Do the stereotypies of pigs, chickens and mink reflect adaptive species differences in the control of foraging?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Foraging is often regarded as a high priority behavior, an internally motivated behavioral pattern that should be performed, or otherwise may induce a state of chronic stress, which may result in behavioral pathology like ARBs as described in many other animal species.
“Foraging is often regarded as a high priority behavior [75,76], i.e., an internally motivated behavioral pattern that should be performed, or otherwise may induce a state of chronic stress, which may result in behavioral pathology like ARBs as described in many other animal species [77,78,79].”
From A One Health Perspective on the Human-Companion Animal Relationship with Emphasis on Zoonotic Aspects. (2020) · cites this paper as [77]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare
Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M. B., Moe, R. O., Spruijt, B., Keeling, L. J., Winckler, C., Forkman, B., Dimitrov, I., Langbein, J., et al. (2007) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003 · Cited by 1,486 · see citing works
Overgaauw, P. A. M., Vinke, C. M., van Hagen, M. A. E., & Lipman, L. J. A. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17113789 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mason, G., & Mendl, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Mason, Georgia
- Venue
- Applied Animal Behaviour Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1997-05
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 45-58
- ISSN
- 0168-1591 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1994628483
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 2.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Animal Behaviour Science (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Keywords
- feeding behaviour, foraging behavior, species differences, pigs, chickens, mink, captive animals, feeding ecology, motivation system, satiation, autoshaping, space limitation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
