Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:56:38.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to estimate variability in affinity relationships in partially observed groups of domestic herbivores?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2014

L. Della-Rossa ,
B. Dumont  and
J. Chadœuf
L. Della-Rossa
Affiliation:
Institut national de la recherche agronomique, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
B. Dumont
Affiliation:
Institut national de la recherche agronomique, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
J. Chadœuf*
Affiliation:
INRA, Statistics, UR 1052, Domaine St Maurice, 67 Allée des Chênes, CS 60094, 84143 Montfavet Cedex, France
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Animal sociability measurements based on inter-individual distances or nearest-neighbour distributions can be obtained automatically with telemetry collars. So far, all the indices that have been used require the whole group to be observed. Here, we propose an index of the variability in affinity relationships in groups of domestic herbivores, whose definition does not depend on group size and that can be used even if some data are missing. This index and its estimators are based on a function that measures how frequently an animal is closer than another one from a third animal. When no data are missing, we show that our estimator and the variance of the sociability matrix sensu Sibbald (considered as the reference method) are strongly correlated. We then consider two cases of missing data. In the first case, some animals are randomly missing, that is, to account for random breakdown of telemetry collars. Our estimator is unbiased by such missing data and its variance decreases as the number of observation dates increases. In the second case, the same animals are missing at all observation dates, that is, in large herds where there are more individuals to be observed than available telemetry collars. Our estimator of affinity variance within a group is biased by such missing data. Thus, it requires changing animals equipped with telemetry collars regularly during the experiment. Conversely, the estimator remains unbiased at the population level, that is, if several independent groups are being analysed. We finally illustrate how this estimator can be used by investigating changes in the variability of affinities according to group size in grazing heifers.

Keywords

cattleglobal positioning systemgrazingmissing datasimulationsocial behaviour
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 5 , May 2014 , pp. 817 - 826
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Andersson, M, Gudmundsson, J, Laube, P and Wolle, T 2007. Reporting leaders and followers among trajectories of moving point objects. Geoinformatica 12, 497–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, GW and Pahl, PJ 1974. Some aspects of social behaviour in domestic sheep. Animal Behaviour 22, 592–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, GW and Dudzinski, ML 1978. Ethology of free-ranging domestic animals. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Aschwanden, J, Gygax, L, Wechsler, B and Keil, NM 2008. Social distances of goats at the feeding rack: influence of the quality of social bonds,rank differences, grouping age and presence of horns. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114, 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, DW, Dumont, B and Wallis De Vries, MF 1998. Utilization of heterogeneous grasslands by domestic herbivores: theory to management. Annales de Zootechnie 47, 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bejder, L, Fletcher, D and Brager, S 1998. A method for testing association patterns of social animals. Animal Behaviour 56, 719–725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boissy, A and Dumont, B 2002. Interactions between social and feeding motivations on the grazing behaviour of herbivores: sheep more easily split into subgroups with familiar peers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouissou, MF, Boissy, A, Le Neindre, P and Veissier, I 2001. The social behaviour of cattle. In Social behaviour in farm animals (ed. LJ Keeling and HW Gonyou), pp. 113–146. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boval, M and Dixon, RM 2012. The importance of grasslands for animal production and other functions: a review on management and methodological progress in the tropics. Animal 6, 748–762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conradt, L and Roper, TJ 2010. Deciding group movements: where and when to go. Behavioural Processes 84, 675–677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Della-Rossa, L, Chadœuf, J, Boissy, A and Dumont, B 2013. Leaders of spontaneous group movements influence whole-group social organization: an experimental study on grazing heifers. Behaviour 150, 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B, Garel, JP, Ginane, C, Decuq, F, Farruggia, A, Pradel, P, Rigolot, C and Petit, M 2007. Effect of cattle grazing a species-rich mountain pasture under different stocking rates on the dynamics of diet selection and sward structure. Animal 1, 1042–1052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Efron, B and Tibshirani, R 1993. An Introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Færevik, G, Andersen, IL, Jensen, MB and Bøe, KE 2007. Increased group size reduces conflicts and strengthens the preference for familiar group mates after regrouping of weaned dairy calves (Bos taurus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, R, Swain, DL and Friend, MA 2012. Spatial distribution patterns of sheep following manipulation of feeding motivation and food availability. Animal 6, 846–851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbons, JM, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, MJ 2010. Measuring sociability in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 122, 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gygax, L, Neisen, G and Wechler, B 2010. Socio-spatial relationships in dairy cows. Ethology 116, 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L, Jensen, MB and Jeppesen, LL 2002. Calves motivation for access to two different types of social contact measured by operant conditioning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopster, H and Blokhuis, HJ 1994. Consistent individual stress response of dairy cows during social isolation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40, 83–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howery, LD, Provenza, FD, Banner, RE and Scott, CB 1998. Social and environmental factors influence cattle distribution on rangeland. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, AJ, Douglas, CMS, Huchard, E, Isaac, NJB and Cowlishaw, G 2008. Dominance and affiliation mediate despotism in a social primate. Current Biology 18, 1833–1838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laube, P, Kreveld, M and Imfeld, S 2005. Finding REMO-detecting relative motion patterns in geospatial lifelines. In Developments in spatial data handling (ed. PF Fisher), pp. 201–215. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ligout, S, Foulquié, D, Sèbe, F, Bouix, J and Boissy, A 2011. Assessment of sociability in farm animals the use of arena test in lambs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135, 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, N and Gerlai, R 2011. Redefining membership in animal groups. Behavior Research Methods 43, 964–970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penning, PD, Parsons, AJ, Newman, JA, Orr, RJ and Harvey, A 1993. The effects of group size on grazing time in sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peyrard, N, Calonnec, A, Bonnot, F and Chadœuf, J 2005. Explorer un jeu de données sur grille par tests de permutation. Revue de Statistique Appliquée LIII (1), 59–78.Google Scholar
Ramseyer, A, Boissy, A, Dumont, B and Thierry, B 2009a. Decision-making processes in group departures of sheep is a continuous process. Animal Behaviour 78, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramseyer, A, Thierry, B, Boissy, A and Dumont, B 2009b. Decision-making processes in group departures of cattle. Ethology 115, 948–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rault, JL 2012. Friends with benefits: social support and its relevance for farm animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 136, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheibe, KM, Schleusner, T, Berger, A, Eichhorn, K, Langbein, J, Dal Zotto, L and Streich, WJ 1998. ETHOSYS®-new system for recording and analysis of behaviour of free-ranging domestic animals and wildlife. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlecht, E, Hülsebusch, C, Mahler, F and Becker, K 2004. The use of differentially corrected global positioning system to monitor activities of cattle at pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibbald, AM, Elston, DA, Smith, DJF and Erhard, HW 2005. A method for assessing the relative sociability of individuals within groups: an example with grazing sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91, 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibbald, AM, Oom, SP, Hooper, RJ and Anderson, RM 2008. Effects of social behaviour on the spatial distribution of sheep grazing a complex vegetation mosaic. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 115, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibbald, AM, Erhard, HW, Hooper, RJ, Dumont, B and Boissy, A 2006. A test for measuring individual variation in how far grazing animals will move away from a social group to feed. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solanas, A, Salafranca, L, Riba, C, Sierra, V and Leiva, D 2006. Quantifying social asymmetric structures. Behavior Research Methods 38, 390–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoyan, D, Kendall, WS and Mecke, J 1987. Stochastic geometry and its applications. John Wiley & Sons, Berlin.Google Scholar
Sueur, C, Deneubourg, JL, Petit, O and Couzin, ID 2011. Group size, grooming and fission in primates: a modeling approach based on group structure. Journal of Theoretical Biology 273, 156–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swain, DL and Bishop-Hurley, GJ 2007. Using contact logging devices to explore animal affiliations: quantifying cow-calf interactions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, DL and Friend, MA 2013. Opportunities for telemetry techniques in studies on the nutritional ecology of free-ranging domesticated ruminants. Animal 7 (suppl. 1), 123–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson-Haigh, NS, O’Neill, CJ and Kadarmideen, HN 2012. Proximity loggers: data handling and classification for quality control. Sensor Journal, IEEE 12, 1611–1617.Google Scholar
Whitehead, H 1999. Testing association patterns of social animals. Animal Behaviour 57, 26–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitehead, H 2009. SOCPROG programs: analysing animal social structures. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63, 765–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Z 2011. Detecting and identifying collective phenomena within movement data. PhD, Computer Science, University of Exeter, 162pp.Google Scholar