Erratum to: Anim Cogn (2015) 18:517–532 DOI 10.1007/s10071-014-0820-6
The original publication of this article unfortunately contained an error in Table 5. The superscript letters “a, b” were unintentionally omitted under the column head “Without naive pigs present” in the rows of “Standing alert”, “Ears back”, “Tail in curl” and “Tail wagging”. The corrected table is given below.
Table 5.
Without naive pigs present | With naive pigs present | Effects1 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Positive | Negative | T2 | Positive | Negative | T2 | S | TS | |
Behavior | ||||||||
Standing alert (% of time) | 0.3 ± 0.1a | 32.9 ± 3.1b | *** | 2.8 ± 1.2a | 49.0 ± 4.6c | *** | ** | * |
Escape attempts (% of pens)3 | 0 | 62.5 | *** | 0 | 31.3 | * | NS | – |
Play (% of pens)3 | 100 | 0 | *** | 93.8 | 0 | *** | NS | – |
Urinating (% of pens)3 | 6.3 | 93.8g | *** | 0 | 62.5h | *** | NS | – |
Defecating (freq.) | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 4.7 ± 0.5 | *** | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 4.5 ± 0.4 | *** | NS | NS |
Exploring treatment door (% of time) | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 3.4 ± 0.7 | *** | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 2.3 ± 0.6 | *** | + | NS |
Ear posture | ||||||||
Ears back (% of time) | 1.9 ± 0.7a | 17.3 ± 4.7b | *** | 1.3 ± 0.5a | 7.3 ± 2.0c | ** | * | + |
Tail postures | ||||||||
Tail in curl (% of time) | 87.3 ± 3.5a | 99.8 ± 0.2b | *** | 93.1 ± 2.4c | 99.2 ± 0.7b | ** | NS | + |
Tail wagging (% of time) | 12.3 ± 3.4a | 0.1 ± 0.0b | *** | 6.7 ± 2.3c | 0.2 ± 0.1b | *** | + | + |
Tail low (% of time) | 0.4 ± 0.2a | 0.1 ± 0.1b | NS | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 0.6 ± 0.5 | NS | NS | NS |
Vocalizations (voc.) | ||||||||
Low-pitched voc. (freq.) | 0.2 ± 0.2 | 24.8 ± 2.9 | *** | |||||
High-pitched voc. (% of pens) | 0 | 50.0 | ** | |||||
Barks (% of pens) | 87.5 | 0 | *** |
Means with different superscript letters differ significantly (a/b/c: P < 0.05, g/h: P < 0.1)
1Significance of effects of treatment (T), situation (S) and their interaction (TS) is indicated: *** P < 0.001; ** P < 0.01; * P < 0.05; + P < 0.10; NS P ≥ 0.10; − no statistical analysis performed
2These treatment effects belong to the first and second situation, respectively. Treatment effects over both situations were equal to the situation without naive pigs present
3The effect of situation within treatment was significant for urinating within the negative treatment, but not within the positive treatment nor for escape attempts and play
Footnotes
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s10071-014-0820-6.