Behavior Genetics

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 121–130 | Cite as

Major Growth QTLs in Fowl Are Related to Fearful Behavior: Possible Genetic Links Between Fear Responses and Production Traits in a Red Junglefowl × White Leghorn Intercross

  • Karin E. Schütz
  • Susanne Kerje
  • Lina Jacobsson
  • Björn Forkman
  • Örjan Carlborg
  • Leif Andersson
  • Per Jensen


The aim of this work was to study fear responses and their relation to production traits in red junglefowl (Gallus gallus spp.), White Leghorn (Gallus domesticus), and their F2-progeny. Quantitative trait locus (QTL) analyses were performed for behavioral traits to gain information about possible genetic links between fear-related behaviors and production. Four behavioral tests were performed that induce different levels of acute fear (open field [OF], exposure to a novel object, tonic immobility, and restraint). Production traits, that is, egg production, sexual maturity (in females), food intake, and growth, were measured individually. A genome scan using 105 microsatellite markers was carried out to identify QTLs controlling the traits studied. In the OF and novel object tests (NO), Leghorns showed less fear behavior than junglefowl, whereas junglefowl behaved less fearfully in the tonic immobility test (TI) and were more active in the restraint test. In the F2 progeny, only weak phenotypic associations were found between production traits and fear behavior. A significant QTL for TI duration was found on chromosome 1 that coincided with a QTL for egg weight and growth in the same animals. Another QTL for NO in males coincided with another major growth QTL. These two known growth QTLs affected a wide range of reactions in different tests. Several other significant and suggestive QTLs for behavioral traits related to fear were found. These QTLs did not coincide with QTLs for production traits, indicating that these fear variables may not be genetically linked to the production traits we measured here. The results show that loci affecting important production traits are located in the same chromosomal region as loci affecting different fear-related behaviors.


Quantitative Trait Locus Behavioral Trait Production Trait Fear Response Significant Quantitative Trait Locus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, C. M. A., Manwell, C., Jayaprakash, N., and Francis, N. (1971). Molecular genetics of avian proteins-X: Egg white protein polymorphism of indigenous Indian chickens. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 40B:147-153.Google Scholar
  2. Beilharz, R. G., Luxford, B. G., and Wilkinson, J. L. (1993). Quantitative genetics and evolution: Is our understanding of genetics sufficient to explain evolution? J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 110:161-170.Google Scholar
  3. Bilcik, B., and Keeling, L. (1999). Changes in feather condition in relation to feather pecking and aggressive behavior in laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 40:444-451.Google Scholar
  4. Buckland, R. B., Blagrave, K., and Laguë, P. C. (1974). Competitiveprotein binding assay for corticoids in the peripheral plasma of the immature chicken. Poult. Sci. 53:241-254.Google Scholar
  5. Carlborg, ö., Andersson-Eklund, L., and Andersson, L. (2002). Parallel computing in interval mapping of quantitative trait loci. J. Hered. 92:449-451.Google Scholar
  6. Carlborg, ö., Kerje, S., Jacobsson, L., Schütz, K., Jensen, P., and Andersson, L. (2003). A global search reveals epistatic interactions between QTLs for early growth in the chicken. Genome Res. 13:413-421.Google Scholar
  7. Churchill, G. A., and Doerge, R. W. (1994). Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 138:963-971.Google Scholar
  8. Craig, J. V., Jan, M. L., Polley, C. R., Bhagwat, A. L., and Dayton, A. D. (1975). Changes in relative aggressiveness and social dominance associated with selection for early egg production in chickens. Poult. Sci. 54:1647-1658.Google Scholar
  9. Desforges, M. F., and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. (1975). A behavioral comparison of domestic and mallard ducks: Habituation and flight reactions. Anim. Behav. 23:692-697.Google Scholar
  10. Green, P., Falls, K., and Crook, S. (1990). Documentation for CRIMAP, version 2.4., St Louis, MO: Washington University School of Medicine.Google Scholar
  11. Haley, C. S., Knott, S. A., and Elsen, J. M. (1994). Mapping quantitative trait loci in crosses between outbred lines using least squares. Genetics 136:1195-1207.Google Scholar
  12. Hale, E. B. (1962). Domestication and the evolution of behavior. In Hafez, E. S. E. (ed.), The Behavior of Domestic Animals (pp. 21-53). London: Bailliére, Tindall & Cox.Google Scholar
  13. Hughes, B. O., and Black, A. J. (1974). The effect of environmental factors on activity, selected behavior patterns and “fear” of fowls in cages and pens. Br. Poult. Sci. 15:375-380.Google Scholar
  14. Inglis, I. R., Forkman, B., and Lazarus, J. (1997). Free food or earned food? A review and fuzzy model of contrafreeloading. Anim. Behav. 53:1171-1191.Google Scholar
  15. Johnsson, J. I., and Abrahams, M. V. (1991). Interbreeding with domestic strain increases foraging under threat of predation in juvenile steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): An experimental study. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:243-247.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, R. B. (1986). The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: A review. World's Poult. Sci. J. 42:82-96.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, R. B. (1987). The assessment of fear in the domestic fowl. In R. Zayan, and Duncan, I. J. H. (eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Social Behavior in the Domestic Fowl (pp. 40-81). Amsterdam-Oxford-New York-Tokyo: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, R. B. (1989). Avian open-field research and related effects of environmental novelty: An annotated bibliography, 1960–1988. Psychol. Rec. 39:397-420.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, R. B. (1996). Fear and adaptability in poultry: Insights, implications and imperatives. World's Poult. Sci. J. 52:133-174.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, R. B., and Hocking, P. M. (1999). Genetic selection for poultry behavior: Big bad wolf or friend in need? Anim. Welfare. 8:343-359.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, R. B., Satterlee, D. G., and Marks, H. L. (1997). Fear-related behavior in Japanese quail divergently selected for body weight. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 52:87-98.Google Scholar
  22. Kerje, S., Carlborg, ö., Jacobsson, L., Schütz, K., Jensen, P., and Andersson, L. (2003). The two-fold difference in adult size between the red junglefowl and White Leghorn chickens is largely explained by a limited number of QTLs. Anim. Genet. 34:264-274.Google Scholar
  23. Liljedahl, L.-E., Kolstad, N., Soerensen, P., and Maijala, K. (1979). Scandinavian selection and crossbreeding experiment with laying hens. I. Background and general outline. Acta Agric. Scand. 29:273-285.Google Scholar
  24. Lindqvist, C., Schütz, K., and Jensen, P. (2002). Red jungle fowl have more contrafreeloading than White Leghorn layers: Effects of food deprivation and consequences for information gain. Behaviour 139:1195-1209.Google Scholar
  25. Luiting, P., and Urff, E. M. (1991). Residual feed consumption in laying hens. I. Quantification of phenotypic variation and repeatabilities. Poult. Sci. 70:1655-1662.Google Scholar
  26. Price, E. O. (1999). Behavioral development in animals undergoing domestication. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65:245-271.Google Scholar
  27. Rauw, W. M., Kanis, E., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E. N., and Grommers, F. J. (1998). Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livest. Prod. Sci. 56:15-33.Google Scholar
  28. Schütz, K. E., Forkman, B., and Jensen, P. (2001). Domestication effects on foraging strategy, social behavior and different fear responses: A comparison between the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and a modern layer breed. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 74:1-14.Google Scholar
  29. Schütz, K. E., and Jensen, P. (2001). Effects of resource allocation on behavioral strategies: A comparison of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and two domesticated breeds of poultry. Ethology. 107:753-765.Google Scholar
  30. Schütz, K., Kerje, S., Carlborg, ö., Jacobsson, L., Andersson, L., and Jensen, P. (2002). Analysis of a red junglefowl × White Leghorn intercross reveals trade-off in resource allocation between behavior and production traits. Behav. Genet. 32:423-433.Google Scholar
  31. Siegel, P. B. (1989). Gordon Memorial Lecture: The genetic-behavior interface and well-being of poultry. Br. Poult. Sci. 30:3-13.Google Scholar
  32. West, B., and Zhou, B.-X. (1989). Did chickens go north? New evidence for domestication. World's Poult. Sci. J. 45:205-218.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin E. Schütz
    • 1
  • Susanne Kerje
    • 2
  • Lina Jacobsson
    • 2
  • Björn Forkman
    • 3
  • Örjan Carlborg
    • 2
  • Leif Andersson
    • 2
  • Per Jensen
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Animal Environment and Health, Section of EthologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesSweden
  2. 2.Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Uppsala Biomedical CenterSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Department of Animal Science and Animal HealthThe Royal Veterinary and Agricultural UniversityFrederiksbergDenmark
  4. 4.Division of Biology, IFMUniversity of LinköpingLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations