Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:14:01.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of a camouflage net barrier on the behaviour, welfare and public perceptions of zoo-housed gorillas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

EC Blaney  and
DL Wells
EC Blaney
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT7 INN, Northern Ireland, UK
DL Wells*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT7 INN, Northern Ireland, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Visitors to zoos can be a potential source of stress to captive-housed primates, resulting in increased abnormal behaviour and intra-group aggression. Finding a way to screen primates from human visitors may be one method of decreasing stress and enhancing animal welfare. For this study, the behaviour of six zoo-housed gorillas was studied for one month during standard housing conditions (control condition) and for a further month following the installation of a camouflage net barrier to the viewing area of the exhibit (barrier condition). Visitors’ (n = 200) perceptions of the animals and the exhibit were also recorded during each condition. The net barrier had a significant effect on some components of the gorillas’ behaviour. The gorillas exhibited significantly lower levels of conspecific-directed aggression and stereotypic behaviours during the barrier than the control condition. The net barrier also had a slight effect on visitors’ perceptions both of the animals and of their exhibit. The gorillas were considered to look more exciting and less aggressive during the barrier than the control condition. The exhibit was also considered to be more appropriate for visitors following the introduction of the camouflage netting. Overall, the addition of a screen such as camouflage netting could be considered a positive change, resulting in a reduction in those behaviours typically induced by large groups of visitors and an improvement in public perceptions of the animals and their environment.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourenrichmentgorillahousing conditionsvisitorszoos
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , May 2004 , pp. 111 - 118
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Beaver, B V 1989 Environmental enrichment for laboratory animals. ILAR (Institute for Laboratory Animal Research) News 31: 5–11Google Scholar
Birke, J F 2002 Effects of browse, human visitors and noise on the behaviour of captive orang utans. Animal Welfare 11: 189–202Google Scholar
Bloomstrand, M, Riddle, K, Alford, R and Maple, T L 1986 Objective evaluation of a behavioral enrichment device for captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biology 5: 293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M and Johnson, K G 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamove A S, Hosey G R and Schaetzel R 1988 Visitors excite primates in zoos. Zoo Biology 7: 359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, S and Hosey, G R 1995 Interaction sequences between chimpanzees and human visitors at the zoo. Zoo Biology IR: 431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaston, A R, Geilvoet-Soeteman, E, Hora-Pecek, E and Van Hooff, J A R A M 1984 The influence of the zoo environment on social behavior of groups of cotton-topped tamarins, Saguinus oedipus oedipus. Zoo Biology 3: 241–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff, M P, Powell, D M, Lukas, K E and Maple, T L 1997 Individual and social behavior of lowland gorillas in outdoor exhibits compared with indoor holding areas. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 64: 359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosey, G R 2000 Zoo animals and their human audience: what is the visitor effect? Animal Welfare 9: 343–357Google Scholar
Howell, D C 1992 Statistical Methods for Psychology. Duxbury Press: California, USAGoogle Scholar
Larsson, F, Winblad, B and Mohammed, A H 2002 Psychological stress and environmental adaptation in enriched vs. impoverished housed rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 73: 193–207CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maki, S, Alford, P L and Bramblett, C 1987 The effects of unfamiliar humans on aggression in captive chimpanzee groups. American Journal of Primatology 12: 358 (Abstract)Google Scholar
Markowitz, H 1982 Behavioral Enrichment in the Zoo. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1986 Measuring Behaviour. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G, Herring, F, Obradovich, S, Tromborg, C, Dowd, B, Neville, L E and Field, L 1991 Effects of visitors and cage changes on the behaviors of Mangabeys. Zoo Biology 10: 417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miura, A, Tanida, H, Tanaka, T and Yoshimoto, T 1996 The influence of human posture and movement on the approach and escape behaviour of weanling pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimon, N J and Dalziel, F R 1991 Cross-species interaction and communication: a study method applied to captive siamang (Hylobates syndactylus) and long-billed corella (Cacatua tenuirostris) contacts with humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norcup, S 2000 Camouflaged gorillas: barriers as enrichments for apes. The Shape of Enrichment 9: 5Google Scholar
Oswald, M and Kuyk, K 1977 The behavior of three lorisoid primate species before and after the public opening of the nocturnal house. In: Crockett, C and Hutchins, M (eds) Applied Behavioral Science pp 81–100. Pika Press: Seattle, USAGoogle Scholar
Perret, K, Preuschoft, H and Preuschoft, S 1995 Einfluss von Zoobesuchern auf das verhalten von Schimpansen (Pan troglodytes). Der Zoologische Garten 65: 314–322 [Title translation: The influence of zoo visitors on the behaviour of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)]Google Scholar
Poole, T 1998 Meeting a mammal's psychological needs. In: Shepherdson, D J, Mellen, J D and Hutchins, M (eds) Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals pp 83–94. Smithsonian Institute Press: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Renner, M J and Lussier, J P 2002 Environmental enrichment for the captive spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus). Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 73: 279–283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sambrook, T D and Buchanan-Smith, H M 1997 Control and complexity in novel object enrichment. Animal Welfare 6: 207–216Google Scholar
Seligman, M E P 1975 Helplessness: On Depression, Development and Health. W H Freeman: San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
Shettel-Neuber, J 1988 Second and third generation zoo exhibits: comparison of visitor, staff, and animal responses. Environment and Behaviour 20: 396–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, R L 1975 Behavioral stress in captive animals. In: Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources (ed) Research in Zoos and Aquariums pp 41 -76. National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Wells, D L, Graham, L and Hepper, P G 2002 The influence of auditory stimulation on the behaviour of dogs housed in a rescue shelter. Animal Welfare 11: 385–393Google Scholar
Wells, D L and Hepper, P G 1992 The behaviour of dogs in a rescue shelter. Animal Welfare 1: 171–186Google Scholar
Wells, D L and Hepper, P G 2000 The influence of environmental change on the behaviour of sheltered dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 151–162CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F 1984 Animal boredom: is a scientific study of the subjective experiences of animals possible? Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1984/1985. The Humane Society of the United States: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Wood, W 1998 Interactions among environmental enrichment, viewing crowds and zoo chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biology 17: 211–2303.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle Scholar