Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:09:25.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stereotypic Behaviour in Wild Caught and Laboratory Bred Bank Voles (Clethrionymus Glareolus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

J J Cooper  and
C J Nicol
J J Cooper*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Avon, BS18 7DU, UK
C J Nicol
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Avon, BS18 7DU, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Animal Behaviour Research Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Rd, Oxford 0X1 3PS
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.

Stereotypic behaviour is generally associated with animals maintained in restrictive environments, and has rarely been described in wild or free-ranging animals. The difference between captive and wild populations may be due to their genetic predisposition or to experience of environmental factors. To investigate genetic and environmental factors, we compared the behaviour of 12 wild caught voles and their 9 pups with that of 12 laboratory reared voles and 14 laboratory bred pups. All voles were observed twice. Adults were observed after 10 days housing in a cage, containing food, water, sawdust and hay, and again after 60 days. Pups were observed in the same cages 10 and 60 days after weaning. For each observation, the voles’ behaviour was recorded both undisturbed in this cage, and following introduction to an unfamiliar cage. Locomotor stereotypies were observed in laboratory adults, but not in wild caught voles, which spent less time on all locomotor activities and more time under cover than laboratory voles. There was no difference in mortality or fecundity of laboratory and wild caught voles, so there appeared to be no selective advantage to stereotyping. There was no difference in the behaviour of wild and laboratory pups, so early environmental experience of the cage environment, rather than parental background, was an important factor in the development of locomotor stereotypies in this species. Pups that developed stereotypies by 60 days spent less time under cover and more time walking and climbing after 10 days than voles that did not develop stereotypic behaviour. Stereotypic behaviour may therefore have been derived from persistence of locomotor behaviour. Wild caught voles may have failed to develop locomotor stereotypies, either because they did not perform a locomotor response to captivity or because older voles are less prone to develop novel responses to external cues. It would, therefore, be dangerous to use the absence of stereotypic behaviour as a reliable indicator of welfare without taking into account the animal's prior experience.

Keywords

animal welfarebank volesexperiencestereotypic behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , August 1996 , pp. 245 - 257
Copyright
© 1996 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ames, A 1993 The Behaviour of Captive Polar Bears. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C and Lawrence, A B 1987 Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Production 45: 103–110Google Scholar
Baker, J P and Clarke, J R 1987 Voles. In: T Poole (ed) UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals pp 331–345. Longman: Harlow, UKGoogle Scholar
Benus, R F, Den Daas, S, Koolhaas, J M and van Oortmersson, G A 1990 Routine formation and flexibility in social and non-social behaviour of aggressive and non-aggressive mice. Behaviour 112: 176–193Google Scholar
Benus, R F, Koolhaas, J M and van Oortmersson, G A 1987 Individual differences in behavioural reaction to a changing environment in mice and rats. Behaviour 100: 105–122Google Scholar
Bernstein, I S 1991 An empirical comparison of focal and ad libitum scoring with commentary on instantaneous scans, all occurrence and one-zero techniques. Animal Behaviour 42: 721–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1986 Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142: 524–526CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, J J 1992 The Behavioural Analysis of Stereotypic Behaviour in the Bank Vole. PhD Thesis, University of Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Nicol, C J 1991 Stereotypic behaviour affects environmental preference in bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Animal Behaviour 41: 971–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Nicol, C J 1993 The ‘coping’ hypothesis of stereotypies; a reply to Rushen. Animal Behaviour 45: 616–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J, Nicol, C J and Odberg, F O 1991 The emancipation of stereotypic behaviour with age. In: Appleby M C, Horrell R I, Petheric J C and Rutter S M (eds.) Applied Animal Behaviour: Past, Present and Future pp 34–36. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J, Nicol, C J and Odberg, F O 1993 The effect of environmental enrichment on the development of locomotor stereotypies in bank voles. In: Nichelman, M, Wierenga, H K and Braun, S (eds) Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology pp 279–282. Humbolt University: Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Corbert, G B and Southern, H N 1977 The Handbook of British Mammals. Blackwells: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Cronin, G M 1985 The Development and Significance of Abnormal Stereotyped Behaviour in Tethered Sows. PhD Thesis, Agricultural University of Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Dantzer, R 1986 Behavioural, physiological, and functional aspects of stereotypic behaviour: a review and re-interpretation. Journal Animal Science 62: 1776–1786CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dantzer, R and Mormede, P 1983 De-arousal properties of stereotypic behaviour; evidence from pituitary adrenal correlates in pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 10: 233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Wood-Gush, D G M 1972 Thwarting of feeding behaviour in the domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 14: 137–147Google Scholar
Edwards, S A, Atkinson, K A and Lawrence, A B 1993 The effect of food level and type on the behaviour of outdoor sows. In: Nichelman M, Wierenga H K and Braun S (edsj Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology pp 501–503. Humbolt University: Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Fentress, J C 1968 Interrupted ongoing behaviour in two species of vole (Microtus agrestis and Clethrionomys brittanicus). I Response as a function of preceding activity and the context of an apparently ‘irrelevant’ motor pattern. Animal Behaviour 16: 135–153CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fentress, J C 1976 Dynamic boundaries of patterned behaviour: interaction and self organisation. In: Bateson, P P G and Hinde, R A (eds) Growing Points in Ethology pp 136–169. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Gurnell, J and Flowerdew, J R 1982 Live Trapping Small Animals: A Practical Guide. The Mammal Society: Reading, UKGoogle Scholar
Huffman, M A 1984 Stone playing of Macaca fuscata in Arayishima B troop; transmission of a non-adaptive behaviour. Journal of Human Evolution 13: 725–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, M A and Quiatt, D 1986 Stone playing by Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata)·. implications for tool use of stone. Primates 27: 413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O and Duncan, I J H 1988 The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G H, Mittleman, G and Robbins, T W 1989 Attenuation of amphetamine stereotypy by mesostriatal dopamine depletion enhances plasma corticosterone; implications for stereotypy as a coping response. Behavioural and Neural Biology 51: 80–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993 Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J 1991 Stereotypy: a critical review. Animal Behaviour 41: 1015–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J 1993 Age and context affect the stereotypies of caged mink. Behaviour 127: 191–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odberg, F O 1986 The jumping stereotypy in the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus). Biology of Behaviour 11: 130–143Google Scholar
Odberg, F O 1987a Behavioural responses to stress in farm animals. In: van Adrichem, P W M and Wiepkema, P R (eds) The Biology of Stress in Farm Animals: An Integrated Approach pp 135–149. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odberg, F O 1987b The influence of cage size and environmental enrichment on the development of stereotypies in bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Behavioural Processes 14: 155–173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Randrup, A, Sorensen, G and Kobayashi, M 1988 Stereotyped behaviour in animals induced by stimulant drugs or by a restricted cage environment: relation to disintegrated behaviour, brain dopamine and psychiatric disease. Japanese Journal Psychopharmacology 8: 313–327Google ScholarPubMed
Roper, T J 1984 Response of thirsty rats to absence of water: frustration, disinhibition or compensation? Animal Behaviour 32: 1225–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J P 1993 The “coping” hypothesis of stereotypic behaviour: a critical review. Animal Behaviour 45: 616–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J P, Lawrence, A B and Terlouw, E M C 1993 The motivational basis of stereotypies. In: Rushen J P, Lawrence A B and Terlouw EMC (eds,) Stereotypic Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, G 1987 Stereotyped behaviour, hyperaggressiveness and tyrannic hierarchy induced in bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) by a restrictive cage milieu. Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology and Biology of Psychiatry 11: 9–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorensen, G and Randrup, A 1986 Possible protective value of severe psychopathology against lethal effects of an unfavourable milieu. Stress Medicine 2: 103–105Google Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Lawrence, A B and Illius, A W 1991 Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinbergen, N 1952 ‘Derived’ activities: their causation, biological significance, origin, and emancipation during evolution. Quarterly Review of Biology 27: 1–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiepkema, P R 1985 Abnormal behaviour in farm animals: ethological implications. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 35: 279–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiepkema, P R, van Hellemond, K K, Roessingh, P and Romberg, H 1987 Behaviour and abomasal damage in individual veal calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 257–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar