Behavioral Diversity as a Potential Indicator of Positive Animal Welfare

Abstract

Modern day zoos and aquariums continuously assess the welfare of their animals and use evidence to make informed management decisions. Historically, many of the indicators of animal welfare used to assess the collection are negative indicators of welfare, such as stereotypic behavior. However, a lack of negative indicators of animal welfare does not demonstrate that an individual animal is thriving. There is a need for validated measures of positive animal welfare and there is a growing body of evidence that supports the use of behavioral diversity as a positive indicator of welfare. This includes an inverse relationship with stereotypic behavior as well as fecal glucocorticoid metabolites and is typically higher in situations thought to promote positive welfare. This review article highlights previous research on behavioral diversity as a potential positive indicator of welfare. Details are provided on how to calculate behavioral diversity and how to use it when evaluating animal welfare. Finally, the review will indicate how behavioral diversity can be used to inform an evidence-based management approach to animal care and welfare.

Do Camels (Camelus dromedarius) Need Shaded Areas? A Case Study of the Camel Market in Doha

“…Some camels had skin disorders such as mange, which is known to become itchier in the sun. Overall, the increased expression of natural behaviors in the shade (such as sternal recumbency and rumination in Group 1 camels in the shade) could be seen as a positive indicator of animal welfare [ 48 ]. Shade, therefore, seems to promote a positive welfare state in camels, and adequate shaded areas should be recommended in camel farming.…”

Effects of a combined enrichment intervention on the behavioural and physiological welfare of captive Asiatic lions (Panthera leo persica)

“…Welfare encompasses both internal and external conditions affecting an animal and hence must be measured using a multifarious approach. As highlighted by Miller et al (2020) the focus on negative welfare indicators has led to zoos adhering to minimum husbandry guidelines that attempt to suppress symptoms of poor welfare rather than trying to improve existing conditions.…”

“…In this study, we measured two traditional negative welfare parameters like ARB (Mason and Latham, 2004) and faecal corticosterone levels (Schildkraut, 2016;Vaz et al, 2017) along with two positive welfare indicators (Miller et al, 2020) viz., spread of participation index (SPI) (Cabana et al, 2018;Powell, 1995) and behaviour diversity (Pastorino et al, 2017). Previous studies on captive African lions that establish the positive effects of enrichment interventions have primarily relied on behavioural welfare indices (Martínez-Macipe et al, 2015;Ncube and Ndagurwa, 2010;Powell, 1995;Regaiolli et al, 2019;Van Metter et al, 2008).…”

From Land to Water: Taking Fish Welfare Seriously

“…Most recently, animal welfare scientists expanded on these foundations by recognizing the need to aim beyond a mere reduction of suffering and have instead begun to explore what might constitute a "good life" for individuals of a particular species [7,8]. Interest in this good-life/positive-welfare approach has surged in recent years, with numerous reviews on the topic published in the last year alone [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19].…”