1
|
Menezes J, Rangel E. Locally adaptive aggregation of organisms under death risk in rock-paper-scissors models. Biosystems 2023; 227-228:104901. [PMID: 37121500 DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2023.104901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2023] [Revised: 04/07/2023] [Accepted: 04/07/2023] [Indexed: 05/02/2023]
Abstract
We run stochastic simulations of the spatial version of the rock-paper-scissors game, considering that individuals use sensory abilities to scan the environment to detect the presence of enemies. If the local dangerousness level is above a tolerable threshold, individuals aggregate instead of moving randomly on the lattice. We study the impact of the locally adaptive aggregation on the organisms' spatial organisation by measuring the characteristic length scale of the spatial domains occupied by organisms of a single species. Our results reveal that aggregation is beneficial if triggered when the local density of opponents does not exceed 30%; otherwise, the behavioural strategy may harm individuals by increasing the average death risk. We show that if organisms can perceive further distances, they can accurately scan and interpret the signals from the neighbourhood, maximising the effects of the locally adaptive aggregation on the death risk. Finally, we show that the locally adaptive aggregation behaviour promotes biodiversity independently of the organism's mobility. The coexistence probability rises if organisms join conspecifics, even in the presence of a small number of enemies. We verify that our conclusions hold for more complex systems by simulating the generalised rock-paper-scissors models with five and seven species. Our discoveries may be helpful to ecologists in understanding systems where organisms' self-defence behaviour adapts to local environmental cues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Menezes
- Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands; School of Science and Technology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Caixa Postal 1524, 59072-970, Natal, RN, Brazil.
| | - E Rangel
- School of Science and Technology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Caixa Postal 1524, 59072-970, Natal, RN, Brazil; Department of Computer Engineering and Automation, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Av. Senador Salgado Filho 300, Natal, 59078-970, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gray H, Davies R, Bright A, Rayner A, Asher L. Why Do Hens Pile? Hypothesizing the Causes and Consequences. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7:616836. [PMID: 33363246 PMCID: PMC7758342 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.616836] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2020] [Accepted: 11/16/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Piling is a behavior in laying hens whereby individuals aggregate in larger densities than would be normally expected. When piling behavior leads to mortalities it is known as smothering and its frequent but unpredictable occurrence is a major concern for many egg producers. There are generally considered to be three types of piling: panic, nest box and recurring piling. Whilst nest box and panic piling have apparent triggers, recurring piling does not, making it an enigmatic and ethologically intriguing behavior. The repetitive nature of recurring piling may result in a higher incidence of smothering and could have unconsidered, sub-lethal consequences. Here, we consider the possible causes of recurring piling from an ethological perspective and outline the potential welfare and production consequences. Drawing on a wide range of literature, we consider different timescales of causes from immediate triggers to ontogeny and domestication processes, and finally consider the evolution of collective behavior. By considering different timescales of influence, we built four hypotheses relevant to the causes of piling, which state that the behavior: (i) is caused by hens moving toward or away from an attractant/repellent; (ii) is socially influenced; (iii) is influenced by early life experiences and; (iv) can be described as a maladaptive collective behavior. We further propose that the following could be welfare consequences of piling behavior: Heat stress, physical injury (such as keel bone damage), and behavioral and physiological stress effects. Production consequences include direct and indirect mortality (smothering and knock-on effects of piling, respectively), potential negative impacts on egg quality and on worker welfare. In future studies the causes of piling and smothering should be considered according to the different timescales on which causes might occur. Here, both epidemiological and modeling approaches could support further study of piling behavior, where empirical studies can be challenging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Gray
- Asher Behaviour Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Rachel Davies
- Asher Behaviour Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Ashleigh Bright
- FAI Farms Ltd., The Barn, Wytham, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
| | - Ann Rayner
- FAI Farms Ltd., The Barn, Wytham, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
| | - Lucy Asher
- Asher Behaviour Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sibanda TZ, Welch M, Schneider D, Kolakshyapati M, Ruhnke I. Characterising Free-Range Layer Flocks Using Unsupervised Cluster Analysis. Animals (Basel) 2020; 10:E855. [PMID: 32429144 PMCID: PMC7278471 DOI: 10.3390/ani10050855] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2020] [Revised: 05/06/2020] [Accepted: 05/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to identify sub-populations of free-range laying hens and describe the pattern of their resource usage, which can affect hen performance and welfare. In three commercial flocks, 3125 Lohmann Brown hens were equipped with radio-frequency identification (RFID) transponder leg bands and placed with their flock companions, resulting in a total of 40,000 hens/flock. Hens were monitored for their use of the aviary system, including feeder lines, nest boxes, and the outdoor range. K-means and agglomerative cluster analysis, optimized with the Calinski-Harabasz Criterion, was performed and identified three clusters. Individual variation in time duration was observed in all the clusters with the highest individual differences observed on the upper feeder (140 ± 1.02%) and the range (176 ± 1.03%). Hens of cluster 1 spent the least amount time on the range and the most time on the feed chain located at the upper aviary tier (p < 0.05). We conclude that an uneven load on the resources, as well as consistent and inconsistent movement patterns, occur in the hen house. Further analysis of the data sets using classification models based on support vector machines, artificial neural networks, and decision trees are warranted to investigate the contribution of these and other parameters on hen performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Terence Zimazile Sibanda
- School of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia; (M.K.); (I.R.)
| | - Mitchell Welch
- Precision Agriculture Research Group, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia; (M.W.); (D.S.)
| | - Derek Schneider
- Precision Agriculture Research Group, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia; (M.W.); (D.S.)
| | - Manisha Kolakshyapati
- School of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia; (M.K.); (I.R.)
| | - Isabelle Ruhnke
- School of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia; (M.K.); (I.R.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ali AB, Campbell DL, Karcher DM, Siegford JM. Daytime occupancy of resources and flooring types by 4 laying hen strains in a commercial-style aviary. J Vet Behav 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jveb.2019.03.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
5
|
Using Radio-Frequency Identification Technology to Measure Synchronised Ranging of Free-Range Laying Hens. Animals (Basel) 2018; 8:ani8110210. [PMID: 30453521 PMCID: PMC6262442 DOI: 10.3390/ani8110210] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2018] [Revised: 10/22/2018] [Accepted: 11/13/2018] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Free-range laying hens can choose to be indoors or outdoors. Individual hens vary in their ranging choice and this behaviour could also be affected by their flock mates. Radio-frequency identification tracking of individual hens in experimental free-range pens with group sizes of 46–50 hens was used to study flock ranging patterns. Across the day, hens moved through the range pop-holes in the same direction as other hens above levels expected by random chance, termed ‘pop-hole-following’. Hens were also simultaneously indoors or outdoors with other specific hens more often than expected by random chance, termed ‘hen-pair association’. Chicks that were provided variable stimulatory and structural enrichments from 4 to 21 days showed higher pop-hole-following and hen-pair association than non-enriched birds. The individual birds within these small hen groups were behaving primarily as a cohesive flock which has implications for understanding the group-level behaviour of hens. Further research would analyse if similar social movement patterns were present in larger commercial free-range flocks and how early rearing environments may affect adult social behaviour. Abstract Free-range laying hen systems provide individuals a choice between indoor and outdoor areas where range use may be socially influenced. This study used radio-frequency identification technology to track the ranging of individually-tagged hens housed in six experimental free-range pens from 28 to 38 weeks of age (46–50 hens/pen). All daily visits to the range were used to study group behaviour. Results showed that 67.6% (SD = 5.0%) of all hen movements through the pop-holes outdoors or indoors were following the movement of another hen (‘pop-hole-following’) compared to only 50.5% of movements in simulated random data. The percentage overlap in time that all combinations of hen pairs within each pen spent simultaneously outdoors or indoors showed a median value of overlap greater than the 90th percentile of random data. Pens housing hens that had been provided variable enrichments from 4 to 21 days (n = 3 pens) showed higher ‘pop-hole-following’ behaviour and a higher percentage of hen-pair association compared to hens reared in non-enriched conditions (n = 3 pens). These results show that birds in each free-range pen were primarily a cohesive flock and early enrichment improved this social cohesiveness. These results have implications for understanding free-range flock-level behaviour.
Collapse
|
6
|
Ali ABA, Campbell DLM, Karcher DM, Siegford JM. Influence of genetic strain and access to litter on spatial distribution of 4 strains of laying hens in an aviary system. Poult Sci 2016; 95:2489-2502. [PMID: 27444438 PMCID: PMC5049101 DOI: 10.3382/ps/pew236] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/27/2016] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Many laying hen producers are transitioning from conventional cages to new housing systems including multi-tier aviaries. Aviary resources, such as litter areas, are intended to encourage hens’ expression of natural behaviors to improve their welfare. Little research has examined the influence of laying hen strain on distribution and behavior inside aviaries, yet differences could influence a strain's suitability for an aviary design. This research examined how laying hens of 4 strains (Hy-Line Brown [HB], Bovans Brown [BB], DeKalb White [DW], and Hy-Line W36) distributed themselves among 3 enclosed aviary tiers and 2 litter areas at peak lay (25 to 28 wk of age) and after gaining access to litter on the floor (26 wk). Observations of hens’ spatial distribution were conducted immediately before and after, and 3 wk after hens gained access to litter. More HB and BB hens were in upper tiers in morning compared to DW and W36 (all P ≤ 0.05). However, DW and W36 hens roosted in upper tiers in larger numbers than HB and BB during evening (all P ≤ 0.05). More DW and W36 hens were on litter compared to BB and HB, particularly when litter was first accessible (all P ≤ 0.05). The number of hens on litter increased over time for all strains (P ≤ 0.06). White hens on litter occupied open areas in higher numbers (P ≤ 0.05), while more brown hens occupied litter under the aviary after acclimation (P ≤ 0.05). In the dark period, W36 and DW hens were present in higher numbers in upper tiers than HB and BB, while HB and BB showed higher tier-to-tier movement than DW and W36 (P ≤ 0.05). In general, more white hens roosted higher at night and explored litter sooner, while more brown hens were near or in nests in the morning and moved at night. Distinct strain differences indicate that attention should be paid to the match between configuration of the aviary design and strain of laying hen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A B A Ali
- Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
| | - D L M Campbell
- Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
| | - D M Karcher
- Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
| | - J M Siegford
- Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Campbell D, Makagon M, Swanson J, Siegford J. Laying hen movement in a commercial aviary: Enclosure to floor and back again. Poult Sci 2016. [DOI: 10.3382/ps/pev186] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
8
|
Liste G, Asher L, Broom DM. When a Duck Initiates Movement, Do Others Follow? Testing Preference in Groups. Ethology 2014. [DOI: 10.1111/eth.12294] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Guiomar Liste
- Department of Veterinary Medicine; Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology; University of Cambridge; Cambridge UK
| | - Lucy Asher
- School of Veterinary Medicine and Science; University of Nottingham; Loughborough UK
| | - Donald M. Broom
- Department of Veterinary Medicine; Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology; University of Cambridge; Cambridge UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Koene P, Ipema B. Social Networks and Welfare in Future Animal Management. Animals (Basel) 2014; 4:93-118. [PMID: 26479886 PMCID: PMC4494306 DOI: 10.3390/ani4010093] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2014] [Revised: 02/26/2014] [Accepted: 03/10/2014] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Living in a stable social environment is important to animals. Animal species have developed social behaviors and rules of approach and avoidance of conspecifics in order to co-exist. Animal species are kept or domesticated without explicit regard for their inherent social behavior and rules. Examples of social structures are provided for four species kept and managed by humans. This information is important for the welfare management of these species. In the near future, automatic measurement of social structures will provide a tool for daily welfare management together with nearest neighbor information. Abstract It may become advantageous to keep human-managed animals in the social network groups to which they have adapted. Data concerning the social networks of farm animal species and their ancestors are scarce but essential to establishing the importance of a natural social network for farmed animal species. Social Network Analysis (SNA) facilitates the characterization of social networking at group, subgroup and individual levels. SNA is currently used for modeling the social behavior and management of wild animals and social welfare of zoo animals. It has been recognized for use with farm animals but has yet to be applied for management purposes. Currently, the main focus is on cattle, because in large groups (poultry), recording of individuals is expensive and the existence of social networks is uncertain due to on-farm restrictions. However, in many cases, a stable social network might be important to individual animal fitness, survival and welfare. For instance, when laying hens are not too densely housed, simple networks may be established. We describe here small social networks in horses, brown bears, laying hens and veal calves to illustrate the importance of measuring social networks among animals managed by humans. Emphasis is placed on the automatic measurement of identity, location, nearest neighbors and nearest neighbor distance for management purposes. It is concluded that social networks are important to the welfare of human-managed animal species and that welfare management based on automatic recordings will become available in the near future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Koene
- Department of Animal Welfare, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands.
| | - Bert Ipema
- Department of Farm Systems, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|