Mammalian Biology

, Volume 74, Issue 3, pp 236–239 | Cite as

Consummatory simultaneous positive and negative contrast in fallow deer: Implications for selectivity

  • Ulrika A. BergvallEmail author
  • Alexandra C. V. Balogh
Short Communication


Dama dama Fallow deer Contrast effects Food choice Tannin 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alm, U., Birgersson, B., Leimar, O., 2002. The effect of food quality and relative abundance on food choice in fallow deer. Anim. Behav. 64, 439–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergvall, U.A., Leimar, O., 2005. Plant secondary compounds and the frequency of food types affect food choice by mammalian herbivores. Ecology 86 (9), 2450–2460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergvall, U.A., Rautio, P., Kesti, K., Tuomi, J., Leimar, O., 2006. Associational effects of plant defences in relation to within- and between-patch food choice by a mammalian herbivore: neighbour contrast susceptibility and defence. Oecologia 147, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergvall, U.A., Rautio, P., Luotola, T., Leimar, O., 2007. A test of simultaneous and successive negative contrast in fallow deer foraging behaviour. Anim. Behav. 74 (3), 395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernays, B.E., Cooper Driver, G., Bilgener, M., 1989. Herbivores and plant tannins. Adv. Ecol. Res. 19, 263–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crespi, L.P., 1942. Quantitative variation in incentive and performance in the white rat. Am. J. Psychol. 40, 467–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dickinson, A., Balleine, B., 1995. Motivational control of instrumental action. Curr. Directions Psychol. Sci. 4 (5), 162–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flaherty, C.F., 1982. Incentive contrast: A review of behavioral changes following shifts in reward. Anim. Learn. Behav. 10, 409–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flaherty, C.F., 1996. Incentive Relativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Jackson, J., 1977. The annual diet of the fallow deer (Dama dama) in the New Forest, Hampshire, as determined by rumen content analysis. J. Zool. Lond. 181, 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mali, S., Borges, R.M., 2003. Phenolics, fibre, alkaloids, saponins, and cyanogenic glycosides in a seasonal cloud forest in India. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 31, 1221–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McSweeny, F.K., Weatherly, J.N., 1998. Habituation to the reinforcer may contribute to multiple-schedule behavioural contrast. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 69, 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Robbins, C.T., Mole, S., Hagerman, A.E., Hanley, T.A., 1987. Role of tannins in defending plants against ruminants: reduction in dry matter digestion? Ecology 68 (6), 1606–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Senft, R.L., Coughenour, M.B., Bailey, D.W., Rittenhouse, L.R., Sala, O.E., Swift, D.M., 1987. Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies: Landscape ecology can enhance traditional foraging theory. Bio Science 37 (11), 789–799.Google Scholar
  15. Williams, B.A., 2002. Behavioral contrast redux. Anim. Learn. Behav. 30 (1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zeaman, D., 1949. Response latency as a function of the amount of reinforcement. J. Exp. Psychol. 39, 466–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations