The behaviour of the domestic chicken: A review of the literature

Wood-Gush, D.G.M.

doi:10.1016/s0950-5601(55)80001-9

Cited by 95 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relationship of various individual behaviours to these items was discussed by Duncan (1970), while the role of social organization which was first pointed out by Sanctuary (1932) has been reviewed on several occasions (eg. Guhl, 1953;Wood-Gush, 1955;McBride, 1962a;Gottier, 1968;Kilgour, 1975). My concern here will be with the relationship of the social hierarchy with non-random mating and selection.…”

Section: Behavioural Effects Of Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behaviour Genetics in Chickens: A Review

Siegel

1979

World's Poultry Science Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The various behaviours exhibited by the Jungle fowl were instrumental in the initial domestication of the chicken which occurred during the Neolithic period. Since then, there has been concern with how various populations of chickens respond in different environments. These concerns include behaviour-genetics, as well as the other disciplines involved in the biology of the fowl.No attempt has been made to be encyclopaedic in this paper; rather, to have selected topics that provide an overview of the field as it relates to the chicken. The publications cited were selected from a much larger list within topical areas and readers interested in the behaviour of chickens per se, may find them in the general reviews of Wood-Gush (1971) andFischer (1975). Although no comparable recent publications on either the genetics of chickens or an interfacing of genetics and behaviour in the fowl are available, there have been attempts to provide a general overview of behavioural genetics (eg. Ehrman and Parsons, 1976;Fuller and Thompson, 1978).In an earlier publication (Siegel, 1970), it was pointed out that the combination of the disciplines of genetics and behaviour assumes an awareness of genetics of populations and the behaviour of individuals and populations. Genetically, there is also concern with differences in behavioural phenotypes among individuals in the population. As with morphological and physiological traits, the phenotypic expression of a behaviour is dependent on the genetic background, the environment, and the interplay of heredity and environment. Furthermore, prior experiences are complicating factors in studying behaviours, and caution must be exercised to minimize confounding from these sources. DomesticationDomestication results in a situation wherein the breeding, care and feeding of animals are, to some degree, subject to continuous control by man (Hale, 1962). Darwin (1875) suggested that domestic animals were modified through unconscious selection long before man selected for specific traits. He had noted earlier (Darwin, 1858) that domestication involved breeding in captivity, was goal oriented in an economic sense, and resulted in the disuse of certain naturally adapted features. 9 10

show abstract

Section: Behavioural Effects Of Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behaviour Genetics in Chickens: A Review

Siegel

1979

World's Poultry Science Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a linear hierarchy, one individual dominates all the others, a second dominates all but the first and so on. Linear hierarchies are rare except in small groups of animals (Wood-Gush 1955;Drews 1993), and in near-linear hierarchies the question arises of how best to order the group members. de Vries (1998) has recently reviewed methods that have been used for such ranking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring social structure using dynamic three-dimensional color images

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Turkeys are set apart from the pheasants and chickens by the paucity or absence of natural hybrids. The failure of turkeys to mate with, for example, chickens may well be due to differences in size and in mating behavior, the female having a more decisive role in initiating mating in the former than in the latter genus (Hale, 1955;Wood-Gush, 1955). The low viability of many of the hybrids, as shown particularly by the early death of a high percentage of embryos and the small percentage hatched, together with the sterility of the adult hybrids, points to additional significant genetic differences be-yond the relatively superficial ones of plumage color and head furnishings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%