Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T00:03:16.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nesting type choice in the red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R. Robles ,
M.E. Alonso ,
J. M. Sánchez ,
J.A. Olmedo  and
V.R. Gaudioso
R. Robles
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal II, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de León, Campus de Vegazana, 24071 León, Spain
M.E. Alonso
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal II, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de León, Campus de Vegazana, 24071 León, Spain
J. M. Sánchez
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal II, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de León, Campus de Vegazana, 24071 León, Spain
J.A. Olmedo
Affiliation:
Diputación Provincial de Valladolid, Spain
V.R. Gaudioso
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal II, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de León, Campus de Vegazana, 24071 León, Spain
Get access

Abstract

In order to avoid the decrease in the numbers of wild red-legged partridge, Alectoris rufa, observed in several areas, the most appropiate solution is to repopulate using animals from game farms. The nesting place chosen by 30 pairs of red-legged partridge in captivity was studied. There were five different nest types combined in groups of three in 30 cages. Type A nest: made with natural bush plants tied together at one end and placed invertedly forming a cone. Type B: made with the same natural bush plants as the previous type but placed over an internal wire structure and having preformed entrances. Type C: a wooden structure in the form of a roof with two slopes. Type D: similar to the type C but on one of the laterals the opaque material only covers the upper half, and a plastic mesh covers the lower half. Type E: a wooden square box covered with an inclined plank of opaque and waterproof material. Our study shows that the type A nest received significantly (P < 0·05) more eggs than the others, possibly because this type of nest allowed for better vigilance and a better sense of protection for the animals. Type E nest was the second most preferred. In this type, the partridge was able to monitor the surroundings through the space between the walls and the roof and this space could be used as an escape route. From a production and industrial perspective, type E has some advantages over type A, being easy to build, clean and disinfect, and allowing the birds to see through the nest.

Keywords

nestspartridgesreproductive behaviour
Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 29 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anuario de Estadística Agraria de Castilla y León. 1995. Junta de Castilla y Léon, Conserjería de Agricultura y Ganadería. Secretaría General, Servicio de Estadística y Estudios. Zamora, pp. 5–12.Google Scholar
Appleby, M.C. 1990. Behaviour of laying hens in cages with nest sites. British Poultry Science 31: 71–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, M.C. and Smith, S.F. 1991. Design of nest boxes for laying cages. British Poultry Science 32: 667–678.Google Scholar
Beani, L. 1988. Un fattore critico nella riproduzione della starna (Perdix perdix) in cattività: il punto di nidificacione. Atti del I Convegno Nazionale dei Biologi della Selvaggina, vol. XIV, pp. 183–196. Istituto Nazionale di Biologia Della Selvaggina ‘Alessandro Ghigi’.Google Scholar
Csermely, D., Mainardi, D. and Spanò, S. 1980. The sensitive period for imprinting in Alectoris rufa . Avocetta 4: 27–30.Google Scholar
Csermely, D., Mainardi, D. and Spanò, S. 1983. Escape reaction of captive young red-legged partridges (Alectoris rufa) reared with or without visual contact with man. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 177–182.Google Scholar
Green, R.E. 1984. Double nesting of the red-legged partridge Alectoris rufa . Ibis 126: 332–346.Google Scholar
Hughes, B.O., Duncan, I.J. H. and Brown, M.F. 1989. The performance of nest building by domestic hens: is it more important than the construction of a nest? Animal Behaviour 37: 210–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucio, A.J. 1991. Selección de hábitat de la perdiz roja (Alectoris rufa) en matorrales supramediterraneos del NW de la cuenca del Duero. Aplicaciones para la gestión del hábitat cinegético. Ecología 5: 337–353.Google Scholar
Meriggi, A. 1992. Estado de gestión de las poblaciones de perdiz roja Alectoris rufa en Italia. In La perdiz roja. Gestión del Hábitat. Fundación La Caixa (ed. Aedos, L.), pp. 101–115.Google Scholar
Rands, M.R. W. 1988. The effect of nest site selection on nest predation in grey partridge Perdix perdix and red-legged partridge. Alectoris rufa. Ornis Scandinavica 19: 35–40.Google Scholar
Ricci, J.C. 1992. Situación de la perdiz roja en Francia. Gestión y reconstitución de las poblaciones. Nidificación y predación. In La perdiz roja. Gestión del Hábitat. Fundación La Caixa (ed. Aedos, L.), pp. 117–139.Google Scholar
Ricci, J.C., Mathon, J., García, A., Berger, F. and Esteke, J. 1990. Effect of habitat structure and nest site selection on nest predation in red-legged partridges in French Mediterranean farmlands. Gibier Faune Sauvage 7: 231–253.Google Scholar
Spanò, S., Csermely, D. and Mainardi, D. 1986. Early food experince and later preferences in young red-legged partridges. Bolletino di Zoologia 53: 365–367.Google Scholar