Erratum: Corrigendum to “When continuous observations just won't do: Developing accurate and efficient sampling strategies for the laying hen” (Behav. Process. (2014) 103 (58–66) (S0376635713002295) (10.1016/j.beproc.2013.11.002));When continuous observations just won't do: Developing accurate and efficient sampling strategies for the laying hen

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 103, Issue , 2014, Pages 58-66

  Daigle, Courtney L ^a   Siegford, Janice M ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Behavior; Laying hen; Resource use; Sampling interval; Time budget; Validation

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; CORRELATION; LINEARITY; MAGNITUDE; OBSERVATIONAL METHOD; POULTRY; RESOURCE USE; SAMPLING;

AGGRESSION; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; BODY POSTURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EGG LAYING; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HEN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; NONHUMAN; OBSERVATION; SAMPLING; TIME; VIDEORECORDING;

ANIMALIA;

BEHAVIOR; LAYING HEN; RESOURCE USE; SAMPLING INTERVAL; TIME BUDGET; VALIDATION;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CHICKENS; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; LINEAR MODELS; OBSERVATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 84890282800     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: 18728308     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2016.06.014     Document Type: Erratum

References (34)

1. Abe E., Tanabe R., Suda T., Yoshiki S., Horikawa H., Masumura T., Sugahara M. Circadian rhythm of 1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 production in egg-laying hens. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 1979, 88:500-507.
2. Albentosa M., Cooper J. Testing resource value in group-housed animals: an investigation of cage height preference in laying hens. Behavioral Processes 2005, 70:113-121.
3. Altmann J. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 1974, 49:227-267.
4. Arnold-Meeks C., McGlone J. Validating techniques to sample behavior of confined, young pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1986, 16:149-155.
5. Channing C.E., Hughes B.O., Walker A.W. Spatial distribution and behaviour of laying hens housed in an alternative system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2001, 72:335-345.
6. Choi C., Nam H., Lee W. Measuring the behaviors of wintering black-faced Spoonbills (Platalea minor): comparison of behavioral sampling techniques. Waterbirds 2007, 30:310-316.
7. Cordiner L., Savory C.J. Use of perches and nestboxes by laying hens in relation to social status, based on examination of consistency of ranking orders and frequency of interaction. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2001, 71:305-317.
8. D'Eath R. Repeated locomotion scoring of a sow herd to measure lameness: consistency over time, the effect of sow characteristics and inter-observer reliability. Animal Welfare 2012, 21:219-231.
9. D'Eath R. Three kinds of agreement: bias, association and exact matching. International Socitey for Applied Ethology: Quality of life in designed environments? 2012, 46. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Vienna, Austria. S. Waiblinger, C. Winckler, A. Gutmann (Eds.).
10. Daigle C., Banerjee D., Biswas S., Siegford J. Non-caged laying hens remain unflappable while wearing body-mounted sensors: levels of agonistic behaviors remain unchanged and resource use in not reduced after habituation. Poultry Science 2012, 91:2415-2423.
11. Donaldson C.J., O'Connell N.E. The influence of access to aerial perches on fearfulness, social behaviour and production parameters in free-range laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2012, 142:51-60.
12. Estevez I., Newberry R.C., Keeling L.J. Dynamics of aggression in the domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2002, 76:307-325.
13. Gilby I., Pokempner A., Wrangham R. A direct comparison of scan and focal sampling methods for measuring wild chimpanzee feeding behaviour. Folia Primatologica 2010, 81:254-264.
14. Hughes B.O., Carmichael N.L., Walker A.W., Grigor P. Low incidence of aggression in large flocks of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1997, 54:215-234.
15. Jauhiainen L., Korhonen H. Optimal behaviour sampling and autocorrelation curve: modelling data of farmed foxes. Acta Ethology 2005, 8:13-21.
16. Keeling L.J., Duncan I.J.H. Social spacing in domestic fowl under seminatural conditions: the effect of behavioural activity and activity transitions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1991, 32:205-217.
17. Kristensen H.H., Prescott N.B., Perry G.C., Ladewig J., Ersboll A.K., Overvad K.C., Wathes C.M. The behaviour of broiler chickens in different light sources and illuminances. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2007, 103:75-89.
18. Ledgerwood D., Winckler C., Tucker C. Evaluation of data loggers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring the lying behavior of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 2010, 93:5129-5139.
19. Leone E.H., Estévez I. Space use according to the distribution of resources and level of competition. Poultry Science 2008, 87:3-13.
20. Mallapur A., Miller C., Christman M., Estevez I. Short-term and long-term movement patterns in confined environments by domestic fowl: influence of group size and enclosure size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2009, 117:28-34.
21. Mishra A., Koene P., Schouten W., Spruijt B., van Beek P., Metz J. Temporal and sequential structure of behavior and facility usage of laying hens in an enriched environment. Poultry Science 2005, 84:979-991.
22. Mitlohner F., Morrow-Tesch J., Wilson S., Dailey J., McGlone J. Behavioral sampling techniques for feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 2001, 79:1189-1193.
23. O'Connor E., Suanders J., Grist H., McLeman M., Wathes C.M., Abeyesinghe S. The relationship between the comb and social behaviour in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2011, 135:293-299.
24. Oden K., Vestergaard K., Algers B. Space use and agonistic behaviour in relation to sex composition in large flocks of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2000, 67:307-320.
25. Olsson I., Keeling L. Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2000, 68:243-256.
26. Olsson I., Keeling L.J. Why in earth? Dustbathing behaviour in jungle and domestic fowl reviewed from a Tinbergian and animal welfare perspective. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2005, 93:259-282.
27. Shimmura T., Eguchi Y., Uetake K., Tanaka T. Differences of behavior, use of resources and physical conditions between dominant and subordinate hens in furnished cages. Animal Science Journal 2007, 78:307-313.
28. Shimmura T., Eguchi Y., Uetake K., Tanaka T. Effects of separation of resources on behaviour of high-, medium- and low-ranked hens in furnished cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2008, 113:74-86.
29. Tanaka T., Hurnik J. Comparison of behavior and performance of laying hens housed in battery cages and an aviary. Poultry Science 1992, 71:235-243.
30. van Liere D.W., Kooijman J., Wiepkema P.R. Dustbathing behaviour of laying hens as related to quality of dustbathing material. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1990, 26:127-141.
31. Vestergaard K., Skadhauge E., Lawson L. The stress of not being able to perform dustbathing in laying hens. Physiology and Behavior 1997, 62:413-419.
32. Webster A. Behavior of white leghorn laying hens after withdrawal of feed. Poultry Science 2000, 79:192-200.
33. Webster A.B., Hurnik J.F. Synchronization of behavior among laying hens in battery cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1994, 40:153-165.
34. Widowski T., Keeling L.J., Duncan I.J.H. The preferences of hens for compact fluorescent over incandescent lighting. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 1992, 72:203-211.