Quantified Analyses of Aggression Pattern in a Captive Population of Musk Deer (Moschus Sifanicus)

Xiuxiang Meng 1 , Andrew Sih 2 , Haitao Li 3 ,  and Nicholas Cody 1
  • 1 College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Minzu University of China, 27 Zhongguancun Nandajie, Beijing 100081, China
  • 2 Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA
  • 3 School of Animal Science, Xichang College, Xichang 615013, China

Quantified Analyses of Aggression Pattern in a Captive Population of Musk Deer (Moschus Sifanicus)

Alpine musk deer (Moschus sifanicus) are endangered as a result of habitat degradation and loss and centuries of widespread poaching. Consequently, musk deer farming was introduced as a measure to not only protect musk deer but also to provide a means for sustainable musk supply. An increased understanding of the social structure of captive populations is essential for both successful farming and improved welfare of individuals. This study recorded agonistic interactions between captive individuals at Xinglongshan Musk Deer Farm (XMDF), northwest China. The relationship between aggressive interactions and the individual's age and gender and opponent health was analysed. From our observations we found that stable social hierarchies developed within both captive male and gender-mixed musk deer groups. There was no significant correlation found between only age of individual and their status in the social hierarchy, and it was thus concluded, as social rank was not determined singularly by age, that a combination of other factors, such as experience and origin of the individual, better explain rank orders. Three forms of aggressive behaviour were expressed between males, in which threatening (56.38%±7.28%) was significantly more frequent than attacking (17.86%±5.94%) and displacing behaviours (25.78%±3.66%). There was no attacking behaviour observed in interactions initiated by males towards females, however displacing (70.85%±4.15%) was more common than threatening (29.15%±4.15%). Conflict-initiating male deer demonstrated more attacking and threatening behaviour towards male opponents than to female ones, however the differences were statistically insignificant. These results can be implemented into musk deer farming management practices through 1) rotating individuals within an enclosure on a frequent basis; 2) removing males from female enclosures after successful mating and 3) enclosing males in single sex enclosures. Furthermore, in order to improve musk deer farming and captive musk deer welfare, management systems should be kept relatively consistent in order to assist in establishing the stable social hierarchy patterns in captive populations.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Altmann J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour, 49: 227-267.

  • Andersen I. L., Nævdal E., Bakken M., Bøe KE. (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.

  • Aryal A., Subedi A. (2011). Conservation and potential habitat of Himalayan musk deer Moschus chrysogaster in the protected areas of Nepal. Int. J. Conserv. Sci., 2 (2): 127-141.

  • Aryal A., Raubenheimer D., Subedi S., Kattel B. (2010). Spatial habitat overlap and habitat preference of Himalayan musk deer Moschus chrysogaster in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal. Curr. Res. J. Biol. Sci., 2 (3): 217-225.

  • 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: 35-53.

  • Bornet H. L. I., Morgan C. A., Lawrence A. B., Mann J. (2000). The effect of group housing on feeding patterns and social behavior of previously individually housed growing pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 70: 127-141.

  • Bro-Jørgensen J. (2002). Overt female mate competition and preference for central males in a lekking antelope. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 99 (14): 9290-9293.

  • Cassinello J., Pieters I. (2000). Multi-male captive groups of endangered dama gazelle: social rank, aggression, and enclosure effects. Zoo Biol., 191 (2): 121-129.

  • Clutton-Brock T. H. (1982). The function of antlers. Behaviour, 78: 108-125.

  • Eccles T. R., Shackleton D. M. (1986). Correlates and consequences of social status in female bighorn sheep. Anim. Behav., 34: 1392-1401.

  • Estevez I., Andersen I. L., Nævdal E. (2007). Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 103: 185-204.

  • Green M. J. B. (1986). The distribution, status and conservation of the Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster). Biol. Conserv., 35: 347-375.

  • Green M. J. B. (1987). Scent-marking in the Himalayan musk deer. J. Zool., 1: 721-737.

  • Heitor F., do Mar Oom M., Vicente L. (2006). Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses: Part II. Factors affecting affiliative relationships and sexual behaviours. Behav. Process., 73 (3): 231-239.

  • Homes V. (1999). On the scent: Conserving musk deer - the uses of musk and Europe's role in its trade. TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, Belgium.

  • Kaufmann J. H. (1983). On the definition and functions of dominance and territoriality. Biol. Rev., 58: 1-20.

  • Kim T., Zuk M. (2000). The effects of age and previous experience on social rank in female red junglefowl, Gallus gallus spadiceus. Anim. Behav., 60: 239-244.

  • Komers P. E., Pelabon C., Stenstrom D. (1997). Age at first reproduction in fallow deer: age-specific versus dominance-specific behaviors. Behav. Ecol., 8: 456-462.

  • Kondo S., Hurnik J. F. (1990). Stablization of social hierarchy in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 27: 287-297.

  • Mattiangeli V., Mattiello S., Verga M. (1999). The fighting technique of male fallow deer (Dama dama): an analysis of agonistic interactions during the rut. J. Zool., 249, 3: 339-346.

  • Meng X., Yang Q. F. Z., Xia L., Wang P., Jiang Y., Bai Z., Li G. (2002). Preliminary studies on the activity during summer, autumn and winter season in captive Alpine musk deer. Acta Theriol. Sin., 22: 87-97.

  • 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.

  • Meng X., Zhou C., HuJ., Li C., Meng Z., Feng J., Zhou Y., Zhu Y. (2006). The musk deer farming in China. Anim. Sci., 82: 1-6.

  • Meng X., Zhao C., Hui C., Luan X. (2011). Behavioral aspects of captive alpine musk deer during non-mating season: gender differences and monthly patterns. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 24 (5): 707-712.

  • Parry-Jones R., Wu J. Y. (2001). Musk deer farming as a conservation tool in China. TRAFFIC, East Asia, Hong Kong.

  • Sheng H. (1992). Deer of China (in Chinese with English abstract). East China Normal University Press, Shanghai.

  • Sheng H., Ohtaishi N. (1993). Editors. Deer of China: Biology and Management. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

  • Shrestha M. N. (1998). Animal welfare in the musk deer. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 59: 245-250.

  • Syme G. J., Syme L. A. (1979). Social structure in farm animals. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

  • Wittemyer G., Getz W. M. (2007). Hierarchical dominance structure and social organization in African elephants, Loxodonta Africana. Anim. Behav., 73 (4): 671-681.

  • Yang Q., Meng X., Feng Z., Xia L. (2003). Conservation status and causes of decline of musk deer in China. Biol. Conserv., 109: 333-342.

  • Zhang B. (1979). The farming of musk deer in China (in Chinese). Agriculture Press, Beijing.

  • Zhang B. (1983). Musk deer: their capture, domestication and care according to Chinese experience and methods. Unasylva, 35: 16-24.


Journal + Issues