1. bookVolume 12 (2012): Issue 3 (July 2012)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2300-8733
ISSN
1642-3402
First Published
25 Nov 2011
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Quantified Analyses of Aggression Pattern in a Captive Population of Musk Deer (Moschus Sifanicus)

Published Online: 24 Jul 2012
Volume & Issue: Volume 12 (2012) - Issue 3 (July 2012)
Page range: 413 - 421
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2300-8733
ISSN
1642-3402
First Published
25 Nov 2011
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Quantified Analyses of Aggression Pattern in a Captive Population of Musk Deer (<italic>Moschus Sifanicus</italic>)

Alpine musk deer (Moschus sifanicus) are endangered as a result of habitat degradation and loss and centuries of widespread poaching. Consequently, musk deer farming was introduced as a measure to not only protect musk deer but also to provide a means for sustainable musk supply. An increased understanding of the social structure of captive populations is essential for both successful farming and improved welfare of individuals. This study recorded agonistic interactions between captive individuals at Xinglongshan Musk Deer Farm (XMDF), northwest China. The relationship between aggressive interactions and the individual's age and gender and opponent health was analysed. From our observations we found that stable social hierarchies developed within both captive male and gender-mixed musk deer groups. There was no significant correlation found between only age of individual and their status in the social hierarchy, and it was thus concluded, as social rank was not determined singularly by age, that a combination of other factors, such as experience and origin of the individual, better explain rank orders. Three forms of aggressive behaviour were expressed between males, in which threatening (56.38%±7.28%) was significantly more frequent than attacking (17.86%±5.94%) and displacing behaviours (25.78%±3.66%). There was no attacking behaviour observed in interactions initiated by males towards females, however displacing (70.85%±4.15%) was more common than threatening (29.15%±4.15%). Conflict-initiating male deer demonstrated more attacking and threatening behaviour towards male opponents than to female ones, however the differences were statistically insignificant. These results can be implemented into musk deer farming management practices through 1) rotating individuals within an enclosure on a frequent basis; 2) removing males from female enclosures after successful mating and 3) enclosing males in single sex enclosures. Furthermore, in order to improve musk deer farming and captive musk deer welfare, management systems should be kept relatively consistent in order to assist in establishing the stable social hierarchy patterns in captive populations.

Keywords

Altmann J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour, 49: 227-267.Search in Google Scholar

Andersen I. L., Nævdal E., Bakken M., Bøe KE. (2004). Aggression and group size in domesticated pigs, Sus scrofa: when the winner takes it all and the loser is standing small. Anim. Behav., 68 (4): 965-975.Search in Google Scholar

Aryal A., Subedi A. (2011). Conservation and potential habitat of Himalayan musk deer Moschus chrysogaster in the protected areas of Nepal. Int. J. Conserv. Sci., 2 (2): 127-141.Search in Google Scholar

Aryal A., Raubenheimer D., Subedi S., Kattel B. (2010). Spatial habitat overlap and habitat preference of Himalayan musk deer Moschus chrysogaster in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal. Curr. Res. J. Biol. Sci., 2 (3): 217-225.Search in Google Scholar

Barroso F. G., Alados C. L., Boza J. (2000). Social hierarchy in the domestic goat: effect on food habits and production. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 69: 35-53.Search in Google Scholar

Bornet H. L. I., Morgan C. A., Lawrence A. B., Mann J. (2000). The effect of group housing on feeding patterns and social behavior of previously individually housed growing pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 70: 127-141.Search in Google Scholar

Bro-Jørgensen J. (2002). Overt female mate competition and preference for central males in a lekking antelope. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 99 (14): 9290-9293.Search in Google Scholar

Cassinello J., Pieters I. (2000). Multi-male captive groups of endangered dama gazelle: social rank, aggression, and enclosure effects. Zoo Biol., 191 (2): 121-129.Search in Google Scholar

Clutton-Brock T. H. (1982). The function of antlers. Behaviour, 78: 108-125.Search in Google Scholar

Eccles T. R., Shackleton D. M. (1986). Correlates and consequences of social status in female bighorn sheep. Anim. Behav., 34: 1392-1401.Search in Google Scholar

Estevez I., Andersen I. L., Nævdal E. (2007). Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 103: 185-204.Search in Google Scholar

Green M. J. B. (1986). The distribution, status and conservation of the Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster). Biol. Conserv., 35: 347-375.Search in Google Scholar

Green M. J. B. (1987). Scent-marking in the Himalayan musk deer. J. Zool., 1: 721-737.Search in Google Scholar

Heitor F., do Mar Oom M., Vicente L. (2006). Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses: Part II. Factors affecting affiliative relationships and sexual behaviours. Behav. Process., 73 (3): 231-239.Search in Google Scholar

Homes V. (1999). On the scent: Conserving musk deer - the uses of musk and Europe's role in its trade. TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, Belgium.Search in Google Scholar

Kaufmann J. H. (1983). On the definition and functions of dominance and territoriality. Biol. Rev., 58: 1-20.Search in Google Scholar

Kim T., Zuk M. (2000). The effects of age and previous experience on social rank in female red junglefowl, Gallus gallus spadiceus. Anim. Behav., 60: 239-244.Search in Google Scholar

Komers P. E., Pelabon C., Stenstrom D. (1997). Age at first reproduction in fallow deer: age-specific versus dominance-specific behaviors. Behav. Ecol., 8: 456-462.Search in Google Scholar

Kondo S., Hurnik J. F. (1990). Stablization of social hierarchy in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 27: 287-297.Search in Google Scholar

Mattiangeli V., Mattiello S., Verga M. (1999). The fighting technique of male fallow deer (Dama dama): an analysis of agonistic interactions during the rut. J. Zool., 249, 3: 339-346.Search in Google Scholar

Meng X., Yang Q. F. Z., Xia L., Wang P., Jiang Y., Bai Z., Li G. (2002). Preliminary studies on the activity during summer, autumn and winter season in captive Alpine musk deer. Acta Theriol. Sin., 22: 87-97.Search in Google Scholar

Meng X., Yang Q., Xia L., Feng Z., Jiang Y., Wang P. (2003). The temporal estrous patterns of female alpine musk deer in captivity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 82: 75-85.Search in Google Scholar

Meng X., Zhou C., HuJ., Li C., Meng Z., Feng J., Zhou Y., Zhu Y. (2006). The musk deer farming in China. Anim. Sci., 82: 1-6.Search in Google Scholar

Meng X., Zhao C., Hui C., Luan X. (2011). Behavioral aspects of captive alpine musk deer during non-mating season: gender differences and monthly patterns. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 24 (5): 707-712.Search in Google Scholar

Parry-Jones R., Wu J. Y. (2001). Musk deer farming as a conservation tool in China. TRAFFIC, East Asia, Hong Kong.Search in Google Scholar

Sheng H. (1992). Deer of China (in Chinese with English abstract). East China Normal University Press, Shanghai.Search in Google Scholar

Sheng H., Ohtaishi N. (1993). Editors. Deer of China: Biology and Management. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Search in Google Scholar

Shrestha M. N. (1998). Animal welfare in the musk deer. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 59: 245-250.Search in Google Scholar

Syme G. J., Syme L. A. (1979). Social structure in farm animals. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Search in Google Scholar

Wittemyer G., Getz W. M. (2007). Hierarchical dominance structure and social organization in African elephants, Loxodonta Africana. Anim. Behav., 73 (4): 671-681.Search in Google Scholar

Yang Q., Meng X., Feng Z., Xia L. (2003). Conservation status and causes of decline of musk deer in China. Biol. Conserv., 109: 333-342.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang B. (1979). The farming of musk deer in China (in Chinese). Agriculture Press, Beijing.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang B. (1983). Musk deer: their capture, domestication and care according to Chinese experience and methods. Unasylva, 35: 16-24.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo