Diet and habitat selection by cattle: The relationship between skin- and gut-defense systems

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Volumn 88, Issue 3-4, 2004, Pages 187-208

  Cibils, Andrés F ^a,b   Howery, Larry D ^a   Ruyle, George B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cattle; Diet selection; Gut defense; Habitat selection; Skin defense

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; CATTLE; DIET; FOOD SELECTION; HABITAT SELECTION;

ANIMALIA; BOS TAURUS; CYNODON DACTYLON; HORDEUM VULGARE SUBSP. VULGARE;

EID: 4243188003     PISSN: 01681591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Altendorf K.B., Laundré J.W., Lopez González C.A., Brown J.S. Assessing effects of predation risk on foraging behavior of mule deer. J. Mammal. 82:2001;430-439
2. Bailey D.W., Sims P.L. Association of food quality and locations by cattle. J. Range Manage. 51:1998;2-8
3. Bailey D.W., Rittenhouse L.R., Hart R.H., Swift D.M., Richards R.W. Association of relative food availabilities and locations by cattle. J. Range Manage. 52:1989;575-582
4. Bailey D.W., Gross J.E., Laca E.A., Rittenhouse L.R., Coughenour M.B., Swift D.M., Sims P.L. Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. J. Range Manage. 49:1996;386-400
5. Bazely D.R., Ensor C.V. Discrimination learning in sheep with cues varying in brightness and hue. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 23:1989;293-299
6. Bray R.O., Wambolt C.L., Kelsey R.G. Influence of sagebrush terpenoids on mule deer preference. J. Chem. Ecol. 17:1991;2053-2062
7. Brett L.P., Hawkins W.G., García J. Prey-lithium aversions. III. Buteo hawks. Behav. Biol. 17:1976;87-89
8. Brown J.S. Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol. Ecol. Res. 1:1999;49-71
9. Duncan A.J., Young S.A. Can goats learn about foods through conditioned food aversions and preferences when multiple food options are simultaneously available? J. Anim. Sci. 80:2002;2091-2098
10. Edwards J. Diet shifts in moose due to predator avoidance. Oecologia. 60:1983;185-189
11. Egber A., Perevolotsky A., Yonatan R., Sholsberg A., Belaich M., Landau S. Creating aversion to giant fennel (Ferula comunis) in weaned orphaned lambs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 61:1998;51-62
12. Estell R.E., Fredrickson E.L., Anderson D.M., Havstad K.M., Remmenga M.D. Effect of individual terpenes on consumption of alfalfa pellets by sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 78:2000;1636-1640
13. Fay P.K., McElligott V.T., Havstad K.M. Containment of free-ranging goats using pulsed-radio-wave-activated shock collars. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 23:1989;165-171
14. Ferguson S.H., Bergerud A.T., Ferguson R. Predation risk and habitat selection in the persistence of a remnant caribou population. Oecologia. 76:1988;236-245
15. Gallagher G.R., Prince R.H. Negative operant conditioning fails to deter white-tailed deer foraging activity. Crop Protect. 22:2003;893-895
16. García, J., 1989. Food for tolman: cognition and cathexis in concert. In: Archer, T., Nilsson, L. (Eds.), Aversion, Avoidance and Anxiety. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 45-85.
17. García J., Holder M.D. Time, space and value. Human Neurobiol. 4:1985;81-89
18. García J., Koelling R.A. The relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Sci. 5:1966;123-124
19. García, J., Lasiter, P.A., Bermudez-Rattoni, F., Deems, D., 1985. A general theory of aversion learning. In: Braveman, N.S., Bronstein, P. (Eds.), Experimental Assessments and Clinical Applications of Conditioned Food Aversions. The New York Academy of Sciences, New York, pp. 8-21.
20. Howery L.D., Bailey D.W., Ruyle G.B., Renken W.J. Cattle use visual cues to track food locations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 67:2000;1-14
21. Launchbaugh, K.L., 1996. Biochemical aspects of grazing behavior. In: Hodgson, J., Illus, A.W. (Eds.), The Ecology and Management of Grazing Systems. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, pp. 159-184.
22. Launchbaugh K.L., Provenza F.D., Pfister J.A. Herbivore response to anti-quality factors in forages. J. Range Manage. 54:2001;431-440
23. Laundré J.W., Hernández L., Altendorf K.B. Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the "landscape of fear" in Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A. Can. J. Zool. 79:2001;1401-1409
24. Lima S. Putting predators back into behavioral predator-prey interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:2002;70-75
25. Lima S.L., Dill L.M. Behavioral decisions made under risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68:1990;619-640
26. Lingle S. Anti-predator strategies and grouping patterns in white-tailed deer and mule deer. Ethology. 107:2001;295-314
27. Markus, S., 2002. Development of a fenceless livestock control system behavioural responses of cattle. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton.
28. Miller, L.E., 2002. An introduction to predator sensitive foraging. In: Miller, L.E. (Ed.), Eat or be Eaten: Predator Sensitive Foraging Among Primates. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-15.
29. Pfister J.A. Food aversion learning to eliminate cattle consumption of pine needles. J. Range Manage. 53:2000;655-659
30. Provenza F.D. Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. J. Range Manage. 48:1995;2-17
31. Provenza F.D., Pfister J.A., Cheney C.D. Mechanisms of learning in diet selection with reference to phytotoxicosis in herbivores. J. Range Manage. 45:1992;36-45
32. Provenza F.D., Villalba J.J., Dziba L.E., Atwood S.B., Banner R.E. Linking herbivore experience, varied diets, and plant biochemical diversity. Small Rumin. Res. 49:2003;257-274
33. Quigley T.M., Sanderson R.H., Tiedemann A.R., McInnis M.L. Livestock control with electrical and audio stimulation. Rangelands. 12:1990;152-155
34. Ralphs M.H., Graham D., Galyean M.L., James L.F. Creating aversions to locoweed in naive and familiar cattle. J. Range Manage. 50:1997;361-366
35. SAS Institute, 2001. JMP IN, Version 4. Statistical Discovery Software. SAS Institute Inc., NC.
36. Scott C.B., Provenza F.D., Banner R.E. Dietary habits and social interactions affect choice of feeding location by sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 45:1995;225-237
37. Skinner B.F. Selection by consequences. Science. 213:1981;501-504
38. Tiedemann, A.R., Quigley, T.M., White, L.D., Lauritzen, W.S., Thomas, J.W., McInnis, M.L., 1999. Electronic (fenceless) control of livestock. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-510. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 23 pp.
39. Villalba J.J., Provenza F.D. Polyethylene glycol influences selection of foraging location by sheep consuming quebracho tannin. J. Anim. Sci. 80:2002;1846-1851
40. Vrouc'h G., Garine-Wichatitsky M.D., Labbé A., Rosolowski D., Martin J.L., Fritz H. Monoterpene effect on feeding choice by deer. J. Chem. Ecol. 28:2002;2411-2427
41. White K.S., Ward Testa J., Berger J. Behavioral and ecologic effects of differential predation pressure on moose in Alaska. J. Mammal. 82:2001;422-429