Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:16:50.647Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare and mate choice in zebra finches: effect of handling regime and presence of cover

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

SA Collins ,
JA Archer  and
CJ Barnard
SA Collins*
Affiliation:
School of Biology, Portland Square, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK
JA Archer
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour & Ecology, School of Biology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
CJ Barnard
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour & Ecology, School of Biology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Much attention has been focused, quite rightly, on the welfare of laboratory rodents and farm animals but certain other groups have been less well represented in welfare research. Small birds, for example, are often kept as pets and used in a wide variety of behavioural and physiological experiments where ‘best’ housing conditions are based on advice from experienced keepers as opposed to being tested experimentally. We investigated the effects of two husbandry conditions on the welfare of captive zebra finches: a) optional cover and b) rewarded handling versus random rewards. As a correlate of welfare in the four conditions (cover + reward, cover, reward, nothing), we recorded the time to settle and perform normal behaviours after an experimenter entered the room throughout the study (ie habituation to disturbance). In addition, we measured female preference for males in the four conditions to see whether welfare situation affected attractiveness as a mate. Birds in the two conditions where a reward was provided settled most quickly; and their settling time decreased across the study. Birds provided with cover alone became more disturbed by the entry of the experimenter as the study progressed. However, the birds taking longest on average to settle were those in cages with no cover and no reward. Females preferred males in the reward conditions as mates, either due to the fact that these males settled more quickly or because less-stressed males are more attractive in some other way. Thus, rewarding birds after disturbance is an effective and simple way to improve habituation to handling and human presence. In addition, these birds are more attractive to females, implying that males more habituated to captivity may be preferred as mates. Provision of cover may help under certain circumstances, but appears paradoxically to lead to increased fearfulness over time under the conditions studied here.

Keywords

animal welfarecage birdshandling rewardhusbandrymate choicezebra finch
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 11 - 17
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Buchwald, T and Wechsler, B 1997 The effect of cover on the behaviour of Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burley, N and Coopersmith, CB 1987 Bill color preferences of zebra finches. Ethology 76: 133–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burley, NT, Parker, PG and Lundy, K 1996 Sexual selection and extrapair fertilization in a socially monogamous passerine, the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Behavioural Ecology 7: 218–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabanac, A and Briese, E 1992 Handling elevates the colonic temperature of mice. Physiology & Behaviour 51: 95–98CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, SA 1994 Male displays – cause or effect of female preference. Animal Behaviour 48: 371–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, SA and ten Cate, C 1996 Does beak colour affect female preference in zebra finches? Animal Behaviour 52: 105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, SA and Luddem, ST 2002 Degree of male ornamentation affects female preferences for conspecific versus heterospecific males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 269: 111–117CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, M 1981 Priorities in the cage size and flooring preferences of domestic hens. British Poultry Science 22: 255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, AM and Zann, RA 1996a Undirected song in wild zebra finch flocks: Contexts and effects of mate removal. Ethology 102: 529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, AM and Zann, RA 1996b Undirected song encourages the breeding female zebra finch to remain in the nest. Ethology 102: 540–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forstmeier, W, Coltman, DW and Birkhead, TR 2004 Maternal effects influence the sexual behavior of sons and daughters in the zebra finch. Evolution 58: 2574–2583Google ScholarPubMed
Geers, R, Janssens, G, Villé, H, Bleus, F, Gerard, H, Janssens, S and Jourquin, J 1995 Effect of human contact on heart rate of pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 351–359Google Scholar
Greenwood, VJ, Smith, EL, Goldsmith, AR, Cuthill, IC, Crisp, LH, Walter-Swan, MB and Bennet, ATD 2004 Does the flicker frequency of fluorescent lighting affect the welfare of captive European starlings? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86: 145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, WB and Siegel, PB 1979 Adaptation of chickens to their handlers and experimental results. In: Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO (eds) Animal Welfare. CABI: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, P, Morton, DB, Cameron, D and Cuthill, IC, Francis, R, Freire, R, Gosler, A, Healy, S, Hudson, A, Inglis, I, Jones, A, Kirkwood, J, Lawton, M, Monaghan, P, Sherwin C and Townsend, P 2001 Laboratory birds: refinements in husbandry and procedures; fifth report of BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement. Laboratory Animals 35(1-4): 1–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Gonyou, HW 1997 Human contact. In: Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO (eds) Animal Welfare pp 205–218. CABI: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Houtman, AM 1992 Female zebra finches chose extra pair copulations with genetically attractive males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 249: 3–6Google Scholar
Hurst, JL, Barnard, CJ, Hare, R, Wheeldon, EB and West, CD 1996 Housing and welfare in laboratory rats: time budgeting and pathophysiology in single sex groups. Animal Behaviour 52: 335–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutson, GD 1985 The influence of barley food rewards on sheep movement thought a handling system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, H, Smith, N, Smith, P, Smyth, L, Yew, P, Saibaba, P and Hav, J 1995 Zebra Finch behaviour and the effect of modest enrichment of standard cages. Animal Welfare 4: 3–9Google Scholar
Jones, RB 1997 Fear and Distress. In: Appleby MC and Hughes BO (eds) 1997 Animal Welfare pp 75–88. CABI: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Kettlewell, PJ and Mitchell, MA 1994 Catching, handling and loading of poultry for road transportation. World's Poultry Science Journal 50: 54–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddocks, SA, Goldsmith, AR and Cuthill, IC 2002 Behavioural and physiological effects of absence of ultraviolet wavelengths on European starlings Sturnus vulgaris. Journal of Avian Biology 33: 103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, CE and Searle, SR 2000 Generalized, Linear and Mixed Models. John Wiley and Sons: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naguib, M, Riebel, K, Marzal, A and Gil, D 2004 Nestling immuno-competence and testosterone co-vary with brood size in a songbird. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 271: 833–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevison, CM, Barnard, CJ and Hurst, JL 1999 Strain-specific effects of cage enrichment in male laboratory mice (Mus musculus). Animal Welfare 8: 361–379Google Scholar
Nevison, CM, Barnard, CJ, Benyon, RJ and Hurst, JL 2000 The consequences of inbreeding for recognizing competitors. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 267: 687–694CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, C and Dawkins, MS 1990 Homes fit for hens. New Scientist 125: 46–48Google Scholar
O'Connell, NE, Beattie, VE and Moss, BW 2004 Influence of social status on the welfare of growing pigs housed in barren and enriched environments. Animal Welfare 13: 425–431Google Scholar
Olsen, AW, Simonsen, HB and Dybkjaer, L 2002 Effect of access to roughage and shelter on selected behavioural indicators of welfare in pigs housed in a complex environment. Animal Welfare 11: 75–87Google Scholar
Rashotte, ME, Sedonova, EV, Johnson, F and Pastukhov, IF 2001 Influence of food and water availability on undirected singing and energetic status in adult male zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Physiology and Behaviour 74: 533–541CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutstein, AN, Gilbert, L, Slater, PJB and Graves, JA 2005 Sex-specific patterns of yolk androgen allocation depend on maternal diet in the zebra finch. Behavioural Ecology 16: 62–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, GB and MacAngus, G 2004 The ability of laying hens to negotiate perches of different materials with clean or dirty surfaces. Animal Welfare 13: 361–365Google Scholar
Shields, SJ, Garner, JP and Mench, JA 2004 Dustbathing by broiler chickens: a comparison of preference for four different substrates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, KA, Buchanan KL Goldsmith, AR and Catchpole, CK 2003 Song as an honest signal of developmental stress in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Hormones and Behavior 44: 132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPSS 2002 Linear mixed-effects modeling in SPSS: An introduction to the MIXED procedure. Access: http://www.spss.com/downloads/Papers.cfm?prod_familyID=00005&Name=SPSSGoogle Scholar
ten Cate, C and Mug, G 1984 The development of mate choice in zebra finch females. Behaviour 90: 125–150Google Scholar
Verbeke, G and Molenberghs, G 2000 Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data. Springer: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Whittington, CJ and Chamove, AS 1995 Effects of visual cover on farmed red deer behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Würbel, H 2001 Ideal Homes? Housing effects on rodent brain and behaviour. Trends in Neuroscience 24: 207–211CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zahavi, A 1987 The theory of signal selection and some of its implications. In: Delfino, VP (ed) Proceedings of the International Symposium of Biological Evolution pp 305–327. Bari, Italy: Adriatica EditricaGoogle Scholar
Zann, RA 1996 The Zebra Finch: A synthesis of field and laboratory studies. OUP: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar