Genetic influence on tonic immobility in chickens

Gallup, Gordon G.

doi:10.3758/bf03199142

Cited by 74 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, ease of induction was not a sensitive indicator of genetic differences in this study. Gallup (1974) and Gallup et al (1976) also failed to find any difference in ease of induction between genetic strains that differed greatly in duration of TJ.…”

Section: Nonparametric Measures Of Tonic Immobilitymentioning

confidence: 63%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tonic Immobility Responses of White Leghorn Hens Affected by Induction Techniques and Genetic Stock Differences

1984

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tonic immobility (TI) was induced in about 70% of While Leghorn hens caught and immediately restrained in the dorsal position for a single 15 sec period. Temporary confinement of hens housed in floor pens in single-bird cages prior to restraint reduced initial induction of TI to 46%. Eye closure during TI occurred in less than or equal to 15% of hens and vocalization, jumping up, or both on termination was present about 80% of the time. Induction of TI on first restraint was greater when less support was provided for the hen's body. Latency until first gross leg and head movement after TI induction decreased with increased time required for catching of hens in floor pens, but righting time (until hens stool up) was unaffected. Correlations among the three latency measures revealed the following: between leg and head movement, r .41 to .71 (P less than .01); leg movement and righting, r .51 to .99 (P less than .01); head movement and righting, r -.62 (P less than .05) to .96 (P less than .01). Genetic differences were detected consistently by latency to first gross head movement and by righting time only. Strains selected for part-year egg mass showed more prompt head movement than did unselected controls. Random genetic drift between strains selected alike apparently was responsible for differences in righting time. Although strains within selection schemes differed, crosses between strains did not differ from the mean of the parental strains, providing evidence that genetic variance for righting time tends to be more additive than nonadditive.

show abstract

Section: Nonparametric Measures Of Tonic Immobilitymentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Similar results were obtained in Experiment 2. Gallup (1974) reported that he used 1 to 5 restraint periods with 3-week-old chicks.…”

Section: Strains Crossesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Tonic Immobility Responses of White Leghorn Hens Affected by Induction Techniques and Genetic Stock Differences

1984

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Candland, Nagy, and Conklyn(1963) found no significant sex differences in the distress calling of 1-day-old chicks, and Gallup (1974) reported no sex differences in tonic immobility. Faure and Folmer (1975) and Faure (1979) reported sex differences in only one of 13 strains tested.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Open-field behavior of young chicks (Gallus gallus): Antipredatory responses, social reinstatement motivation, and gender effects

Vallorttgara

Zanforlin

1988

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments investigating sex differences in the open-field behavior of young chicks are reported. In the first experiment, ambulation latencies of lO-day-old male and female chicks in a novel environment were measured. Half of the chicks were kept in social isolation for 2 days prior to testing; the other half were socially reared until tested. Results showed that in socially reared chicks ambulation latencies were significantly higher in males than in females, whereas in isolation-reared chicks there were no significant sex differences. In the second experiment, latencies of ambulation were measured in socially reared lO-day-old chicks placed in a novel environment with or without a visible predator (i.e., a human being). Sex differences were evident in both conditions, with males showing higher ambulation latencies than females. It is argued that sex differences in open-field behavior of chicks may bedue to a stronger motivation for social reinstatement in females, which reduces the usual antipredatory reactions of chicks placed in a novel environment.Contradictory resultshave been reportedconcerning the existence of sex differences in the open-field behavior of youngchicks. Candland, Nagy, and Conklyn(1963) found no significant sex differences in the distress calling of 1-day-old chicks, and Gallup (1974) reported no sex differences in tonic immobility. Faure and Folmer (1975) and Faure (1979) reported sex differences in only one of 13 strains tested. Consistent sex differences, however, have been reported by Jones and his co-workers: males show less activity, vocalization, and feeding (Jones, 1977a(Jones, , 1977bJones & Black, 1979), and emerge more slowly from a dark enclosure (Jones, 1979). These observations were recently confirmedby Faure (1981,1982), who argued that previous contradictory results could be due to differencesin the open fields used, whichmay have induced differing levels of fear depending on how similar they were to the chicks' home cage. These authors maintainthat (1) males are more fearfulthan females, and (2) sex differences that appear at low-to-moderate levels of fear may disappear at higher levels of fear.What remains unclear, however, is what the functional explanation for these differences may be: why should males be more fearful than females? A possible explanation may be relatedto the differentinterpretative approach of open-field behavior recently proposed by Gallup and Suarez (1980). Gallup and Suarez proposed that, as opposed to a "fear" or "emotionality" hypothesis, openfield behavior might reflect a compromise between opposite tendencies to reinstate social contact with conspecificsand to evade predation. field experiments involve predatory overtones related to the human contact resulting from the handling associated with the removal of the animal from its home cage and its subsequent placement in the testing apparatus (Suarez & Gallup, 1981). Moreover,open-field testing also usually involves suddensocial separation from familiar and/or imprinted companions (Suare...

show abstract

“…After that time, if the bird did not exhibit any signs which might have led to its turning over and standing up, it was taken from the trough and carried to the coop. The pheasants, quails and partridges were not divided according to sex, because the results of previous research did not point to dimorphic character of traits related to TI, especially at such a young age of the birds (Gallup 1974;Benoff and Siegel 1976;Jones and Faure 1981b).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of the tonic immobility reaction in young farm-reared ring-neck pheasants, common quails and grey partridges

Nowaczewski

Gosk

Kolanos³

et al. 2012

J Ethol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many species of game birds would become extinct in their natural habitat without periodical supplementation of wildlife populations with specimens bred on farms. Unfortunately either such birds do not exhibit any specific forms of behaviour which enable survival in natural environment or those forms are inappropriately developed. They include duration of tonic immobility (TI), which is often an anti-predator reaction. Pheasants, quails and partridges were subjected to assessment of the duration of TI and the number of inductions necessary to obtain TI on the 10th, 20th and 35th day of the birds' lives. In the pheasant and quail, both the frequency of inductions equal to 1 and the duration of TI increased with age. The quails were characterised by the shortest duration of TI and the highest frequency of number of inductions above 1. In the partridges, the average frequency of TI inductions equal to 1 was the highest (more than 70% in every analyzed day). Simultaneously, the average duration of TI was long. This may indicate that these birds may have a better defence mechanism when endangered by a predator.

show abstract

Genetic influence on tonic immobility in chickens

Cited by 74 publications

References 7 publications

Tonic Immobility Responses of White Leghorn Hens Affected by Induction Techniques and Genetic Stock Differences

Tonic Immobility Responses of White Leghorn Hens Affected by Induction Techniques and Genetic Stock Differences

Open-field behavior of young chicks (Gallus gallus): Antipredatory responses, social reinstatement motivation, and gender effects

Characteristics of the tonic immobility reaction in young farm-reared ring-neck pheasants, common quails and grey partridges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About