Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:30:23.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Zoo foraging ecology: development and assessment of a welfare tool for captive animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SM Troxell-Smith ,
CJ Whelan ,
SB Magle  and
JS Brown
SM Troxell-Smith*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 W Taylor St (M/C 066), Chicago, IL 60607, USA
CJ Whelan
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 W Taylor St (M/C 066), Chicago, IL 60607, USA
SB Magle
Affiliation:
Lincoln Park Zoo, Urban Wildlife Institute, Department of Conservation and Science, Chicago, IL 60614, USA
JS Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 W Taylor St (M/C 066), Chicago, IL 60607, USA
*
* 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.

Foraging ecology and food patch studies are commonly used to elucidate the environmental perceptions of wild, free-ranging animals. Their application to captive animals, however, especially those in zoos, is still in its infancy. To illustrate some specific applications of zoo foraging ecology, we provide a study that evaluated: (i) whether patch use and giving-up densities (GUDs) can reveal areas of preference within an exhibit for zoo species; (ii) if food patches provide an effective form of behavioural enrichment; and (iii) if visitor interest and behaviour is affected by food patch presence. A combination of behavioural observations, and experimental food patches and giving-up densities were used to address these objectives in Parma wallabies (Macropus parma) and Patagonian cavies (Dolichotis patagonum) at Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, Illinois USA. GUDs revealed distinct areas of preference and aversion within the exhibit for cavies, but not so for the wallabies. For both species, presence of food patches increased foraging behaviours, decreased inactive behaviours, and increased within-exhibit movement, demonstrating that food patches serve as an effective behavioural enrichment technique. The use of food patches also revealed striking differences between individuals, particularly for the pair of cavies. There were encouraging trends toward increased visitor number and stay-time when food patches were present in each exhibit, but the effect was not statistically significant. These results suggest that utilising patch use, GUDs, and foraging theory in zoo populations may enhance animal welfare, and can inform improvements to exhibit design directly from the animal's perspective. We conclude with a broader discussion of zoo foraging ecology as an emerging field, with suggestions for future avenues of research.

Keywords

animal welfareenvironmental enrichmentexhibit preferencesgiving-up densitiesParma wallabyPatagonian cavy
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , August 2017 , pp. 265 - 275
Copyright
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Altmann, J 1974 Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227–266. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00534CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, KC 1997 Straw and forage material ameliorate abnormal behaviors in adult chimpanzees. Zoo Biology 16: 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2361(1997)16:3<225::AID-ZOO3>3.0.CO;2-C3.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, JCE 2009 Programmatic approaches to assessing and improving animal welfare in zoos and aquariums. Zoo Biology 28:519–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20260Google ScholarPubMed
Bashaw, MJ, Bloomsmith, MA, Marr, MJ and Maple, TL 2003 To hunt or not to hunt? A feeding enrichment experiment with captive large felids. Zoo Biology 22: 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.10065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedoya-Perez, MA, Carthey, AJR, Mella, VSA, McArthur, C and Banks, PB 2013 A practical guide to avoid giving up on giving-up densities. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 67: 1541–1553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-013-1609-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomsmith, M and Lambeth, S 1995 Effects of predictable versus unpredictable feeding schedules on chimpanzee behavior. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00570-ICrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, J and Lindburg, D 1990 Carcass feeding of captive chee-tahs (Acinonyx jubatus): the effects of a naturalistic feeding program on oral health and psychological well-being. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(90)90036-DCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J 1988 Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 22: 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00395696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, JS, Laundré, JW and Gurung, M 1999 The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. Journal of Mammalogy 80: 385–399. https://doi.org/10.2307/1383287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlstead, K, Seidensticker, J and Baldwin, R 1991 Environmental enrichment for zoo bears. Zoo Biology 16: 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.1430100103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forthman, D and Ogden, J 1992 The role of applied behavior analysis in zoo management: Today and tomorrow. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 25: 647–652. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-647CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frid, A and Dill, L 2002 Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6: 11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00404-060111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbers, J 1981 Time resources and laziness in animals. Oecologia 49: 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00349198CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, SP and Broom, DM 2009 Measuring zoo animal welfare: theory and practice. Zoo Biology 28: 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20276Google ScholarPubMed
Howell-Stephens, JA 2012 Assessing welfare of armadillos using hormonal & foraging indicators, and patch use in Argentinean birds. PhD Dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Kastelein, R and Wiepkema, P 1989 A digging trough as occu-pational therapy for Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) in human care. Aquatic Mammals 15: 9–17Google Scholar
Laundré, JW, Hernández, L and Ripple, WJ 2010 The land-scape of fear: Ecological implications of being afraid. Ecology 2: 1–7Google Scholar
Margulis, SW, Hoyos, C and Anderson, M 2003 Effect of felid activity on zoo visitor interest. Zoo Biology 22: 587–599. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.10115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGowan, RTS, Robbins, CT, Alldredge, JR and Newberry, RC 2010 Contrafreeloading in grizzly bears: implications for captive foraging enrichment. Zoo Biology 29: 484–502Google ScholarPubMed
McPhee, ME 2002 Intact carcasses as enrichment for large felids: Effects on on- and off-exhibit behaviors. Zoo Biology 21: 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.10033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melfi, V 2009 There are big gaps in our knowledge, and thus approach, to zoo animal welfare: a case for evidence-based zoo animal management. Zoo Biology 28: 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20288Google ScholarPubMed
Mellen, J, Hayes, M and Shepherdson, D 1998 Captive envi-ronments for small felids. In: Shepherdson, D, Mellen, J and Hutchins, J (eds) Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals pp 184–201. Smithsonian Institution Press: USAGoogle Scholar
Mellen, J and MacPhee, MS 2001 Philosophy of environmental enrichment: past, present, and future. Zoo Biology 20: 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mogerman, JEEH 2011 Zoo foraging ecology: patch use and giving-up densities as tools for animal care. PhD. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Morgan, KN and Tromborg, CT 2007 Sources of stress in cap-tivity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 262–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC 1995 Environmental enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00616-ZCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ord, TJ, Evans, CS and Cooper, DW 1999 Nocturnal behav-iour of the parma wallaby, Macropus parma (Marsupialia: Macropodoidea). Australian Journal of Zoology 47: 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO98047Google Scholar
Read, D and Fox, B 1991 Assessing the habitat of the parma wal-laby, Macropus parma (Marsupialia: Macropodidae). Wildlife Research 18: 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR9910469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivas, J and Burghardt, G 2002 Crotalomorphism: A metaphor to understand anthropomorphism by omission. In: Bekoff, M, Allen, C and Burghardt, GM (eds) The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition pp 9–17. The MIT Press: USAGoogle Scholar
Ryan, EB, Proudfoot, KL and Fraser, D 2012 The effect of feeding enrichment methods on the behavior of captive Western lowland gorillas. Zoo Biology 31: 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20403CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sánchez, F, Korine, C, Kotler, BP and Pinshow, B 2008 Ethanol concentration in food and body condition affect foraging behavior in Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus). Naturwissenschaften 95:561–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-008-0359-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, M, Nogge, G and Kolter, L 2014 Implementing unpredictability in feeding enrichment for Malayan sun bears (Helarctos malayanus). Zoo Biology 9: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21112Google Scholar
Schwanz, LE, Previtali, MA, Gomes-Solecki, M, Brisson, D and Ostfeld, RS 2012 Immunochallenge reduces risk sensitivity during foraging in white-footed mice. Animal Behaviour 83: 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherdson, DJ, Carlstead, K, Mellen, JD and Seidensticker, J 1993 The influence of food presentation on the behavior of small cats in confined environments. Zoo Biology 12:203–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.1430120206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrader, AM, Brown, JS, Kerley, GIH and Kotler, BP 2008 Do free-ranging domestic goats show ‘landscapes of fear’? Patch use in response to habitat features and predator cues. Journal of Arid Environments 72: 1811–1819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jari-denv.2008.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sombra, MS 2011 Foraging, predation and sociality in Maras (Dolichotis patagonum). Master's Thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Swaisgood, R and Shepherdson, D 2005 Scientific approaches to enrichment and stereotypies in zoo animals: what's been done and where should we go next?. Zoo Biology 24: 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaisgood, RR 2007 Current status and future directions of applied behavioral research for animal welfare and conservation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, A 1987 The behavioural ecology of the mara, Dolichotis patagonum. PhD Dissertation, University of Oxford: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Troxell-Smith, SM, Tutka, MJ, Albergo, JM, Balu, D, Brown, JS and Leonard, JP 2016 Foraging decisions in wild versus domestic Mus musculus: What does life in the lab select for? Behavioural Processes 122: 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.10.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuen, AA and Brown, JS 1996 Evaluating habitat suitability for tree squirrels in a suburban environment. Malaysian Applied Biology 25: 1–8Google Scholar
Veasey, J, Waran, N and Young, R 1996 On comparing the behaviour of zoo housed animals with wild conspecifics as a wel-fare indicator. Animal Welfare 5: 13–24Google Scholar
von Ende, CN 1993 Repeated measures analysis: Growth and other time-dependent measures. In: Scheiner, SM and Gurevitch, J (eds) Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments pp 134–157. CRC Press: USAGoogle Scholar
Watters, JV, Miller, JT and Sullivan, TJ 2011 Note on optimizing environmental enrichment: a study of fennec fox and zoo guests. Zoo Biology 30: 647–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20365CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whelan, CJ and Maina, GG 2005 Effects of season, understorey vegetation density, habitat edge and tree diameter on patch-use by bark-foraging birds. Functional Ecology 19: 529–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.00996.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
While, G and McArthur, C 2006 Distance from cover affects artificial food-patch depletion by macropod herbivores. Wildlife Research 33: 565–570. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR05063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitham, JC and Wielebnowski, N 2013 New directions for zoo animal welfare science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 147:247–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Troxell-Smith et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 82.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Troxell-Smith et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 15.5 KB