Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:19:38.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus) selected for low fear of humans are larger, more dominant and produce larger offspring

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2014

B. Agnvall ,
A. Ali ,
S. Olby  and
P. Jensen
B. Agnvall
Affiliation:
IFM Biology, Avian Behavioural Genomics and Physiology Group, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
A. Ali
Affiliation:
IFM Biology, Avian Behavioural Genomics and Physiology Group, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
S. Olby
Affiliation:
IFM Biology, Avian Behavioural Genomics and Physiology Group, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
P. Jensen*
Affiliation:
IFM Biology, Avian Behavioural Genomics and Physiology Group, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Many traits associated with domestication are suggested to have developed as correlated responses to reduced fear of humans. Tameness may have reduced the stress of living in human proximity and improved welfare in captivity. We selected Red Junglefowl (ancestors of all domestic chickens) for four generations on high or low fear towards humans, mimicking an important aspect of the earliest period of domestication, and tested birds from the third and fourth generation in three different social tests. Growth and plumage condition, as well as size of eggs and offspring were also recorded, as indicators of some aspects of welfare. Birds selected for low fear had higher weight, laid larger eggs and generated larger offspring, and had a better plumage condition. In a social dominance test they also performed more aggressive behaviour and received less of the same, regardless of whether the restricted resource was feed or not. Hence, dominance appeared to increase as a consequence of reduced fear of humans. Furthermore, egg size and the weight of the offspring were larger in the less fearful birds, and plumage condition better, which could be interpreted as the less fearful animals being better adapted to the environment in which they were selected.

Keywords

Red Junglefowldomesticationfearfulnessselectionsocial behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 9 , September 2014 , pp. 1498 - 1505
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

Agnvall, B, Jöngren, M, Strandberg, E and Jensen, P 2012. Heritability and genetic correlations of fear-related behaviour in Red Junglefowl – possible implications for early domestication. PLoS One 7, e35162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Nasser, A, Al-Khalaifa, H, Al-Saffar, A, Khalil, F, Albahouh, M, Ragheb, G, Al-Haddad, A and Mashaly, M 2007. Overview of chicken taxonomy and domestication. World’s Poultry Science Journal 63, 285–300.Google Scholar
Albert, FW, Shchepina, O, Winter, C, Römpler, H, Teupser, D, Palme, R, Ceglarek, U, Kratzsch, J, Sohr, R, Trut, LN, Thiery, J, Morgenstern, R, Plyusnina, IZ, Schöneberg, T and Pääbo, S 2008. Phenotypic differences in behavior, physiology and neurochemistry between rats selected for tameness and for defensive aggression towards humans. Hormones and Behavior 53, 413–421.Google Scholar
Belyaev, DK, Plyusnina, IZ and Trut, LN 1985. Domestication in the silver fox (Vulpes fulvus Desm): changes in physiological boundaries of the sensitive period of primary socialization. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 13, 359–370.Google Scholar
Boitani, L and Ciucci, P 1995. Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 7, 49–72.Google Scholar
Broom, DM 1991. Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69, 4167–4175.Google Scholar
Campo, J, Gil, M, Torres, O and Davila, S 2001. Association between plumage condition and fear and stress levels in five breeds of chickens. Poultry Science 80, 549–552.Google Scholar
Cloutier, S and Newberry, RC 2000. Recent social experience, body weight and initial patterns of attack predict the social status attained by unfamiliar hens in a new group. Behaviour 137, 705–726.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, J 1999. A natural history of domesticated mammals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Collias, NE and Collias, EC 1996. Social organization of a Red Junglefowl, Gallus gallus, population related to evolution theory. Animal Behaviour 51, 1337–1354.Google Scholar
Craig, JV, Jan, M-L, Polley, CR, Bhagwat, AL and Dayton, AD 1975. Changes in relative aggressiveness and social dominance associated with selection for early egg production in chickens. Poultry Science 54, 1647–1658.Google Scholar
Eriksen, MS, Haug, A, Torjesen, PA and Bakken, M 2003. Prenatal exposure to corticosterone impairs embryonic development and increases fluctuating asymmetry in chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus). British Poultry Science 44, 690–697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunnarsson, S, Odén, K, Algers, B, Svedberg, J and Keeling, L 1995. Poultry health and behaviour in a tiered system for loose housed layers. Department of Animal Hygiene, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 142.Google Scholar
Håkansson, J and Jensen, P 2005. Behavioural and morphological variation between captive populations of Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus) – possible implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 122, 431–439.Google Scholar
Harri, M, Mononen, J, Ahola, L, Plyusnina, I and Rekil, T 2003. Behavioural and physiological differences between silver foxes selected and not selected for domestic behaviour. Animal Welfare 12, 305–314.Google Scholar
Jackson, S and Diamond, J 1996. Metabolic and digestive responses to artificial selection in chickens. Evolution 50, 1638–1650.Google Scholar
Jensen, P, Keeling, L, Schütz, K, Andersson, L, Mormède, P, Brändström, H, Forkman, B, Kerje, S, Fredriksson, R, Ohlsson, C, Larsson, S, Mallmin, H and Kindmark, A 2005. Feather pecking in chickens is genetically related to behavioural and developmental traits. Physiology & Behavior 86, 52–60.Google Scholar
Jones, RB, Satterilee, DG and Ryder, FH 1994. Fear of humans in Japanese quail selected for low or high adrenocortical response. Physiology & Behavior 56, 379–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB, Marin, RH, Satterlee, DG and Cadd, GG 2002. Sociality in Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) genetically selected for contrasting adrenocortical responsiveness. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 337–346.Google Scholar
Kerje, S, Carlborg, Ö, Jacobsson, L, Schütz, K, Hartmann, C, Jensen, P and Andersson, L 2003. The twofold difference in adult size between the Red Junglefowl and White Leghorn chickens is largely explained by a limited number of QTLs. Animal Genetics 34, 264–274.Google Scholar
Lindqvist, CES, Schütz, KE and Jensen, P 2002. Red Jungle fowl have more contrafreeloading than White Leghorn layers: effect of food deprivation and consequences for information gain. Behaviour 139, 1195–1209.Google Scholar
Malmkvist, J and Hansen, SW 2002. Generalization of fear in farm mink, Mustela vison, genetically selected for behaviour towards humans. Animal Behaviour 64, 487–501.Google Scholar
Moore, AJ, Haynes, KF, Preziosi, RF and Moore, PJ 2002. The evolution of interacting phenotypes: genetics and evolution of social dominance. The American Naturalist 160, S186–S197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Müller, W, Eising, CM, Dijkstra, C and Groothuis, TGG 2002. Sex differences in yolk hormones depend on maternal social status in Leghorn chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 269, 2249–2255.Google Scholar
Price, EO 1999. Behavioral development in animals undergoing domestication. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 245–271.Google Scholar
Saino, N, Romano, M, Ferrari, RP, Martinelli, R and Møller, AP 2005. Stressed mothers lay eggs with high corticosterone levels which produce low-quality offspring. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Comparative Experimental Biology 303A, 998–1006.Google Scholar
Schütz, KE, Forkman, B and Jensen, P 2001. Domestication effects on foraging strategy, social behaviour and different fear responses: a comparison between the Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and a modern layer strain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74, 1–14.Google Scholar
Tachè, J and Selye, H 1985. On stress and coping mechanisms. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 7, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tauson, R, Ambrosen, T and Elwinger, K 1984. Evaluation of procedures for scoring the integument of laying hens – independent scoring of plumage condition. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 34, 400–408.Google Scholar
Trut, L, Oskina, I and Kharlamova, A 2009. Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model. BioEssays 31, 349–360.Google Scholar
Trut, LN, Plyusnina, IZ and Oskina, IN 2004. An experiment on fox domestication and debatable issues of evolution of the dog. Russian Journal of Genetics 40, 644–655.Google Scholar
Väisänen, J, Håkansson, J and Jensen, P 2005. Social interactions in Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and White Leghorn layers in stable groups and after re-grouping. British Poultry Science 46, 156–168.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K 1982. Dust-bathing in the domestic fowl – diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Applied Animal Ethology 8, 487–495.Google Scholar
West, B and Zhou, B-X 1988. Did chickens go North? New evidence for domestication. Journal of Archaeological Science 15, 515–533.Google Scholar