Social discrimination and aggression by laying hens in large groups: from peck orders to social tolerance

D’Eath, Richard B.; Keeling, Linda J.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2003.08.010

Cited by 102 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, neither they nor Estevez et al (2003) found evidence of higher aggression with increased group size during early rearing. Furthermore, irrespective of the housing system or birds' age, most recent studies report a low incidence of aggression at large group sizes (Hughes et al, 1997;Carmichael et al, 1999;Nicol et al, 1999;Estevez et al, 2002Estevez et al, , 2003D'Eath and Keeling, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relevance of variations in group size and phenotypic appearance on the behaviour and movement patterns of young domestic fowl

Liste

Campderrich

Heredia

et al. 2015

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relevance of variations in group size and phenotypic appearance on the behaviour and movement patterns of young domestic fowl

Liste

Campderrich

Heredia

et al. 2015

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Levels of agonistic interactions in large flocks are usually lower than in small flocks because hens no longer rely on a stable peck order as a social strategy D'Eath and Keeling, 2003). Instead, they use a more competitive ability strategy, incorporating individual physical characteristics and status signaling to determine dyadic dominance on an as-needed frequency (Estevez, Hughes et al, 1997;Newberry and Keeling, 2002;D'Eath and Keeling, 2003;O'Connor et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noncaged laying hens remain unflappable while wearing body-mounted sensors: Levels of agonistic behaviors remain unchanged and resource use is not reduced after habituation

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unique markings or body-mounted sensors facilitate data collection from individuals in large groups of similar-looking conspecifics but may have unintended consequences on behavior. A wireless sensor attached to the back of laying hens via a harness has been developed to monitor space use and activity. Prior to collecting experimental data, effects of the sensor on resource use and social interactions were assessed. Four rooms of 135 hens each were weighed and 10 hens/room were randomly fitted with sensors at 11 wk of age (0 d). Instantaneous scan samples recorded the number of hens (SEN: sensor-wearing hen, and NON: hen without sensor) using resources (feeder, water, nest box, perch) every 5 min over 24 h on -5 d, -4 d, -2 d, -1 d, 1 d, 2 d, 4 d, 8 d, and 16 d. Logistic regression determined that SEN feeder use was less on 1 d and 2 d and more on 16 d than NON feeder use. The SEN water use was reduced only on 1 d. The SEN nest box use increased on 1 d, 2 d, and 16 d. The SEN perched more on 1 d, 2 d, and 4 d, and less on 8 d. Initial resource use was affected by wearing a sensor, but by 16 d, all resources were used similarly or more by SEN than NON. No difference in BW was observed on 17 d, suggesting that long-term resource use was not affected. No differences were observed among the number of agonistic observations -5 d, 8 d, and 16 d. With the exception of SEN hens acting as aggressors toward NON hens, agonistic interaction types occurred close to expected proportions. These factors indicate that hens habituate to wearing sensors within 2 wk.

show abstract

“…In particular, if animals do identify one another as individuals and if their memories of past encounters with one another do influence the outcomes of subsequent encounters, the assumption that outcomes are only determined by differences in dominance scores cannot be supported. Experiments have demonstrated individual recognition in a broad range of species including mammals, birds, crustaceans, fish, and even certain insects (wasps, ants, and fruit flies) that do form dominance relationships (Brown and Colgan, 1986;Cheney and Seyfarth, 1990;D'Eath and Keeling, 2003;D'Ettorre and Heinze, 2005;Gherardi and Atema, 2005;Karavanich and Atema, 1998;Lai et al, 2005;McLeman et al, 2005;Tibbetts, 2002;Todd et al, 1967;Yurkovic et al, 2006). Animals often recognized others in subsequent contests even after only brief prior exposure and these memories lasted for considerable periods of time.…”

Section: Lack Of Individual Identification and Absence Of Memory Of Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data-Based Analysis of Winner-Loser Models of Hierarchy Formation in Animals

Lindquist

Chase

2009

Bull. Math. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review winner-loser models, the currently popular explanation for the occurrence of linear dominance hierarchies, via a three-part approach. (1) We isolate the two most significant components of the mathematical formulation of three of the most widely-cited models and rigorously evaluate the components' predictions against data collected on hierarchy formation in groups of hens. (2) We evaluate the experimental support in the literature for the basic assumptions contained in winner-loser models. (3) We apply new techniques to the hen data to uncover several behavioral dynamics of hierarchy formation not previously described. The mathematical formulations of these models do not show satisfactory agreement with the hen data, and key model assumptions have either little or no conclusive support from experimental findings in the literature. In agreement with the latest experimental results concerning social cognition, the new behavioral dynamics of hierarchy formation discovered in the hen data suggest that members of groups are intensely aware both of their own interactions as well as interactions occurring among other members of their group. We suggest that more adequate models of hierarchy formation should be based upon behavioral dynamics that reflect more sophisticated levels of social cognition.

show abstract

Social discrimination and aggression by laying hens in large groups: from peck orders to social tolerance

Cited by 102 publications

References 60 publications

The relevance of variations in group size and phenotypic appearance on the behaviour and movement patterns of young domestic fowl

The relevance of variations in group size and phenotypic appearance on the behaviour and movement patterns of young domestic fowl

Noncaged laying hens remain unflappable while wearing body-mounted sensors: Levels of agonistic behaviors remain unchanged and resource use is not reduced after habituation

Data-Based Analysis of Winner-Loser Models of Hierarchy Formation in Animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About