The impact of exhibit type on behaviour of caged and free-ranging tamarins

Abstract

Captive environments often lack required stimuli to preserve natural behaviour 29  This study compared behaviour of free-ranging and caged tamarins 30  Significant differences in mean rates of behaviour found between conditions 31  Free-ranging tamarins exhibited increased locomotion and proficient environment use 32  Free-ranging exhibit conducive to the exhibition of natural behaviours 33 Abstract 34 35The lack of appropriate stimuli associated with captive environments has been documented to cause 36 several behavioural and physiological issues in captive species, including loss of natural behaviours, 37 psychopathologies and decreased reproductive success. Providing free-ranging, naturalistic exhibits 38 that replicate elements of a species' natural environment is advocated as a means of promoting and 39 preserving the natural behavioural repertoire in captive species. Exhibition of natural behaviour is 40 considered beneficial to conservation in terms of increased animal welfare, reintroduction success, 41 education and research. This study assessed differences in behaviour of emperor and pied tamarins 42 housed in free-ranging and caged exhibits at Durrell Wildlife Park, to determine the impact of exhibit 43 type. Free-ranging tamarins were expected to exhibit a repertoire of behaviours more similar to that of 44 wild tamarins, based on their access to a more natural and complex environment. Data was collected 45 on a variety of behaviours, including activity, substrate use and communication, using instantaneous 46 and one-zero sampling at 30 second intervals. Findings indicated that both free-ranging and caged 47 tamarins exhibited natural behaviours; however, there were significant differences in mean rates of 48 behaviours between conditions. Free-ranging tamarins exhibited significantly higher rates of 49 locomotion (emperors: P < 0.001; pieds: P < 0.001), long calls (pieds: P < 0.05) and alarm calls 50 (emperors: P < 0.05), and displayed competent use of the environment in terms of natural substrate 51 use (emperors: P < 0.001; pieds: P < 0.01) and appropriate interspecific interactions. Caged tamarins 52 exhibited significantly higher rates of affiliative (emperors: P < 0.001; pieds: P < 0.05) and agonistic 53 (emperors: P < 0.005) intraspecific interactions and time spent in contact (emperors: P < 0.05; pieds: 54 3 P < 0.05), which was largely attributed to spatial restrictions imposed by caged exhibits. This study, 55 consistent with existing literature, indicated that the free-ranging exhibit was conducive to the 56 expression of a behavioural repertoire more similar to that of wild tamarins. This was probably a 57 result of the increased behavioural opportunities available in the free-ranging exhibit, highlighting 58 their importance in promoting wild-type behaviours. However, some mean rates of behaviour were 59 still noticeably less than those documented in wild counterparts. Methods to further promote natural 60 behaviours in both exhibits are recommended to facilitate ex situ and in situ ...

Effect of enclosure expansion on the activity budgets of eastern black‐and‐white colobus monkeys, Colobus guereza

“…The diet offered is easier to chew and digest than leaves (Crissey & Pribyl, 1997), resulting in animals meeting their daily nutritional requirements in a much shorter timeframe. While the time spent feeding (11%) was less than half the 23%–28% feeding activity observed in wild groups (Eustace et al, 2015; Hassan & Ejigu, 2017; Oates, 1994), lower rates were to be expected as the need to forage for food in captivity is greatly reduced (Bryan et al, 2017).…”

Applied behavior analysis and the zoo: Forthman and Ogden (1992) thirty years later

“…Forthman and Ogden ( 1992 ) describe one species, the golden lion tamarin ( Leontopithecus rosalia ), for which empirical evaluations have been conducted to evaluate the effects of introducing captive‐bred zoo animals into the wild (Kleiman et al, 1986 ). Since 1992, these efforts have continued, including comparisons of wild‐born and captive‐born tamarins, examinations of semi‐free‐ranging populations in captivity, and the use of different types of environmental enrichment in captivity and in relation to species‐typical behaviors necessary for wild tamarins (Bryan et al, 2017 ; Castro et al, 1998 ; Price et al, 2012 ; Ruiz‐Miranda et al, 2019 ; Sanders & Fernandez, 2020 ; Stoinski et al, 1997 , 2003 ). Other notable species examples include examinations of wild‐like captive conditions for the endangered black‐footed ferret ( Mustela nigripes ; Miller et al, 1998 ), the effects of releasing Oldfield mice ( Peromyscus polionotus subgriseus ) into testing settings meant to mimic the wild (McPhee, 2003 ), and captive breeding and rearing practices of Key Largo woodrats ( Neotoma floridana smalli ) to improve their successful reintroductions (Alligood et al, 2008 , 2011 ; Wheaton et al, 2013 ).…”

Animal-Visitor Interactions and the Visitor Experience: Visitor Behaviors, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Learning in the Modern Zoo

“…For example, 'naturalistic' enclosures that promote the welfare of zoo animals are associated with increased positive visitor perceptions of and attitudes towards zoo animals, their welfare, and improved visitor experiences (Coe, 1985;Finlay et al, 1988;Luebke et al, 2016;Lukas & Ross, 2014;Melfi et al, 2004;Nakamichi, 2007;Packer et al, 2018;Rhoads & Goldsworthy, 1979;Tofield et al, 2003;Wolf & Tymitz, 1981;Yilmaz et al, 2010Yilmaz et al, , 2017. Free-range enclosures, which promote natural or species-specific behavior in zoo animals, have also been shown to improve visitor perceptions of the welfare of zoo animals, visitor experience and increase visitor viewing times (Bryan et al, 2017;Mun et al, 2013;Price et al, 1994;Wilson et al, 2003). Additionally, enclosures that have enrichment items for zoo animals have been found to increase visitor ratings of the enclosures, to be associated with positive perceptions of zoo animals and their welfare, to increase positive attitudes towards enrichment items, and to increase viewing times and interactions with zoo animals at exhibits by visitors (Davey et al, 2005;Davey, 2007a;Kutska, 2009;Roth et al, 2017;Tripp, 1985;Wood, 1998).…”