|
|
Duncan, I. J. H., Widowski, T. M., Malleau, A. E., Lindberg, A. C., & Petherick, J. C. (1998). External factors and causation of dustbathing in domestic hens. Behav. Process., 43(2), 219–228.
Abstract: Dustbathing is known to be motivated by complex interactions between internal factors which build up over time and external factors, such as the sight of a dusty substrate. In this study, the effects of other external factors were investigated. Environmental temperature was shown to be important; frequencies of dustbathing were greater when hens were held at 22 than at 10[degree sign]C (P<0.01). In a second experiment, a radiant heat source or a radiant heat+light source, balanced to give the same radiant heat, resulted in more dustbathing behaviour during a 1-h stimulus period than during the same period with no stimulus (P<0.05). Components of dustbathing were increased more by the heat+light stimulus than by the heat stimulus alone (P<0.03). In a third experiment, the amount of dustbathing performed by individual hens in cages with dustbaths was increased by the presence of a group of hens dustbathing in an adjoining pen with a dustbath compared with the amount occurring when the hens were absent from the pen.
|
|
|
|
Petherick, J. C., Waddington, D., & Duncan, I. J. H. (1991). Learning to gain access to a foraging and dustbathing substrate by domestic fowl: is `out of sight out of mind'? Behav. Process., 22(3), 213–226.
Abstract: Domestic fowl were deprived of the opportunity to perform litter-related behaviour for three or four days and were tested in a Y-maze (which they had previously been trained to run) for their ability to associate a coloured cue with gaining access to peat. When the goal boxes were within sight of the choice point, most birds chose peat. However, when the birds had to rely solely on the coloured cue only one bird from 12 showed learning. However, the birds seemed to have some expectation of a reward, as they ran faster if, on the previous trial, they had chosen peat. The inability of the birds to learn the association may have been an artefact of the schedule of deprivation and testing, for when they were hungry and tested in the same way they were again unable to learn an association between the same coloured cue and food reward. The experiment with peat was repeated using “massed” trials (several trials in immediate succession) during training and testing and six from 15 birds showed learning. These results suggest that the initial failure to learn was probably due to the training and testing schedule, that access to peat appears to be rewarding and that hens can learn an association between an abstract cue and a rewarding consequence. This is consistent with the possibility that domestic fowls may have some cognitive representation of peat when it is out of sight.
|
|
