Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-28T15:17:50.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences in the hiding behaviour of new-born red deer and hybrid 1/4 Père David's × 3/4 red deer calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. R. Endicott-Davies ,
A. N. Barrie  and
M. W. Fisher
D. R. Endicott-Davies
Affiliation:
AgResearch, Invermay Agricultural Centre, Private Bag 50034, Mosgiel, New Zealand
M. W. Fisher
Affiliation:
AgResearch, Invermay Agricultural Centre, Private Bag 50034, Mosgiel, New Zealand
Get access

Abstract

The behaviour of six pure red deer and six hybrid 3/4 red deer × 1/4 Pere David's deer calves born to pure red deer hinds, was observed from 1 to 24 days of age. Young calves (1 to 8 days of age) spent most time hiding, with neither genotype regularly observed in open view (red deer 11 (s.e. 2·0) % and hybrids 14 (s.e. 2·0) %). However, between 9 and 16 days the hybrid calves were in open view more than twice as often as the red deer calves (38 (s.e. 3·2) % v. 18 (s.e. 2·6) %, respectively; P < 0·01). Both genotypes spent over half (both 54 (s.e. 3·5) %) of their time in open view from 17 to 24 days of age. As they grew older, the hybrid calves also spent significantly less time prone and more time standing, compared with the red deer calves.

These results indicate that the behaviour of the hybrids, is somewhat precocious compared with pure red deer calves, and furthermore provide evidence that a component of neonatal behaviour in deer may be inherited.

Keywords

behaviourneonatesPere David's deerred deer
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 363 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

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

REFERENCES

Altmann, V. D. and Scheel, H. 1980. Geburt, beginn des sozialverhaltens und erstes lernen beim Milu, Elaphurus davidianus. Milu, Berlin 5: 146–156.Google Scholar
Asher, G. W., Adam, J. L., Otway, W., Bowmar, P., Reenan, G. van, Mackintosh, C. G. and Dratch, P. 1988. Hybridization of Père David's deer (Elaphurus davidianus) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) by artificial insemination. Journal of Zoology, London 215:197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, P. A. 1969. Disruption of species-typical behavior patterns in F1 hybrid Agapornis parrots. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 26: 737–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carl, G. R. and Robbins, C. T. 1988. The energetic cost of predator avoidance in neonatal ungulates: hiding versus following. Canadian journal of Zoology 66: 239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H. and Guinness, F. E. 1975. Behaviour of red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) at calving time. Behaviour 55: 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Guinness, F. E. and Albon, S. D. 1982. Red deer. Behavior and ecology of two sexes. University Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Cowie, G. M., Moore, G. H., Fisher, M. W. and Taylor, M. J. 1985. Calving behaviour of farmed red deer. Proceedings of the Deer Branch, New Zealand Veterinary Association 2: 143–154.Google Scholar
Dilger, W. C. 1962. The behavior of lovebirds. Scientific American 206: 88–98.Google Scholar
Fennessy, P. F. and Mackintosh, C. G. 1992. Hybridisation of red deer and Pere David's deer. Proceedings of the Deer Branch, New Zealand Veterinary Association 9: 181–186.Google Scholar
Gray, A. P. 1972. Mammalian hybrids. A check-list with bibliography. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Slough.Google Scholar
Hohenboken, W. D. 1986. Inheritance of behavioural characteristics in livestock. A review. Animal Breeding Abstracts 54: 623–639.Google Scholar
Jones, M. L. and Manton, V. J. A. 1983. History in captivity. In Biology and management of an extinct species — Pere deer (ed. Beck, B. B. and Wemmer, C. M.), pp. 1–14. Noyes Publications, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Kelly, R. W. and Whateley, J. A. 1975. Observations on the calving of red deer (Cervus elaphus) run in confined areas. Applied Animal Ethology 1:293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lent, P. C. 1974. Mother-infant relationships in ungulates. In Behaviour of ungulates and its relation to management (ed , Geist and Walther, F.), pp. 14–55. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland.Google Scholar
Lingle, S. 1992. Escape gaits of white-tailed deer, mule deer and their hybrids: gaits observed and patterns of limb coordination. Behaviour 122:153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. C., Littlejohn, R. P. and Webster, J. R. 1994. Quantification of temperament in weaned deer calves of two genotypes (Cervus elaphus and Cervus elaphus × Elaphurus davidianus hybrids). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, M. L., Buchanan, F. C. and Crawford, A. M. 1990. Parentage testing in farmed red deer. Proceedings of the Deer Branch, New Zealand Veterinary Association 7:177–182.Google Scholar
Tate, M. L., Dodds, K. G., Thomas, K. J. and McEwan, K. M. 1991. Genetic polymorphism of plasminogen and vitamin D binding protein in red deer Cervus elaphus L. Animal Genetics 23:209–219.Google Scholar
Tate, M. L., Mathias, H. C., Fennessy, P. F., Dodds, K. G., Penty, J. M. and Hill, D. F. 1995. A new gene mapping resource: interspecies hybrids between Père David's deer (Elaphurus davidianus) and red deer (Cervus elaphus). Genetics 139:1383–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, M. L., Mathias, H. C., Hill, D. F. and Fennessy, P. F. 1996. Development and applications of a genetic linkage ofmap of deer. In Biology of deer (ed. Milne, J. A.). In press.Google Scholar