GPS assessment of the use of exhibit space and resources by African elephants (Loxodonta africana)

Abstract

In public discussions of animal rights and welfare, we as members and proponents of zoological institutions often face significant challenges addressing the concerns of our detractors due to an unfortunate deficiency in systematically collected and published data on the animals in our collections. In the case of elephants, there has been a paucity of information describing their use of space within captive environments. Here, using collar-mounted GPS recording devices, we documented the use of exhibit space and resources by a herd of five adult female African elephants (Loxodonta africana) housed at Disney's Animal Kingdom((R)). We found that dominant animals within the herd used a greater percentage of the available space and subordinate females avoided narrow or enclosed regions of the enclosure that we termed "restricted flow areas." In their use of other resources, dominant females demonstrated increased occupation of the watering hole over subordinate females, but all females demonstrated relatively equivalent use of the mud wallow. Overall, our results provide preliminary evidence that position within the dominancy hierarchy impacts the percentage of space occupied in a captive setting and may contribute to resource accessibility. These findings can be applied to future decisions on exhibit design and resource distribution for this species.

Examination of enrichment using space and food for African elephants (Loxodonta africana) at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park

“…The distance traveled by each elephant over time was calculated from the GPS devices as the Euclidean distances between successive accurate longitude and latitude readings measured at 5 sec intervals (Leighty et al, 2010). The distance walked throughout the 22 hr period was calculated by summing the walking distances of each elephant for each 22 hr trial per treatment and averaging them for each treatment.…”

“…To digitally document walking distance, an anklet with Global Positioning System technology was implemented (Leighty et al, 2010;Holdgate, 2015;Miller et al, 2011;Theiss et al, 2005). Although there are no studies testing the effect of GPS anklets on elephant behavior, Horback et al (2012) examined the effects of GPS collars and found that they had no effect on elephant behavior.…”

“…Zoological institutions housing elephants are in general agreement that improvements in elephant management are necessary; however, there is little consensus on what improvements are needed (Hutchins, 2006). Substantial changes in the size and complexity of exhibits have taken place in recent decades (Leighty et al, 2010) in addition to the building of new exhibits all together. Examples of facilities with new exhibits for elephants include the San Diego Zoo in 2009 (Schwartz, 2009), the Los Angeles Zoo (Lewis, 2010) and Dallas Zoo in 2010(Dallas Zoo, 2013, the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo in 2011(Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, 2013, the Denver Zoo in 2012 (Denver and Cheyenne Mountain (Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Society, 2013.…”

Estimating daily walking distance of captive African elephants using an accelerometer

“…Additionally, data output from an accelerometer is more restricted than data output from a GPS device in that the latter can provide information about enclosure use and social spacing among animals, whereas an accelerometer cannot. For example, enclosure use by female elephants as a function of dominance rank [Leighty et al, 2010] and the influence of rumble vocalizations on spatial relationships [Leighty et al, 2008] have been investigated when multiple elephants have worn GPS collars simultaneously.…”

Lessons in Primate Heat Tolerance: A Commentary Based on the “Human Zoo” Experience

“…These include age-related changes in thermoregulation (Aujard et al, 2006) and mismatches in thermoregulatory needs between mothers and infants (Schino & Troisi, 1998), the impact of dominance on access to space (Honess & Marin, 2006;Leighty, Soltis, & Savage, 2009), and individual preference for core areas (Bettinger, Wallis, & Carter, 1994). Finally, we suggest that the emphasis should be on "thermousable" space rather than size alone, as microhabitats may be unusable in extreme temperatures.…”