A unique zoo‐sanctuary collaboration for chimpanzees

Ross, Stephen R.; Hansen, Bethany K; Hopper, Lydia M.; Fultz, Amy

doi:10.1002/ajp.22941

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ross, Hansen, Hopper, and Fultz () highlighted the natural institutional collaboration of Lincoln Park Zoo and Chimp Haven. The facilities have a common goal of enhancing chimpanzee welfare.…”

Section: How Did You Enter Into the Collaboration?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They involve interdisciplinary training of students and resource sharing, mentoring collaborators at different career stages, co‐authoring publications, and expanding research and local networks in host countries. Ross et al () were explicit about the challenges of collaborations. Even though the alliance between Lincoln Park Zoo and Chimp Haven was relatively new and the goal of improved chimpanzee welfare was the same, they took great care in anticipating possible challenges, “where the respective philosophies were disparate” or not relevant.…”

Section: What Scientific Benefits Accrued From the Collaboration?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Commentaries on field‐laboratory collaborations in primatology: Introduction to a special section of the American Journal of Primatology

Norconk

2019

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Finding better approaches to bridge field and laboratory primate research was identified as an important goal in a recent (2017) member survey of the American Society of Primatologists. Collaborative field‐captive research was identified by >60% of respondents as somewhat or very underrepresented in the Society. In this introductory essay for a special section of American Journal of Primatology, I review commonalities and differences in the papers that were requested from field‐captive primate collaborative teams. Each team approached important primate biology or welfare problems from different perspectives. The five commentaries in this section addressed how the collaborations began, scientific benefits that accrued, and insights or challenges that researchers faced in the collaboration. Despite the fact that the specific fields of inquiry were different (conservation genetics, chimpanzee captive welfare, environmental physiology, feeding biology, and reproductive physiology), the commentaries converged on the concept that an intentional, interdisciplinary approach, that included field observations and experiments informed by laboratory expertise, were essential to achieving innovative results.

show abstract

Section: How Did You Enter Into the Collaboration?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Scientific Benefits Accrued From the Collaboration?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Commentaries on field‐laboratory collaborations in primatology: Introduction to a special section of the American Journal of Primatology

Norconk

2019

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Suitability of individuals for reintroduction, therefore, relies on a consideration of the match between the behaviour of the candidate and the environment into which it is intended to be introduced (Banks et al, 2001;Blumstein et al, 2019). Generally, animals kept in captivity have a higher chance of being preyed upon after reintroduction, becoming complacent or not having learned and retained the ability to recognise and respond adequately to environmental stimuli (DeGregorio et al, 2017;Ross et al, 2019;Shier & Owings, 2007). Captive-bred individuals, in particular, lose their anti-predatory behaviour within just a few generations (Jolly et al, 2018;Moseby et al, 2015;Rowell et al, 2020;Vilhunen, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Successful predatory‐avoidance behaviour to lion auditory cues during soft‐release from captivity in cheetah

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to global biodiversity declines, conservation programmes have increasingly had to consider reintroducing captive animals into the wild. However, reintroductions often fail as captive individuals may be naïve to predators and do not recognise or respond appropriately to predatory cues, contributing to high mortality rates soon after release. This study evaluates differences in predator-response behaviours between individuals from three experimental groups, a captive population (n = 13), a semi-wild population (i.e. raised in captivity and successfully released; n = 6) and a wild population (n = 2) of cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) to an artificially simulated auditory threat of lions (Panthera leo), a larger, natural predator in South Africa. Such comparisons improve our understanding of differences between captive and wild behaviours and provide an aspect to evaluating the relative success of reintroduction programmes.Changes in the proximal distance, the latency of approach and hesitation towards both control (African bush cricket, Acanthoplus discoidalis) and treatment (lion) auditory cues were observed for 29 cheetah from captive, semi-wild and wild populations in at least three trial replicates each. Overall, captive individuals consistently displayed poor predatory-response behaviours, approaching the treatment as often as the control, as well as spending more time near the stimulus (<10 m) and hesitating more often than semi-wild cheetah, which could distinguish between the control and treatment, consistently fleeing from the latter with little hesitation. Repeatability analyses indicated that these behavioural responses to predatory cues could not be explained by individual personality and between-trial learning comparisons showed no evidence of habituation. Our findings demonstrate how a priori testing for predator naïvety could inform future introductory decisions and thereby increase post-release survival rates, significantly improving the efficacy of reintroduction strategies. We, therefore, emphasise the importance of such research and screening in highly threatened species, such as cheetah, where reintroduction from captivity has become a necessary consideration.

show abstract

Understanding the Behavior of Sanctuary-Housed Chimpanzees During Public Programs

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A unique zoo‐sanctuary collaboration for chimpanzees

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

Commentaries on field‐laboratory collaborations in primatology: Introduction to a special section of the American Journal of Primatology

Commentaries on field‐laboratory collaborations in primatology: Introduction to a special section of the American Journal of Primatology

Successful predatory‐avoidance behaviour to lion auditory cues during soft‐release from captivity in cheetah

Understanding the Behavior of Sanctuary-Housed Chimpanzees During Public Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About