straight (n=17) Convex (n=19) Sub- convex (n= 16) Grey (36) Chestnut (6) Bay (9) WH 150.7 ± 3.47 a 151.6 ± 2.95 a 151.3 ± 3.60 a 149.9 ± 2.83 a 151.7 ± 4.09 a 151.1 ± 3.34 a 149.6 ± 2.23 a 150.8 ± 3.22 a 150.8 ± 5.33 a 151.3 ± 2.98 a CH 150.5 ± 3.62 a 151.4 ± 2.92 a 151.2 ± 3.47 a 149.8 ± 3.47 a 151.5 ± 4.30 a 151.2 ± 3.35 a 149.1 ± 2.18 a 150.8 ± 3.37 a 149.9 ± 5.76 a 150.8 ± 2.66 a ChH 72.36± 2.83 a+ 70.39 ± 2.71 a+ 71.29 ± 2.78 a 73.28 ± 2.66 a 72.73 ± 2.86 a 71.01 ± 2.89 a 72.46 ± 2.72 a 71.71 ± 3.10 a 71.68 ± 1.54 a 73.42 ± 2.56 a SSG 78.31 ± 3.27 a 81.22 ± 2.80 b 80.04 ± 2.72 a 76.67 ± 3.34 a 78.99 ± 3.05 ab 80.06 ± 3.11 a 77.14 ± 3.43 b 79.08 ± 2.85 a 79.07 ± 4.43 a 77.84 ± 4.67 a EH 87.42 ± 2.65 a 88.94 ± 1.72 a 88.15 ± 2.68 a+ 86.88 ± 2.20 a+ 88.56 ± 2.36 a 87.35 ± 2.91 a 87.16 ± 2.24 a 87.47 ± 2.48 a 89.08 ± 3.80 a 87.60 ± 2.10 a ShH 103.0 ± 2.60 a 105.1 ± 2.64 b 103.9 ± 2.52 a 102.3 ± 2.75 b 103.5 ± 2.45 a 103.9 ± 3.13 a 102.6 ± 2.37 a 103.3 ± 2.88 a 103.8 ± 3.08 a 103.2 ± 1.99 a BL 150.4 ± 4.75 148.5 ± 4.60 149.9 ± 4.23 150.2 ± 5.62 149.7 ± 4.61 a 151.3 ± 4.54 a 148.8 ± 5.00 a 150.30 ± 4.57 a 148.80 ± 5.91 a 150.34 ± 4.94 a SIL 113.1 ± 4.89 a 109.8 ± 5.73 a 111.8 ± 4.51 a 113.9 ± 5.99 a 111.4 ± 5.38 a 114.6 ± 3.83 a 111.5 ± 5.79 a 112.84 ± 5.37 a 112.08 ± 4.37 a 112.96 ± 4.06 a HL 59.93 ± 1.65 a 59.19 ± 1.98 a 59.59 ± 1.94 a 60.17 ± 1.17 a 59.54 ± 2.03 a 60.35 ± 1.58 a 59.43 ± 1.40 a 59.88 ± 1.74 a 60.13 ± 2.11 a 59.47 ± 1.40 a IEA 16.22 ± 0.63 a 16.09 ± 0.53 a 16.21 ± 0.69 a 16.17 ± 0.43 a 16.49 ± 0.76 a* 16.22 ± 0.54 a* 15.86 ± 0.26 b* 16.15 ± 0.56 a 16.77 ± 0.87 b 15.91 ± 0.23 c NL 70.28 ± 2.51 a 70.23 ± 2.48 a 70.58 ± 2.56 a+ 69.73 ± 2.29 a+ 70.61 ± 2.99 a 70.49 ± 2.23 a 69.65 ± 2.19 a 70.10 ± 2.59 a 70.70 ± 2.59 a 70.73 ± 2.27 a SL 58.47 ± 3.37 a 57.39 ± 3.16 a 58.22 ± 3.18 a 58.39 ± 3.67 b 58.88 ± 3.85 a 57.94 ± 2.89 a 58.07 ± 3.36 a 58.19 ± 2.96 a 56.65 ± 5.18 a 59.79 ± 3.34 a AL 37.38 ± 1.58 a 36.60 ± 1.51 a 37.65 ± 1.46 a* 36.54 ± 1.57 b* 37.28 ± 1.81 a 37.03 ± 1.47 a 37.48 ± 1.52 a 37.18 ± 1.60 a 37.65 ± 1.85 a 37.16 ± 1.55 a FAL 42.43 ± 2.02 a 43.39 ± 1.50 a 42.92 ± 1.95 a 42.02 ± 1.88 a 43.25 ± 2.50 a 42.22 ± 1.65 a 42.33 ± 1.54 a 42.79 ± 1.82 a 42.15 ± 2.83 a 41.87 ± 1.86 a 6 of 9

Revista Cienfica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico CL 26.60 ± 1.45 a 26.69 ± 1.60 a 26.82 ± 1.58 a+ 26.26 ± 1.18 a+ 27.06 ± 1.81 a 26.64 ± 1.10 a 26.11 ± 1.35 a 26.61 ± 1.44 a 27.25 ± 2.17 a 26.34 ± 1.03 a TL 37.73 ± 2.33 a 36.82 ± 1.27 a 37.43 ± 1.85 a 37.83 ± 2.74 a 37.81 ± 2.50 a 37.67 ± 1.85 a 37.21 ± 2.33 a 37.66 ± 2.16 a 36.45 ± 3.55 a 37.98 ± 1.19 a CG 178.8 ± 8.15 a 173.0 ± 10.26 a 176.1 ± 8.40 a 180.8 ± 8.67 b 180.5 ± 8.12 a 175.7 ± 10.06 a 177.5 ± 7.31 a 177.6 ± 8.66 a 175.7 ± 9.22 a 181.0 ± 8.91 a FAG 42.29 ± 3.24 a 41.67 ± 2.83 a 42.02 ± 2.86 a 42.47 ± 3.68 b 42.25 ± 3.43 a 43.00 ± 2.57 a 41.14 ± 3.38 a 42.35 ± 2.56 a* 38.58 ± 3.68 b* 44.11 ± 3.45 c* KnG 30.86 ± 1.62 a 30.58 ± 1.52 a 31.56 ± 1.43 a*** 29.49 ± 0.80 b*** 31.17 ± 1.68 a 31.05 ± 1.47 a 30.14 ± 1.52 a 30.75 ± 1.53 a 31.03 ± 2.24 a 30.94 ± 1.61 a FCG 19.76 ± 0.95 a 19.02 ± 0.66 b 19.9 ± 0.92 a*** 19.16 ± 0.80 b*** 19.67 ± 0.77 a 19.96 ± 1.02 a 19.19 ± 0.90 a 19.58 ± 1.00 a 19.73 ± 1.19 a 19.83 ± 0.61 a HCG 21.21 ± 0.94 a+ 20.58 ± 0.64 a+ 21.36 ± 0.91 a*** 20.64 ± 0.76 b*** 21.36 ± 0.92 a 21.08 ± 0.89 a 20.84 ± 0.93 a 21.08 ± 0.85 a 21.40 ± 1.72 a 21.03 ± 0.57 a FG 26.89 ± 1.21 a 26.33 ± 1.15 a 27.2 ± 1.11 a*** 26.09 ± 1.06 b*** 26.85 ± 1.01 a 27.03 ± 1.16 a 26.46 ± 1.43 a 26.71 ± 1.23 a 26.63 ± 1.63 a 27.33 ± 0.71 a PG 19.09 ± 1.03 a+ 18.47 ± 0.73 a+ 19.15 ± 0.95 a*** 18.69 ± 1.05 b*** 18.84 ± 0.92 a 19.13 ± 1.13 a 18.96 ± 0.97 a 18.95 ± 1.04 a 18.85 ± 1.31 a 19.28 ± 0.67 a NG 120 ± 8.08 a 120.0 ± 11.84 a 122.8 ± 8.82 a*** 115.1 ± 6.01 b*** 122.5 ± 9.32 a 117.4 ± 7.59 a 120.4 ± 8.92 a 118.8 ± 8.10 a 119.3 ± 11.72 a 124.6 ± 8.73 a BM 448.2 ± 49.0 a 410.4 ± 50.4 b 425.6 ± 43.34 a* 469.4 ± 51.95 b* 456.2 ± 47.50 a 429.9 ± 60.65 a 439.9 ± 39.5 a 439.6 ± 51.2 a 429.5 ± 46.2 a 463.5 ± 51.6 a BI 1.19 ± 0.05 a 1.14 ± 0.06 b 1.16 ± 0.05 a* 1.21 ± 0.05 b* 1.190 ± 0.051 a 1.162 ± 0.053 a 1.187 ± 0.05 a 1.178 ± 0.052 a 1.165 ± 0.031 a 1.197 ± 0.063 a BPI 1.00 ± 0.02 a 1.02 ± 0.03 b 1.01 ± 0.02 a 1.00 ± 0.03 a 1.014 ± 0.026 a 0.999 ± 0.018 a 1.006 ± 0.03 a 1.004 ± 0.025 a 1.013 ± 0.016 a 1.007 ± 0.030 a RBI 0.84 ± 0.03 a 0.86 ± 0.03 a 0.85 ± 0.03 a 0.83 ± 0.03 b 0.830 ± 0.027 a* 0.863 ± 0.030 b* 0.839 ± 0.03 a* 0.847 ± 0.033 a 0.848 ± 0.020 a 0.832 ± 0.034 a FBH 1.00 ± 0.01 a 1.00 ± 0.01 a 1.00 ± 0.01 a 1.00 ± 0.01 a 1.001 ± 0.008 a 0.999 ± 0.006 a 1.003 ± 0.01 a 1.000 ± 0.007 a 1.006 ± 0.004 a 1.003 ± 0.009 a CI 2.97 ± 0.30 a 2.70 ± 0.30 b 2.81 ± 0.25 a*** 3.13 ± 0.32 b*** 3.005 ± 0.294 a 2.842 ± 0.363 a 2.941 ± 0.26 a 2.913 ± 0.315 a 2.844 ± 0.214 a 3.065 ± 0.349 a DTI 0.111± 0.01 a 0.110± 0.01 a 0.113± 0.01 a*** 0.106 ± 0.01 b*** 0.109 ± 0.006 a 0.114 ± 0.007 b 0.108 ± 0.01 a 0.110 ± 0.007 a 0.112 ± 0.006 a 0.110 ± 0.008 a CDI 48.03 ± 1.66 a 46.43 ± 1.54 b 47.11 ± 1.36 a 48.88 ± 1.78 b 47.94 ± 1.38 ab 47.01 ± 1.643 a 48.44 ± 1.94 b 47.55 ± 1.65 a 47.58 ± 1.221 a 48.57 ± 2.307 a Different leers in columns (a,b,c) indicate differences in p<0,05 – Significaon codes: p<0,0001(***),p<0.001 (**),p<0.01 (*), p< 0.1 (+). WH = Height at the withers; CH = Height at the croup; ShH = Shoulder height; ChH = Chest height; SSG = Sub-sternal gap; EH = Elbow height; BL = Total body length; SIL = Scapulo-iliac length; HL = Head length; NL = Neck length; SL = Shoulder length; AL = Arm length; FAL = Fore-arm length; CL = Cannon length; PL = Pastern length; TL = Thigh length; IEA = Distance between the inner eye angles; CG = Chest girth; NG = Neck girth; FAG = Fore-arm girth; KnG = Knee girth; FCG = Front cannon girth; HCG = Hind cannon girth; FG = Fetlock girth; PG = Pastern girth.BM= body mass; BI=Body Index ; BPI=Body Profile Index; RBI= Relave Body Index; FBH= Front-Back Height Index; CI= Compactness Index ; DTI= Dactyl-thoracic Index; CDI= Chest Depth Index PCA and correlaon The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) summarized the 25 inial variables into two main components explaining 52.57% of the total variance (37.91% for axis 1 and 14.66% for axis 2). The correlaon circle (FIG. 3) shows that the variables CH and WH are strongly correlated with each other and contribute mainly to axis 1, suggesng a gradient related to the height of the Barb horse. Axis 2 is mainly structured by the variable SSG, associated with trunk height. Pearson correlaon analysis between the different measurements (TABLE III) revealed strong correlaons (r > 0.70) as follows: Withers height (WH) is strongly correlated with croup height (CH) (r = 0.95; P< 0.001) and shoulder height (ShH) (r = 0.70; P< 0.001); Body length (BL) is strongly correlated with the scapulo-iliac length (SIL) (r = 0.81; P< 0.001), reflecng a homogeneous pelvis length; Fetlock girth (FG) is strongly correlated with four measurements: Knee girth (KnG) (0.74), Hind cannon girth (HCG) (0.76), Fore cannon girth (FCG) (0.80), and pastern girth (PG) (0.72); Fore Cannon girth (FCG) is correlated with hind cannon girth (HCG) (0.77). FIGURE 3. PCA correlaon circle. WH = Height at the withers; CH = Height at the croup; ShH = Shoulder height; ChH = Chest height; SSG = Sub-sternal gap; EH = Elbow height; BL = Total body length; SIL = Scapulo-iliac length; HL = Head length; NL = Neck length; SL = Shoulder length; AL = Arm length; FAL = Fore-arm length; CL = Cannon length; PL = Pastern length; TL = Thigh length; IEA = Distance between the inner eye angles; CG = Chest girth; NG = Neck girth; FAG = Fore-arm girth; KnG = Knee girth; FCG = Front cannon girth; HCG = Hind cannon girth; FG = Fetlock girth; PG = Pastern girth 7 of 9

Morphometric characteriscs of Algerian’s Barb horse / Chaabi et al. UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico TABLE III Pearson coefficients (r) showing strong correlaons (r > 0.70) between the different parameters r CH ChH SIL HCG FG BM CG WH 0.95 0.7 / / / / / SSG / 0.73 / / / / / BL / / 0.81 / / / / KnG / / / 0.76 0.74 / / HCG / / / / 0.76 / / FCG / / / 0.77 0.8 / / PG / / / 0.75 0.72 / / ChH / / / / / 0.74 / BM / / / / / / 0.96 WH = Height at the withers; CH = Height at the croupChH = Chest height; SSG = Sub-sternal gap; BL = Total body length; SIL = Scapulo-iliac length; CG = Chest girth; KnG = Knee girth; FCG = Front cannon girth; HCG = Hind cannon girth; FG = Fetlock girth; PG = Pastern girth; BM = Esmated body mass CONCLUSION This morphometric assessment of Barb horses confirmed general conformity to breed standards, with slightly lower average values than official references. The populaon showed moderate stature (mean withers height: 150.8 cm), a robust thoracic region (chest girth: 177.8 cm), and a strong bone structure (mean fore cannon girth: 19.63 cm). The square- shaped conformaon and high compactness index (2.93 kg/cm) support the breed’s reputaon for endurance and agility. Morphological differences between age groups were limited, likely reflecng selecve pressures rather than developmental divergence. Sexual dimorphism appeared mainly in shoulder and limb dimensions, and while head profile and coat color followed tradional distribuons, they showed limited influence on overall conformaon. Compared to related breeds, the Barb is more compact than Oriental types (e.g., Arabian, Akhal-Teke), yet lighter than Iberian horses (e.g., Lusitano, Andalusian). Its morphology is closest to the Spanish-Arabian, combining robustness and refinement. This intermediate yet disncve conformaon sets the Barb apart from both Oriental and Iberian types, affirming its versality and historical adaptability. Principal component analysis and trait correlaons confirmed internal harmony among body proporons, parcularly in height and limb traits. Altogether, the Barb horse exhibits a unique blend of resilience, balance, and manoeuvrability, reinforcing its status as a vital component of Algeria’s equine genec heritage. Conflict interests statement The authors declare that they have no conflicng interests. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES [1] Rahal K, Guedioura A, Oumouna M. Paramètres morphométriques du cheval barbe de Chaouchaoua, Algérie. Rev. Med. Vet. [Internet]. 2009 [cited May 25 2025]; 160(12):586–589. Available in: hps://goo. su/87iLMY [2] Kadri A. Le cheval barbe, cheval du Nord de l’Afrique, son rôle en Algérie. Rev. OMCB [Internet]. 2006; 2006(1):9– 45. [3] FAO. Domesc Animal Diversity Informaon System (DAD-IS). [Internet]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organizaon of the United Naons; 2024 [cited May 25 2025]. Available in: hps://goo.su/YsrUOg [4] Organisaon Mondiale du Cheval Barbe. In: Organisaon Mondiale du Cheval Barbe, editor. Tous les textes officiels sur le Cheval Barbe. Lausanne: Caracole; 1989 [cited May 25 2025]. p. 165–189. [Internet]. Available in: hps:// goo.su/HTcBqa [5] Chabchoub A, Guermazi S, Landolsi F, Har Y. Contribuon à l’étude de paramètres hématologiques et de l’hémostase chez des chevaux aeints du syndrome épistaxis induit par l’effort. Rec. Med. Vet. [Internet]. 1998 [cited May 25 2025]; 174(5-6):83–87. Available in: hps://goo.su/HLzi [6] Chabchoub A, Landolsi F, Jary Y. Étude des paramètres morphologiques de chevaux Barbes de Tunisie. Rev. Med. Vet. [Internet]. 2004 [cited May 25 2025]; 155(1):31–37. Available in: hps://goo.su/Tg5mshh [7] Benhamadi MA, Mezouar K, Benyarou M, Bouandas A, Gaouar SBS. Morphometric characterizaon of the equine Barbe breed in northwest of Algeria. Genecs Biodivers. J. [Internet]. 2017; 1(2):48–65. doi: hps:// doi.org/p7b6 [8] Guedaoura S, Cabaraux JF, Moumene A, Tahraouia A, Nicks B. Évaluaon morphométrique de chevaux de race Barbe et dérivés en Algérie. Ann. Med. Vet. [Internet]. 2011 [cited May 25 2025]; 155:14–22. Available in: hps://goo.su/f10WAEM [9] Tamzali Y. La situaon du cheval barbe en Algérie. In: Recueil de tous les textes officiels sur le cheval Barbe. Lausanne: Caracole; 1989 [cited May 25 2025]; p. 107– 115. Available in: hps://goo.su/yImu9 [10] Marcenac L, Aublet H, Dutheville P. Horse encyclopedia. 4th ed. Paris: Malone; 1980. [11] Carroll CL, Hunngton PJ. Body condion scoring and weight esmaon of horses. Equine Vet. J. [Internet]. 1988; 20(1):41–45. doi: hps://doi.org/fpxb29 [12] Robert C. Le signalement du cheval: termes ulisés et convenons. [Internet]. Maisons-Alfort (France): École Naonale Vétérinaire d’Alfort; 2011 [cited May 25 2025]. Available in: hps://goo.su/AR1KH [13] Marn-Rosset W. L’alimentaon des chevaux. [Internet]. Paris: INRA; 1990 [cited 25 May 2025]. Available in: hps://goo.su/1pWqL [14] McManus C, Falcão RA, Spritze A, Costa D, Louvandini H, Dias LT, de Almeida J, de Mello-RezendeI MJ, Soares- Garcia JA. Caracterização morfológica de equinos da raça Campeiro. R. Bras. Zootec. [Internet]. 2005; 34(5):1553– 1562. doi: hps://doi.org/bsmh6w 8 of 9

Revista Cienfica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico [15] Cabral GC, Queiroz de Almeida F, Quirino CR, de Azevedo PCN, Pinto L, Santos EM. Morphometric evaluaon of Mangalarga Marchador horse: Conformaon index and body proporons. R. Bras. Zootec. [Internet]. 2004; 33(6):1798–1805. doi: hps://doi.org/cgnmg8 [16] Druml T, Baumung R, Sölkner J. Morphological analysis and effect of selecon for conformaon in the Noriker draught horse populaon. Livest. Sci. [Internet]. 2008; 115(2–3):118–128. doi: hps://doi.org/dcpb9n [17] Benia AR, Selles SM, Benamor N. Morphometric characterizaon of purebred Arabian horses for galop racing (Born and raised in Algeria). Iraqi J. Vet. Sci. [Internet]. 2022; 36(4):959–966. doi: hps://doi.org/ p7b9 [18] Bataille L, Tsaag Valren A. Races équines de France, chevaux, poneys et ânes. 2e éd., mise à jour. Paris: France Agricole; 2016.[19] Dos Santos RDG. Caracterización genéca de la aptud deporva del caballo Pura Sangre Lusitano a parr de variables biocinemácas al trote [PhD thesis on the Internet]. Córdoba, España: Universidad de Córdoba; 2008 [cited May 25 2025]; 87p. Available in: hps://goo.su/Cy9Zu [20] Cervantes I, Baumung R, Molina A, Druml T, Guérrez JP, Sölkner J, Valera M. Size and shape analysis of morphofunconal traits in the Spanish Arab horse. Livest. Sci. [Internet]. 2009; 125(1):43–49. doi: hps://doi.org/ cx48pk [21] Marn-Gimenez T, Aguirre-Pascasio CN, de Blas I. Beyond scoring systems: usefulness of morphometry considering demographic variables, to evaluate neck and overall obesity in Andalusian horses. Animal [Internet]. 2018; 12(3):597–605. doi: hps://doi.org/gbnbqq [22] Moazemi I, Mohammadabadi MR, Mostafavi A, Esmailizadeh AK, Babenko OI, Bushtruk MV, Tkachenko SV, Stavetska RV, Klopenko NI. Polymorphism of DMRT3 gene and its associaon with body measurements in horse breeds. Russ. J. Genet. [Internet]. 2020; 56(10):1232–1240. doi: hps://doi.org/p7cf [23] Goldstein DM, Engiles JB, Rezabek GB, Ruff CB. Locomoon on the edge: Structural properes of the third metacarpal in Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse racehorses and feral Assateague Island ponies. Anat. Rec. [Internet]. 2021; 304(4):771–786. doi: hps://doi.org/ gmgpxg [24] Weeren PR, Crevier-Denoix N. Equine conformaon: clues to performance and soundness? Equine Vet. J. [Internet]. 2006; 38(7):591–596. doi: hps://doi.org/ bgk4b6 [25] Métayer N, Biau S, Cochet JL, Barrey E. Study of locomoon and morphological factors in the performance of the horse specialized in endurance tests. In: Proceedings of the 30ème Journée de la Recherche Équine; 2004 Mar 3; Paris, France. Paris: Les Haras Naonaux; 2004. p. 67–76. [26] Guyo M, Tareke M, Tonamo A, Bediye D, Defar G. Evaluaons of morphometric traits and body conformaon indices of horse ecotypes reared in the highlands of Bale Eco-Region, Ethiopia. Vet. Med. Sci. [Internet]. 2024; 10(6):e70114. doi: hps://doi.org/p7fn [27] Sadek MH, Al-Aboud AZ, Ashmawy AA. Factor analysis of body measurements in Arabian horses. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. [Internet]. 2006; 123(6):369–377. doi: hps:// doi.org/dgwc5j [28] Pagliara E, Pasinato A, Valazza A, Riccio B, Cantatore F, Terzini M, Putame G, Parrilli A, Sartori M, Fini M, Zane EM, Bertuglia A. Mulbody computer model of the enre equine forelimb simulates forces causing catastrophic fractures of the carpus during a tradional race. Animals. [Internet]. 2022; 12(6):737. doi: hps://doi.org/p7fp [29] Powell DM, Benne-Wimbush K, Peeples A, Duthie M. Evaluaon of indicators of weight-carrying ability of light riding horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. [Internet]. 2008; 28(1):28–33. doi: hps://doi.org/brdſtw [30] Harris S. The USPC guide to conformaon, movement and soundness. Lexington: Turner Publishing Company; 2007. Available in: hps://goo.su/1Rwic [31] Ronciere A. Contribuon à l’étude du cheval ariégeois de Casllan: élevage, biométrie [Méd. Vét. thesis on the Internet]. Toulouse: École Naonale Vétérinaire Toulouse; 1998 ;121 p. Available in: hps://goo.su/28fEgum [32] Miserani MG, McManus C, Santos SA, Silva JA da, Mariante A da S, de Abreu UGP. Avaliação dos fatores que influem nas medidas lineares do cavalo Pantaneiro. R. Bras. Zootec. [Internet]. 2002; 31(1):335–3341. doi: hps://doi.org/ſtm55v [33] Vieira PS, Nogueira CEW, Santos AC, Borba LA, Scalco R, Brasil CL, Barros WS, Curcio BR. Development of a weight-esmaon model to use in pregnant Criollo-type mares. Ciênc. Rural [Internet]. 2018; 48(1):e20160590. doi: hps://doi.org/p7f3 [34] Hanot P, Bayarsaikhan J, Guintard C, Haruda A, Mijiddorj E, Schaerg R, Taylor W. Cranial shape diversificaon in horses: variaon and covariaon paerns under the impact of arficial selecon. BMC Ecol. Evol. [Internet]. 2021; 21:178. doi: hps://doi.org/gvvrxn [35] Mostafavi E, Esmaeilnejad B, Abtahi Foroushani SM. Evaluaon of cytokines and sialic acids contents in horses naturally infected with Theileria equi. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. [Internet]. 2020; 70:101453. doi: hps://doi.org/p7f4 [36] Perdomo-González DI, García de Paredes RA, Valera M, Bartolomé E, Gómez MD. Morpho-funconal traits in Pura Raza Menorquina horses: genec parameters and relaonship with coat color variables. Animals. [Internet]. 2022; 12(18):2319. doi: hps://doi.org/p7f5 [37] Finn JL, Haase B, Willet CE, Van Rooy D, Chew T, Wade CM, Hamilton NA, Velie BD. The relaonship between coat colour phenotype and equine behaviour: a pilot study. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016; 174:66–69. doi: hps://doi.org/f3rvbr 9 of 9