Nest choice in laying hens: Effects of nest partitions and social status.

Nest choice in loose-housed laying hens is influenced by nest characteristics, position and social factors. We examined the relative preference of laying hens for two group-nests differing in the presence or absence of a partition in the middle of the nest and whether this was influenced by social status. We hypothesized that hens would prefer the partitioned nest as it provides more enclosure, and that social status would affect nest choice. Relative preference for the nests was assessed in a free choice preference test conducted in two consecutive trials each with eight groups of 20 hens from 18 to 31 weeks of age. The hens were individually marked and had access to two commercial group-nests (49 × 114 cm), one of which contained an internal wooden partition (30 × 10 cm) which divided the nest in two halves. At 28 weeks of age, the position of the nests was switched. The number of eggs laid was recorded daily. On one day each at 24 and 28 weeks of age (after the nest switch) video recordings were made of the first 5 h of daylight. From these videos we recorded the number of nest visits per egg per nest and the number of nest visits for individual hens. On one day each at 24 and 27 weeks of age we also recorded videos from within the nests to assess individual nest choice for egg-laying. In addition, we recorded aggressive interactions between individual hens during the first hour of light on one day each at 18, 24 and 27 weeks of age to establish social status. We found a relative preference for the partition nest with a greater proportion of eggs laid in these nests as well as fewer nest visits per egg. The hens were also consistent in their egg-laying location over the two days of observation. After the nest switch, however, the hens did not switch egg laying location and the number of visits per egg no longer differed between nests suggesting that the preference for the partitioned nest was only important at the beginning of lay. In addition, although social rank had no impact on preference of nest type, lower ranking hens performed more nest visits and laid their eggs slightly later on the second observation day (week 27 of age) compared with higher ranking hens. Therefore, the use of partitions could improve the attractiveness of group-nests.

Minimizing the Threat of a Positive Majority Deficit in Two-tier Voting Systems with Equipopulous Units

The mean majority deficit in a two-tier voting system is a function of the partition of the population. We derive a new square-root rule: For odd-numbered population sizes and equipopulous units the mean majority deficit is maximal when the member size of the units in the partition is close to the square root of the population size. Furthermore, within the partitions into roughly equipopulous units, partitions with small even numbers of units or small even-sized units yield high mean majority deficits. We discuss the implications for the winner-takes-all system in the US Electoral College.

MOREMATA: Stata module (Mata) to provide various functions

This package includes various Mata functions. kern(): various kernel functions; kint(): kernel integral functions; kdel0(): canonical bandwidth of kernel; quantile(): quantile function; median(): median; iqrange(): inter-quartile range; ecdf(): cumulative distribution function; relrank(): grade transformation; ranks(): ranks/cumulative frequencies; freq(): compute frequency counts; histogram(): produce histogram data; mgof(): multinomial goodness-of-fit tests; collapse(): summary statistics by subgroups; _collapse(): summary statistics by subgroups; gini(): Gini coefficient; sample(): draw random sample; srswr(): SRS with replacement; srswor(): SRS without replacement; upswr(): UPS with replacement; upswor(): UPS without replacement; bs(): bootstrap estimation; bs2(): bootstrap estimation; bs_report(): report bootstrap results; jk(): jackknife estimation; jk_report(): report jackknife results; subset(): obtain subsets, one at a time; composition(): obtain compositions, one by one; ncompositions(): determine number of compositions; partition(): obtain partitions, one at a time; npartitionss(): determine number of partitions; rsubset(): draw random subset; rcomposition(): draw random composition; colvar(): variance, by column; meancolvar(): mean and variance, by column; variance0(): population variance; meanvariance0(): mean and population variance; mse(): mean squared error; colmse(): mean squared error, by column; sse(): sum of squared errors; colsse(): sum of squared errors, by column; benford(): Benford distribution; cauchy(): cumulative Cauchy-Lorentz dist.; cauchyden(): Cauchy-Lorentz density; cauchytail(): reverse cumulative Cauchy-Lorentz; invcauchy(): inverse cumulative Cauchy-Lorentz; rbinomial(): generate binomial random numbers; cebinomial(): cond. expect. of binomial r.v.; root(): Brent's univariate zero finder; nrroot(): Newton-Raphson zero finder; finvert(): univariate function inverter; integrate_sr(): univariate function integration (Simpson's rule); integrate_38(): univariate function integration (Simpson's 3/8 rule); ipolate(): linear interpolation; polint(): polynomial inter-/extrapolation; plot(): Draw twoway plot; _plot(): Draw twoway plot; panels(): identify nested panel structure; _panels(): identify panel sizes; npanels(): identify number of panels; nunique(): count number of distinct values; nuniqrows(): count number of unique rows; isconstant(): whether matrix is constant; nobs(): number of observations; colrunsum(): running sum of each column; linbin(): linear binning; fastlinbin(): fast linear binning; exactbin(): exact binning; makegrid(): equally spaced grid points; cut(): categorize data vector; posof(): find element in vector; which(): positions of nonzero elements; locate(): search an ordered vector; hunt(): consecutive search; cond(): matrix conditional operator; expand(): duplicate single rows/columns; _expand(): duplicate rows/columns in place; repeat(): duplicate contents as a whole; _repeat(): duplicate contents in place; unorder2(): stable version of unorder(); jumble2(): stable version of jumble(); _jumble2(): stable version of _jumble(); pieces(): break string into pieces; npieces(): count number of pieces; _npieces(): count number of pieces; invtokens(): reverse of tokens(); realofstr(): convert string into real; strexpand(): expand string argument; matlist(): display a (real) matrix; insheet(): read spreadsheet file; infile(): read free-format file; outsheet(): write spreadsheet file; callf(): pass optional args to function; callf_setup(): setup for mm_callf().

Using multiple landscape genetic approaches to test the validity of genetic clusters in a species characterized by an isolation-by-distance pattern

Bayesian clustering methods are typically used to identify barriers to gene flow, but they are prone to deduce artificial subdivisions in a study population characterized by an isolation-by-distance pattern (IbD). Here we analysed the landscape genetic structure of a population of wild boars (Sus scrofa) from south-western Germany. Two clustering methods inferred the presence of the same genetic discontinuity. However, the population in question was characterized by a strong IbD pattern. While landscape-resistance modelling failed to identify landscape features that influenced wild boar movement, partial Mantel tests and multiple regression of distance matrices (MRDMs) suggested that the empirically inferred clusters were separated by a genuine barrier. When simulating random lines bisecting the study area, 60% of the unique barriers represented, according to partial Mantel tests and MRDMs, significant obstacles to gene flow. By contrast, the random-lines simulation showed that the boundaries of the inferred empirical clusters corresponded to the most important genetic discontinuity in the study area. Given the degree of habitat fragmentation separating the two empirical partitions, it is likely that the clustering programs correctly identified a barrier to gene flow. The differing results between the work published here and other studies suggest that it will be very difficult to draw general conclusions about habitat permeability in wild boar from individual studies.