Do ewe remember? Comparative foraging behaviour of sheep and alternative livestock species in a spatial memory task

Foraging strategy is fundamentally linked with resource availability and dietary preference. Adaptive feeding behaviours, such as the role of spatial memory when navigating to food sites, are found in wild foraging species. We hypothesised that domesticated livestock species also possess adaptive fo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inApplied animal behaviour science Vol. 285; p. 106580
Main Authors Quail, Megan R., Fraser, Mariecia D.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Elsevier B.V 01.04.2025
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Foraging strategy is fundamentally linked with resource availability and dietary preference. Adaptive feeding behaviours, such as the role of spatial memory when navigating to food sites, are found in wild foraging species. We hypothesised that domesticated livestock species also possess adaptive foraging, with potential interspecies differences in this ability resulting from variations in foraging strategy. As such, this study aimed to compare foraging behaviour, in relation to ability to remember and prioritize food sites of different value, in livestock species that have different dietary preferences and backgrounds: sheep (Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus) and alpacas (Vicugna pacos). A total of 705 trials were conducted across general training, criterion training and test trials. Eighteen sheep, 10 goats and 7 alpacas were presented with eight identical buckets, positioned on four cross mounts, that were placed into four corners of the test arena. Following acclimation and training, the subjects were required to search the arena for two randomly baited buckets, each of the two buckets containing either the large food reward or small food reward. After locating the reward, the animals re-entered the arena and were tasked to relocate the same buckets (Experiment 1). Each subject was allowed a maximum of two incorrect visits to non-baited buckets per trial, and the trial continued until both baits had been eaten or 7 min of inactivity had passed (more than two errors resulted in a ‘failure’ score for the individual trial). These conditions were then replicated, except that the animal was allowed to make a single selection between the large or small reward following their return to the arena after the initial search (Experiment 2). The goats passed the most trials across all three species (p < 0.001) and made fewer errors when relocating the baited buckets in training and test trials across both experiments (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). In contrast, the alpacas failed to pass the training criterion, with the exception of one individual, primarily due to exceeding the time limit for inactivity. We detected no significant difference in preference for the larger food quantity between species in either experiment (p = 0.65 and p = 0.55, respectively). Equally, selection of either quantity did not deviate from random chance across all individuals (except for a single sheep, p < 0.05, Experiment 2). Thus, goats exhibited the greatest spatial memory of the three species across both test conditions, which may reflect the adaptive foraging strategy that is required to navigate patchy distributions of browse in the complex natural habitats of this species. We recommend that further work should be carried out to determine the scale of selectivity and role of habitat perception on grazing distribution in these species. This information could be used to predict how differences in foraging strategy can be exploited to maximise pasture use efficiency in multi-species grazing systems. •The adaptive abilities of sheep, goats, and alpacas were tested in a spatial memory foraging task.•Goats exhibited evidence of superior spatial memory and made fewer errors than other species.•The alpacas showed low capacity to solve the spatial memory task and failed the training criterion.•All animals showed a preference for immediate reward with restricted choice, regardless of value.
AbstractList Foraging strategy is fundamentally linked with resource availability and dietary preference. Adaptive feeding behaviours, such as the role of spatial memory when navigating to food sites, are found in wild foraging species. We hypothesised that domesticated livestock species also possess adaptive foraging, with potential interspecies differences in this ability resulting from variations in foraging strategy. As such, this study aimed to compare foraging behaviour, in relation to ability to remember and prioritize food sites of different value, in livestock species that have different dietary preferences and backgrounds: sheep (Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus) and alpacas (Vicugna pacos). A total of 705 trials were conducted across general training, criterion training and test trials. Eighteen sheep, 10 goats and 7 alpacas were presented with eight identical buckets, positioned on four cross mounts, that were placed into four corners of the test arena. Following acclimation and training, the subjects were required to search the arena for two randomly baited buckets, each of the two buckets containing either the large food reward or small food reward. After locating the reward, the animals re-entered the arena and were tasked to relocate the same buckets (Experiment 1). Each subject was allowed a maximum of two incorrect visits to non-baited buckets per trial, and the trial continued until both baits had been eaten or 7minutes of inactivity had passed (more than two errors resulted in a 'failure' score for the individual trial). These conditions were then replicated, except that the animal was allowed to make a single selection between the large or small reward following their return to the arena after the initial search (Experiment 2). The goats passed the most trials across all three species (p < 0.001) and made fewer errors when relocating the baited buckets in training and test trials across both experiments (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). In contrast, the alpacas failed to pass the training criterion, with the exception of one individual, primarily due to exceeding the time limit for inactivity. We detected no significant difference in preference for the larger food quantity between species in either experiment (p = 0.65 and p = 0.55, respectively). Equally, selection of either quantity did not deviate from random chance across all individuals (except for a single sheep, p < 0.05, Experiment 2). Thus, goats exhibited the greatest spatial memory of the three species across both test conditions, which may reflect the adaptive foraging strategy that is required to navigate patchy distributions of browse in the complex natural habitats of this species. We recommend that further work should be carried out to determine the scale of selectivity and role of habitat perception on grazing distribution in these species. This information could be used to predict how differences in foraging strategy can be exploited to maximise pasture use efficiency in multi-species grazing systems.
Foraging strategy is fundamentally linked with resource availability and dietary preference. Adaptive feeding behaviours, such as the role of spatial memory when navigating to food sites, are found in wild foraging species. We hypothesised that domesticated livestock species also possess adaptive foraging, with potential interspecies differences in this ability resulting from variations in foraging strategy. As such, this study aimed to compare foraging behaviour, in relation to ability to remember and prioritize food sites of different value, in livestock species that have different dietary preferences and backgrounds: sheep (Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus) and alpacas (Vicugna pacos). A total of 705 trials were conducted across general training, criterion training and test trials. Eighteen sheep, 10 goats and 7 alpacas were presented with eight identical buckets, positioned on four cross mounts, that were placed into four corners of the test arena. Following acclimation and training, the subjects were required to search the arena for two randomly baited buckets, each of the two buckets containing either the large food reward or small food reward. After locating the reward, the animals re-entered the arena and were tasked to relocate the same buckets (Experiment 1). Each subject was allowed a maximum of two incorrect visits to non-baited buckets per trial, and the trial continued until both baits had been eaten or 7 min of inactivity had passed (more than two errors resulted in a ‘failure’ score for the individual trial). These conditions were then replicated, except that the animal was allowed to make a single selection between the large or small reward following their return to the arena after the initial search (Experiment 2). The goats passed the most trials across all three species (p < 0.001) and made fewer errors when relocating the baited buckets in training and test trials across both experiments (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). In contrast, the alpacas failed to pass the training criterion, with the exception of one individual, primarily due to exceeding the time limit for inactivity. We detected no significant difference in preference for the larger food quantity between species in either experiment (p = 0.65 and p = 0.55, respectively). Equally, selection of either quantity did not deviate from random chance across all individuals (except for a single sheep, p < 0.05, Experiment 2). Thus, goats exhibited the greatest spatial memory of the three species across both test conditions, which may reflect the adaptive foraging strategy that is required to navigate patchy distributions of browse in the complex natural habitats of this species. We recommend that further work should be carried out to determine the scale of selectivity and role of habitat perception on grazing distribution in these species. This information could be used to predict how differences in foraging strategy can be exploited to maximise pasture use efficiency in multi-species grazing systems. •The adaptive abilities of sheep, goats, and alpacas were tested in a spatial memory foraging task.•Goats exhibited evidence of superior spatial memory and made fewer errors than other species.•The alpacas showed low capacity to solve the spatial memory task and failed the training criterion.•All animals showed a preference for immediate reward with restricted choice, regardless of value.
ArticleNumber 106580
Author Fraser, Mariecia D.
Quail, Megan R.
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Megan R.
  orcidid: 0000-0002-2505-596X
  surname: Quail
  fullname: Quail, Megan R.
  email: mrq2@aber.ac.uk
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Mariecia D.
  surname: Fraser
  fullname: Fraser, Mariecia D.
BookMark eNqFkE1PwzAMhnMAiQ34CyhHLhtO2_TjBGh8SpO4wDnyEndka5uSdEP792QqnLnYsv36lf1M2UnnOmLsSsBcgMhvNnPs-wY7284TSGRs5rKEEzaJw3ImZCXO2DSEDQDIVMCEhQfH6Zu4p5baFflbvnBtjx4HuydeO49r2635ij5xb93Oc1fz8EnUc-wMx2Yg343aJoYwOL3loSdtKXDbcYxFHGPDo73zBz5g2F6w0xqbQJe_-Zx9PD2-L15my7fn18X9cqaTAoYZQp3nqNFIkGWFZQ5UZEJQBiaTxhSQgtAIaaZLrKAw2uSrXOpSQ4mikiY9Z9ejb-_d1y4ep1obNDWRD7ldUGmSJVCkhaiiNB-l2rsQPNWq97ZFf1AC1JGs2qg_supIVo1k4-LduEjxkb0lr0L8vdNkrCc9KOPsfxY_mGCK0w
Cites_doi 10.1016/j.animal.2022.100546
10.2307/1383163
10.1002/cne.24573
10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00124-5
10.5713/ajas.2002.900
10.1016/0003-3472(86)90032-1
10.1098/rsos.201627
10.1007/s10071-004-0242-y
10.1016/0168-1591(95)00565-A
10.1016/j.smallrumres.2020.106208
10.1016/j.smallrumres.2023.106966
10.1017/S0021859600078795
10.1016/0168-1591(89)90114-7
10.2307/5173
10.1016/0040-5809(80)90051-9
10.3389/fvets.2019.00024
10.1080/00288230809510435
10.1371/journal.pone.0089054
10.1016/j.smallrumres.2021.106349
10.1111/j.1469-7998.1995.tb02772.x
10.1016/j.agee.2013.05.002
10.3844/ajavsp.2020.291.299
10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00152-X
10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00091-5
10.1016/j.applanim.2023.106131
10.1016/j.livsci.2006.11.006
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2025 The Authors
Copyright_xml – notice: 2025 The Authors
DBID 6I.
AAFTH
AAYXX
CITATION
7S9
L.6
DOI 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580
DatabaseName ScienceDirect Open Access Titles
Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access
CrossRef
AGRICOLA
AGRICOLA - Academic
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
AGRICOLA
AGRICOLA - Academic
DatabaseTitleList AGRICOLA

DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Veterinary Medicine
Zoology
Psychology
ExternalDocumentID 10_1016_j_applanim_2025_106580
S0168159125000784
GroupedDBID --K
--M
.~1
0R~
1B1
1RT
1~.
1~5
23M
4.4
457
4G.
53G
5GY
5VS
6I.
7-5
71M
8P~
9JM
AABNK
AAEDT
AAEDW
AAFTH
AAHBH
AAIKJ
AAKOC
AALCJ
AALRI
AAOAW
AAQFI
AAQXK
AATLK
AATTM
AAXKI
AAXUO
AAYWO
ABBQC
ABFNM
ABGRD
ABIVO
ABJNI
ABKYH
ABMAC
ABMZM
ABRWV
ABWVN
ABXDB
ACDAQ
ACGFS
ACIUM
ACPRK
ACRLP
ACRPL
ACVFH
ADBBV
ADCNI
ADEZE
ADMUD
ADNMO
ADQTV
AEBSH
AEIPS
AEKER
AENEX
AEQOU
AEUPX
AEXOQ
AFJKZ
AFPUW
AFRAH
AFTJW
AFXIZ
AGCQF
AGHFR
AGQPQ
AGRNS
AGUBO
AGYEJ
AHHHB
AI.
AIEXJ
AIGII
AIIUN
AIKHN
AITUG
AJRQY
AKBMS
AKRWK
AKYEP
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMRAJ
ANKPU
ANZVX
APXCP
ASPBG
AVWKF
AXJTR
AZFZN
BKOJK
BLXMC
BNPGV
CS3
EBS
EFJIC
EJD
EO8
EO9
EP2
EP3
F5P
FDB
FEDTE
FGOYB
FIRID
FNPLU
FYGXN
G-2
G-Q
GBLVA
HLV
HVGLF
HZ~
IHE
J1W
KOM
LW9
M41
MO0
N9A
O-L
O9-
OAUVE
OZT
P-8
P-9
P2P
PC.
Q38
R2-
RIG
ROL
RPZ
SAB
SCC
SDF
SDG
SDP
SEL
SES
SEW
SPCBC
SSA
SSH
SSZ
SVS
T5K
VH1
WUQ
~G-
~KM
AAYXX
CITATION
7S9
EFKBS
L.6
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c270t-a0f66acad50589a860e7411e40d45dd70301ca034c8a907dcd6b65c8c08a195d3
IEDL.DBID .~1
ISSN 0168-1591
IngestDate Fri Aug 22 20:37:57 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 05:08:48 EDT 2025
Sat Jun 07 17:01:58 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Keywords Cognition
Goat
Alpaca
Behaviour
Language English
License This is an open access article under the CC BY license.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c270t-a0f66acad50589a860e7411e40d45dd70301ca034c8a907dcd6b65c8c08a195d3
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ORCID 0000-0002-2505-596X
OpenAccessLink https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159125000784
PQID 3242073719
PQPubID 24069
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_3242073719
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_applanim_2025_106580
elsevier_sciencedirect_doi_10_1016_j_applanim_2025_106580
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2025-04-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2025-04-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 04
  year: 2025
  text: 2025-04-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationTitle Applied animal behaviour science
PublicationYear 2025
Publisher Elsevier B.V
Publisher_xml – name: Elsevier B.V
References Fraser, Moorby, Vale, Evans (bib6) 2014; 9
Dumont, Petit (bib3) 1998; 60
Astrom, Lungberg, Danell (bib1) 1990; 59
Mazinani, Rude (bib16) 2020; 15
Raoult, Osthaus, Hildebrand, McElligott, Nawroth (bib22) 2021; 8
Stephens, Krebs (bib25) 1986
Kagel, Green, Caraco (bib13) 1986; 34
Ksiksi, Laca (bib15) 2002; 15
Pfister, Martin, Rosales, Sisson, Flores, Bryant (bib18) 1989; 23
Fraser, Vale, Dhanoa (bib7) 2013; 175
Nawroth, Langbein, Coulon, Gabor, Oesterwind, Benz-Schwarzburg, Borell (bib17) 2019; 6
Wade, Trotter, Bailey (bib27) 2023; 223
Hosoi, Rittenhouse, Swift, Richards (bib12) 1995; 43
Kie (bib14) 1999; 80
Spitz, Janeau (bib24) 2009; 237
Watson, Binks (bib28) 2018; 527
Edwards, Newman, Parsons, Krebs (bib4) 1996; 127
R Core Team, 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Woodward, Parsons, Kirk (bib29) 2008; 51
Fraser, Davies, Vale, Hirst, Wright (bib5) 2007; 110
Gordon (bib8) 2003; 181
Quail, Fraser (bib19) 2024; 270
Venables, Ripley (bib26) 2002
Quispe, Naupari, Distel, Flores (bib20) 2021; 197
.
Held, Baumgartner, Kilbride, Bryne, Mendl (bib11) 2005; 8
Zhang, Liu, Yang, Badgery, Guo, Zhang (bib31) 2022
RStudio Team (2020). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA URL
Zobel, Nawroth (bib32) 2020; 192
Hartley, Iason, Duncan, Hitchcock (bib10) 2003; 11
Zamorano-Abramson, Soto, Zapata, Hernández-Lloreda (bib30) 2018; 21
Green (bib9) 1980; 18
Bailey, Howery, Boss (bib2) 2000; 68
Astrom (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib1) 1990; 59
Held (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib11) 2005; 8
Venables (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib26) 2002
Hosoi (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib12) 1995; 43
Kagel (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib13) 1986; 34
Zamorano-Abramson (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib30) 2018; 21
Edwards (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib4) 1996; 127
Ksiksi (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib15) 2002; 15
Wade (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib27) 2023; 223
Quail (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib19) 2024; 270
Fraser (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib6) 2014; 9
Pfister (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib18) 1989; 23
Stephens (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib25) 1986
Hartley (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib10) 2003; 11
Mazinani (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib16) 2020; 15
10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib21
10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib23
Raoult (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib22) 2021; 8
Bailey (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib2) 2000; 68
Nawroth (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib17) 2019; 6
Spitz (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib24) 2009; 237
Woodward (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib29) 2008; 51
Fraser (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib5) 2007; 110
Watson (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib28) 2018; 527
Fraser (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib7) 2013; 175
Kie (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib14) 1999; 80
Zobel (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib32) 2020; 192
Green (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib9) 1980; 18
Gordon (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib8) 2003; 181
Quispe (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib20) 2021; 197
Dumont (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib3) 1998; 60
Zhang (10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib31) 2022
References_xml – volume: 51
  start-page: 53
  year: 2008
  end-page: 67
  ident: bib29
  article-title: The assumption of optimality in foraging models: a simulated experiment with dairy cows grazing grass pasture
  publication-title: N. Z. J. Agric. Res.
– volume: 192
  year: 2020
  ident: bib32
  article-title: Current state of knowledge on the cognitive capacities of goats and its potential to inform species-specific enrichment
  publication-title: Small Rumin. Res.
– volume: 527
  start-page: 818
  year: 2018
  end-page: 832
  ident: bib28
  article-title: Elongation of the CA1 field of the septal hippocampus in ungulates
  publication-title: J. Comput. Neurosci.
– volume: 15
  year: 2002
  ident: bib15
  article-title: Cattle do remember locations of preferred food over extended periods
  publication-title: Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci.
– year: 2002
  ident: bib26
  publication-title: Modern applied statistics with S
– volume: 23
  start-page: 237
  year: 1989
  end-page: 246
  ident: bib18
  article-title: Grazing behaviour of llamas, alpacas and sheep in the Andes of Peru
  publication-title: Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
– volume: 9
  year: 2014
  ident: bib6
  article-title: Mixed grazing systems benefit both upland biodiversity and livestock production
  publication-title: Plos One
– year: 1986
  ident: bib25
  publication-title: Foraging Theory
– volume: 6
  start-page: 24
  year: 2019
  ident: bib17
  article-title: Farm animal cognition- linking behaviour, welfare and ethics
  publication-title: Front. Vet. Sci.
– volume: 43
  year: 1995
  ident: bib12
  article-title: Foraging strategies of cattle in a Y-maze: influence of food availability
  publication-title: Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
– reference: RStudio Team (2020). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA URL
– volume: 237
  start-page: 423
  year: 2009
  end-page: 434
  ident: bib24
  article-title: Daily selection of habitat in wild boar (Sus scrofa)
  publication-title: J. Zool.
– volume: 11
  year: 2003
  ident: bib10
  article-title: Feeding behaviour of Red Deer (
  publication-title: Funct. Ecol.
– volume: 18
  start-page: 244
  year: 1980
  end-page: 256
  ident: bib9
  article-title: Bayesian birds: a simple example of Oaten’s stochastic model of optimal foraging
  publication-title: Theor. Popul. Biol.
– volume: 175
  start-page: 8
  year: 2013
  end-page: 20
  ident: bib7
  article-title: Alternative upland grazing systems: impacts on livestock performance and sward characteristics
  publication-title: Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
– volume: 223
  year: 2023
  ident: bib27
  article-title: Small ruminant landscape distribution: a literature review
  publication-title: Small Rumin. Res.
– volume: 34
  start-page: 271
  year: 1986
  end-page: 283
  ident: bib13
  article-title: When foragers discount the future: constraint or adaptation?
  publication-title: Anim. Behav.
– volume: 8
  year: 2021
  ident: bib22
  article-title: Goats show higher behavioural flexibility than sheep in a spatial detour task
  publication-title: R. Soc. Open Sci.
– year: 2022
  ident: bib31
  article-title: Diet selection of sheep shifted from quality to quantity characteristics of forages as sward availability decreased
  publication-title: Animal
– volume: 60
  start-page: 43
  year: 1998
  end-page: 53
  ident: bib3
  article-title: Spatial memory of sheep at pasture
  publication-title: Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
– volume: 110
  start-page: 251
  year: 2007
  end-page: 266
  ident: bib5
  article-title: Effects on animal performance and sward composition of mixed and sequential grazing of permanent pasture by cattle and sheep
  publication-title: Livest. Sci.
– volume: 270
  year: 2024
  ident: bib19
  article-title: Pulling the wool over their eyes? Object permanence, numerical competence and categorisation in alternative livestock species
  publication-title: Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
– volume: 127
  start-page: 555
  year: 1996
  end-page: 562
  ident: bib4
  article-title: Effects of the total, vertical and horizontal availability of the food resource on diet selection and intake of sheep
  publication-title: J. Agric. Sci.
– volume: 80
  start-page: 1114
  year: 1999
  end-page: 1129
  ident: bib14
  article-title: Optimal foraging and risk of predation: effects on behaviour and social structure in ungulates
  publication-title: J. Mammal.
– volume: 68
  start-page: 93
  year: 2000
  end-page: 105
  ident: bib2
  article-title: Effects of social facilitation for locating feeding sites by cattle in an eight-arm radial maze
  publication-title: Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
– reference: .
– volume: 181
  start-page: 13
  year: 2003
  end-page: 21
  ident: bib8
  article-title: Browsing and grazing ruminants: are they different beasts?
  publication-title: For. Ecol. Manag.
– volume: 21
  year: 2018
  ident: bib30
  article-title: Spatial perseveration error by alpacas (Vicugna pacos) in an A-not-B detour task
  publication-title: Anim. Cogn.
– volume: 8
  start-page: 114
  year: 2005
  end-page: 121
  ident: bib11
  article-title: Foraging behaviour in domestic pigs (
  publication-title: Anim. Cogn.
– volume: 59
  start-page: 287
  year: 1990
  end-page: 300
  ident: bib1
  article-title: Partial prey consumption by browsers: trees as patches
  publication-title: J. Anim. Ecol.
– volume: 15
  year: 2020
  ident: bib16
  article-title: Population, world production and quality of sheep and goat products
  publication-title: Am. J. Anim. Vet. Sci.
– reference: R Core Team, 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
– volume: 197
  year: 2021
  ident: bib20
  article-title: Feeding selection of sheep and alpaca on puna tussock rangelands grazed previously by cattle
  publication-title: Small Rumin. Res.
– year: 2022
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib31
  article-title: Diet selection of sheep shifted from quality to quantity characteristics of forages as sward availability decreased
  publication-title: Animal
  doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2022.100546
– volume: 80
  start-page: 1114
  issue: 4
  year: 1999
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib14
  article-title: Optimal foraging and risk of predation: effects on behaviour and social structure in ungulates
  publication-title: J. Mammal.
  doi: 10.2307/1383163
– volume: 21
  issue: 3
  year: 2018
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib30
  article-title: Spatial perseveration error by alpacas (Vicugna pacos) in an A-not-B detour task
  publication-title: Anim. Cogn.
– volume: 527
  start-page: 818
  year: 2018
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib28
  article-title: Elongation of the CA1 field of the septal hippocampus in ungulates
  publication-title: J. Comput. Neurosci.
  doi: 10.1002/cne.24573
– volume: 181
  start-page: 13
  year: 2003
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib8
  article-title: Browsing and grazing ruminants: are they different beasts?
  publication-title: For. Ecol. Manag.
  doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00124-5
– volume: 15
  year: 2002
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib15
  article-title: Cattle do remember locations of preferred food over extended periods
  publication-title: Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci.
  doi: 10.5713/ajas.2002.900
– volume: 11
  issue: 3
  year: 2003
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib10
  article-title: Feeding behaviour of Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) offered Sitka Spruce saplings (Picea sitchensis) grown under different light and nutrient regimes
  publication-title: Funct. Ecol.
– volume: 34
  start-page: 271
  year: 1986
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib13
  article-title: When foragers discount the future: constraint or adaptation?
  publication-title: Anim. Behav.
  doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(86)90032-1
– volume: 8
  year: 2021
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib22
  article-title: Goats show higher behavioural flexibility than sheep in a spatial detour task
  publication-title: R. Soc. Open Sci.
  doi: 10.1098/rsos.201627
– volume: 8
  start-page: 114
  year: 2005
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib11
  article-title: Foraging behaviour in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa): remembering and prioritizing food sites of different value
  publication-title: Anim. Cogn.
  doi: 10.1007/s10071-004-0242-y
– volume: 43
  issue: 3
  year: 1995
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib12
  article-title: Foraging strategies of cattle in a Y-maze: influence of food availability
  publication-title: Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
  doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)00565-A
– year: 1986
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib25
– volume: 192
  year: 2020
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib32
  article-title: Current state of knowledge on the cognitive capacities of goats and its potential to inform species-specific enrichment
  publication-title: Small Rumin. Res.
  doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2020.106208
– ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib23
– volume: 223
  year: 2023
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib27
  article-title: Small ruminant landscape distribution: a literature review
  publication-title: Small Rumin. Res.
  doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2023.106966
– volume: 127
  start-page: 555
  year: 1996
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib4
  article-title: Effects of the total, vertical and horizontal availability of the food resource on diet selection and intake of sheep
  publication-title: J. Agric. Sci.
  doi: 10.1017/S0021859600078795
– volume: 23
  start-page: 237
  year: 1989
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib18
  article-title: Grazing behaviour of llamas, alpacas and sheep in the Andes of Peru
  publication-title: Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
  doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(89)90114-7
– volume: 59
  start-page: 287
  year: 1990
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib1
  article-title: Partial prey consumption by browsers: trees as patches
  publication-title: J. Anim. Ecol.
  doi: 10.2307/5173
– volume: 18
  start-page: 244
  issue: 2
  year: 1980
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib9
  article-title: Bayesian birds: a simple example of Oaten’s stochastic model of optimal foraging
  publication-title: Theor. Popul. Biol.
  doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(80)90051-9
– volume: 6
  start-page: 24
  year: 2019
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib17
  article-title: Farm animal cognition- linking behaviour, welfare and ethics
  publication-title: Front. Vet. Sci.
  doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00024
– ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib21
– year: 2002
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib26
– volume: 51
  start-page: 53
  issue: 1
  year: 2008
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib29
  article-title: The assumption of optimality in foraging models: a simulated experiment with dairy cows grazing grass pasture
  publication-title: N. Z. J. Agric. Res.
  doi: 10.1080/00288230809510435
– volume: 9
  issue: 2
  year: 2014
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib6
  article-title: Mixed grazing systems benefit both upland biodiversity and livestock production
  publication-title: Plos One
  doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089054
– volume: 197
  year: 2021
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib20
  article-title: Feeding selection of sheep and alpaca on puna tussock rangelands grazed previously by cattle
  publication-title: Small Rumin. Res.
  doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2021.106349
– volume: 237
  start-page: 423
  issue: 3
  year: 2009
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib24
  article-title: Daily selection of habitat in wild boar (Sus scrofa)
  publication-title: J. Zool.
  doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1995.tb02772.x
– volume: 175
  start-page: 8
  year: 2013
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib7
  article-title: Alternative upland grazing systems: impacts on livestock performance and sward characteristics
  publication-title: Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
  doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.05.002
– volume: 15
  issue: 4
  year: 2020
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib16
  article-title: Population, world production and quality of sheep and goat products
  publication-title: Am. J. Anim. Vet. Sci.
  doi: 10.3844/ajavsp.2020.291.299
– volume: 60
  start-page: 43
  issue: 1
  year: 1998
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib3
  article-title: Spatial memory of sheep at pasture
  publication-title: Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
  doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00152-X
– volume: 68
  start-page: 93
  year: 2000
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib2
  article-title: Effects of social facilitation for locating feeding sites by cattle in an eight-arm radial maze
  publication-title: Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
  doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00091-5
– volume: 270
  year: 2024
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib19
  article-title: Pulling the wool over their eyes? Object permanence, numerical competence and categorisation in alternative livestock species
  publication-title: Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
  doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2023.106131
– volume: 110
  start-page: 251
  issue: 3
  year: 2007
  ident: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580_bib5
  article-title: Effects on animal performance and sward composition of mixed and sequential grazing of permanent pasture by cattle and sheep
  publication-title: Livest. Sci.
  doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2006.11.006
SSID ssj0005310
Score 2.4283583
Snippet Foraging strategy is fundamentally linked with resource availability and dietary preference. Adaptive feeding behaviours, such as the role of spatial memory...
SourceID proquest
crossref
elsevier
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
Publisher
StartPage 106580
SubjectTerms acclimation
Alpaca
alternative livestock
animal behavior
Behaviour
Capra hircus
Cognition
ewes
Goat
habitats
Ovis aries
pastures
spatial memory
species
Vicugna pacos
Title Do ewe remember? Comparative foraging behaviour of sheep and alternative livestock species in a spatial memory task
URI https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106580
https://www.proquest.com/docview/3242073719
Volume 285
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3NT9RAFH8hGBMuRlaNoJAx4Vq2H9Pp9GTIKlncwAFFiZfJfDUsaLthuyFc-Nt9b9oCmhgPnpr5aDOZ9-b33vR9Aew5PH0mtUVUeZFHXKcyMsaZqOQuNZmh6M7gbXEipmf803l-vgaTIRaG3Cp77O8wPaB13zPud3O8mM_Hn1FZkSiMUUIHQUc5QTkviMv37x65eWQhIwFNjmj2oyjhy30yEut6ThHpaY6dKI7jvwmoP6A6yJ_D5_CsVxzZQbe2TVjz9Qg27vHrdgSjr-TaEuJr2XFvMh_B0-9NGH8Byw8N8zee0R9BKgPynk0eUn8zVF5DwSLWB-6vrllTseWF9wuma8eCWb3u5v6gXLUtIimjQE28a7N5zTQ2cBjX-JO8d29Zq5dXL-Hs8OOXyTTqay5ENi3iNtJxJYS22uVUb1BLEXvUORLPY8dz5wgfEqvjjFup8V7trBNG5FbaWOqkzF32CtbrpvavgQkhUX0zceJlxblPtSzKSvqyrLLSZlJuwXjYaLXoUmuowefsUg2kUUQa1ZFmC8qBHuo3JlGI__98991AQIUniMwiuvbNaqlIpUSgK5Jy-z--_wY2qNU59byF9fZ65XdQX2nNbmDIXXhycDSbntBzdvpt9gs1Eu23
linkProvider Elsevier
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Lb9QwEB6VrRC9ILqAaIHWSFzD5uF4nROqFqrtay-0qOJi-RV1CySrblZV_z0zTtICUtVDj_Ejijz2N-PMNzMAHx2ePpPacVR6kUdcpzIyxpmo4C41maHozsC2mInpGT88z8_XYNLHwhCtssP-FtMDWncto241R4v5fPQNjRWJyhg1dFB0_AmsU3aqfADrewdH09kd0yMLSQlofEQT_goUvvxEfmJdzSkoPc2xETVyfJ-O-g-tgwrafwHPO9uR7bWftwlrvhrCxi2E3Qxh-J3YLSHElp10XvMhPP1Rh_6XsPxSM3_tGf0UpEogn9nkLvs3Q_s11CxiXez-6orVJVteeL9gunIseNarduwvSlfbIJgyitXE6zabV0zjA3bjN_4mAu8Na_Ty5ys42_96OplGXdmFyKbjuIl0XAqhrXY5lRzUUsQezY7E89jx3DmCiMTqOONWarxaO-uEEbmVNpY6KXKXvYZBVVf-DTAhJFpwJk68LDn3qZbjopS-KMqssJmUWzDqF1ot2uwaqqedXapeNIpEo1rRbEHRy0P9s08UqoAH537oBajwEJFnRFe-Xi0VWZWIdeOk2H7E-3fh2fT05FgdH8yO3sIG9bQcn3cwaK5W_j2aL43Z6bbnH-WH7sU
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do+ewe+remember%3F+Comparative+foraging+behaviour+of+sheep+and+alternative+livestock+species+in+a+spatial+memory+task&rft.jtitle=Applied+animal+behaviour+science&rft.au=Quail%2C+Megan+R.&rft.au=Fraser%2C+Mariecia+D.&rft.date=2025-04-01&rft.pub=Elsevier+B.V&rft.issn=0168-1591&rft.volume=285&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.applanim.2025.106580&rft.externalDocID=S0168159125000784
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0168-1591&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0168-1591&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0168-1591&client=summon