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...
Saved in:
Published in | Applied animal behaviour science Vol. 285; p. 106580 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Elsevier B.V
01.04.2025
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get 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 |