Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by
Crossref.
Benkel, B. F.
and
Gavora, J. S.
1993.
A novel molecular fingerprint probe based on the endogenous avian retroviral element (EAV) of chickens.
Animal Genetics,
Vol. 24,
Issue. 6,
p.
409.
Khatib, H.
Genislav, E.
Soller, M.
Crittenden, L. B.
and
Bumstead, N.
1993.
Sequence‐tagged microsatellite sites as markers in chicken reference and resource populations.
Animal Genetics,
Vol. 24,
Issue. 5,
p.
355.
SIEGEL, P.B.
1993.
Behavior-Genetic Analyses and Poultry Husbandry.
Poultry Science,
Vol. 72,
Issue. 1,
p.
1.
Bosworth, B.G.
Dunnington, E.A.
Libey, G.S.
and
Stallard, L.C.
1994.
Restriction enzyme/multi-locus probe combinations useful for DNA fingerprinting of the striped bass, white bass and their F1 hybrid.
Aquaculture,
Vol. 123,
Issue. 3-4,
p.
205.
DUNNINGTON, E.A.
STALLARD, L.C.
HILLEL, J.
and
SIEGEL, P.B.
1994.
Genetic Diversity Among Commercial Chicken Populations Estimated from DNA Fingerprints.
Poultry Science,
Vol. 73,
Issue. 8,
p.
1218.
Duncan, Ian J.H.
1995.
D.G.M. Wood-Gush Memorial Lecture: An applied ethologist looks at the question “Why?”.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science,
Vol. 44,
Issue. 2-4,
p.
205.
ZHANG, X.
MCDANIEL, G.R.
and
GIAMBRONE, J.J.
1995.
Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA Comparisons Among Broiler Lines Selected for Incidence of Tibial Dyschondroplasia.
Poultry Science,
Vol. 74,
Issue. 8,
p.
1253.
Zulkifli, I.
and
Siegel, P.B.
1995.
Is there a positive side to stress?.
World's Poultry Science Journal,
Vol. 51,
Issue. 1,
p.
63.
SMITHS, E.J.
JONES, C.P.
BARTLETT, J.
and
NESTOR, K.E.
1996.
Use of Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNA Markers for the Genetic Analysis of Relatedness and Diversity in Chickens and Turkeys.
Poultry Science,
Vol. 75,
Issue. 5,
p.
579.
Tixier‐Boichard, M
Kritchmann, N
Morisson, M
Bordas, A
and
Hillel, J
1996.
Assessment of genomic variability through DNA fingerprinting within and between chicken lines divergently selected for residual food consumption.
Animal Genetics,
Vol. 27,
Issue. 3,
p.
163.
Wimmers, K.
Ponsuksili, S.
Valle‐Zarate, A.
Horst, P.
and
Wittig, B.
1997.
Assessment of parental genomic proportions in crossbred chickens by DNA fingerprints.
Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics,
Vol. 114,
Issue. 1-6,
p.
55.
WIMMERS, K.
PONSUKSILI, S.
VALLE-ZARATE, A.
HORST, P.
and
WITTIG, B.
1998.
Evaluation of oligonucleotide probes for simple tandem repeats (STR) to produce informative DNA fingerprints of the chicken.
British Poultry Science,
Vol. 39,
Issue. 1,
p.
62.
Ye, X
Zhu, J
Velleman, SG
and
Nestor, KE
1998.
Genetic diversity of commercial turkey primary breeding lines as estimated by DNA fingerprinting.
Poultry Science,
Vol. 77,
Issue. 6,
p.
802.
Vanhala, T
Tuiskula-Haavisto, M
Elo, K
Vilkki, J
and
Maki-Tanila, A
1998.
Evaluation of genetic variability and genetic distances between eight chicken lines using microsatellite markers.
Poultry Science,
Vol. 77,
Issue. 6,
p.
783.
Su, M.H.
and
Delany, M.E.
1998.
Ribosomal RNA gene copy number and nucleolar-size polymorphisms within and among chicken lines selected for enhanced growth.
Poultry Science,
Vol. 77,
Issue. 12,
p.
1748.
Zhou, H.
and
Lamont, S. J.
1999.
Genetic characterization of biodiversity in highly inbred chicken lines by microsatellite markers.
Animal Genetics,
Vol. 30,
Issue. 4,
p.
256.
Wimmers, K
Ponsuksili, S
Hardge, T
Valle‐Zarate, A
Mathur, P K
and
Horst, P
2000.
Genetic distinctness of African, Asian and South American local chickens.
Animal Genetics,
Vol. 31,
Issue. 3,
p.
159.
Jones, E.K.M
and
Prescott, N.B
2000.
Visual cues used in the choice of mate by fowl and their potential importance for the breeder industry.
World's Poultry Science Journal,
Vol. 56,
Issue. 2,
p.
127.
Weeks, C.A
Danbury, T.D
Davies, H.C
Hunt, P
and
Kestin, S.C
2000.
The behaviour of broiler chickens and its modification by lameness.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science,
Vol. 67,
Issue. 1-2,
p.
111.
Schütz, Karin E
Forkman, Björn
and
Jensen, Per
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,
Vol. 74,
Issue. 1,
p.
1.