In imprinting preference test, the results showed that imprinted chicks significantly presented a shorter latency value to initiate moving to the imprinting stimuli than the control group (p=0.0.37; Figure 5.). After two more replications, latency values were consistent in deacresing trend (p=0.018, for the first replication; p=0.007, second replication; Figure 5.)

In Social Prefence Test, the latency was highly significant between treatments (p=0.007; Figure 5.) and got shorter after replication(SP1) (p=0.002; Figure 5.).

Figure 5. The mean latency for chicks to initiate movement from stationary position whitin the given arena. Comparison of mean latency (s) between Imprinting Preference  and replication (IP, 48-72h post-hatch; IP1, 2 weeks old; IP2, 4 weeks old) and Social Preference Test(SP, 10 days old; SP1, 4 weeks old). Imprinted chicks(IC), Control chicks(CC)

Spent time in novel object and Imprinting stimuli

In both Imprinting Preference and Social Prefence Tests, there was a significant difference in time spent in the hen zone. Imprinted chicks spent more time in the hen zone where the imprinting stimuli were (p=0.050, IP; p<0.001, SP; Figure 6.).

Figure 6. The mean value of time spent in the hen zone and the novel object zone. Imprinting Preference Test (IP), Social Preference Test(SP) and the novel object placed in the Social Preference Test.  

Peeping frequency

Results showed that there was not any significant results among treatments as well as after replication of the experiment, however, a decrease in peeping calls by imprinted chicks ( ; p=0.073)

Figure 7. The number of peeps. Social Isolation test (SI) and replication (SI 1, 8 weeks old). The changes in the number of peeps after isolation.