4.5 Article

Decision making in group departures of sheep is a continuous process

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 78, 期 1, 页码 71-78

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.03.017

关键词

collective; movement; Ovis aries; predeparture; recruitment; sheep

资金

  1. INRA
  2. Groupement de Recherche d'Ethologie [2822]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For coordinated movement, group-living individuals have to reach consensus decisions through recruitment processes. Success in recruitment can depend on the spatial distribution and behaviour of animals before and/or after departure, and on their affinitive relationships. We tested the effect of such factors on recruitment processes in a group of 19 ewe lambs, Ovis aries, at pasture. Two observers continuously videotaped the behaviours of animals from a platform located in the centre of the field. Results showed that group orientation, group vigilance and activities such as head movements, stillness and number of steps increased before departure. Using general linear modelling we found that changes in most of these variables predicted the number of participants in movements. Similarly, activity of the first mover was modified in the last 2 min preceding departure, and at departure time the location and number of close neighbours of the first mover were especially influential in recruiting conspecifics. Animals first recruited were those that were close to the first mover and also its preferential partners. The behaviours of the second and third moving individuals could further influence the recruitment process. Moreover, there were clues that individuals were able to recruit others intentionally. Our findings emphasize that decision making in a group of domestic sheep was a continuous and distributed process. Recruitment depended both on group state and on the behaviour of individuals and their social relationships. (C) 2009 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据