| Literature DB >> 22403707 |
Francisco Ceacero1, Andrés J García, Tomás Landete-Castillejos, Jitka Bartošová, Ludek Bartoš, Laureano Gallego.
Abstract
Social dominance is widely known to facilitate access to food resources in many animal species such as deer. However, research has paid little attention to dominance in ad libitum access to food because it was thought not to result in any benefit for dominant individuals. In this study we assessed if, even under ad libitum conditions, social rank may allow dominant hinds to consume the preferred components of food. Forty-four red deer hinds (Cervus elaphus) were allowed to consume ad libitum meal consisting of pellets of sunflower, lucerne and orange, and seeds of cereals, corn, cotton, and carob tree. The meal was placed only in one feeder, which reduced accessibility to a few individuals simultaneously. During seven days, feeding behavior (order of access, time to first feeding bout, total time spent feeding, and time per feeding bout) were assessed during the first hour. The relative abundance of each meal component was assessed at times 0, 1 and 5 h, as well as its nutritional composition. Social rank was positively related to the amount of time spent feeding during the 1(st) h (P = 0.048). Selection indices were positively correlated with energy (P = 0.018 during the 1(st) h and P = 0.047 from 1(st) to 5(th)) and fat (only during the 1(st) h; P = 0.036), but also negatively with certain minerals. Thus, dominant hinds could select high energy meal components for longer time under an ad libitum but restricted food access setting. Selection indices showed a higher selectivity when food availability was higher (1(st) hour respect to 1(st) to 5(th)). Finally, high and low ranking hinds had longer time per feeding bout than mid ones (P = 0.011), suggesting complex behavioral feeding tactics of low ranking social ungulates.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22403707 PMCID: PMC3293856 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032780
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Nutritive and mineral mean (±SE) contents of offered wholemeal feed, and food remaining after red deer hinds fed for 1 and 5 hours.
| Start | 1 h | 5 h | |||
|
| 8 714 | 7 219±300 | t1,6 = 5.0 | 5 270±584 | t1,6 = 3.0 |
|
| 11.2 | 12.0±0.5 | 10.5±1.8 | ||
|
| 27.0 | 17.2±2.4 | t1,6 = 4.1 | 7.7±2.7 | t1,6 = 3.2 |
|
| 3.0 | 2.5±0.1 | t1,6 = 5.6 | 1.9±0.2 | t1,6 = 3.4 |
|
| 37.5 | 34.7±0.6 | t1,6 = 4.3 | 27.9±3.1 | t1,6 = 2.6 |
|
| 13.8 | 16.8±0.9 | t1,6 = −3.3 | 18.0±1.0 | |
|
| 6.4 | 7.7±0.4 | t1,6 = −3.0 | 8.6±0.6 | |
|
| 4.1 | 5.7±0.4 | t1,6 = −4.4 | 6.8±0.4 | t1,6 = −2.8 |
|
| 0.801 | 1.680±0.177 | t1,6 = −5.0 | 3.020±0.413 | t1,6 = −4.0 |
|
| 0.652 | 0.779±0.037 | t1,6 = −3.4 | 0.832±0.052 | |
|
| 0.132 | 0.152±0.007 | t1,6 = −2.8 | 0.153±0.017 | |
|
| 0.039 | 0.058±0.006 | t1,6 = −3.3 | 0.066±0.010 | |
|
| 0.249 | 0.246±0.004 | 0.213±0.026 | ||
|
| 0.148 | 0.133±0.0016 | t1,6 = 2.5 | 0.093±0.024 | t1,6 = 2.1 |
|
| 1.729 | 1.999±0.103 | t1,6 = −2.6 | 1.953±0.260 | |
|
| 11.9 | 17.9±1.6 | t1,6 = −3.8 | 23.1±1.8 | t1,6 = −2.4 |
|
| 0.80 | 0.88±0.02 | t1,6 = −3.1 | 0.92±0.03 | |
|
| 6.7 | 8.3±0.6 | t1,6 = −2.7 | 8.4±1.2 | |
|
| 204.0 | 279.6±25.3 | t1,6 = −3.0 | 284.6±56.0 | |
|
| 22.3 | 23.1±0.3 | t1,6 = −2.3 | 21.6±2.0 | |
|
| 7.1 | 7.3±0.0 | t1,6 = −9.2 | 7.5±0.1 | t1,6 = −3.4 |
|
| 29.9 | 44.1±3.1 | t1,6 = −4.6 | 58.7±3.7 | t1,6 = −2.9 |
|
| 26.4 | 28.4±0.3 | t1,6 = −2.3 | 27.0±2.8 |
The experiment was repeated for 7 days, and paired t-tests show differences between initial and 1st hour food remaining, and between 1st to 5th.
respectively indicate significant differences at 0.1, 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 level.
Only significant values in paired t-tests are shown.
Meal components (mean ±SE) and selection indices during the 1st feeding hour.
| A) | Mixture at start (%) | 1st h mixture(%; | Resourceuse 0 to 1st h (%; | Selection ratio ( | Standarized ratio ( | κ2 |
|
| 14.7 | 26.2±3.8 | 10.2±4.1 | 0.700 | 0.107 | 10.324ns |
|
| 9.8 | 5.1±0.4 | 11.5±0.5 | 1.175 | 0.180 | 1.433ns |
|
| 12.2 | 31.4±3.3 | 4.9±3.7 | 0.406 | 0.062 |
|
|
| 8.1 | 8.1±0.8 | 8.1±0.8 | 0.998 | 0.153 | 0.291ns |
|
| 53.0 | 26.2±6.8 | 63.1±7.0 | 1.189 | 0.182 |
|
|
| 0.71 | 0.32±0.04 | 0.86±0.05 | 1.201 | 0.184 | 0.144ns |
|
| 1.5 | 2.6±1.3 | 1.3±0.8 | 0.870 | 0.133 | 1.651ns |
A high ŵ (greater than 1) or B (greater than 1/7 = 1.43) indicates food items selected positively. A low ŵ (lower than 1) or B (lower than 1.43) indicates food items selected negatively.
respectively indicate if selection was significant at 0.1 and 0.01 level.
Figure 1Experimental design for the ‘Restricted food access’ experiment.
Only 6 hinds at most are allowed to feed at once. Location of video cameras and their visual field is shown.
Meal components (mean ±SE) and selection indices from 1st to 5th hours.
| B) | 1st h mixture(%; | 5th h mixture(%; | Resourceuse 1st to 5th h (%; | Selection ratio ( | Standarized ratio ( | κ2 |
|
| 26.2±3.8 | 25.5±6.8 | 24.7±13.9 | 0.958 | 0.126 | 2.331ns |
|
| 5.1±0.4 | 1.5±1.0 | 6.4±2.1 | 1.226 | 0.161 | 0.653ns |
|
| 31.4±3.3 | 60.0±10.8 | 23.0±12.1 | 0.755 | 0.099 | 5.010ns |
|
| 8.1±0.8 | 3.2±1.8 | 9.8±3.3 | 1.191 | 0.157 | 0.835ns |
|
| 26.2±6.8 | 6.6±5.6 | 33.0±24.6 | 1.248 | 0.164 | 3.365ns |
|
| 0.32±0.04 | 0.12±0.07 | 0.39±0.13 | 1.191 | 0.157 | 0.034ns |
|
| 2.6±1.3 | 3.1±1.3 | 2.8±3.5 | 1.028 | 0.135 | 0.264ns |
A high ŵ (greater than 1) or B (greater than 1/7 = 1.43) indicates food items selected positively. A low ŵ (lower than 1) or B (lower than 1.43) indicates food items selected negatively. Any food item was significantly selected.
One-way Pearson correlations among social rank and food access behavioral indices (T/n = mean time per feeding bout; FFB = time to first feeding bout; AO = order of access to the feeder; TFB = total number of feeding bouts; FT = time spent feeding during the first hour; N = 44).
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.114 | ||||
|
| −0.027 | 0.074 | |||
|
| −0.124 | −0.304 |
| ||
|
| 0.190 | 0.044 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
indicate significance at 0.05, and 0.001 level.
Figure 2Plotting of T/n (mean time per feeding bout, log- transformed to achieve normality) vs. normalized social rank (ArcsenSqrt of hierarchical social rank; Côté 2000), with linear (solid line; R = 0.11; P = 0.230) and quadratic (dashed line; R = 0.44, P = 0.011) adjusting.
Figure 3Influence of the energy on the observed standarized selection ratios during first feeding hour (B; black triangles and solid line; R = 0.79) and first to fifth (B; hollow triangles and dashed line; R = 0.68).
Note the different slopes, which indicate a lower selectivity in the second period when the amount of food available was lower.