Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp 546–551 | Cite as

Effects of body mass, age, dominance and parasite load on foraging time of bighorn rams, Ovis canadensis

  • Fanie Pelletier
  • Marco Festa-Bianchet
Original Article

Abstract

In sexually dimorphic ungulates, males generally spend less time foraging than females, possibly because of difference in body mass or because of the energetic requirements of lactation. The relationship between body size and foraging time has received little attention at the intra-specific level, because few studies have documented activity budgets for individuals of known size. Bighorn rams are a good model to explore how body mass affects foraging time, because they range in mass from 55 to 140 kg. We examined how the foraging time of bighorn rams varied according to individual characteristics. We observed rams in a marked population and constructed time budgets during the 3 months preceding the rut. We determined ram social rank based on agonistic encounters and collected fecal samples to count lungworm larvae. Time spent foraging was negatively correlated with body mass. After accounting for age differences, larger rams spent less time foraging and more time lying than smaller rams. Among rams aged 6–12 years, dominants spent less time feeding than subordinates, while fecal output of lungworm larvae was negatively correlated with foraging time for rams of all ages. Body mass accounts for much of the individual variation in foraging time, suggesting that sexual dimorphism is important in explaining differences in feeding time between males and females.

Keywords

Bighorn sheep Body mass Foraging Ovis canadensis Time budget 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Y. Gendreau, É. Viollet, K.A. Page and C. Feder for help in the field. We are grateful to A. von Hardenberg for assistance with statistics. For critical comments on the manuscript, we thank Kathreen Ruckstuhl, Norman Owen-Smith and Jean-Michel Gaillard. We also thank Jack Hogg for his continuous help and advice. We dedicate this paper to the late Ian Ross, who made a major contribution to this long-term study by capturing and tagging bighorns from 1989 to 2002. Financial support was provided by a Challenge Grant in Biodiversity financed trough the Alberta Conservation Association and the University of Alberta (to F.P.), NSERC Discovery grant to M.F.-B. and a NSERC scholarship to F.P. We thank the Kananaskis Field Stations (University of Calgary) for logistic support. This research project (protocol MFB 02) was approved by the Animal Care Committee of the Université de Sherbrooke, an affiliate of the Canadian Council on Animal Care.

References

  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bassano B, von Hardenberg A, Pelletier F, Gobbi G (2003) A method to weigh free-ranging ungulates without handling. Wildl Soc Bull 31:1205–1209Google Scholar
  3. Bell RHV (1971) A grazing ecosystem in the Serengeti. Sci Am 225:86–93Google Scholar
  4. Bon R, Rideau C, Villaret J-C, Joachim J (2001) Segregation is not only a matter of sex in Alpine ibex, Capra ibex ibex. Anim Behav 62:495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonneaud C, Mazuc J, Gonzalez G, Haussy C, Chastel O, Faivre B, Sorci G (2003) Assessing the cost of mounting an immune response. Am Nat 161:367–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan KL, Evans MR, Goldsmith AR, Bryant DM, Rowe LV (2001) Testosterone influences basal metabolic rate in male house sparrows: a new cost of dominance signalling? Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1337–1344CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982a) Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. Clutton-Brock TH, Iason GR, Albon SD, Guinness FE (1982b) Effects of lactation on feeding behaviour and habitat use in wild Red deer hinds. J Zool 198:227–236Google Scholar
  9. Conradt L (1998) Could asynchrony in activity between the sexes cause intersexual social segregation in ruminants? Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1359–1363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Creel S (2001) Social dominance and stress hormones. Trends Ecol Evol 16:491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creel S, Creel NM, Monfort SL (1996) Social stress and dominance. Nature 379:212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demment MW (1982) The scaling of ruminoreticulum size with body weight in East African ungulates. Afr J Ecol 20:43–47Google Scholar
  13. Demment MW, Van Soest PJ (1985) A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am Nat 125:641–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dobson FS, Risch TS, Murie JO (1999) Increasing returns in the life history of Columbian ground squirrels. J Anim Ecol 68:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Festa-Bianchet M (1991) Numbers of lungworm larvae in feces of bighorn sheep: yearly changes, influence of host sex, and effects on host survival. Can J Zool 69:547–554Google Scholar
  16. Forrester SG, Lankester MW (1997) Extracting protostrongylid nematode larvae from ungulate feces. J Wildl Dis 33:511–516PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Geist V (1971) Mountain sheep. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Gross JE, Alkon PU, Demment MW (1996) Nutritional ecology of dimorphic herbivores: digestion and passage rates in Nubian ibex. Oecologia 107:170–178Google Scholar
  19. Hass CC, Jenni DA (1991) Structure and ontogeny of dominance relationships among bighorn rams. Can J Zool 69:471–476Google Scholar
  20. Hogg JT (1984) Mating in bighorn sheep: multiple creative male strategies. Science 225:526–529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hogg JT (1987) Intrasexual competition and mate choice in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Ethology 75:119–144Google Scholar
  22. Hudson RJ (1985) Body size, energetics, and adaptive radiation. In: Hudson RJ, White RG (eds) Bioenergetics of wild herbivores. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., pp 1–24Google Scholar
  23. Illius WA, Gordon IJ (1987) The allometry of food intake in grazing ruminants. J Anim Ecol 56:989–999Google Scholar
  24. Jarman PJ (1974) The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48:215–267Google Scholar
  25. Jenkins SH (2002) Data pooling and type I errors: a comment on Leger & Didrichsons. Anim Behav 63:F9-F11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Komers PE, Messier F, Gates CC (1993) Group structure in wood bison: nutritional and reproductive determinants. Can J Zool 71:1367–1371Google Scholar
  27. Kyriazakis I, Anderson DH, Oldham JD, Coop RL, Jackson F (1996) Long-term subclinical infection with Trichostrongylus colubriformis: effects on food intake, diet selection and performance of growing lambs. Vet Parasitol 61:297–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kyriazakis I, Tolkamp BJ, Hutchings MR (1998) Towards a functional explanation for the occurence of anorexia during parasitic infections. Anim Behav 56:265–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Leger DW, Didrichsons IA (1994) An assessment of data pooling and some alternatives. Anim Behav 48:823–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Machlis L, Dodd PWD, Fentress JC (1985) The pooling fallacy: problems arising when individuals contribute more than one observation to the data set. Z Tierpsychol 68:201-214Google Scholar
  31. Mysterud A (1998) The relative roles of body size and feeding type on activity time of temperate ruminants. Oecologia 113:442–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Owen-Smith NR (1988) Megaherbivores. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Owen-Smith NR (1992) Grazers and browsers: ecological and social contrasts among African ruminants. In: Spitz F, Janeau G, Gonzalez G, Aulagnier S (eds) Ongulés/Ungulates 91. S.F.E.P.M.-I.R.G.M., Paris, Toulouse, pp 175–181Google Scholar
  34. Owen-Smith NR (1998) How high ambient temperature affects the daily activity and foraging time of a subtropical ungulate, the greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros). J Zool 246:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pelletier F, Bauman J, Festa-Bianchet M (2003) Fecal testosterone in bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): behavioural and endocrine correlates. Can J Zool 81:1678–1684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pérez-Barberia FJ, Gordon IJ (1999) The relative roles of phylogeny, body size and feeding style on the activity time of temperate ruminants: a reanalysis. Oecologia 120:193–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pettorelli N, Gaillard JM, Van Laere G, Duncan P, Kjellander P, Liberg O, Delorme D, Maillard D (2002) Variations in adult body mass in roe deer: the effects of population density at birth and of habitat quality. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:747–753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Roberts G (1996) Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases? Anim Behav 51:1077–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruckstuhl KE (1998) Foraging behaviour and sexual segregation in bighorn sheep. Anim Behav 56:99–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruckstuhl KE (1999) To synchronise or not to synchronise: a dilemma for young bighorn males? Behaviour 136:805–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ruckstuhl KE, Festa-Bianchet M (2001) Group choice by subadult bighorn rams: trade-offs between foraging efficiency and predator avoidance. Ethology 107:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ruckstuhl KE, Kokko H (2002) Modelling sexual segregation in ungulates: effects of group size, activity budgets and synchrony. Anim Behav 64:909–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ruckstuhl KE, Neuhaus P (2002) Sexual segregation in ungulates: a comparative test of three hypotheses. Biol Rev 77:77–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruckstuhl KE, Festa-Bianchet M, Jorgenson J (2003) Bites rates in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): effects of season, age, sex and reproductive status. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:167–173Google Scholar
  45. Sayre RW, Seabloom RW (1994) Summer activity patterns of bighorn ewes in the Northern Great Plains. In: Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council, Cranbrook, B.C., vol 8, pp 104–109Google Scholar
  46. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  47. Steele BM, Hogg JT (2003) Measuring individual quality in conservation and behavior. In: Festa-Bianchet M, Apollonio M (eds) Animal behavior and wildlife conservation. Island Press, Washington, pp 243–269Google Scholar
  48. Sutherland I (2003) Fecal mass and parasite strategies. Trends Parasitol 19:68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Vries H de (1995) An improved test of linearity in dominance hierarchies containing unknown or tied relationships. Anim Behav 50:1375–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vries H de (1998) Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: a new procedure and review. Anim Behav 55:827–843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Vries H de, Netto WJ, Hanegraaf PLH (1993) Matman: a program for the analysis of sociometric matrices and behavioural transition matrices. Behaviour 125:157–175Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de biologieUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations