|
Cloutier, S., & Newberry, R. C. (2002). Differences in skeletal and ornamental traits between laying hen cannibals, victims and bystanders. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 77(2), 115–126.
Abstract: We compared the size of skeletal and ornamental traits, and asymmetries in bilateral skeletal traits, between victims of cannibalism, cannibals and bystanders within small groups of caged female White Leghorns at the time of cannibalistic attacks (i.e. injurious pecks resulting in bleeding). We hypothesised that victims of cannibalism have discernible morphological traits that predispose them to cannibalistic attack. We predicted that victims would have smaller skeletal traits (body length, ulna length, metatarsus length and width, toe length), lower body weight, poorer body condition, smaller combs and more asymmetrical bilateral skeletal traits than their flock mates. Contrary to our prediction, victims of cannibalistic attacks to the head/neck area (N=23) tended to have larger combs than their flock mates (Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test, S=59, P=0.037, NS after sequential Bonferroni adjustment). Their cannibals were more asymmetrical than non-cannibalistic bystanders (metatarsus length, S=48, P=0.011 and composite asymmetry, S=62.5, P=0.002, significant after sequential Bonferroni adjustment). In agreement with our prediction, victims of cannibalistic attacks to other body parts (N=27), including the back, wings, rump, tail, cloaca, abdomen and toes, were more asymmetrical (composite asymmetry, S=78, P=0.022, significant after sequential Bonferroni adjustment) and tended to have lower body weights (S=79.5, P=0.029, NS after sequential Bonferroni adjustment) than their flock mates. Their cannibals did not differ in skeletal or ornamental traits from the non-participating bystanders. The results suggest that large combs either elicit attacks to the head and neck area or increase vulnerability to injury during such attacks. Attacks to other body parts appear to be directed towards birds with signs of weakness relative to their flock mates. In these attacks, there were no distinguishing features separating cannibals from bystanders, suggesting that the bystanders could all be potential cannibals.
|
|