Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:45:10.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial distribution patterns of sheep following manipulation of feeding motivation and food availability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2011

R. Freire ,
D. L. Swain  and
M. A. Friend
R. Freire*
Affiliation:
EH Graham Centre, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Locked bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia
D. L. Swain
Affiliation:
Centre for Environmental Management, Central Queensland University, Bruce Highway, Rockhampton, QLD 4701, Australia
M. A. Friend
Affiliation:
EH Graham Centre, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Locked bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia
*
†E-mail: rfreire@csu.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

We hypothesised that (i) increased feeding motivation will cause sheep to move further apart as a result of individuals trying to find food and (ii) in conditions of high food availability, sheep will move less and show greater social attraction. The effects of both feeding motivation and food availability on spatial distribution was examined in eight groups of food-deprived (high feeding motivation) and satiated (low feeding motivation) sheep in good or poor food resource plots in a 2 × 2 design. Distance travelled was assessed using Global Positioning System collars, grazing time using scan sampling and social cohesion using proximity collars that record the number and duration of encounters within 4 m. Food-deprived sheep in the good-resource plots grazed the most, whereas satiated sheep in the poor-resource plots grazed the least (P = 0.004). Food deprivation had no significant effect on the number or duration of encounters and feeding motivation appeared to have little effect on spatial distribution. Contrary to expectation, sheep had more encounters (P = 0.04) of a longer total duration (P = 0.02) in poor-resource plots than in good-resource plots, indicating that sheep were showing more social cohesion if food was scarce. Our findings suggest that when food is scarce, animals may come together in an attempt to share information on food availability. However, when a highly preferred food is abundant and well dispersed, they may move apart in order to maximise the intake. It is concluded that the particular details of our experiment, namely the even distribution or absence of a highly preferred food, affected spatial distribution patterns as sheep tried to find this food and maximise the intake.

Keywords

spatial distributiongroup livingfood availabilitysheep
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Special Issue 5: Symposium “Sustainable animal production in the tropics” (SAPT), Guadeloupe, France, November 15–18, 2010 , May 2012 , pp. 846 - 851
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Arnold, GW, Maller, RA 1985. An analysis of factors influencing spatial distribution in flocks of grazing sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, CW, Mangel, M 1984. Foraging and flocking strategies: information in an uncertain environment. American Naturalist 123, 626–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B, Boissy, A 2000. Grazing behaviour in sheep in a situation of conflict between feeding and social motivations. Behavioural Processes 49, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dall, SRX, Giraldeau, L-A, Olsson, O, McNamara, JM, Stephens, DW 2005. Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20, 187–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fryxell, JM 1991. Forage quality and aggregation by large herbivores. American Naturalist 138, 478–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giraldeau, LA, Caraco, T 2000. Social foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand, TC, Dill, LM 1999. The effect of group size on the foraging behaviour of juvenile coho salmon: reduction of predation risk or increased competition. Animal Behaviour 58, 443–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hakoyama, H, Iguchi, K 1997. The information of food distribution realizes an ideal free distribution: support and perceptual limitations. Journal of Ethology 15, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitson, L, Gordon, IJ, Dumont, B 2007. Social context affects patch-leaving decisions of sheep in a variable environment. Animal Behaviour 74, 239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ji, WH, White, PCL, Clout, MN 2005. Contact rates between possums revealed by proximity loggers. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 595–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelena, P, Gautrais, J, Gérard, J-F, Bon, R, Deneubourg, J-L 2008. Social cohesion in groups of sheep: effect of activity level, sex composition and group size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullen, JP, Matis, T, Adams, K, Ranganet, S 2004. Achieving robust protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks. Proceedings of the IERC (Industrial Engineering Research Conference), Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
Nocera, JJ, Forbes, GJ, Giraldeau, L-A 2008. Aggregations from using inadvertent social information: a form of ideal habitat selection. Ecography 32, 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oom, SP, Sibbald, AM, Hester, AJ, Miller, DR, Legg, CJ 2008. Impacts of sheep grazing a complex vegetation mosaic: relating behaviour to vegetation change. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 124, 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penning, PD, Parsons, AJ, Orr, RJ, Treacher, TT 1991. Intake and behavior responses by sheep to changes in sward characteristics under continuous stocking. Grass Forage Science 46, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibbald, AM, Hooper, RJ 2004. Sociability and the willingness of individual sheep to move away from their companions in order to graze. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibbald, AM, Shellard, LJF, Smart, TS 2000. Effects of space allowance on the grazing behaviour and spacing of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70, 49–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sibbald, AM, Oom, SP, Hooper, RJ, 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, 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
Swain, DL, 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
Verbeek, E, Waas, J, McLeay, L, Matthews, LR 2009. Measurement of feeding motivation in sheep: effect of food restriction. International Society for Applied Ethology, Cairns, Australia.Google Scholar