Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:07:14.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of lambing distribution in the Ripollesa sheep breed. I. Development and comparison of circular von Mises models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

J. Casellas Open the ORCID record for J. Casellas [Opens in a new window] ,
M. Martín de Hijas-Villalba  and
S. Id-Lahoucine
J. Casellas*
Affiliation:
Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
M. Martín de Hijas-Villalba
Affiliation:
Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
S. Id-Lahoucine
Affiliation:
Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain Department of Animal Biosciences, Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Circular data originates in a wide range of scientific fields and can be analyzed on the basis of directional statistics and special distributions wrapped around the circumference. However, both propensity to transform non-linear to linear data and complexity of directional statistics limited the generalization of the circular paradigm in the animal breeding framework, among others. Here, we generalized a circular mixed (CM) model within the context of Bayesian inference. Three different parametrizations with different hierarchical structures were developed on basis of the von Mises distribution; moreover, both goodness of fit and predictive ability from each parametrization were compared through the analyses of 110 116 lambing distribution records collected from Ripollesa sheep herds between 1976 and 2017. The naive circular (NC) model only accounted for population mean and homogeneous circular variance, and reached the lowest goodness-of-fit and predictive ability. The CM model assumed a hierarchical structure for the population mean by accounting for systematic (ewe age and lambing interval) and permanent environmental sources of variation (flock-year-season and ewe). This improved goodness of fit by reducing both the deviance information criterion (DIC; −2520 units) and the mean square error (MSE; −12.4%) between simulated and predicted lambing data when compared against the NC model. Finally, the last parametrization expanded CM model by also assuming a hierarchical structure with systematic and permanent environmental factors for the variance parameter of the von Mises distribution (i.e. circular canalization (CC) model). This last model reached the best goodness of fit to lambing distribution data with a DIC estimate 5425 units lower than the one for NC model (MSE reduced 13.2%). The same pattern revealed when models were compared in terms of predictive ability. The superiority revealed by CC model emphasized the relevance of heteroskedasticity for the analysis of lambing distribution in the Ripollesa breed, and suggested potential applications for the sheep industry, even genetic selection for canalization. The development of CM models on the basis of the von Mises distribution has allowed to integrate flexible hierarchical structures accounting for different sources of variation and affecting both mean and dispersion terms. This must be viewed as a useful statistical tool with multiple applications in a wide range of research fields, as well as the livestock industry. The next mandatory step should be the inclusion of genetic terms in the hierarchical structure of the models in order to evaluate their potential contribution to current selection programs.

Keywords

circular datalambing distributionmixed modelmodel fitvon Mises
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 10 , October 2019 , pp. 2133 - 2139
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

Avdi, M, Driancourt, MA and Chemineau, P 1993. Variations saisonnières du comportement d’oestrus et de l’activité ovulatoire chez les brebis Chios et Serres en Grèce. Reproduction Nutrition Development 33, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begall, S, Červený, J, Neef, J, Vojtěch, O and Burda, H 2008. Magnetic alignment in grazing and resting cattle and deer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of U S A 105, 13451–13455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berens, P 2009. CircStat: A MATLAB toolbox for circular statistics. Journal of Statistical Software 31, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasco, A, Martínez-Álvaro, M, García, M-L, Ibáñez-Escriche, N and Argente, M-J 2017. Selection for environmental variance of litter size in rabbits. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 49, 48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boujenanet, I 2005. Small ruminant breeds of Morocco. In Characterization of small ruminant breeds in north Africa (ed. L Iniguez), pp. 5–54. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.Google Scholar
Breitenberger, E 1963. Analogues of the normal distribution on the circle and the sphere. Biometrika 50, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cancho-Candela, R, Andrés-de Llano, JM and Ardura-Fernández, J 2007. Decline and loss of birth seasonality in Spain: analysis of 33421731 birth over 60 years. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61, 713–718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casellas, J and Caja, G 2014. Fetal programming by co-twin rivalry in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 92, 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemineau, P, Bodin, L, Migaud, M, Thiéry, JC and Malpaux, B 2010. Neuroendocrine and genetic control of seasonal reproduction in sheep and goats. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 45 (suppl. 3), 42–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chemineau, P, Malpaux, B, Brillard, JP and Fostier, A 2007. Seasonality of reproduction and production in farm fishes, birds and mammals. Animal 1, 419–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erdem, E and Shi, J 2011. ARMA based approaches for forecasting the tuple of wind speed and direction. Applied Energy 88, 1405–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esquivelzeta, C, Fina, M, Bach, R, Madruga, C, Caja, G, Casellas, J and Piedrafita, J 2011. Morphological analysis and subpopulation characterization of Ripollesa sheep breed. Animal Genetic Resources Information 49, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finocchiaro, R, van Kaam, JBCHM, Portolano, B and Misztal, I 2005. Effect of heat stress on production of Mediterranean dairy sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1855–1864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, NI 1993. Statistical analysis of circular data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Pérez, AL, Hurtado, A, Oregui, LM and Juste, RA 2002. Effects of a second annual strategic anthelmintic treatment in dairy sheep in Northern Spain. Small Ruminant Research 43, 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfand, A and Smith, AFM 1990. Sampling based approaches to calculating marginal densities. Journal of the American Statistical Association 85, 398–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girolami, A, Napolitano, F, Faraone, D and Braghieri, A 2013. Measurement of meat color using a computer vision system. Meat Science 93, 111–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gündoğan, M, Baki, D and Yeni, D 2003. Reproductive seasonality in sheep. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 53, 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, JP, Nieto, B, Piqueras, P, Ibáñez-Escriche, N and Salgado, C 2006. Genetic parameters for canalisation analysis of litter size and litter weight traits at birth in mice. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 38, 445–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, DR 1973. Sire evaluation and genetic trends. In Proceedings of the Animal Breeding and Genetics Symposium in Honor of Dr. Jay L. Lush. ASAS and ADSA, Champaign, IL, USA, pp. 10–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibáñez-Escriche, N, Sorensen, D, Waagepetersen, R and Blasco, A 2008. Selection for environmental variation: a statistical analysis and power calculations to detect response. Genetics 180, 2209–2226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Id-Lahoucine, S and Casellas, J 2017. Impact of incomplete pedigree data and independent culling level pre-selection on the genetic evaluation of livestock: a simulation study on lamb growth. Livestock Science 198, 76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, TW, Dalton, DC and Hight, GK 1980. Changes in the median lambing dates and lambing pattern with variation in time of joining and breed of teasers. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 285–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovack, WL 2011. Oriana – circular statistics for windows, ver. 4. Kovach Computing Services, Pentraeth, Wales, UK.Google Scholar
Lewis, PD, Backhouse, D and Gous, RM 2004. Photoperiod and oviposition time in broiler breeders. British Poultry Science 45, 561–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marjanovic, J, Mulder, HA, Khaw, HL and Bijma, P 2016. Genetic parameters for uniformity of harvest weight and body size traits in the GIFT strain of Nile tilapia. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 48, 41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matos, CAP, Thomas, DL, Gianola, D, Pérez-Enciso, M and Young, LD 1997. Genetic analysis of discrete reproductive traits in sheep using linear and nonlinear models. II. Goodness-of-fit and predictive ability. Journal of Animal Science 75, 88–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metropolis, N, Rosenbluth, AW, Rosenbluth, MN, Teller, AH and Teller, E 1953. Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of Chemical Physics 21, 1087–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, HA, Bijma, P and Hill, WG 2008. Selection for uniformity in livestock by exploiting genetic heterogeneity of residual variance. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 40, 37–59.Google ScholarPubMed
Mulder, K and Klugkist, I 2017. Bayesian estimation and hypothesis tests for a circular generalized linear model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 80, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raftery, AE and Lewis, SM 1992. How many iterations in the Gibbs sampler?. In Bayesian statistics IV (ed. Bernardo, JM, Berger, JO, Dawid, AP and Smith, AFM), pp. 763–773. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Rosa, HJD and Bryant, MJ 2003. Seasonality of reproduction in sheep. Small Ruminant Research 48, 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SanCristobal-Gaudy, M, Elsen, J-M, Bodin, L and Chevalet, C 1998. Prediction of the response to a selection for canalisation of a continuous trait in animal breeding. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 30, 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffner, I, Siegmund, B and Wiltschko, R 2014. Following the sun: a mathematical analysis of the tracks of clock-shifted homing pigeons. Journal of Experimental Biology 217, 2643–2649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spiegelhalter, DJ, Best, NG, Carlin, BP and van der Linder, A 2002. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 64, 583–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Tassell, CP and Van Vleck, LD 1996. Multiple-trait Gibbs sampler for animal models: flexible programs for Bayesian and likelihood-based (co)variance component inference. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2586–2597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varona, L, Misztal, I and Bertrand, JK 1999. Threshold-linear versus linear-linear analysis of birth weight and calving ease wsing an animal model. II. Comparison of models. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2003–2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, ZZ, McKnight, DJ, Vishwanath, R, Pitt, CJ and Burton, LJ 1998. Estrus detection using radiotelemetry or visual observation and tail painting for dairy cows on pasture. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 2890–2896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed