Abstract
Musk deer (Moschus spp.) are small, solitary forest ruminants well-known for the musk secreted by adult males. Because of illegal hunting and habitat degradation and loss, the five species of musk deer are classified as endangered. Musk deer farming has been a positive example of ex situ conservation, maintaining deer numbers whilst sustaining musk production. This study was conducted at the Xinglongshan Musk Deer Farm in Gansu Province in northwest China, and was designed to explore the relationships among musk extraction, fighting ability and social rank in captive, male alpine musk deer (Moschus sifanicus). Results showed that musk production was related to a male’s rank in the dominance hierarchy. Males in the middle rank of the dominance hierarchy tended to produce more musk than deer of higher and lower ranks. This is due to the time-energy budgeting patterns and captive stress of males with different status in the dominance hierarchy. That is, high-ranking males need to budget more time and energy to maintain their higher rank, while low-ranking males are exposed to more aggression from higher-ranking individuals, thus limiting their access to resources such as food and shelter. Accordingly, high-ranking and low-ranking males endured more stress than middle-ranking males, negatively affecting their annual musk production. Supporting the correlation between musk production and the frequency of tail-rubbing behavior was not significant, average musk extraction could not be predicted based on the frequency of tail-rubbing alone. Status in the dominance hierarchy, however, was positively correlated with tail-rubbing frequency, with males of higher rank tending to tail-rub more frequently. Conflict winners tended to initiate tail-rubbing after the conflict; tail-rubbing accounted for 83.33% of the post-conflict behavior expressed by the winner. Tail-rubbing was one of the behavioral rewards of winning a conflict and was also related to releasing aggression; not solely for scent marking territory and trails. Based on the results of this study, there was no direct relationship between musk production and captive males’ status in the dominance hierarchy (and, therefore, in the intensity of aggression displayed). If the sole aim of musk deer farms is to domesticate musk deer for maximum production of musk, we suggest that highly aggressive males be removed from the population. Musk production will remain unchanged, however, aggression level and intensity of fighting could be lessened thus reducing farming costs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altmann J. 1974. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49(3–4): 227–267. DOI: 10.1163/156853974X00534
Andersen I.L., Nævdal E., Bakken M. & Bøe K.E. 2004. Aggression and group size in domesticated pigs, Sus scrofa: ‘when the winner takes it all and the loser is standing small’. Anim. Behav. 68(4): 965–975. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.12.016
Barroso F.G., Alados C.L. & Boza J. 2000. Social hierarchy in the domestic goat: effect on food habits and production. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 69(1): 35–53. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00113-1
Bro-Jørgensen J. 2002. Overt female mate competition and preference for central males in a lekking antelope. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 99(14): 9290–9293. DOI: 10.1073/pnas. 142125899
Brouns F. & Edwards S.A. 1994. Social rank and feeding behavior of group-housed sows fed competitively or ad libitum. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39: 225–235. DOI: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)90158-9
Comfort A. 1971. Likelihood of human pheromones. Nature 230: 432–433. DOI: 10.1038/230432a0
Dantzer R. 1986. Behavioral, physiological and functional aspects of stereotyped behavior: a review and a re-interpretation. J. Anim. Sci. 62: 1776–1786.
Eccles T.R. & Shackleton D.M. 1986. Correlates and consequences of social status in female bighorn sheep. Anim. Behav. 34(5): 1392–1401. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80210-X
Estevez I., Andersen I.L. & Nævdal E. 2007. Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 103(3–4): 185–204. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.025
Fraser A.F. & Broom D.M. 1990. Farm Animal Behavior and Welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. ISBN: 0851991602/0-85199-160-2
Green M.J.B. 1986. The distribution, status and conservation of the Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster). Biological Conservation 35(4): 347–375. DOI: 10.1016/0006-3207(86)90094-7
Green M.J.B. 1987. Scent-marking in the Himalayan musk deer. J. Zool. Lond. 1: 721–737.
Homes V. 1999. On the Scent: Conservation Musk Deer, the Uses of Musk and Europe’s Role in its Trade. TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels. ISBN 90-9012795-X
Hu J.H., Zhang E. & Sheng H. 1990. Behavioral patterns during mating season in captive forest musk deer. East China Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.), pp. 21–25.
Johnston R.E. 1990. Chenical communication in golden hamsters: From behavior to molecules and neural mechanisms, pp. 381–409. In: Dewsbury D.A. (ed.), Contemporary Issues in Comparative Psychology, Sunderland, MA, US, Sinauer Associates, XIV, 509 pp. DOI: 10.1037/11525-017
Kiley-Worthington M. 1978. The social organization of a small captive group of eland, oryx and roan antelop with an analysis of personality profiles. Behaviour 66(1–2): 32–55. DOI: 10.1163/156853978X00404
Kristensen H.H., Jones R.B., Schofield C.P., White R.P. & Wathes C.M. 2001. The use of olfactory and other cues for a social recognition by juvenile pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 72(4): 321–333. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00209-4
Koren L., Mokady O. & Geffen E. 2008. Social status and cortisol levels in singing rock hyraxes. Horm. Behav. 54(1): 212–216. DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008
Lai J. & Sheng H. 1990. Studies on the scent-mark in male forest musk deer during mating season. J. East China Norm. Univ., Nat. Sci. Ed., pp. 8–13.
Meng X., Yang Q., Feng Z., Xia L., Wang P., Jiang Y., Bai Z. & Li G. 2002. Seasonal active patterns of active musk deer. Acta Theriol. Sin. 22(2): 87–97.
Meng X., Yang Q., Feng Z. & Xu H. 2007. Stereotyped behavior of captive Moschus sifanicus in Xinglong Mountain Nature Reserve. Chin. J. Ecol. 26(3): 355–358.
Meng X., Yang Q., Xia L., Feng Z., Jiang Y. & Wang P. 2003. The temporal estrous patterns of female alpine musk deer in captivity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 82: 75–85. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00013-3
Meng X., Zhou C., Hu J., Li C., Meng Z., Feng J., Zhou Y. & Zhu Y. 2006. The musk deer farming in China. Anim. Sci. 82: 1–6. DOI: 10.1079/ASC200516
Morgan K.N. & Tromborg C.T. 2007. Sources of stress in captivity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 102: 262–302. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.032
Parry-Jones R. & Wu J.Y. 2001. Musk Deer Farming as a Conservation Tool in China. TRAFFIC Network, 32 pp.
Rubenstein D.I. & Hack M. 1992. Horse signals: the sounds and scents of fury. Evol. Ecol. 6(3): 254–260. DOI: 10.1007/BF02214165
Sheng H. & Liu Z. 2007. The Musk Deer in China. Shanghai Science & Technology Press, Shanghai, China. [in Chinese]
Sherwin C.M. 1990. Priority of access to limited feed, butting hierarchy and movement order in a large group of sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 25: 9–24. DOI: 10.1016/0168-1591(90)90065-L
Shrestha M.N. 1998. Animal welfare in the musk deer. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 59: 245–250. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00139-7
Yang Q., Meng X., Feng Z. & Xia L. 2003. Conservation status and causes of decline on musk deer in China. Biol. Conserv. 109: 333–342. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00159-3
Zhang B. 1983. Musk deer: their capture, domestication and care according to Chinese experience and methods. Unasylva 35: 16–24.
Zheng S. & Pi N. 1979. Study on ecology of the musk deer (Moschus sifanicus). Acta Zool. Sin. 25(2): 176–186. [in Chinese]
Zheng S. & Pi N. 1984. The musk sac, musk, quantity and hunting of alpine musk deer (Moschus sifanicus). Acta Theriol. Sin. 4(1): 35–42. [in Chinese]
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meng, X., Feng, J., Yun, M. et al. Relationships between musk extraction, social rank and tail-rubbing in male Alpine musk deer, Moschus sifanicus . Biologia 66, 928–932 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-011-0093-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-011-0093-3