| Title |
Are head cues necessary for goats (Capra hircus) in recognising group members?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-012-0518-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nina M. Keil, Sabrina Imfeld-Mueller, Janine Aschwanden, Beat Wechsler |
| Abstract |
In this study, we investigated whether goats can distinguish a member of their own group from one belonging to a different group even when the head of the goat in question cannot be seen. In the experiment, a total of 45 adult female goats (walkers) were trained to walk along a passageway at the end of which they learnt to expect food (trial run). Walking down this corridor, they passed another adult female goat (stimulus goat) whose trunk and hind legs alone were visible. Using 19 individuals, ten pairs of stimulus goats consisting of one goat from the walker's group and one from a different group were matched in terms of body size, constitution, colour and coat length. In addition, the stimulus goat from the same group as the walker had to be higher ranking than the latter to avoid being attacked. The walkers completed two, four or six trial runs depending on the number of pairs suitable for a given walker. The walker's exploratory behaviour (observing and sniffing at the stimulus goat) was recorded. Data from 109 trial runs were analysed using generalised linear mixed-effects models with crossed random effects. On average, the walker spent a total of 8.7 s exploring the stimulus goat visually and olfactorily if the latter was from a different group and only about half as long (4.2 s) if it was from her own group. In particular, the time a walker spent observing a stimulus goat whilst approaching the latter was significantly longer if the stimulus goat belonged to a different group than to her own (2.5 s as opposed to 1.4 s). Moreover, a stimulus goat from a different group was sniffed at significantly longer (4.6 s) than one from the same group (1.9 s). Results suggest that goats can easily discriminate between members of their own group and those of a different group even when the latter's heads are hidden. Olfactory and visual cues are probably important for identifying group members. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 50% |
| Psychology | 5 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 August 2012.
All research outputs
#14,732,278
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,178
of 1,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,523
of 165,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,441 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 165,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.