Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
Gamebird farming is an emerging industry in Pakistan. Nowadays, the production of large amounts of gamebirds used for restocking purposes is an inescapable prerequisite to compensate for the harvest of wild stocks. The present study aims to delineate the welfare of one of the popular gamebirds Chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar, Phasianidae) during intensive farming at the two local game farms. The welfare in terms of anti-predator (AP) behavior was assessed. I analyzed the behavior by arranging AP behavioral assays with a flight initiation test, flight initiation distance, predator test, novel object test, escape test, and flight angles. Specifically, the birds of prey and mammalian predators stimulated the AP behavior in the Chukar partridges. The behavioral assays showed that the Chukar partridge had a clear inclination to escape from predators and can survive if they are to be released into the wild. The initiation of flight was triggered by both avian and mammalian predators indicative of likely good survival chances of these birds. However, it is inferred that restocking and reintroduction of Chukar populations cannot be separated from the adoption of sound welfare programs during intensive rearing.
Department of Biology, Virtual University of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
*Address all correspondence to: bilalvu4@gmail.com
1. Introduction
The hunting of gamebirds for both recreational and food items dates back to ancient times. In some cases, this practice ended up depleting the wild stocks to a considerable extent [1], especially over the last century [2]. To counterbalance this phenomenon, captive breeding for restocking purposes has spread throughout the world. Farming practices to produce, rear, and release game birds improved thanks to the provision of human interventions and care. In this context, the viability of captive-raised birds in the wild is an essential prerequisite.
When released, captive birds face a sudden change in their habitat [3]. They are first provided intense human interventional care, and then, once released, exposed to no or minimal human interventions. Nevertheless, intensively reared birds are of compromised quality in terms of wild behavior and instincts, flight distances and flight speeds, which progressively increase their mortality after release [4, 5, 6, 7]. However, less stressed and better-raised birds with stimulated wild instincts for environmental pressures can overcome the associated challenges.
The intensively farmed birds are released for restocking or reintroduction [8, 9, 10], but those released for hunting purposes, numbering several million per year, largely exceed the others [9, 11]. Galliformes (especially partridges) account for about 70% of all hunted species [12]. These gallinaceous gamebirds include socioeconomically relevant species such as the Chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar), the Red-legged partridge (A. rufa), and the Rock partridge (A. graeca). These species are appreciated not only for their meat but also for the beauty of their ornamentation.
The Chukar partridge is a medium-sized, diurnal, gregarious, aggressive, and one of the most commonly introduced gamebirds worldwide [13]. It is distributed from southeastern Europe eastwards across the Middle East and Central Asia to Manchuria in the north and Nepal in the south. In Pakistan, it is found from 400 m above sea level (asl) in the Salt Range of Pakistan to 4000 m asl in the Western Himalayas. It is regarded as the national bird of Pakistan, where is vernacularly known as “Chakoor” or Chakor”, as well as “Chand Chakor” or “Chan Chakor”, due to the appearance of the black line as a crescent on the lateral sides of the face. Now in Pakistan, chukar is widely reared for recreational hunting and reintroduction purposes. However, it is still poorly studied in captivity [14]. It can be reared efficiently for meat production and the food, once curated, is distributed to consumers [15].
The species is indeed exposed to several threats like habitat degradation, and reduction due to human encroachment, hunting, poaching of eggs, chicks, and adults that are used for fighting [16]. The correlation between the success of breeding and weather patterns largely determines its population size [17]. Although the local chukar population in Pakistan seems unaffected by anthropogenic pressures, actually its consistency is dwindling [14]. This chapter is of prime importance due to the focus on the welfare of chukar partridge during intensive farming for reintroduction, meat, and game purposes.
Captive breeding has a prominent effect on the well-being of gamebirds that are exposed to major alterations in their behaviors [18]. Fear of birds, run-down fostering, and motherly care was found to be associated with poor survival skills in the wild. Thereby, there is an increasing concern about natural and semi-natural rearing methods that may guarantee more successful releasing programs [19]. The altered behaviors are partially attributed to the absence of parental care during rearing and lack exposure to predators [20]. Accommodating these drawbacks is costly in terms of both labor and capital [7].
Predators can impact the costs associated with gamebird production in both direct (i.e., predation) and indirect (i.e., disturbance of reproductive birds) ways [8]. The economic losses suffered by the game industry due to predators may reach the order of millions of dollars to the game industry. The anti-predator (AP) training is an economical treatment for developing an early fear practice in chicks that sequel in improved predator avoidance [21]. If AP training is provided during an early age, it can be beneficial in terms of survival in the wild [11].
Many empirical approaches for stimulating and shaping AP behavior can be found in the literature [22, 23, 24] and are generally grouped in the following broad categories: (1) The flight initiation (FI) test aims at stimulating a flight response against a human intruder and is quantified by the distance, defined as the minimum distance for eliciting the flight response in birds; (2) The novel object (NO) tests simulate a happenstance with a novel item, usually associated with a food resource [25]; (3) The emergence/escape tests (ET) estimate the propensity of wandering into an unfamiliar or potentially dangerous environment from an instinctively harmless location [26]; Finally, (4) the predator exposure tests present the predator in a controlled manner to elicit its scrutiny or alarm calls under predation danger [27].
On the other hand, boldness - the exploration of the intimate habitat for food or other resources [24]—is usually assessed in conjunction with the threatening stimuli associated with the resources being utilized [24, 28]. In pheasants, boldness is described in terms of their exploration of food and novel objects. Training and application of the aforementioned AP tests can produce near-to-wild behavior in game birds. The early life of chicks in captivity is crucial for the development of such behaviors. Some training can induce stress in birds, but in the long term, these are beneficial [3], assuring the bird’s survival in the wild once released.
As validated for other wild species, the AP training should be an essential part and parcel of the captive management of the species’ restocking or reintroduction process [29]. Several authors called for the need of carrying out more AP behavior assessments for game birds in captivity (e.g., [2]). Exposure to predators can be potentially beneficial to captive-reared game birds destined to be released. However, the feasibility of providing AP training stimuli should be evaluated carefully. In fact, the consequences of exposure to living predators are still unknown.
When game birds are reared either for conservation, reintroduction, hunting, or meat purposes, it is mandatory to ensure the overall welfare of the birds. This study will ensure welfare through getting insights on the building-up of appropriate wild instincts and behavior in intensively reared Chukars and exploring the potential of captive breeding for future release programs to restock wild Chukar populations. This chapter also aimed to provide guidelines to produce gamebird still maintaining wild behavior through ethological experiments.
This prospective, explanatory and descriptive study aimed to explore current trends in the welfare and management of avian game farming in Pakistan was carried out from May 2020 to August 2021. Two avian game breeding farms, namely Sazgar Wildlife Breeding Farm (SWBF), district Lahore and Padhri Game Farm (PGF) under Padhri Private Game Reserve (PGR), district Jhelum, were chosen as study areas. PGR area is characterized by a subtropical humid climate. SWBF was established under the Punjab Wildlife Act 1973 in 2018. The rearing facility is shown in Figure 1. SWBF is located in tehsil Raiwind, district Lahore. Lahore is the capital of the Punjab province and the second-most populous city of Pakistan. It has an altitude range from 200 m to 220 m asl [30].
Figure 1.
Flying pen at SWBF with the characteristic vegetation.
3.1 Experimental birds & ethical consideration
A total of 754 chicks of Chukar partridge were reared intensively at both of the aforementioned breeding facilities. These chicks were reared as per the conservative rearing system for poultry following [31]. The evenness in the management of the birds was ensured. The chicks were offered the typical starter poultry feed, which changed into the grower crumble feed after 4 weeks. Both feed and potable water were provided ad libitum. Adequate light was provided during the study periods. Overall, the well-being of both husbandry and management was upheld. At the age of 5–8 weeks, the transportation of birds to the flying pens was started. All the birds were transported in batches of 100 individuals per double case poultry transporting modules. The birds were captured randomly with the aid of a hand net and manumitted in the flying pens for various observations and tests. The welfare of birds during capturing and handling was ensured.
During the present study, no bird was exposed to undue harm or stress. The ethical guidelines for the use of animals in the research studies by the International Society for Applied Ethology [32] were followed. Exposure to natural predators is considered normal and part of the natural niche. The AP training with the live predators can induce temporary stress in the birds [3], but in the long term, it is beneficial. All the birds were captured by hand-net and at the twilight time during the cool. The transporting modules were of proper size and dimensions for the birds under study. Due consideration was given to the time of retention in the modules to keep stress minimum. After the tests, birds were replenished with feed and water (with appropriate anti-stress medicines and Vitamin C) to keep the effect of the tests minimal. All of the birds were observed for any abnormal post-test behavior.
To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive work providing results of all AP behavioral assays in gallinaceous birds to natural predators in non-contrived settings. For assessing AP behavior, I used the flight initiation test, predator test, novel object test, emergence test, and restraint test [10, 24, 31, 33, 34]. The tests were modified as per the requirements and nature of the Chukars. No birds were exposed to predators during breeding and farming as usually done in intensive farming. In this way, I aimed to assess the significant AP behavior in coveys exposed to the predators in the release pens. Different sample sizes reduced the chances of bias in behavioral monitoring.
4.1 Flight initiation test
The FI test was carried out to find the flight initiation distance (FID) for human intrusion in captivity. The flight initiation behavior was assessed individually by an observer walking toward the flying pen. Firstly, two observers (a volunteer and the author) started walking toward the pen while observing the birds. The recording of observations was started from a distance of 20 meters. Secondly, the observer walked along all sides of the pen. The minimum distance between the enclosure and the observer was 1.5 feet. Meanwhile, the different behaviors of Chukars during the intrusion and stimulation were also assessed and recorded. The FI response was characterized in three cohorts, namely, (1) Weak response: birds slightly changed their position or just walked; (2) Moderate response: Chukars took a short flight from the observer and disturbances; (3) High response: birds flew from one side of the flying pen to the other to escape the disturbance.
A total of 20 observations were carried out on 230 subjects to obtain results on the FI of the Chukar partridges (see Appendix 1). During data collection for the FI test, the sample size was kept at a minimum of n = 5 to a maximum of n = 21. The mean sample size was 11.5 ± 1.18. These samples were collected from the birds found very near to the mesh wire. I categorized flight initiation responses into weak, medium, and high responses. The maximum number of birds showed high responses (n = 89), followed by medium (n = 71) and weak (n = 70) responses. The results showed that weak and high FI responses are associated with higher variance in the response. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant differences (p = 0.1817) between the medians of all three behaviors. High responses were normally distributed as opposed to the weak and medium responses, while medium responses were more skewed (i.e., more abnormally distributed).
4.2 Flight initiation distance FID
Flight Initiation Distance (FID) data collection was carried out independently of the FI test. During the observations for FID, the intrusion distance for Chukars was noted. It is the distance between the human and bird right before the initiation of flight. The bird perceives an intruder (human) as a danger. The bird takes flight when the minimum distance is approached. An observer approached the birds of the flying pens from 10 m outside. When the bird took flight, the distance between the observer and the bird was measured using a measuring tape. A total of 278 observations were recorded. The response categories were divided into 5 cohorts. The observation was discarded if the bird being intruded did not take flight but just changed its position.
For finding the flight initiation distance of Chukar partridge, a total of 278 observations were recorded. The frequencies of these observations were divided into 5 cohorts (Table 1). I found a mean distance of 5.34 ± 0.4 and a variance of 4.55. The minimum and maximum FID recorded were 1.6 m and 9.93 m, respectively. Most of the birds showed FID between 2 m to 4 m (38.85%) followed by 4 m to 6 m (23.38%). The maximum FID was shown by 16 birds (5.76%). Results also indicate that experimental birds have a high FI response in the case of humans. This is beneficial as the trained birds cannot be approached, trapped, or captured after release to the wild. Zaccaroni [21] used the human stimuli for eliciting fights in Rock partridge. That study found more distant escape responses as compared to the non-human intervened birds. Fernández-Juricic et al. [35] described longer FIDs in the species with larger groups or living in flocks, which makes sense based on the more conscious and sensitive birds at the edges or near the disturbances. Hingee and Magrath [36] further elaborated the phenomenon, finding that flight in some birds can cause other less-evoked birds to fly away.
Distance cohorts (m)
Frequency
Number (n)
Percentage (%)
0–2
30
10.79
2–4
108
38.85
4–6
65
23.38
6–8
59
21.22
8–10
16
5.76
Total
278
100
Table 1.
Showing the distance cohorts and frequencies (numbers and percentages) of FID in those distance cohorts.
4.3 Predator test (PT)
For Predator Test (PT), the ex-post-facto design in a semi-contrived manner was followed. The natural prevalence and exposure of both avian and mammalian predators were the stimulus for the PT. The AP behavior against raptors was studied during the daytime. Mammalian predators were active at night. The effect of their presence on the birds was assessed. The same types of variables or parameters were used for both types of predators. The behaviors of the birds were also filmed for strengthening the field observations. I noted the behavior of birds until the resuming of the normal activities (feeding or resting) of half of the birds being observed after the predator’s appearance. I observed and recorded typical AP behaviors for the birds viz, vigilance, crouching, TI and escape. These parameters were characterized as (1) Vigilance: if the birds showed any sign of activeness i.e., outstretched neck with support on front toes, slow staggering gait and actively searching intimate environment; (2) Crouching: this freezing behavior was demarcated by the reduction in the movement or just squatting frequently; (3) Tonic immobility (TI): the persistent hunker position for >30s; and (4) Escape: walking and running, also including flying attempts.
4.3.1 For avian predators
For assessing AP behavior against avian predators, a total of 29 observations were recorded in 515 birds. I noted observations for no more than n = 30 birds. On the other hand, the least sample size was n = 5 birds. Descriptive statistics (see Appendix 2) shows that the mean sample size is 17.75 ± 1.4. The maximum number of birds were found vigilant (n = 18) followed by crouching (n = 15), TI (n = 8), and Escape (n = 6). It can be depicted that crouching and vigilant responses were abundant among the birds. The Mann–Whitney pairwise test shows that there are significant differences in the means of all the behaviors except crouching and vigilance; TI and escape responses. The data also show that 6.65 ± 0.8, 6.75 ± 0.7, 2.44 ± 0.4, and 1.89 ± 0.3 are the means for vigilance, crouching, TI, and escape behaviors for the avian predators, respectively. The highest responses are observed the crouching and vigilance (Figure 2). This study evidenced that aerial predators can cause more crouching than vigilance, TI, and escape responses. There were slight differences between crouching and vigilance behaviors. Previous research supported the same results in free-living [37] and captive-reared game birds [38]. Both studies presented those partridges mainly crouched in response to aerial predators. The AP responses are usually accompanied by species-specific alarm calls [39].
Figure 2.
Graph showing bar chart with standard error (SD) and deviations in the plots at 95% confidence interval for PT against the avian/aerial predators.
4.3.2 For mammalian predators
To assess the behavior of the Chukar partridge upon the encounter with terrestrial predators, I carried out a total of 14 observations on 168 birds. The exposure was non-contrived; in other words, I did not have any impact on their encounter with predators. The results show that escape response was the most frequently recorded (n = 118) in the terrestrial predator case, followed by vigilance (n = 26) and crouching and TI (n = 8 each) (Appendix 3). These results are represented graphically (Figure 3). The means for all of the categories of behavior are significantly different (p < 0.05). Moreover, Mann–Whitney pairwise test showed significant differences in the means of escape and vigilance, TI and escape. Moreover, there are no significant differences in the means of TI and crouching; TI and vigilance.
Figure 3.
Graph showing a bar chart with SD and deviations in the plots at 95% confidence interval for PT against the mammalian/terrestrial predators.
Undoubtedly, this study also cleared that escape reaction was the most prevalent behavior in the case of terrestrial predators (see Appendix 3). The least prevalent responses were vigilance, crouching, and TI. By contrast, [38] argued that vigilance was the most common reaction for the exposure to terrestrial predators. It indicated the good response to the terrestrial predator by the present birds. Partridges respond differently to different predators [39]. For example, common behavior against terrestrial predators is vigilance, for easy detection and to avoid attack on them. Alternatively, against avian predators the combination of camouflage, TI and crouching can be effective. Interestingly, it was also observed that birds resumed their normal maintenance activities promptly after the exposure to the predators.
The present study had strengths over previous ones for exposure of living predators in de facto design and vast space use. The limitations of the previous results can be attributed to their small-sized experimental cages as compared to those used in our study. Earlier studies by [33, 38, 39], were conducted in cages or pens of very small sizes as compared to the present study. As stated by [40], the experimental cages can disrupt normal physiology and illicit the stress response during the initial transference in the cages. The conducting of experiments in smaller enclosures might have affected the results of the previous studies. Furthermore, the use of dummy predators can be beneficial due to: (1) The experiments and exposure can be presented at one’s disposal, (2) Birds cannot be attacked by the dummy predators, and (3) The AP responses of Chukar are stronger for the live predators than dummy predators [41]. Even in captivity, the living predators may cause the deaths of birds in captivity. Meanwhile, the exposure can also stimulate short-term AP behavior in conspecifics in the same pen and the long-run survival in the wild. This behavior can be AP calls, alertness, or flying rigorously. In previous studies, the proper wild behavior would not have been shown by the experimental birds.
4.4 Novel object test (NOT)
For the novel object (NO), test birds were not isolated from the flock. A camera was placed both in and alongside the mesh wire to test the neophobia i.e., the fear of new things. The camera was kept on for recording video. When placing the camera, the disturbance to the birds was kept minimal. If more than three birds were disturbed during the placement of the camera, the observation was discarded for analysis. An observer also carried out a behavioral assay from 40 feet away. A pair of Russian Sehfeld Military binoculars was also used to see birds clearly. The test was continued for 5 minutes or until the birds showed the sign of acclimatization to the object. The NO test was dissolved in the following parameters: (1) Alert and Gazing: birds only gazed at the novel object (camera) and stood alert with no motion, (2) Approach: they approached the camera, and (3) Escape: they were fearful of the object and flew away. All three categories of the responses were kept mutually exhaustive.
For NOT, a camera was introduced in the pen and different responses to that novel object were observed (Figure 4). The NOT was done on a total of 291 birds. The NOT showed that alertness and gazing was the most frequently observed behavior (n = 166). The approach to the introduced novel object and escape responses were on second (n = 90) and third (n = 35) numbers in frequency. The mean value for the alert and the gazing response was 6.64 ± 0.58, for approach 3.6 ± 0.49. The median value for escape was 1. The ANOVA and Mann–Whitney pairwise test showed that there are statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) present in the means of all the behaviors associated with NOT. The descriptive results have been tabulated in Appendix 4.
Figure 4.
Experimental settings of the NOT with a covey of 7 Chukars (one behind the pillar) standing vigilant against the novel object (camera).
The briskness in the NOT shows that birds were aware of the danger associated with the introduced object. Very low number of birds perceived the NO as a real danger and escaped, while others approached the object to explore it. Such exploration in the wild would result in the death or trapping of the birds. Furthermore, the birds were not isolated from the covey, so definitely proper behavior against NO is crucial. When birds were in a group, they approached the NO massively (Appendix 4). This finding is in contrast with a study by [42], who found that ravens show neophobia (phobia of new objects) when they are in groups. In other words, they approached the NO more quickly when alone as compared with when they are with conspecifics. Here, partridges preferred to escape when they were alone or in a small covey.
4.5 Escape/emergence test (ET)
ET was done during the transportation of birds into the flying or releasing pens. Transporting modules (80 cm length x 60 cm width x 40 cm height) made of wood were used. A single module has two compartments, each 20 cm in height. All other sides of the module had meshed wire, except the roof and floor sides. Birds could see outside from the sides of the modules. Birds were captured from the training pen using a hand net and kept in the poultry module for 5 minutes for acclimatization. Then birds were carried to the flying pen for liberation. The doors of the modules were opened without disturbance and observers stood as far as possible. The emergence observations were carried out on all birds for 3 minutes. After 3 minutes the test was terminated, and the remaining birds were deemed to show no escape reaction. The escape behavior was divided into three categories: (1) Immobile: after opening the door of transporting module, birds remain inactive or not tried to escape within 3 minutes of the test; (2) Walking: it was an escape response of relatively lower intensity, birds just walked out of the module briskly; and (3) Flying: birds emerged under 3 minutes and took a flight to escape of the module.
ET was performed during releasing of birds to the releasing pen. The escaping pattern of birds from the transporting modules was noted. Results showed that the maximum number of birds (n = 360) did not bother to escape out of the module and remained immobile (24.0 ± 2.9) m (see Appendix 5). The second most frequent response (n = 278) was the flying response (18.53 ± 2.4). It is followed by the least frequent (n = 112) walking response (7.46 ± 1.0). A minimum of 5 birds were found immobile in contrast to 0 and 2 for walking and flying in a single batch. Tukey’s pairwise test confirmed the significant comparison between walking and immobile and flying and walking categories. I found no statistically significant differences between the means of immobile and flying categories (p = 0.2123). It is also clear that most of the birds (n = 270) did not try to escape from the boxes at all. The escape from the boxes simulates the potential danger in the intimate environment or attack on the conspecifics. Rather, the majority of the birds preferred to stay motionless in the boxes, while a few others preferred to take flight in a possible perilous situation. The birds flew with a short sound of “keer” [39]. The calls by the escaped birds might elicit stimuli in the birds in boxes for the potential perilous situation outside. Despite this, a work by [43] also found that Chukars did not struggle to escape during the experiment since they showed habituation to the study apparatus.
4.6 Flight angles (FA) test
The birds which showed the flight escape reaction were also subjected to the flight angles test. Flight angles are a proxy of the flight intensity during the escape. The intensity of the flight taken was observed and noted by two independent observers. For this purpose, flight reaction was categorized into three cohorts: (1) Strong flight: the bird took a flight of nearly ≤90° angle, (2) Medium flight: an escape flight of ≤45° angle, (3) Weak flight: the flight of ≤30°. An angle meter was used to measure the angles of the flights. During the flying escape of n = 278 birds, I noted the flight angles. I found that medium flights were the most common mode of escape from the boxes. The mean number of birds for strong flights, medium and weak were 6.26 ± 1.0, 9.2 ± 1.8, and 3.06 ± 0.8, respectively. Out of every batch of maximum strong flights, medium, and weak flights were 15, 24, and 9. Strong flights indicate good escape behavior. The maximum number of birds that took a flight was recorded as n = 38. On the other hand, two were the minimum birds that took flight from any batch. Tukey’s pairwise test showed that there was a significant difference between weak and medium flights (p = 0.005). Nevertheless, Mann–Whitney pairwise test showed no statistically significant differences between strong and weak flights, or between medium and strong flights. The descriptive collected data is shown in Appendix 6. Without training, most flights of the birds were in the category of medium ≤45° flight, which is enough to escape a terrestrial predator, but not for avoiding an aerial predator.
Nevertheless, in this study all the birds were naïve to the AP behavior; no AP trainings were provided [38] showed that if red-legged partridge were trained for AP behaviors, they showed a stronger and prolonged response as compared to the inept birds. Present results are not in compliance with this statement, as no AP training was provided before the collection of data. The observed AP behavior cannot be expected to closely overlap with that of the wild conspecifics [33]. If birds were sourced from the wild, there would be different results for AP response. On the other hand, the present study clearly showed that even if early-life trainings were not provided to the game birds, they can still show more than good AP behavior. The differences in the behaviors of birds by simulating the predators (previous studies) and using real natural predators (present study) have significant differences in the intensities and types of shown behaviors.
The comprehensive work for AP behavioral assays of Chukar partridge reared intensively was divided into flight initiation test, flight initiation distance, predator test for both avian and mammalian predators, novel object test, escape test, and flight angles. The behavioral assays showed that the Chukar partridge were having the instinct to be released in the wild for restocking and reintroduction purposes. The predators found in the areas have shaped the AP behavior of the birds. The predator tests in the non-contrived settings for the avian species showed that crouching and vigilant responses were the most abundant among the birds. However, the escape response was the highest against the mammalian predators. This study confirms the positive results of the AP tracings via exposure to natural predators in an uncontrolled environment.
For finding the flight initiation distance of Chukar partridge the frequencies of the observations were divided into 5 cohorts. I found a mean distance of 5.34 ± 0.4, while the variance was 4.55. The minimum and maximum FID recorded were 1.6 m and 9.93 m, respectively. Most of the birds showed FID between 2 and 4 m (38.85%). The NOT on 291 subjects showed that alertness and gazing were the most frequently shown behavior. It was observed that the maximum number of birds did not escape from the module and remained immobile. During the flying escape of birds, the flight angles were also noted. The most common intensity of escape from the boxes was medium flight. The FI test showed that the maximum number of birds has high responses followed by medium and weak responses. Both weak and high FI responses showed more variance in the response.
The present study focused on the main issues of the management of the gamebird species in Pakistan, also making a contribution to the improvement of AP behavior primarily in the Chukar partridge reared intensively for both restocking and reintroduction purposes. This study can be replicated on Ring-necked pheasants, commonly reared for shooting. Future works should focus on the following recommendations.
The cost-effective training for the improvement of AP behavior should be a priority for game breeders. The pre-release assessment of AP behavior should be upheld.
The natural predators of gamebirds should be present at farm locations to elicit predator-specific responses. The new breeders and game bird-providing companies should keep this point in consideration when preparing for the breeding.
Appendix 3. Comparison of four categories of the AP responses namely vigilance, crouching, TI and escape for predator test against the mammalian predators
Appendix 4. Results of NOT for the three responses namely alert & gazing, approaching and escape for the introduced novel object in the pen
No.
Samples
Alert & Gazing
Approach
Escape
n
%
n
%
n
%
1
16
10
62.5
4
25
2
12.5
2
11
5
45.45
5
45.45
1
9.09
3
7
3
42.86
3
42.86
1
14.29
4
13
8
61.54
4
30.77
1
7.69
5
15
6
40
5
33.33
4
26.67
6
6
5
83.33
1
16.67
0
0
7
4
1
25
2
50
1
25
8
9
9
100
0
0
0
0
9
13
6
46.15
5
38.46
2
15.38
10
12
9
75
3
25
0
0
11
20
10
50
7
35
3
15
12
7
3
42.86
3
42.86
1
14.29
13
10
6
60
3
30
1
10
14
18
9
50
7
38.89
2
11.11
15
13
10
76.92
2
15.38
1
7.69
16
8
7
87.5
1
12.5
0
0
17
18
12
66.67
5
27.78
1
5.56
18
12
9
75
3
25
0
0
19
18
10
55.56
4
22.22
4
22.22
20
10
7
70
2
20
1
10
21
17
6
35.29
9
52.94
2
11.76
22
3
3
100
0
0
0
0
23
6
5
83.33
1
16.67
0
0
24
20
5
25
9
45
6
30
25
5
2
40
2
40
1
20
Total
291
166
90
35
Appendix 5. Data for the ET and different categories of responses namely immobile, walking and flying for the escaping behavior out of the transporting module
No.
Samples
Immobile
Walking
Flying
n
%
N
%
n
%
1
50
28
56
5
10
17
34
2
50
32
64
7
14
11
22
3
50
8
16
13
26
29
58
4
50
30
60
14
28
6
12
5
50
16
32
13
26
21
42
6
50
25
50
9
18
16
32
7
50
48
96
0
0
2
4
8
50
22
44
8
16
20
40
9
50
42
84
2
4
6
12
10
50
25
50
3
6
22
44
11
50
16
32
9
18
25
50
12
50
22
44
5
10
23
46
13
50
5
10
7
14
38
76
14
50
20
40
5
10
25
50
15
50
21
42
12
24
17
34
Total
750
360
112
278
Appendix 6. Results of the flight angles data and associated flight intensity angles namely, strong ≤90°, medium ≤45° and weak ≤30° when took flight out of the transporting modules
No.
Samples
Strong ≤90°
Medium ≤45°
Weak ≤30°
n
%
N
%
n
%
1
17
11
64.71
5
29.41
1
5.88
2
11
3
27.27
7
63.64
1
9.09
3
29
12
41.38
16
55.17
1
3.45
4
6
2
33.33
3
50.00
1
16.67
5
21
4
19.05
9
42.86
8
38.10
6
16
7
43.75
5
31.25
4
25.00
7
2
1
50.00
1
50.00
0
0.00
8
20
7
35.00
8
40.00
5
25.00
9
6
3
50.00
3
50.00
0
0.00
10
22
9
40.91
11
50.00
2
9.09
11
25
1
4.00
24
96.00
0
0.00
12
23
8
34.78
10
43.48
5
21.74
13
38
6
15.79
23
60.53
9
23.68
14
25
15
60.00
2
8.00
8
32.00
15
17
5
29.41
11
64.71
1
5.88
Total
278
94
138
46
References
1.Hanane S, Magri N. Post-release habitat utilisation by Francolinus bicalcaratus ayesha, a critically endangered subspecies endemic to Morocco: Implications for optimising future release programmes. Bird Conservation International. 2016;26:323-336
2.Tapper SC. A Question of Balance: Game Animals and Their Role in the British Countryside. Fordingbridge: Game Conservancy Trust; 1999
3.Madden JR, Santilli F, Whiteside M. The welfare of game birds destined for release into the wild: A balance between early life care and preparation for future natural hazards. Animal Welfare. 2020;29:1-18. DOI: 10.7120/09627286.29.1.001
4.Pérez JA. Use of radiotracking techniques to study a summer repopulation with red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa) chicks. Poultry Science. 2004;83:882-888
5.Alonso ME. Study of survival, dispersal and home range of autumnreleased red-legged partridges (Alectoris rufa). British Poultry Science. 2005;46:401-406
6.Parish DM. The fate of released captive-reared grey partridges Perdix: Implications for reintroduction programmes. Wildlife Biology. 2007;13:140-149
7.Buner F, Browne S, Aebischer N. Experimental assessment of release methods for the reestablishment of a red-listed galliform, the grey partridge (Perdix perdix). Biological Conservation. 2011;144(1):593-601. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.017
8.Park K, Graham K, Calladine J, Wernham C. Impacts of birds of prey on gamebirds in UK: A review. Ibis. 2008;150(s1):9-26
9.Sokos CK, Birtsas PK, Tsachalidis EP. The aims of galliforms release and choice of techniques. Wildlife Biology. 2008;14:412-422. DOI: 10.2981/0909-6396-14.4.412
10.Santilli F, Bagliacca M. Fear and behavior of young pheasants reared with or without parent figure. Avian Biology Research. 2019;12(1):23-27. DOI: 10.1177/1758155919826765
11.Gaudioso VR, Sánchez-García C, Pérez JA, Rodríguez PL, Armenteros JA, Alonso ME. Does early antipredator training increase the suitability of captive red-legged partridges (Alectoris rufa) for releasing? Poultry Science. 2011;90:1900-1908. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2011-01430
12.Martinez J, Vinuela J, Villafuerte R. Socio-Economic and Cultural Aspects of Gamebird Hunting. Finland: University of Turku; 2002
13.Smith AM, Cropper WP, Moulton MP. A quantitative assessment of site-level factors in influencing chukar (Alectoris chukar) introduction outcomes. PeerJ. 2021;9:e11280. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11280
14.Khattak RH, Xin Z. Precise and accurate behavioral monitoring of captive chukar (Alectoris chukar) by using the advanced digital ethogram: A small scale pilot study. Brazilian Journal of Biology. 2021;83:e246053. DOI: 10.1590/1519-6984.246053
15.Tyasi TL, Putra WP. The growth curve of body weight in chukar patridges (Alectoris chukar) based on Richards mathematical model. In: The 3rd International Conference on Biosciences and Medical Engineering. Malaysia: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; 2021. Available online: https://www.utm.my/icbme/
16.Ahmad B, Nabi G, Hayat M, Muhammad J. Habitat study of chukar partrudge (Alectoris chukar) in district Malakand: A case study of town Thana, Pakistan. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences. 2017;11(4):11-17
17.Duarte JM. New data on mortality, home range and dispersal of red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa) released in a mountain range. European Journal of Wildlife Research. 2010;57:675-678. DOI: 10.1007/s10344-010-0467-9
18.Mason G. Species differences in responses to captivity: Stress, welfare and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2010;25(12):713-721
19.Browne SJ, Buner F, Aebisvher NJ. A review of gray partridge restocking in the UK and its implications for the UK biodiversity action plan. National Quail Symposium Proceedings. 2009;6(1):40
20.Rantanen EM. Vigilance, time budgets and predation risk in reintroduced captive-bred grey partridges Perdix. Applied Animal Behavioral Science. 2010;127:43-50
21.Zaccaroni MC. Does an early aversive experience to humans modify antipredator behavior in adult rock partridges? Ethology Ecology and Evolution. 2007;19:193-200. DOI: 10.1080/08927014.2007.9522561
22.Reale D, Reader S, Sol D, McDougall P, Dingemanse N. Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biological Reviews. 2007;82:291-318
23.Carter A, Feeney W, Marshall H, Cowlishaw G, Heinsohn R. Animal personality: What are behavioral ecologists measuring? Biological Reviews. 2012;88:465-475
24.Kerman K, Sievingb KE, Maryc CS, Avery ML. Evaluation of boldness assays and associated behavioral measures in a social parrot, monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus). Behavior. 2016;153:1817-1838. DOI: 10.1163/1568539X-00003356
25.Garamszegi L, Rosivall B, Rettenbacher S, Marko G, Zsebok S, Szollosi E. Corticosterone, avoidance of novelty, risk-taking and aggression in a wild bird: No evidence for pleiotropic effects. Ethology. 2012;118:621-635
26.Miller K, Mench J. Is fearfulness a trait that can be measured with behavioral tests? A validation of four fear tests for Japanese quail. Animal Behavior. 2006;71:1323-1334
27.Wilson A, Godin J. Boldness and behavioral syndromes in the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. Behavioral Ecology. 2009;20:231-237
28.Campo J, Dávila S, Gil M, Torres O, Moreno J. Fear and stress measurements in pure and hybrid red-legged partridges. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2015;166:123-130
29.Shier D, Owings D. Effects of predator training on behavior and post-release survival of captive prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus). Biological Conservation. 2006;132:126-135. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.03.020
30.Muhamamd AM, Zhonghua T, Dawood AS, Earl B. Evaluation of local groundwater vulnerability based on DRASTIC index method in Lahore, Pakistan. Geofísica Internacional. 2015;54(1):67-81
31.Muneer M, Bilal M, Ditta A. A comparative study of some hematological parameters of broiler and indigenous breeds of poultry. SVU-International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2021;3(4):189-199. DOI: 10.21608/svuijas.2021.99388.1146
32.Sherwin C, Christiansen S, Duncan I, Erhard H, Lay D, Mench J. Guidelines for the ethical use of animals in applied ethology studies. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2003;81:291-305. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00288-5
33.Campler M, Jöngren M, Jensen P. Fearfulness in Red junglefowl and domesticated white Leghorn chickens. Behavioral Processes. 2009;81:39-43
34.Davila SG, Cuenca OT, Gil MG, Tolledano-Diaz OA, Castano C, Santiago-Moreno J. Anti-predator behavior in pure and hybrid red-legged partridges. Poultry Science. 2019;98:3085-3092
35.Fernández-Juricic E, Jimenez MD, Lucas E. Factors affecting intra- and inter-specific variations in the difference between alert distance and flight distances for birds in forested habitats. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 2002;80:1212-1220
36.Hingee M, Magrath RD. Flights of fear: A mechanical wing whistle sounds the alarm in a flocking bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences. 2009;276:4173-4179
37.Buner F. Survival, Habitat Use and Disturbance Behavior of re-Introduced Grey Partridges Perdix L. in an Enhanced Arable Landscape in the Swiss Klettgau. Switzerland: University of Basel and Swiss Ornithological Institute; 2007
38.González-Redondo P, Delgado-Pertíñez M, Toribio S, Ruiz F, Mena Y, Caravaca F. Characterisation and typification of the red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa) game farms in Spain. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 2010;8(3):624-633. DOI: 10.5424/sjar/ 2010083-1258
39.Binazzi R, Zaccaroni M, Nespoli A, Massolo A, Dessi-Fulgheri F. Anti-predator behavior of the red-legged partridge Alectoris rufa (Galliformes: Phasianidae) to simulated terrestrial and aerial predators. The Italian Journal of Zoology. 2011;78(1):106-112
40.Dickens M, Earle K, Romero L. Initial transference of wild birds to captivity alters stress physiology. General and Comparative Endocrinology. 2009;160:76-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2008.10.023
41.Bilal M, Piebeng GNK, Naseer A. The anti-predator behavioral assays of Chukar partridges (Alectoris chukar) against the live predators in captivity. In: The Scientific Days. Maroua: University of Maroua; 2022. p. 121
42.StoI M, Bugnyar T, Heinrich B, Kotrschal K. Effects of group size on approach to novel objects in raven (Corvus corax). Ethology. 2006;112:1079-1088
43.Chappell MA, Bucher TL. Effects of temperature and altitude on ventilation and gas exchange in chukars (Alectoris chukar). Journal of Comparative Physiology B. 1987;157:129-136
Written By
Muhammad Bilal
Submitted: 01 June 2022Reviewed: 07 July 2022Published: 16 September 2022
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
