Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-qc88w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-02T02:22:46.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavioural and physiological fear responses in ducks: genetic cross effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

I. Arnaud ,
S. Mignon-Grasteau ,
C. Larzul ,
G. Guy ,
J.-M. Faure  and
D. Guémené
I. Arnaud
Affiliation:
INRA, UR83, 37380 Nouzilly, France SYSAAF, UR83, 37380 Nouzilly, France
S. Mignon-Grasteau
Affiliation:
INRA, UR83, 37380 Nouzilly, France
C. Larzul
Affiliation:
INRA, UR337, 78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France
G. Guy
Affiliation:
INRA, UE89, 40280 Benquet, France
J.-M. Faure
Affiliation:
INRA, UR83, 37380 Nouzilly, France
D. Guémené*
Affiliation:
INRA, UR83, 37380 Nouzilly, France
*
E-mail: guemene@tours.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Mule duck, a cross between a Muscovy drake and a Pekin female, is reported by the farmers to frequently express fear behaviours, such as man avoidance. The genetic basis of fear responses in mule ducks was therefore investigated in this study. According to a previous experiment, the dominant effect of Pekin genotype was hypothesised; however, due to the absence of birds from the reciprocal cross, a superiority of the Pekin in additive effect could not be distinguished from a direct maternal additive effect. In order to clarify this, ducks from the mule genotype, the two parental genotypes (Pekin and Muscovy) and the reciprocal intercross (hinny) underwent a set of physiological and individual behavioural tests of fear. Both parental genotypes were highly fearful but exhibited responses of different patterns: Pekin ducks manifested a higher locomotor activity, whereas the Muscovy ducks showed a higher avoidance to man. Hybrids expressed higher panic responses and specific fear of man than the two parent breeds. Both hybrids expressed similar patterns and the maternal effects were not significant. Significant heterosis effects were found for most of the behavioural responses, in agreement with the fact that higher fear responses were expressed by the hybrids compared to the parental genotypes. A significant heterosis effect was also found for basal adrenal activity; hybrids having higher basal level than parental genotypes. Maximum capacity of adrenal response appeared to be determined by direct additive effects with a superiority of the Pekin genotype.

Keywords

behaviourcorticosteroneduckfeargenetic cross effects

Information

Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 10 , October 2008 , pp. 1518 - 1525
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Boujard, T, Ramezi, J, Vandeputte, M, Labbé, L, Mambrini, M 2007. Group feeding behaviour of brown trout is a correlated response to selection for growth shaped by the environment. Behavior Genetics 37, 525–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chartrin, P, Méteau, K, Juin, H, Bernardet, MD, Guy, G, Larzul, C, Rémignon, H, Mourot, J, Duclos, MJ, Baéza, E 2006. Effect of intramuscular fat levels on sensory characteristics of duck breast meat. Poultry Science 85, 914–922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dantzer, R, Mormède, P 1979. Le stress en élevage intensif. Masson, Paris.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G 1969. Experimental approaches in utilising breed resources. Animal Breeding Abstracts 37, 191–202.Google Scholar
Dobson, H, Tebble, JE, Smith, RF, Ward, WR 2001. Is stress really all that important? Theriogenology 55, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ducrocq V and Sölkner J 1998. The Survival Kit – a Fortran package for the analysis of survival data. In 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Armidale (AU), pp. 447–448.Google Scholar
Etches, RJ 1976. A radio immunoassay for corticosterone and its application to the measurement of stress in poultry. Steroïds 28, 763–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure, JM, Jones, RB, Bessei, W 1983. Fear and social motivation as factors in open-field behaviour of the domestic chick. A theoretical consideration. Biology of Behaviour 8, 103–116.Google Scholar
Faure, JM, Val-Laillet, D, Guy, G, Bernardet, MD, Guémené, D 2003. Fear and stress reactions in two species of duck and their hybrid. Hormones and Behavior 43, 568–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallup, GG Jr 1977. Tonic immobility: the role of fear and predation. The Psychological Record 1, 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gironi Carnevale, UA, Vitullo, E, Varriale, B, Ruocco, LA, Sadile, AG 2007. A classical Mendelian cross-breeding study of the Naples high and low excitability rat lines. Behavioural Brain Research 183, 130–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guémené D, Guy G, Destombes N, Garreau-Mills M and Faure JM 1998. Aptitude physiologique du canard mulard male à répondre à un stress aigu pendant la période de gavage. In 3e Journées de la Recherche sur les Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, Bordeaux, pp. 63–68.Google Scholar
Guémené D, Gobin-Fournel E, Faure JM and Guy G 2002. Effets génotype, phénotype, âge et mode d’élevage sur les réponses comportementales et endocriniennes de canards mulard mâles. In L’Ethologie Appliquée, pp. 65–72, Claude Baudoin, Levallois-Perret.Google Scholar
Guémené D, Larzul C, Bouy S, Bernardet MD, Guy G and Faure JM 2004. Couleur du plumage et déterminisme génétique des comportements de peur chez le canard mulard. In 6e Journées de la Recherche sur les Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, Arcachon, pp. 99–103.Google Scholar
Guémené, D, Guy, G, Noirault, J, Destombes, N, Faure, JM 2006. Rearing conditions during the force-feeding period in male mule ducks and their impact upon stress and welfare. Animal Research 55, 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, S, Merry, BJ, Phillips, JG 1980. Influence of stress on the secretion of corticosterone in the duck. Journal of Endocrinology 87, 161–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazard, D, Couty, M, Richard, S, Guémené, D 2008. Intensity and duration of corticosterone response to stressful situations in Japanese quail divergently selected for tonic immobility. General and Comparative Endocrinology 155, 288–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holm, S 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6, 65–70.Google Scholar
Jensen, P, Toates, FM 1997. Stress as a state of motivational systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53, 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsgard, PA 1965. Handbook of waterfowl behaviour. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Jones, RB, Faure, JM 1981. Sex and strain comparisons of tonic immobility (“righting time”) in the domestic fowl and the effects of various methods of induction. Behavioural Processes 6, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB, Satterlee, DG, Ryder, FH 1992a. Openfield behavior of Japanese quail chicks genetically selected for low or high plasma corticosterone response to immobilization stress. Poultry Science 71, 1403–1407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB, Satterlee, DG, Ryder, FH 1992b. Fear and distress in Japanese quail chicks of two lines genetically selected for low or high adrenocortical response to immobilization stress. Hormones and Behavior 26, 385–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB, Satterlee, DG, Ryder, FH 1994. Fear of humans in Japanese quail selected for low or high adrenocortical response. Physiology and Behavior 56, 379–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larzul, C, Imbert, B, Bernardet, MD, Guy, G, Rémignon, H 2006. Meat quality in an intergeneric factorial crossbreeding between Muscovy (Cairina moschata) and Pekin (Anas platyrhyncos) ducks. Animal Research 55, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroy Y 1964. Analyse de la transmission de divers paramètres des signaux acoustiques chez les hybrides interspecifiques de grillons. In Proceedings of the XXI International Congress of Ethymology, London, p. 339.Google Scholar
Manning, A, Dawkins, MS 1998. An introduction to animal behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Halftones.Google Scholar
Mignon-Grasteau, S, Roussot, O, Delaby, C, Faure, JM, Mills, AD, Leterrier, C, Guémené, D, Constantin, P, Mills, M, Lepape, G, Beaumont, C 2003. Factorial correspondence analysis of fear-related behaviour traits in Japanese quail. Behavioural Processes 61, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mills AD and Faure JM 1990. Panic and hysteria in domestic fowl. In Social stress in domestic animals (ed. R Zayan and R Dantzer), pp. 248–272, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht-Boston-London.Google Scholar
Mills, AD, Faure, JM 1991. Divergent selection for duration of tonic immobility and social reinstatement behavior in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) chicks. Journal of Comparative Psychology 105, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mormède P, Andanson S, Aupérin B, Beerda B, Guémené D, Malmkvist J, Manteca X, Manteuffel G, Prunet P, Van Reenen CG, Richard S and Vessier I 2007. Exploration of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal function as a tool to evaluate animal welfare. Physiology and Behavior 92, 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noirault, J, Guémené, D, Guy, G, Faure, JM 1999. Corticosterone plasma concentration in male mule ducks: effects of samplings site and ACTH injections. British Poultry Science 40, 304–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roy, V, Merali, Z, Poulter, MO, Anisman, H 2007. Anxiety responses, plasma corticosterone and central monoamine variations elicited by stressors in reactive and nonreactive mice and their reciprocal F1 hybrids. Behavioural Brain Research 185, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, Taylor, AA, de Passillé, A 1999. Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its effects on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satterlee, DG, Johnson, WA 1988. Selection of Japanese quail for contrasting blood corticosterone response to immobilization. Poultry Science 67, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, HS 1971. Adrenals, stress and the environment. World’s Poultry Science Journal 27, 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suarez, SD, Gallup, GG Jr 1980. An ethological analysis of open-field behaviour in ducks Anas Platyrhyncos. Bird Behavior 2, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tai, C, Rouvier, R 1998. Crossbreeding effect on sexual dimorphism of body weight in intergeneric hybrids obtained between Muscovy and Pekin duck. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 30, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuillaume A and Tournut J 1975. Une nouvelle technique de prélèvement de sang chez les palmipèdes et les autres volailles. In Groupements Techniques Vétérinaires, pp. 83–89.Google Scholar
Wolf, J, Zavadilová, L, Nemcová, E 2005. Non-additive effects on milk production in Czech dairy cows. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 122, 332–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zulkifli, I, Siegel, HS 1995. Is there a positive side to stress? World’s Poultry Science Journal 51, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar