Island Life: Use of Activity Budgets and Visibility to Evaluate a Multi-Species Within-Zoo Exhibit Move
by
, , ,
Katherine Finch
1,2,*, 
James O. Waterman
1,
Veronica B. Cowl
1,2,
Ashleigh Marshall
1,3,
Lydia Underwood
1,2,
Leah J. Williams
1,
Nick Davis
1 and
Lisa Holmes
1 1
North of England Zoological Society (Chester Zoo), Cedar House, Caughall Road, Chester CH2 1LH, UK
2
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
3
Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, John Dalton Building, Chester Street, Manchester M1 5GD, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(16), 2123; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162123
Submission received: 28 July 2022
/
Revised: 13 August 2022
/
Accepted: 15 August 2022
/
Published: 19 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Insights in Zoo Animal Welfare)
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Modern zoos aim to provide the best facilities possible for their animals, staff and visitors. Here, we present findings from a study focusing on the behaviour and visibility of four species pre- and post-translocation to a new environment, Islands, within Chester Zoo, UK: the Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii), crested macaque (Macaca nigra), Malayan tapir (Tapirus indicus) and the Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus). We used full activity budgets to demonstrate that the move to new, custom-built facilities influenced the behaviour of all four species. Following relocation, both non-human primate species were found to spend more time interacting socially with group members and abnormal behaviours remained low for all four species. Malayan tapirs and crested macaques chose to spend more time in areas out of public view post-move, whilst Malayan sun bears were more visible to visitors in their new environment. We demonstrate the value of giving animals choice and control over how they interact with their surroundings, the importance in investment in behavioural monitoring throughout translocation events and add to the knowledge-base of this understudied area.
Abstract
Modern zoos strive to construct habitats which both enable and encourage animals to engage in species-specific behaviour, without compromising their visibility to visitors. Here, we present the findings of a within-zoo move to a custom-built exhibit (Islands at Chester Zoo, UK) with respect to the behaviour of four mammal species; the Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii), crested macaque (Macaca nigra), Malayan tapir (Tapirus indicus) and the Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus). We used full activity budgets along with Compositional Data Analysis (CoDA) to gain insight into how the move to a more naturalistic exhibit influenced behaviour. Engagement in abnormal behaviour remained low during the study period for all four species, suggesting no adverse responses to the change in environment. Following the move, both the non-human primate species spent more time engaged in positive social interactions with conspecifics, highlighting the importance of social support during enclosure moves. Time spent visible to the public was largely unaffected by the enclosure move for the Sumatran orangutan, whilst the movement to a new environment increased visibility for the Malayan sun bear and decreased visibility for the crested macaque and Malayan tapir. We demonstrate the value of monitoring behaviour throughout the translocation of zoo-housed species and outline the positive behavioral impacts of providing individuals with naturalistic, species-appropriate environments.
1. Introduction
Successful exhibit design can enable modern zoos to achieve many of their strategic- and conservation-related objectives by providing species-appropriate habitats for their animals and learning opportunities for visitors [1]. As naturalistic habitat design becomes more common in new animal facilities, it is important to consider a species’ natural history in the planning process [2]. Providing an environment with adequate space and complexity requires an in-depth knowledge of an animals’ typical home-range and behaviour [3], which can often only be obtained from experienced practitioners [4]. A failure to acknowledge this key information during the exhibit design process can have a detrimental effect on the animals that subsequently inhabit that space [5]. Inadequate facilities are associated with abnormal repetitive behaviours [6], poor body condition [7], low reproductive success [8] and in some cases death [9]. Additionally, poor facility design may not encompass the needs of animal keepers to implement targeted, species-appropriate enrichment schedules or management routines, potentially further compromising welfare [10].
Despite the potentially negative effects of sub-optimal housing, research on the effect of a move to a novel, more naturalistic environment remains limited [11]. Environments with a naturalistic design have been shown to increase visitor dwell time [12], and visitors have ranked animal welfare higher in these exhibits than in more barren areas [4]. Following transfer to new naturalistic exhibits, several effects have been observed: individual activity levels increase [13,14,15], as does foraging, locomotion [16] and species-typical behaviour [17]. However, there is a clear taxonomic bias within this research, with non-human primates (hereafter primates) being the most studied group [11]. As such, research on a broader range of species is required.
Animal welfare should be of paramount importance to any modern zoological organisation [18,19], and engagement in species-typical behaviour can be a useful tool in the evaluation of the welfare state [20]. The expression of species-typical behaviour is associated with positive contributions to conservation breeding programs [21], suitability for conservation reintroduction attempts [21] and a reduction in the incidence of health issues [22]. Thus, the documentation of these behaviours forms an essential component of any welfare monitoring process. Accurate evaluation of behaviour post-exhibit move using robust and consistent methodology will enable the application of an evidence-based approach to species management and exhibit design [23,24,25]. Additionally, because behavioural changes in response to enclosure moves may not be immediately apparent [26] or may be an initial response to a novel situation [27,28], it is important to account for a habituation period to management or environment modifications.
This study evaluates the effects of an enclosure move on the behaviour and visibility of four species at Chester Zoo, UK. In 2015, Chester Zoo opened a new development named Islands. Islands aimed to provide a naturalistic and immersive visitor experience by replicating the island habitats of South-East Asia. Many species were transferred from the core zoo to new, custom-built enclosures within Islands throughout the multi-year development. Four of the flagship species for this expansion were the Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii), crested macaque (Macaca nigra), Malayan tapir (Tapirus indicus) and the Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus); all species threatened with extinction in their native habitat and popular with the visiting public. Here, we aimed to conduct a multi-species evaluation of a move to a new, more natural environment within the Islands expansion at Chester Zoo, UK. By completing this study, we aim to show the benefit of post-translocation monitoring within a zoo, address the literature gap on the behavioural influence of exhibit moves and provide an evidence base that can be shared with internal and external stakeholders. We made the following predictions: movement to a new custom-built facility would influence the activity budget of all four species (P.1) and the visibility of the species to visitors would be affected by the change in environment (P.2). Furthermore, we predicted that there would be a period of habituation to the new environment by the study subjects (P.3).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Individuals
Twenty four individuals from 4 species were studied over a total of 33 months (January 2015 to September 2017), all housed at Chester Zoo, UK. Species were moved into their new enclosures on different dates, but pre- and post-move data were collected for all during this period (see Table 1 for the details of the study subjects and data collection periods and Appendix A for pre- and post-move enclosure designs). Husbandry routines remained similar between the pre- and post-move conditions.
2.2. Exhibit Information
All areas and volumes provided are approximations, based on exhibit drawings (Appendix B).
2.2.1. Sumatran Orangutan Exhibit Information
During the pre-move condition, this species was held in Realm of the Red Ape—a custom-built orangutan facility constructed in 2007 (Appendix B, Figure A1). Individuals had access to three indoor areas, each with an area of 145 m2 and a cubic volume of 1435 m3. Indoor areas focused on providing vertical, three-dimensional space to facilitate arboreal activity. Additionally, individuals had access to two open-air outdoor exhibits (1385 m2 and 1170 m2). Species-appropriate features included mesh ropes, hammocks and wooden poles to encourage arboreal locomotion. During the post-move condition, this species was housed within Monsoon Forest, an area including a biodome within Islands. Here, individuals had access to two indoor enclosures (totalling 303.5 m2 area, 1816 m3 volume), one open air outdoor enclosure (1096 m2 area) and one netted outdoor exhibit (300 m2 area, 2450 m3 volume) (Appendix B, Figure A2). A further indoor area (200 m2 area, 910 m3 volume) and one further open-air exhibit (2000 m2 area) were made available to this species after the post-move data collection ended. Species-specific enclosure features included fiber-glass sway poles, larger artificial tree climbing structures, custom mesh hammocks to increase nesting and resting opportunities, varying height levels throughout indoor environments and heavy planting [29,30,31].
2.2.2. Crested Macaque Exhibit Information
Throughout the pre-move data collection period, this species was housed in the Monkey House exhibit. Individuals had access to one indoor (120 m2 area) and one outdoor open-air ‘island’ area totalling 1496 m2 (Appendix B, Figure A3). Visitors had nearly 360° viewing opportunity for this species, particularly in the indoor area. The Monkey House exhibit included bark substrate flooring inside to prolong feeding behaviour and wooden poles connected with ropes and straps to encourage climbing. In the post-move data collection phase, this species was held in another part of Monsoon Forest, with access to one indoor enclosure (149 m2 area, 6258 m3 volume) and one open-air outdoor exhibit (2050 m2) (Appendix B, Figure A4). Species-specific features included multiple wooden poles connected with strapping, dynamic multi-level indoor space supplemented with climbable artificial rocks on the walls [32,33] and off-show areas where individuals could choose to be away from the view of visitors.
2.2.3. Malayan Sun Bear Exhibit Information
Malayan sun bears were held in the Spirit of the Jaguar exhibit during the pre-move data collection phase. The savannah style of this exhibit comprised one indoor (800 m2) and one outdoor facility (1130 m2), with off-show den area access (two dens of 9 m2 each) (Appendix B, Figure A5). Wooden structures were included within the exhibit to facilitate climbing behaviour. The custom-built facility for Malayan sun bears in Islands included access to one indoor on-show area (98 m2), four indoor off-show den areas (8 m2 each totalling 32 m2), one off-show cubbing den (8 m2) and two on-show open air outdoor areas (1420 m2 and 870 m2) (Appendix B, Figure A6). Species-appropriate facilities include wooden poles of various heights to encourage climbing [34], a cubbing den, a dry ‘river-bed’ area with rocks providing a different substrate [35] and heavily planted zones to provide natural refuge sites from visitors.
2.2.4. Malayan Tapir Exhibit Information
Malayan tapirs were held in the Cattle House exhibit at Chester Zoo during the pre-move data collection condition. This area comprised indoor stall housing (178 m2 area) with an outdoor paddock (930 m2) (Appendix B, Figure A7). Individuals were provided with a shallow water area for bathing, but this pool was not deep enough for individuals to be fully submerged. Visitors had a 360° viewing opportunity for this species in the Cattle House. During the post-move condition, individuals had access to two indoor areas (one off-show: 110 m2, one on-show: 144 m2) and two outdoor open-air paddocks (655 m2 and 311 m2, including a 37 m2 pool area) (Appendix B, Figure A8). Species-appropriate facilities included two large pools for swimming, deep enough to allow full submersion, bark substrate flooring and live trees and shrubs in the outdoor paddocks to increase the complexity of the environment [36,37]. Individuals were able to move away from public viewing areas within this exhibit, with off-show pens and a dividing wall which allowed refuge from visitors.
2.3. Data Collection and Preparation
The data were collected by four observers for use in different sub-projects (one researcher per species). As such, data collection methods (including ethograms and sampling methods) varied by species: Sumatran orangutan and Malayan sun bear data were collected using continuous focal sampling, Malayan tapir data using group instantaneous scan sampling at 1 min intervals, and crested macaque data using focal individual instantaneous sampling at 30 s intervals [38]. All data were collected via live in-person observations during staff working hours between 08:30 and 17:00 using species-specific ethograms (Appendix A, Table A1, Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4). All observations were conducted at public viewing areas, with the researcher following subjects using these viewpoints throughout the observation session or until subjects entered an ‘off-show’ area which was out of sight. Risk assessment protocols were in place with contingencies outlined if the observer noticed that subjects were directly responding to observer presence, e.g., change clothing or abandon observation session. These contingencies were not utilized for any species within the study.
The length of observation sessions also differed between species: The majority of Sumatran orangutan observation sessions lasted approximately 30 min, yielding a median of 31 instantaneous samples per session (range: 4–320); Malayan sun bear observation sessions also lasted approximately 30 min, yielding a median of 30 instantaneous samples per session (range: 3–57); Malayan tapir observation sessions lasted approximately 60 min, yielding a median of 122 instantaneous samples per session (range: 61–244); crested macaque observation sessions lasted approximately 10 min, yielding a median of 11 instantaneous samples per session (range: 3–11).
To prepare these data for analysis and to enable comparison between species, all data were coerced into a consistent sampling format: focal individual instantaneous sampling at 1 min intervals. For example, the behavioural state was extracted every minute from continuous focal individual observations. These behaviours were then combined into 15 mutually exclusive categories that were/could be present in all 4 species (Table 2 and Appendix B).
These standardised data were organized into 3 conditions: ‘pre-move’ (collected over a 3–7.5 month range) when individuals were housed within the core zoo, immediately prior to their move; ‘early-post’ (the 28 days after transfer to new environments); and ‘post-move’ (collected over a 0.5–4.25 month range) after the initial 28-day period, when individuals were in their new environments. The ‘early-post’ condition was included so that any behavioural changes that occurred during an initial habituation/exploration period would be distinguishable from a longer-term response seen in the ‘post-move’ condition (see prediction P3 above). As the timeline for data collection varied between species, 28 days was chosen as the cut-off between the ‘early-post’ and ‘post-move’ condition to allow for a consistent evaluation of the immediate effect of translocation across all species. Additionally, data were plotted and inspected over time, revealing a more consistent behavioural response after the 28-day period, suggesting that individuals had settled into their new environment after this time. This yielded a total of 36,085 sampling points (representing 601 h and 25 min sampling time) over 290 observation days and 1255 observation sessions (Table 3 and Figure 1). Due to the purely observational nature of the research performed, no ethical approval for research was required. However, study methods and protocols were approved by Chester Zoo’s internal scientific review process.
2.4. Data Analysis
To investigate how the enclosure move influenced species’ behaviour, we examined the data across the three enclosure-move conditions in two different ways: (1) by comparing visible activity budgets (Activity budget approach: predictions P1 and P3) and (2) by comparing the proportion of the observation time spent out of sight of the observer/public (Choice and control approach: prediction P2). The four species were examined separately throughout the analysis, and all of our response variables were expressed as proportions of the total observation time. All data analysis was conducted in R (version 4.1.0) [39]).
2.4.1. Activity Budget Approach (Models 1 to 4)
To investigate whether the enclosure move influenced species’ activity budgets, we fitted four linear mixed models (LMMs) with gaussian error distributions and identity links using the package ‘glmmTMB’ [40]. For our response variables, we calculated the proportions of time allocated to each behaviour described in Table 2, excluding not visible. For each individual, within each observation session (our sampling block/observational unit), we divided the number of instantaneous sample points recorded for each behaviour by the total number of sample points recorded. When an individual’s behaviour was recorded as other or not visible, these observations were discarded and subtracted from the total number of sample points.
Because activity budget data, by their nature, sum to 1 (or 100% if using percentages), the proportions of time spent in each activity are not independent. However, these types of data are habitually analysed as if each behavioural component were independent and unconstrained, e.g., by modelling the proportion of time spent performing each behaviour one-by-one, which can bias interpretation. When the response variable comprises more than two categories, this approach is inappropriate and can lead to spurious interpretation. Therefore, the activity budget data were analysed simultaneously using compositional models (Compositional Data Analysis (CoDA)). We transformed the proportional response variables using a centred log-ratio (CLR), which is the log of the ratio between the observed proportions of time spent performing each behaviour and their geometric mean per observation period. This removes the range restriction and allows for meaningful inference of the results of subsequent mixed models. Because the CLR transformation cannot handle zeros in the dataset, we first rescaled our proportions using the following formula, recommended for use when response variables are beta distributed [41]:
where x is the observed proportion and length(x) our sample size.
We used the CLR-transformed proportions as compositional responses in our four by-species LMMs. To account for our first hypothesis (P1) that enclosure moves would influence activity budgets, we included as fixed effects behaviour (factor with up to 14 levels) and its two-way interaction with the enclosure-move condition (factor with 2–3 levels).
2.4.2. Choice and Control Approach (Models 5 to 8)
To investigate whether the enclosure move influenced the proportion of time that species spent out of sight of the public/observer, we fitted two Beta general linear models (GLMs) and two Beta generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) with logit links using the package ‘glmmTMB’ [40]. The Beta distribution is typically used to model continuous proportion data, and the logit link function ensures positive fitted values that range from 0 to 1 [42]. For our response variables, we calculated the proportions of time that each species spent out of sight. For each individual, within each observation session (our sampling block/observational unit), we divided the number of instantaneous sample points recorded as not visible by the total number of sample points recorded. Because these response variables comprised only two categories (out of sight vs. visible), Beta regression was used rather than CoDA: Beta regression models proportions at the original scale, which makes statistical inference simpler [43]. Prior to analysis, we rescaled our proportions using the formula detailed in Section 2.4.1, recommended for use when response variables are Beta distributed [41].
We used the not visible proportions as responses in four, by-species Beta regression models. We included as fixed effects the enclosure-move condition (factor with 2–3 levels), which accounted for our second hypothesis (P2) that enclosure moves would influence the proportion of time that species spent out of sight of the public/observer.
2.4.3. Model Control Variables
All models included the same control variables: sex (factor with two levels: female, male) and age (continuous with range 281–10,749 days since birth). Age was scaled and centred prior to analysis. To incorporate the dependency among observations of the same individuals, and among observation sessions, the Sumatran orangutan and crested macaque models included crossed random intercepts for individual and observation sessions. Because the inclusion of random effects terms with fewer than 5 levels can destabilise mixed models, the Malayan tapir and Malayan sun bear models (three and four) only included the random intercept for the observation session, and for models seven and eight, no random effects were included. We weighted the four models with the total number of instantaneous sample points per species to account for the likely relationship between response accuracy and sample size.
2.4.4. Model Assumptions and Additional Information
We used a full model approach throughout, and model fit and assumptions were verified by plotting residuals versus fitted values with the package ‘DHARMa’ [44]. We determined the significance of the fixed effects using likelihood ratio tests. We fitted full and restricted models (models in which the parameter of interest, the fixed effect, are withheld, i.e., fixed to 0) and based test statistics on comparisons of the full model with the restricted models. The significance of the likelihood ratio test statistic was calculated using a chi-squared distribution with the appropriate degrees of freedom. Where appropriate, post-hoc tests were carried out using Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) tests, with the package ‘emmeans’ [45]. All statistical tests were two-tailed with α set to 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Effect of the Enclosure Move on the Activity Budgets (Activity Budget Approach)
All full activity budget models differed significantly from their null model equivalents (Sumatran orangutan: χ2 = 30,434, degrees of freedom (df) = 37, p < 0.001; crested macaque: χ2 = 28,030, df = 28, p < 0.001; Malayan sun bear: χ2 = 43,683, df = 21, p < 0.001; Malayan tapir: χ2 = 145,634, df = 25, p < 0.001, Appendix C, Table A5, Table A6, Table A7 and Table A8). Similarly, the interaction between behaviour and enclosure-move condition was significant for all activity budget models (Sumatran orangutan: χ2 = 3665.3, df = 22, p < 0.001; crested macaque: χ2 = 1029.5, df = 16, p < 0.001; Malayan sun bear: χ2 = 1253.5, df = 9, p < 0.001; Malayan tapir: χ2 = 16,793, df = 14, p < 0.001), indicating that activity budgets differed between enclosure conditions (Appendix C, Table A5, Table A6, Table A7 and Table A8). To interpret the results of each model, we plotted the results and inspected the fitted values and their 95% confidence intervals throughout. Raw activity budget values can be found in the Appendix (Appendix C, Table A9).
3.1.1. Model 1: Effect of the Enclosure Move on the Sumatran Orangutan Activity Budget
Sumatran orangutans spent less time feeding (from 11.0% (±1.8) to 7.5% (±1.2)) and locomoting (from 12.5% (±1.1) to 11 (±1.2)) post-move and more time engaged in object manipulation (from 4.9% (±1.0) to 8.7% (±1.5)) and positive social interactions with other orangutans (7.5% (±1.3) to 19.6% (±2.3)) (Figure 2; Appendix C, Table A9).
3.1.2. Model 2: Effect of the Enclosure Move on the Crested Macaque Activity Budget
Individuals spent less time feeding (from 9.2% (±1.0) to 4.3% (±1.0)) and locomoting (from 11.4% (±0.7) to 8.5% (±0.8)) between the pre- and post-move conditions. Additionally, macaques spent more time self-grooming (4.8% (±0.7), increasing to 10.5% (±1.3)) between the pre- and post-move condition (Figure 3; Appendix C, Table A9).
3.1.3. Model 3: Effect of the Enclosure Move on the Malayan Sun Bear Activity Budget
Malayan sun bears spent less time foraging and locomoting and engaged in less abnormal behaviour in the 28 days post-move (Foraging: 13.3% (±1.4) to 9.2% (±2.2); Locomotion: 26.2% (±1.5) to 19.9% (±2.2); Abnormal behaviour: 9.6% (±1.3%) to 4.1% (±2.0)). Individuals spent more time resting under the early-post-move condition (37.2% (±5.0)) than pre-move (27.1% (±2.3)) (Figure 4; Appendix C Table A9). No data were available to estimate activity budgets after the initial 28-day early-post-move period.
3.1.4. Model 4: Effect of the Enclosure Move on the Malayan Tapir Activity Budget
From the pre- to post-move condition, individuals spent less time resting (62.7% (±3.9) to 23.3 (±2.9). Additionally, Malayan tapirs spent more time feeding (25.7% (±3.3) to 28.2% (±3.3)), foraging (3.8% (±0.7) to 6.7% (±1.0) and locomoting (6.2% (±0.9) to 37.9% (±3.0)) (Figure 5; Appendix C Table A9).
3.2. Effect of the Enclosure Move on the Visibility (Choice and Control Approach)
Overall, the null model significantly differed from the full model for crested macaques (χ2 = 30.202, df = 4, p < 0.001, Model 6), Malayan sun bears (χ2 = 20.923, df = 3, p < 0.001, Model 7) and Malayan tapirs (χ2 = 89.09, df = 4, p < 0.001, Model 8), indicating that the move to a new environment influenced the visibility of these species in public viewing areas. However, the null model did not significantly differ from the full model for Sumatran orangutans (χ2 = 1.581, df = 4, p = 0.812, Model 5), suggesting that visibility was not influenced by a move to a new environment for this species.
3.2.1. Model 5: Effect of the Enclosure Move on the Sumatran Orangutan Visibility
Sumatran orangutans spent similar proportions of time out of sight of observers/public before, immediately after (28 days) and following the enclosure move (Figure 6; Appendix C Table A10).
3.2.2. Model 6: Effect of the Enclosure Move on the Crested Macaque Visibility
Crested macaques spent significantly more time out of sight of observers/public immediately after (28 days) and following the enclosure move (Figure 6; Appendix C Table A11) than pre-move.
3.2.3. Model 7: Effect of the Enclosure Move on the Malayan Sun Bear Visibility
Malayan sun bears spent less time out of sight of observers/public in the 28 days post-move than before the enclosure move (Figure 7; Appendix C Table A12).
3.2.4. Model 8: Effect of the Enclosure Move on the Malayan Tapir Visibility
Malayan tapirs spent more time out of sight of observers/public following the move (in the 28 days post-move and thereafter) than before the enclosure move (Figure 7; Appendix C Table A13).
4. Discussion
Activity budget comparison during a management or environmental change is often used to assess whether an intervention has influenced animal behaviour [3,23,26,46]. Here, we presented activity budgets for four species during three periods of data collection: pre-move, early-post and where available, post-move. In line with our first prediction (P1), the move to a new environment significantly affected the activity budget of all species. Furthermore, the visibility of three of the four species to members of the public was also influenced from pre-move to post-move as predicted (P2). Additionally, in support of prediction 3 (P3), we found evidence that activity budgets differed significantly between the early-post and post-move conditions, indicating that there was a period of habituation to the new environment. We show here the value of presenting and considering full activity budgets when evaluating the influence of an environmental change, as it allows an examination of the relative change in the proportions of expressed behaviour.
4.1. Activity Budget Approach
Our study revealed consistent behavioural responses across study species. For example, abnormal behaviour remained low, absent or declined in all four species. The absence of abnormal, repetitive behaviours is generally used as an indicator of positive welfare [47]. However, because some of these behaviours can be “learned” in potentially sub-optimal previous enclosures (and so may not reflect current welfare experience), the use of abnormal behaviour as a measure of enclosure suitability should be interpreted with caution [48,49]. Additionally, an absence of abnormal behaviour does not necessarily mean that the animal’s welfare is optimal [2]. Despite this, zoos often strive to reduce or eliminate abnormal behaviours by encouraging the expression of species-typical behaviour through good husbandry practices [50,51], naturalistic feeding regimes [26,52] and/or enhancing enclosure environments [52].
Our results also indicated a consistent increase in the expression of positive social behaviour with conspecifics for both primate species from pre- to post-move. Positive social interactions such as allogrooming and play are vital for social cohesion and the maintenance of group structure in many primates [53,54], with investment in this behaviour often prioritized after periods of disturbance [55]. Allogrooming can function as a form of stress prevention (social buffering) in crested macaques, with reductions in self-directed behaviour and aggressive tendencies observed after grooming sessions [56]. Similarly, observing allogrooming may also promote the expression of other positive social behaviours (e.g., Macaca sylvanus [53]), highlighting the importance of these behaviours at the individual and group levels. Despite this, research into the effects of translocation on pro-social behaviour is limited. However our findings are in line with those reported by Schaffner and Smith [56], that Wied’s marmosets (Callithrix kuhlii) tend to seek a partner’s proximity more after an enclosure move than before. From pre- to post-translocation, grooming rates fell among tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella), but the mean number of grooming partners increased [57]. Our work adds to the body of literature highlighting the importance of maintaining species-appropriate social groups during translocation events, as they have the potential to play a key role in both individual and group level welfare.
4.1.1. Sumatran Orangutan Activity Budget
Individuals were observed engaging in less feeding and more locomotor behaviour following the exhibit move. The decrease in time spent feeding from the pre- to post- move condition could be attributed to individuals investing more time in maintaining group social relationships over time [58], whilst the increase in locomotion early-post-move is likely an exploratory response to the novel environment. Social interaction with humans decreased from pre-move levels of 10.2% (±2.0) of the activity budget to 0.1% (±0.1) post- and early-post move. Visitors can be a source of stressful excitement for zoo-housed primates [59], with reported increases in activity correlating with visitor number [60]. When we examined which category of humans the orangutans interacted with (keepers vs. visitors), we found that the reduction in time spent interacting with humans was largely driven by a reduction in time spent interacting with visitors (6.5% pre-move to 0.0% post-move). Notably, two hand-reared female orangutans were responsible for the majority of the visitor interactions, highlighting the importance of early-life-history context in assessing welfare. Visitors tend to perceive interactions with orangutans as positive experiences (K.Finch, pers comms); however, it is important to provide animals with the opportunity to avoid such interactions, and thoughtful enclosure design can enable this [61]. Additionally, individuals still had opportunities and areas to engage with visitors in their new environment, indicating that during both the early-post and post-move conditions, individuals were choosing to engage in other behaviours elsewhere. Orangutans often use and manipulate objects as tools [62]. This species-specific behaviour, defined here as ‘object use’, increased following the move to the new enclosure; from 3.4% of the activity budget pre-move to 7.3% post move. Novel planting and vegetation were available in the new environment, and these were often used to reach other resources within the area. Encouraging the expression of species-appropriate behaviour in zoo-housed individuals is essential in the optimization of animal well-being [63], and thus categorization of these behaviours is important in the evaluation of the welfare state.
4.1.2. Crested Macaque Activity Budget
Crested macaques spent less time feeding and locomoting, but more time engaged in positive social behaviour and autogrooming following the enclosure move. Self-directed behaviours in primates such as scratching, self-grooming and face touching are associated with physiological and psychological arousal (often stress) [64,65,66]; however, such gestures may also serve a communicative function [67]. Group members may gain insight into an individual’s motivational state by observing their self-directed behaviours, such as self-grooming, allowing them to better mediate their social interactions [68]. However, the increase in self-grooming was accompanied by an increase in positive social interaction with conspecifics, suggesting that affiliative social bonds between individuals may mediate some of the stressful effects associated with a period of uncertainty [69]. Upon comparison to pre-move values, it was observed that positive social behaviour increased during the early-post-move condition whilst autogrooming increased during the post-move condition. The difference in the latency of responses could be due to the adoption of both short- and long-term coping strategies to the move to a new environment by this highly social species. Macaques also spent less time resting immediately following the enclosure move (during the early-post-move condition), but the percentage of time spent resting returned to pre-move levels after the initial four weeks had passed. A shift towards more active behaviours during the early-post-move phase could be attributed to a process of habituation to the novel environment, with similar patterns observed in both zoo-housed [70] and wild primates [71]. Our results show that species natural history should be taken into consideration when evaluating the influence of an exhibit move on behaviour. For highly social species such as the crested macaque, the social dynamic and group composition may be more influential to overall activity budget than environment complexity or naturalism.
4.1.3. Malayan Sun Bear Activity Budget
Law & Reid [62] highlight the importance of appropriate enclosure design for zoo-housed bear species, outlining that good husbandry practice, including a variety of targeted enrichment techniques, should work in harmony with well-designed architecture to optimize bear welfare.
Malayan sun bears were generally less active following the enclosure move in this study. Individuals spent less time foraging and locomoting and more time engaged in resting behaviour between the pre-move and post-move condition. Additionally, individuals reduced their time exhibiting abnormal behaviours by 5.5% from pre- to post-move. Malayan sun bears housed in enriched outdoor environments showed a similar pattern of behaviour [72], with increased resting and reduced stereotypy compared to bears kept in more barren environments. Bears are known to exhibit a range of abnormal repetitive behaviours in zoos [62], with management practices, such as feed regimes, and previous experience, i.e., mother or hand-reared, found to be directly linked to stereotypy occurrence [73]. Both individuals in this study were bought into captivity as a consequence of the illegal wildlife trade (T Rowlands, pers comms); therefore, this could have some influence on the behavioural repertoire observed during the study. Exhibit size and complexity have also been associated with behavioural and physiological benefits in polar bears (Ursus maritimus), showing that larger land areas and the ability for individuals to view out of their exhibit resulted in lower stereotypy engagement [74]. The outdoor environment in the new Islands exhibit is larger for this species than the previous facility, and this combined with species-appropriate features such as wooden climbing poles and varying environmental substrates (Appendix B, Figure A6) could have influenced the behavioural changes observed from pre- to post-move. However, it must be taken into consideration that our sun bear data only cover the pre- and early-post-move conditions; as such, these behavioural responses could be a short-term response to a new environment. For example, explorative behaviour increased by 6.6% during the early-post-move condition, suggesting that individuals spent time familiarizing themselves with the novel environment.
4.1.4. Malayan Tapir Activity Budget
Active behaviour increased following the enclosure move for Malayan tapirs. Recent work on zoo-housed Malayan tapirs is limited; however, activity budgets for zoo-housed South American tapirs (Tapirus terrestris) mainly comprise rest, feeding, foraging and locomotion [75]. We found that tapirs spent more time feeding and foraging following the enclosure move. This is largely consistent with the findings of Arumugam et al. [76], who highlighted that enclosure type had a significant influence on feeding behaviour for this species, with increased feeding observed in naturalistic vs. artificial environments. This suggests a measure of success for the Islands expansion as the tapir enclosure was designed to be more naturalistic and environmentally complex than their previous enclosure, with the specific aim of facilitating the expression of natural active behaviours. Prior to the enclosure move, the tapirs spent the majority of their time resting (62.7% (±3.9) of their activity budget). Following the enclosure move, this reduced by 39.4% to 23.3% (±2.9). However, this decrease should be interpreted with caution as the tapirs were also considerably less visible post-move, and it is plausible that resting time remained consistent but unrecorded. Changes in activity levels have also been reported in several other species after a move to a new environment [10,77,78,79,80,81], and it is possible that any decrease in time spent resting could be attributed to exposure to a novel area, i.e., time spent exploring increases at the expense of rest. However, by separating our analyses into three blocks (one of which should encompass this habituation/exploration period; early-post-move), we can be largely confident that the post-move behaviour changes represent a longer-term response. For example, although an increase in non-repetitive locomotor behaviour may be attributable to an individual exploring their new habitat [77], care should be taken to record if this behaviour becomes excessive or follows a specific route (route-tracing), as this could be indicative of locomotor stereotypy [82,83]. When we examined which behaviours comprised ‘Locomotion’, we found that swimming increased from 0.05% of the activity budget to 4.7% following the move to the Islands enclosure. Tapirs are one of few semi-aquatic hoofed animals, thus access to an appropriate water source is suggested to be essential for their welfare [84]. The pool in the pre-move enclosure was not deep enough for individuals to fully submerge and swim, and this was key in the design of the new enclosure. As such, the Islands enclosure contained two larger pools (Appendix B, Figure A8). The expression of swimming behaviour for this species provides a clear example of the benefits and importance of considering species’ natural behaviour during the enclosure design process.
4.2. Choice and Control Approach
Modern animal welfare assessment highlights the importance of allowing individuals to exercise a level of choice and control over their environment [20]; for zoo animals, this includes the amount of time that individuals spend in public view. Our study revealed that for three of the four species studied, the move to a new environment influenced the time that individuals spent visible to the public. Malayan sun bears spent more time in public viewing areas immediately following the move (early-post-move condition). Conversely, crested macaques and Malayan tapirs spent less time visible to the public following the enclosure move. Both species had little choice in their pre-move environments regarding being visible to the public. However, once given the facilities in their new environment to be out of public view, our data showed that the crested macaques and Malayan tapirs utilised these areas. The transition to a new environment did not influence the amount of time spent in public viewing areas for Sumatran orangutans.
Research into human-animal relationships (HARs) has increased in the last decade with a variety of positive, neutral and negative welfare outcomes reported from HARs in zoo-settings [85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92]. Visitors play an important role in this dynamic, with many expressing their enjoyment at observing natural behaviour and learning about zoo-housed species, yet visitors often state they want to do so in close proximity to the animals themselves [52]. This presents an interesting conflict of interest for zoo managers, as there is increasing evidence outlining the behavioural and welfare benefits of giving animals a level of agency within their environment and daily lives [93]. Ritzler et al. [94] outlined that when provided with environmental choice, individuals increased locomotor and other active behaviours compared to when they were restricted. Furthermore, Ross [95] reported that access to off-exhibit holding space decreased stereotypy and increased social play in a pair of captive polar bears (Ursus maritimus). When investigating the relationship between animal behaviour and visitor perception at a Chinese zoo, animal presence elicited a similar visitor response at both naturalistic and barren exhibits. However, visitor interest persisted at the naturalistic exhibit even when animals were not visible [96]. Given that enclosures with a naturalistic design are suggested to provide a more suitable environment for zoo-housed species [97], institutions may be able to ensure optimal animal welfare by allowing them to exert a level of choice and control over their environment, whilst maintaining visitor satisfaction.
A potential limitation of this research was controlling for other factors which may affect behaviour such as weather [98], seasonality [99,100,101], observer influence [102,103] and visitor presence [96,104,105]. Any future research should consider collecting these variables. Remote behavioural monitoring through networked cameras has been shown to provide a non-invasive, observer-free insight into behaviour through periods of change for zoo-housed species [106] and so should be considered if possible. However, the interaction between these variables must also be examined when considering the influence they may have on behaviour. Goodenough et al. [107] outlined that both time and weather can lead to the overestimation of visitor effects, a finding which needs to be considered for when future work is conducted in this area.
5. Conclusions
In line with our first prediction (P1), the move to a new environment significantly altered engagement in pre-determined behavioural categories for all four species studied. Using compositional data analysis, we were able to investigate the relative change in the proportion of certain behaviours over time following the move to a more naturalistic environment. In line with our second prediction (P2), we revealed that time spent in areas visible to the public changed for three of the four species following translocation. Finally, we highlight the importance of including a habituation period when conducting behavioural observations during the evaluation of these management events. In line with our final prediction (P3), engagement in certain behavioural categories did change across all species between the early-post and post-move condition, indicating individuals had a period of time in which they transitioned and adapted to their new areas. By gaining insight into the proportion of time spent in specific behaviour categories using activity budgets and compositional data analysis, we can infer that the new environments provided in the Islands expansion are successful in facilitating species-appropriate behaviours whilst still providing viewing opportunities for visitors.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, K.F., J.O.W., L.J.W., N.D. and L.H.; methodology, K.F., A.M., L.U., V.B.C., L.J.W. and L.H.; formal analysis, J.O.W.; investigation, K.F. and J.O.W.; resources, N.D., L.J.W. and L.H.; data curation, J.O.W.; writing—original draft preparation, K.F., J.O.W. and L.H.; writing—review and editing, K.F., J.O.W., V.B.C., A.M., L.U., N.D., L.J.W. and L.H.; supervision, L.J.W. and L.H.; project administration, L.J.W. and L.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to purely observational and non-invasive nature of behavioral data collection. The project was internally approved by senior animal and science directorate staff at Chester Zoo through their internal review process.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data available upon request.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to extend their thanks to Andrew Moss, Tim Rowlands, Chloe Cain, Ian Hickey, James Powell and Freddy Child for their valuable contributions and support throughout this study. The authors would also like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback. Additionally, this study would not have been possible without the support from Chester Zoo’s animal keeping staff, in particular the Primate, Carnivore and Giraffe teams.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii) sub-project ethogram.
| Behaviour | Definition | Combined Behaviour Category |
|---|---|---|
| Alert | Observing and aware of surroundings; if face cannot be seen, head is visibly moving. | Vigilance |
| Affiliative social interaction | Other social behaviour not outlined which maintains or improves group cohesion, can include food/resource sharing or non-maternal carrying from another individual. | Positive social interaction with conspecifics |
| Agonistic social interaction | Behaviour which reduces group cohesion, can include slapping, biting, wrestling or grabbing. Also includes non-contact interaction such as displacement, lunging or chasing. | Negative social interaction with conspecifics |
| Being groomed | Having fur picked through or gently scratched by another orangutan. | Positive social interaction with conspecifics |
| Consumption | Actively drinking, chewing or eating food. | Feed |
| Excretion | The elimination of urine or faeces from the body. | Other |
| Foraging | Searching for food, including taking berries from plants, and using fingers and/or mouth to retrieve food from mesh after a scatter feed. | Forage |
| Grooming others | Picking through or gently scratching the fur of another orangutan. | Positive social interaction with conspecifics |
| Grooming self | Picking through fur or teeth, scratching and rubbing against objects to try to clean skin or hair. | Self-groom |
| Keeper interaction | Looking towards or placing objects or limbs into the keeper areas. | Social interaction with keeper/visitors |
| Locomotion | Moving from one point to another within the exhibit, can include the use of enclosure furnishings such as ropes, nets, sway poles. Includes bipedal and quadrupedal locomotion. | Locomotion |
| Maternal behavior | Actions related to the care of an infant, includes cradling, nursing or carrying. | Positive social interaction with conspecifics |
| Nest building | Manipulation of materials within exhibit to form a nest. | Object manipulation |
| Not visible | Individual and its behaviour cannot be seen by observers. | Not visible |
| Play | Excitable behaviour which has no specific outcome or objective, can include playful chasing, wrestling or swinging on ropes with another individual. | Play |
| Resting | Sp. is relaxed and displaying no alert or active behaviours, eyes can be open or closed. | Rest |
| Sexual | Includes heterosexual mounting and copulation, the presentation of the anogenital region to another individual or the inspection of the anogenital area to solicit mating. | Positive social interaction with conspecifics |
| Solitary play | Excitable behaviour which has no specific outcome or objective, includes swinging on ropes and interacting with enclosure resources in a playful manner. | Play |
| Tool use | Utilisation of objects within the environment to achieve a specific task. | Object manipulation |
| Visitor interaction | Sitting by or looking through visitor windows, includes reacting to visitors by banging the glass using fists or objects within the enclosure. | Social interaction with keeper/visitors |
| Vocalising | Exhibiting one or a combination of calls which could include a kiss squeak, long call, whimper or rolling call. | Other |
Table A2.
Crested macaque (Macaca nigra) sub-project ethogram.
| Behaviour | Definition | Combined Behaviour Category |
|---|---|---|
| Active | Behaviours in which individuals are travelling slowly (walking) or quickly (running). This behavior can include vertical travelling (climbing). | Locomotion |
| Agonistic | An individual chases, slaps, grabs, hits, or bites another individual. This behavior is frequently accompanied with open mouth, bared teeth screams in which the mouth is open wide with corners retracted, exposing the teeth and sometimes the gums. This facial expression is accompanied by staring and screaming vocalizations. | Social negative |
| Allogrooming | An individual picking or slowly brushing the fur of another individual using the hands or mouth. | Social positive |
| Autogrooming | An individual picking or slowly brushing their own fur using the hands or mouth. | Autogroom |
| Away from public view | Individual is not visible from the public viewing areas. | Not visible |
| Contact-sit/Mutual embrace | An individual passes one or both hands, or one or both arms around the body of another in multiple combinations. There may be a simultaneous grasping of the fur and contact between heads or chests. Embracing may be mutual or unilateral. This behavior may be accompanied by lipsmacking. | Social positive |
| Environmental play | Individuals are observed engaged in play behavior with their physical surroundings, for example, with branches, mesh, or ropes. This behavior is distinguished from environmental manipulation by the absence of violent shaking of an object. | Play |
| Feeding | An individual ingesting food or water. Food ingestion is accompanied by chewing. | Feed |
| Foraging | Individuals moving substrates with their hands in search for food. | Forage |
| Hold-bottom | An individual clasps the haunches of a partner with both hands and grasps its legs with feet as in a mount. | Social positive |
| Huddle | Groups of ≥ three individuals embracing. | Social positive |
| Lipsmacking | The lips are pursed, and the lower jaw is moved up and down rapidly and rhythmically. The jaw may be thrust upward. The mouth may be slightly open with the tongue moving back and forth. The lips often produce an audible sound. Alternatively, the mouth may be closed, and sometimes the teeth knock together. Eyelids are generally half-lowered. The scalp may be retracted and the ears flattened. The display is used during affiliative interaction. It may also end a conflict and acts as an appeasement or reassurance signal. | Social positive |
| Mating | An individual climbs ventrodorsally upon a standing partner and inserts his erect penis in the female’s genitals. The mounter may or may not grip the legs of the partner. | Social positive |
| Play | An individual contacts another in the context of play. This may include touching, slapping, bumping, jostling, pushing, grasping, catching, chasing, pulling, nibbling, dragging, lifting, climbing or leaping over the partner, along with other patterns possibly occurring outside the context of play (e.g., mount, mouth approach). These patterns are accompanied by silent bared-teeth facial expressions. Play behavior is distinguished from conflict by a lack of loud vocalizations. | Play |
| Resting | Individual is observed sitting, lying, or standing without movement. Individuals are not interacting with others, but may be in physical contact with them. | Rest |
| Silent bared-teeth | The upper lip or both lips are vertically retracted, exposing the teeth and sometimes the gums. The corners of the mouth may be drawn back. The jaw may be either closed or opened to various degrees. The scalp is often raised and the ears flattened. This is an affiliative display; it is commonly observed during affiliative interactions and social play. | Social positive |
| Window licking | An individual is observed licking the glass-viewing panels. | Abnormal |
Table A3.
Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) sub-project ethogram.
| Behaviour | Definition | Combined Behaviour Category |
|---|---|---|
| Charging | Swift and firm movement directly at a conspecific. | Social negative |
| Climbing | Vertical locomotion up or down tree/post or up and over logs. | Locomotion |
| Consumption | Voluntary ingestion of edible material and liquids. | Feed |
| Elimination | Elimination of urine and faeces from body. | Other |
| Foraging | Digging and manipulating objects in search of edible material. | Forage |
| Grooming | Includes licking, scratching, biting and rubbing of own body. | Autogroom |
| Interaction | Non-aggressive interaction with a conspecific; includes sniffing, leaning, nuzzling and grooming. | Social positive |
| Interaction with keeper(s) | Move towards and/or stands on hind limbs while facing the keeper(s), often with eye contact. | Interaction with humans |
| Interaction with visitor(s) | Move towards and/or stands on hind limbs while facing the visitor(s), often with eye contact. | Interaction with humans |
| Manipulation | Manipulation of object(s), e.g., branches, to create a nest. | Exploratory |
| Mating | Mounting or attempting to mount a conspecific. | Social positive |
| Not visible | Entire body is out of view. | Not visible |
| Other | Behaviour not described in ethogram. | Other |
| Other stereotypy | Repetitive behaviour including head sway/throw, foaming, pica, regurgitating, self-directed aggression and over-grooming, including licking, sucking, fur-plucking. | Abnormal |
| Pacing | Continuous walking back and forth in a repetitive way at least three times. Also includes forward–reverse pace (without turning the body) and weaving. | Abnormal |
| Playfighting | Includes non-aggressive pursuit, gentle/playful wrestling, biting and jawing (mouth to mouth in a playful context). | Play |
| Rest—awake | Sitting, lying, or leaning so that part or all of body is supported, while appearing attentive with head raised in air. | Rest |
| Rest—sleep | Sitting, lying, or leaning so that part or all of body is supported, with body motionless and head resting; does not appear alert. | Rest |
| Retreating | Walking or running away from a conspecific that is showing aggressive behaviour. | Social negative |
| Running | Horizontal locomotion where there is a period of time during each stride in which no limbs are in contact with the ground. | Locomotion |
| Sniffing | Briefly inhaling an object, ground, or air during olfactory investigation. | Exploratory |
| Standing | Maintaining an upright position on extended legs, with equal distribution of weight bipedally or quadrupedally. | Rest |
| Threatening | Snout wrinkled upwards with mouth open, showing canines, and often vocalising loudly. | Social negative |
| Unknown | Part or the body is obscured making accurate identification of behaviour impossible. | Other |
| Vocalisation | Opening the mouth and producing sound. May occur while solitary, at a conspecific, or at human(s). Not to be confused with threatening. | Other |
| Walking | Horizontal locomotion where at least one limb will be in contact with the ground at any given time. | Locomotion |
Table A4.
Malayan tapir (Tapirus indicus) sub-project ethogram.
| Behaviour | Definition | Combined Behaviour Category |
|---|---|---|
| Aggression Given | Displaying aggressive behaviours such as biting and chasing shown to any other individual. | Social negative |
| Aggression Received | Any other individual displaying aggressive behaviours such as biting and chasing towards the focal animal. | Social negative |
| Defecation | Excreting faeces. | Other |
| Drinking | Ingesting water. | Feed |
| Eating | Ingesting food. | Feed |
| Foraging | Walking whilst actively searching for food on the ground and ingesting it. | Forage |
| Locomotion (run) | Moving around the enclosure at a fast pace. | Locomotion |
| Locomotion (walk) | Moving around the enclosure at a “normal” walking pace. | Locomotion |
| Not Visible | Out of sight of the researcher. | Not visible |
| Other | Any behaviour that is not listed on the ethogram. | Other |
| Play | Excitable behaviour often including running, bucking and vocalisation, can be shown alone or play with another individual. | Play |
| Resting (Lying Down) | Stationary with body on the ground, eyes open or closed with head moving or still. | Rest |
| Resting (Sitting) | Upright with hind legs on the ground, eyes open or closed with head moving or still. | Rest |
| Standing | Stationary in an upright standing position–potentially alert or resting. | Rest |
| Stereotypies | Any repetitive, unnatural behaviours that show no obvious goal or function to the individual. | Abnormal |
| Sniffing | Any visible movement of the nose excluding the flehmen response. | Exploratory |
| Social Interaction | Any behaviour shown between individuals including social grooming and contact. | Social positive |
| Suckling | When the juvenile tapir is feeding from the mother. | Social positive |
| Swimming | In water or pool (note: this behaviour may only be possible in the new enclosure). | Locomotion |
| Urination | Excreting urine. | Other |
| Vocalisation | Making audible sounds. | Other |
Appendix B
Figure A1.
Enclosure plan for Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii) in the Realm of the Red Ape exhibit in which individuals were housed during the pre-move data collection period. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A1.
Enclosure plan for Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii) in the Realm of the Red Ape exhibit in which individuals were housed during the pre-move data collection period. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A2.
Enclosure plan for Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii) in Monsoon Forest, within the Islands expansion. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. During data collection periods, individuals only had access to Outdoor West, Indoor West and Outdoor Netted areas. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A2.
Enclosure plan for Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii) in Monsoon Forest, within the Islands expansion. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. During data collection periods, individuals only had access to Outdoor West, Indoor West and Outdoor Netted areas. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A3.
Enclosure plan for Sulawesi crested macaques (Macaca nigra) in the Monkey House exhibit. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A3.
Enclosure plan for Sulawesi crested macaques (Macaca nigra) in the Monkey House exhibit. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A4.
Enclosure plan for Sulawesi crested macaques (Macaca nigra) in Monsoon Forest in the Islands exhibit. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A4.
Enclosure plan for Sulawesi crested macaques (Macaca nigra) in Monsoon Forest in the Islands exhibit. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A5.
Enclosure plan for Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) in the Spirit of the Jaguar exhibit.Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A5.
Enclosure plan for Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) in the Spirit of the Jaguar exhibit.Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A6.
Enclosure plan for Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) in the new Islands expansion. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A6.
Enclosure plan for Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) in the new Islands expansion. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A7.
Enclosure plan for Malayan tapir (Tapirus indicus) in the ‘Cattle House’ exhibit. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A7.
Enclosure plan for Malayan tapir (Tapirus indicus) in the ‘Cattle House’ exhibit. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A8.
Enclosure plan for Malayan tapir (Tapirs indicus) in the new Islands expansion. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Figure A8.
Enclosure plan for Malayan tapir (Tapirs indicus) in the new Islands expansion. Orange lines signify approximate areas accessed by individual animals with dimensions of total available space. Copyright: Google Earth.
Appendix C
Table A5.
Model 1 summary output: Sumatran orangutan activity budget.
| Term | Estimate | SE | Lower CI | Upper CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | −2.778 | 0.048 | −2.871 | −2.684 |
| Behaviour: | ||||
| (autogroom) | 2.862 | 0.066 | 2.733 | 2.99 |
| (feed) | 4.108 | 0.066 | 3.979 | 4.236 |
| (forage) | 1.894 | 0.066 | 1.765 | 2.023 |
| (locomotion) | 5.045 | 0.066 | 4.916 | 5.174 |
| (object manipulation) | 2.924 | 0.066 | 2.795 | 3.052 |
| (play) | 3.155 | 0.066 | 3.026 | 3.283 |
| (rest) | 2.568 | 0.066 | 2.439 | 2.696 |
| (social human) | 2.515 | 0.066 | 2.387 | 2.644 |
| (social negative) | −0.04 | 0.066 | −0.169 | 0.088 |
| (social positive) | 2.878 | 0.066 | 2.749 | 3.007 |
| (vigilance) | 5.425 | 0.066 | 5.296 | 5.553 |
| Enclosure-move condition: | ||||
| (early-post-move) | −0.136 | 0.107 | −0.345 | 0.073 |
| (post-move) | 0.04 | 0.068 | −0.092 | 0.173 |
| Sex: | ||||
| (female) | 0 | 0.02 | −0.038 | 0.038 |
| Age (days) | 0 | 0.009 | −0.018 | 0.018 |
| Behaviour * Enclosure-move condition: | ||||
| (autogroom * early-post-move) | 0.632 | 0.151 | 0.336 | 0.927 |
| (feed * early-post-move) | 0.622 | 0.151 | 0.327 | 0.917 |
| (forage * early-post-move) | −1.358 | 0.151 | −1.653 | −1.062 |
| (locomotion * early-post-move) | 1.075 | 0.151 | 0.780 | 1.371 |
| (object manipulation) * early-post-move) | −0.176 | 0.151 | −0.471 | 0.120 |
| (play * early-post-move) | −0.392 | 0.151 | −0.687 | −0.097 |
| (rest * early-post-move) | 0.31 | 0.151 | 0.015 | 0.606 |
| (social human * early-post-move) | −1.223 | 0.151 | −1.518 | −0.927 |
| (social negative * early-post-move) | −0.19 | 0.151 | −0.485 | 0.106 |
| (social positive * early-post-move) | 1.794 | 0.151 | 1.498 | 2.089 |
| (vigilance * early-post-move) | 0.532 | 0.151 | 0.236 | 0.827 |
| (autogroom * post-move) | 0.098 | 0.096 | −0.089 | 0.285 |
| (feed * post-move) | −1.042 | 0.096 | −1.229 | −0.855 |
| (forage * post-move) | 0.046 | 0.096 | −0.141 | 0.234 |
| (locomotion * post-move) | −0.253 | 0.096 | −0.44 | −0.066 |
| (object manipulation * post-move) | 0.785 | 0.096 | 0.598 | 0.972 |
| (play * post-move) | −0.52 | 0.096 | −0.707 | −0.333 |
| (rest * post-move) | 0.262 | 0.096 | 0.075 | 0.449 |
| (social human * post-move) | −2.444 | 0.096 | −2.631 | −2.257 |
| (social negative * post-move) | 0.04 | 0.096 | −0.147 | 0.228 |
| (social positive * post-move) | 2.478 | 0.096 | 2.290 | 2.665 |
| (vigilance * post-move) | 0.065 | 0.096 | −0.122 | 0.252 |
| Random Effects: | ||||
| Residual variance | 6.24 | |||
| (individual) variance | 0 | |||
| (individual) standard deviation | 0 | |||
| (observation session) variance | 0 | |||
| (observation session) standard deviation | 0 | |||
| N (individual) | 6 | |||
| N (observation session) | 190 | |||
| Observations | 2280 | |||
| Marginal R2/Conditional R2 | 0.341/NA |
Table A6.
Model 2 summary output: Crested macaque activity budget.
| Term | Estimate | SE | Lower CI | Upper CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | −2.717 | 0.051 | −2.818 | −2.616 |
| Behaviour: | ||||
| (autogroom) | 1.729 | 0.066 | 1.599 | 1.859 |
| (feed) | 2.239 | 0.066 | 2.109 | 2.369 |
| (forage) | 3.069 | 0.066 | 2.939 | 3.199 |
| (locomotion) | 4.392 | 0.066 | 4.262 | 4.523 |
| (play) | 1.298 | 0.066 | 1.168 | 1.428 |
| (rest) | 6.576 | 0.066 | 6.446 | 6.706 |
| (social negative) | 0.158 | 0.066 | 0.028 | 0.289 |
| (social positive) | 4.989 | 0.066 | 4.859 | 5.119 |
| Enclosure-move condition: | ||||
| (early-post-move) | −0.03 | 0.1 | −0.225 | 0.166 |
| (post-move) | 0.07 | 0.08 | −0.087 | 0.228 |
| Sex: | ||||
| (female) | 0 | 0.028 | −0.054 | 0.054 |
| Age (days) | 0 | 0.012 | −0.023 | 0.023 |
| Behaviour * Enclosure-move condition: | ||||
| (autogroom * early-post-move) | 0.159 | 0.141 | −0.118 | 0.436 |
| (feed * early-post-move) | −0.821 | 0.141 | −1.098 | −0.544 |
| (forage * early-post-move) | 0.083 | 0.141 | −0.194 | 0.359 |
| (locomotion * early-post-move) | −0.092 | 0.141 | −0.369 | 0.185 |
| (play * early-post-move) | 0.192 | 0.141 | −0.085 | 0.469 |
| (rest * early-post-move) | −0.568 | 0.141 | −0.845 | −0.291 |
| (social negative * early-post-move) | −0.158 | 0.141 | −0.435 | 0.118 |
| (social positive * early-post-move) | 1.471 | 0.141 | 1.194 | 1.747 |
| (autogroom * post-move) | 1.365 | 0.113 | 1.143 | 1.587 |
| (feed * post-move) | −0.952 | 0.113 | −1.175 | −0.730 |
| (forage * post-move) | −0.841 | 0.113 | −1.063 | −0.618 |
| (locomotion * post-move) | −0.773 | 0.113 | −0.995 | −0.550 |
| (play * post-move) | −0.346 | 0.113 | −0.568 | −0.123 |
| (rest * post-move) | 0.11 | 0.113 | −0.112 | 0.332 |
| (social negative * post-move) | −0.116 | 0.113 | −0.338 | 0.106 |
| (social positive * post-move) | 0.919 | 0.113 | 0.697 | 1.141 |
| Random Effects: | ||||
| Residual variance | 8.637 | |||
| (individual) variance | 0 | |||
| (individual) standard deviation | 0 | |||
| (observation session) variance | 0 | |||
| (observation session) standard deviation | 0 | |||
| N (individual) | 13 | |||
| N (observation session) | 645 | |||
| Observations | 5805 | |||
| Marginal R2/Conditional R2 | 0.356/NA |
Table A7.
Model 3 summary output: Malayan sun bear activity budget.
| Term | Estimate | SE | Lower CI | Upper CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | −0.419 | 0.048 | −0.513 | −0.324 |
| Behaviour: | ||||
| (explore) | 3.121 | 0.045 | 3.033 | 3.209 |
| (feed) | −0.198 | 0.045 | −0.285 | −0.110 |
| (forage) | 1.292 | 0.045 | 1.204 | 1.38 |
| (locomotion) | 4.278 | 0.045 | 4.191 | 4.366 |
| (object manipulation) | −1.6 | 0.045 | −1.688 | −1.512 |
| (rest) | 2.359 | 0.045 | 2.271 | 2.446 |
| (social human) | −1.797 | 0.045 | −1.885 | −1.709 |
| (social negative) | −1.748 | 0.045 | −1.836 | −1.660 |
| (social positive) | −1.519 | 0.045 | −1.607 | −1.432 |
| Enclosure-move condition: | ||||
| (early-post-move) | −1.089 | 0.077 | −1.24 | −0.937 |
| Sex | ||||
| (female) | 0 | 0.079 | −0.156 | 0.156 |
| Age (days) | 0 | 0.041 | −0.081 | 0.081 |
| Behaviour * Enclosure-move condition: | ||||
| (explore * early-post-move) | 1.733 | 0.103 | 1.531 | 1.934 |
| (feed * early-post-move) | 0.798 | 0.103 | 0.597 | 0.999 |
| (forage * early-post-move) | 0.623 | 0.103 | 0.422 | 0.824 |
| (locomotion)* early-post-move) | 0.83 | 0.103 | 0.629 | 1.032 |
| (object manipulation * early-post-move) | 0.935 | 0.103 | 0.733 | 1.136 |
| (rest * early-post-move) | 3.207 | 0.103 | 3.006 | 3.409 |
| (social human * early-post-move) | 0.942 | 0.103 | 0.741 | 1.143 |
| (social negative * early-post-move) | 0.76 | 0.103 | 0.559 | 0.961 |
| (social positive * early-post-move) | 1.06 | 0.103 | 0.858 | 1.261 |
| Random Effects | ||||
| Residual variance | 5.964 | |||
| (observation session) variance | 0 | |||
| (observation session) standard deviation | 0 | |||
| N (observation session) | 279 | |||
| Observations | 2790 | |||
| Marginal R2/Conditional R2 | 0.444/NA |
Table A8.
Model 4 summary output: Malayan tapir activity budget.
| Term | Estimate | SE | Lower CI | Upper CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | −1.135 | 0.017 | −1.168 | −1.103 |
| Behaviour: | ||||
| (feed) | 3.667 | 0.022 | 3.625 | 3.71 |
| (forage) | 1.682 | 0.022 | 1.639 | 1.725 |
| (locomotion) | 2.293 | 0.022 | 2.250 | 2.336 |
| (play) | −1.375 | 0.022 | −1.418 | −1.332 |
| (rest) | 5.143 | 0.022 | 5.100 | 5.185 |
| (social negative) | −1.531 | 0.022 | −1.574 | −1.488 |
| (social positive) | −0.796 | 0.022 | −0.839 | −0.753 |
| Enclosure-move condition: | ||||
| (early-post-move) | 1.475 | 0.071 | 1.336 | 1.614 |
| (post-move) | −0.59 | 0.023 | −0.636 | −0.544 |
| Sex: | ||||
| (female) | 0 | 0.009 | −0.019 | 0.019 |
| Age (days) | 0 | 0.004 | −0.009 | 0.009 |
| Behaviour * Enclosure-move condition: | ||||
| (feed * early-post-move) | −3.667 | 0.1 | −3.863 | −3.471 |
| (forage * early-post-move) | −1.184 | 0.1 | −1.38 | −0.988 |
| (locomotion * early-post-move) | −0.764 | 0.1 | −0.96 | −0.568 |
| (play * early-post-move) | −0.397 | 0.1 | −0.593 | −0.201 |
| (rest * early-post-move) | −2.104 | 0.1 | −2.3 | −1.908 |
| (social negative * early-post-move) | −1.474 | 0.1 | −1.67 | −1.278 |
| (social positive * early-post-move) | −2.209 | 0.1 | −2.405 | −2.013 |
| (feed * post-move) | 0.282 | 0.033 | 0.218 | 0.347 |
| (forage * post-move) | 0.646 | 0.033 | 0.581 | 0.711 |
| (locomotion * post-move) | 2.615 | 0.033 | 2.550 | 2.68 |
| (play * post-move) | 0.677 | 0.033 | 0.612 | 0.741 |
| (rest * post-move) | −1.187 | 0.033 | −1.252 | −1.123 |
| (social negative * post-move) | 0.477 | 0.033 | 0.412 | 0.541 |
| (social positive * post-move) | 1.213 | 0.033 | 1.148 | 1.277 |
| Random Effects: | ||||
| Residual variance | 1.743 | |||
| (observation session) variance | 0 | |||
| (observation session) standard deviation | 0 | |||
| N (observation session) | 96 | |||
| Observations | 768 | |||
| Marginal R2/Conditional R2 | 0.744/NA |
Table A9.
Raw mean proportions (with standard errors) of time spent in combined behavioural categories (expressed as a percentage of the total activity budget) under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions for each species studied. ‘n’ refers to the number of sampling points for each data collection condition.
Table A9.
Raw mean proportions (with standard errors) of time spent in combined behavioural categories (expressed as a percentage of the total activity budget) under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions for each species studied. ‘n’ refers to the number of sampling points for each data collection condition.
| Species | Behaviour | Pre (% (SE) n) | Early Post (% (SE) n) | Post (% (SE) n) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sumatran orangutan | Abnormal | 0 (0.0) | 81 | 0.1 (0.1) | 23 | 0 (0) | 86 |
| Autogroom | 4.8 (0.8) | 81 | 6.7 (1.6) | 23 | 3.4 (0.5) | 86 | |
| Explore | 0 (0.0) | 81 | 0 (0) | 23 | 0 (0) | 86 | |
| Feed | 11 (1.8) | 81 | 11.2 (2.4) | 23 | 0 (0) | 86 | |
| Forage | 4.8 (0.9) | 81 | 0.8 (0.6) | 23 | 7.5 (1.2) | 86 | |
| Interaction with humans | 10.2 (2.0) | 81 | 1.6 (0.6) | 23 | 4.1 (0.8) | 86 | |
| Locomotion | 12.5 (1.1) | 81 | 14.8 (1.7) | 23 | 0.1 (0.1) | 86 | |
| Negative social | 0.2 (0.1) | 81 | 0 (0) | 23 | 11 (1.2) | 86 | |
| Object manipulation | 4.9 (1.0) | 81 | 2.7 (0.9) | 23 | 0 (0) | 86 | |
| Play | 14.8 (2.3) | 81 | 10.6 (3.7) | 23 | 8.7 (1.5) | 86 | |
| Positive social | 7.5 (1.3) | 81 | 11.5 (2.9) | 23 | 11.3 (2.1) | 86 | |
| Rest | 6.8 (1.7) | 81 | 4.7 (1.7) | 23 | 19.6 (2.3) | 86 | |
| Vigilance | 22.3 (2.6) | 81 | 34.3 (5.7) | 23 | 12.8 (2.4) | 86 | |
| Crested macaque | Abnormal | 0 (0) | 358 | 0 (0) | 23 | 21.4 (2.4) | 86 |
| Autogroom | 4.8 (0.7) | 358 | 5.7 (1.3) | 101 | 0 (0) | 186 | |
| Explore | 0 (0) | 358 | 0 (0) | 101 | 10.5 (1.3) | 186 | |
| Feed | 9.2 (1.0) | 358 | 4 (1.2) | 101 | 0 (0) | 186 | |
| Forage | 11.0 (1.0) | 358 | 12.3 (2.0) | 101 | 4.3 (1.0) | 186 | |
| Interaction with humans | 0 (0) | 358 | 0 (0) | 101 | 8.1 (1.3) | 186 | |
| Locomotion | 11.4 (0.7) | 358 | 10.4 (1.3) | 101 | 0 (0) | 186 | |
| Negative social | 0.3 (0.1) | 358 | 0 (0) | 101 | 8.5 (0.8) | 186 | |
| Object manipulation | 0 (0) | 358 | 0 (0) | 101 | 0.1 (0.1) | 186 | |
| Play | 3.7 (0.6) | 358 | 3.7 (0.9) | 101 | 0 (0) | 186 | |
| Positive social | 28.8 (1.8) | 358 | 41.4 (3.7) | 101 | 2.1 (0.5) | 186 | |
| Rest | 30.8 (1.4) | 358 | 22.6 (2.0) | 101 | 36.7 (2.5) | 186 | |
| Vigilance | 0 (0) | 358 | 0 (0) | 101 | 29.7 (1.8) | 186 | |
| Malayan sun bear | Abnormal | 9.6 (1.3) | 237 | 4.1 (2) | 101 | 0 (0) | 186 |
| Autogroom | 0 (0) | 237 | 0 (0) | - | - | - | |
| Explore | 17.5 (1.2) | 237 | 24.1 (3.1) | - | - | - | |
| Feed | 3.7 (0.6) | 237 | 3.7 (1.7) | - | - | - | |
| Forage | 13.3 (1.4) | 237 | 9.2 (2.2) | - | - | - | |
| Interaction with humans | 0.2 (0.2) | 237 | 0.2 (0.2) | - | - | - | |
| Locomotion | 26.2 (1.5) | 237 | 19.9 (2.2) | - | - | - | |
| Negative social | 0.1 (0.1) | 237 | 0 (0) | - | - | - | |
| Object manipulation | 1.2 (0.5) | 237 | 1.2 (0.9) | - | - | - | |
| Play | 0 (0) | 237 | 0 (0) | - | - | - | |
| Positive social | 1 (0.4) | 237 | 0.5 (0.2) | - | - | - | |
| Rest | 27.1 (2.3) | 237 | 37.2 (5) | - | - | - | |
| Vigilance | 0 (0) | 237 | 0 (0) | - | - | - | |
| Tapir | Abnormal | 0 (0) | 51 | 0 (0) | - | - | - |
| Autogroom | 0 (0) | 51 | 0 (0) | 3 | 0 (0) | 42 | |
| Explore | 0.8 (0.2) | 51 | 3.9 (2.0) | 3 | 0 (0) | 42 | |
| Feed | 25.7 (3.3) | 51 | 3.9 (2.0) | 3 | 2.3 (1.2) | 42 | |
| Forage | 3.8 (0.7) | 51 | 9.2 (5.8) | 3 | 28.2 (3.3) | 42 | |
| Interaction with humans | 0 (0) | 51 | 0 (0) | 3 | 6.7 (1.0) | 42 | |
| Locomotion | 6.2 (0.9) | 51 | 39.1 (19.8) | 3 | 0 (0.0) | 42 | |
| Negative social | 0 (0) | 51 | 0 (0) | 3 | 37.9 (3.0) | 42 | |
| Object manipulation | 0 (0) | 51 | 0 (0) | 3 | 0 (0) | 42 | |
| Play | 0.1 (0.1) | 51 | 0.9 (0.9) | 3 | 0 (0) | 42 | |
| Positive social | 0.7 (0.4) | 51 | 0 (0) | 3 | 0.2 (0.1) | 42 | |
| Rest | 62.7 (3.9) | 51 | 42.9 (28.6) | 3 | 1.4 (0.3) | 42 | |
| Vigilance | 0 (0) | 51 | 0 (0) | 3 | 23.3 (2.9) | 42 | |
Table A10.
Model 5 summary output: Effect of enclosure move on Sumatran orangutan visibility.
| Term | Estimate | SE | Lower CI | Upper CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 0.162 | 0.031 | 0.112 | 0.235 |
| Enclosure-move condition: | ||||
| (early-post-move) | 0.725 | 0.251 | 0.368 | 1.431 |
| (post-move) | 1.164 | 0.228 | 0.793 | 1.708 |
| Sex: | ||||
| (female) | 0.919 | 0.191 | 0.611 | 1.382 |
| Age (days) | 0.958 | 0.089 | 0.798 | 1.149 |
| Random Effects: | ||||
| (individual) variance | 0 | |||
| (individual) standard deviation | 0 | |||
| N (individual) | 6 | |||
| Observations | 63 | |||
| Marginal R2/Conditional R2 | 0.055/NA |
Table A11.
Model 6 summary output: Effect of enclosure move on crested macaque visibility.
| Term | Estimate | SE | Lower CI | Upper CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 0.275 | 0.151 | 0.094 | 0.805 |
| Enclosure-move condition: | ||||
| (early-post-move) | 1.024 | 0.552 | 0.356 | 2.948 |
| (post-move) | 1.209 | 0.64 | 0.428 | 3.414 |
| Sex: | ||||
| (female) | 1.213 | 0.206 | 0.870 | 1.691 |
| Age (days) | 0.936 | 0.072 | 0.806 | 1.088 |
| Random Effects | ||||
| (individual) variance | 0 | |||
| (individual) standard deviation | 0 | |||
| N (individual) | 13 | |||
| Observations | 98 | |||
| Marginal R2/Conditional R2 | 0.088/NA |
Table A12.
Model 7 summary output: Effect of enclosure move on Malayan sun bear visibility.
| Term | Estimate | SE | Lower CI | Upper CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 0.713 | 0.232 | 0.377 | 1.348 |
| Enclosure-move condition: | ||||
| (early-post-move) | 0.524 | 0.162 | 0.285 | 0.962 |
| Sex: | ||||
| (female) | 2.789 | 1.886 | 0.741 | 10.5 |
| Age (days) | 1.414 | 0.494 | 0.712 | 2.805 |
| Observations | 266 |
Table A13.
Model 8 summary output: Effect of enclosure move on Malayan tapir visibility.
| Term | Estimate | SE | Lower CI | Upper CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 0.439 | 0.194 | 0.184 | 1.044 |
| Enclosure-move condition: | ||||
| (early-post-move) | 16.194 | 9.514 | 5.120 | 51.217 |
| (post-move) | 6.237 | 2.853 | 2.545 | 15.289 |
| Sex: | ||||
| (female) | 0.717 | 0.235 | 0.378 | 1.362 |
| Age (days) | 0.936 | 0.15 | 0.684 | 1.282 |
| Observations | 63 |
References
- Choo, Y.; Todd, P.A.; Li, D. Visitor Effects on Zoo Orangutans in Two Novel, Naturalistic Enclosures. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 133, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clubb, R.; Mason, G.J. Natural Behavioural Biology as a Risk Factor in Carnivore Welfare: How Analysing Species Differences Could Help Zoos Improve Enclosures. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 102, 303–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mallapur, A.; Qureshi, Q.; Chellam, R. Enclosure Design and Space Utilization by Indian Leopards (Panthera pardus) in Four Zoos in Southern India. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2002, 5, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melfi, V.A.; McCormick, W.; Gibbs, A. A Preliminary Assessment of How Zoo Visitors Evaluate Animal Welfare According to Enclosure Style and the Expression of Behavior. Anthrozoös 2004, 17, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wall, E.L.; Hartley, M. Assessing Enclosure Design and Husbandry Practices for Successful Keeping and Breeding of the Burmese Brow Antlered Deer (Eld’s Deer, Rucervus eldii thamin) in European Zoos. Zoo Biol. 2017, 36, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hogan, L.A.; Tribe, A. Prevalence and cause of stereotypy behaviour in common wombats (Vombatus ursinus) residing in Australian zoos. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 105, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morfeld, K.A.; Meehan, C.L.; Hogan, J.N.; Brown, J.L. Assessment of Body Condition in African (Loxodonta africana) and Asian (Elephas maximus) Elephants in North American Zoos and Management Practices Associated with High Body Condition Scores. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindburg, D.G.; Fitch-Snyder, H. Use of Behavior to Evaluate Reproductive Problems in Captive Mammals. Zoo Biol. 1994, 13, 433–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendyk, R.W.; Newton, A.L.; Baumer, M. A Retrospective Study of Mortality in Varanid Lizards (Reptilia:Squamata:Varanidae) at the Bronx Zoo: Implications for Husbandry and Reproductive Management in Zoos: Varanid Mortality at the Bronx Zoo. Zoo. Biol. 2013, 32, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, S.R.; Wagner, K.E.; Schapiro, S.J.; Hau, J.; Lukas, K.E. Transfer and Acclimatization Effects on the Behavior of Two Species of African Great Ape (Pan troglodytes and Gorilla gorilla gorilla) Moved to a Novel and Naturalistic Zoo Environment. Int. J. Primat. 2011, 32, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelling, A.S.; Gaalema, D.E. Postoccupancy Evaluations in Zoological Settings. Zoo Biol. 2011, 30, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ross, S.R.; Calcutt, S.; Schapiro, S.J.; Hau, J. Space Use Selectivity by Chimpanzees and Gorillas in an Indoor-Outdoor Enclosure. Am. J. Primatol. 2011, 73, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chang, T.R.; Forthman, D.L.; Maple, T.L. Comparison of Confined Mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx) Behavior in Traditional and Ecologically Representative Exhibits. Zoo Biol. 1999, 18, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, B.C.; Houser, L.A.; Fuller, J.A.; Taylor, S.; Elliott, J.L.L. Activity-based exhibition of five mammalian species: Evaluation of behavioural changes. Zoo Biol. 2003, 22, 269–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perkins, L.A. Variables That Influence the Activity of Captive Orangutans. Zoo Biol. 1992, 11, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Little, K.A.; Sommer, V. Change of Enclosure in Langur Monkeys: Implications for the Evaluation of Environmental Enrichment. Zoo Biol. 2002, 21, 549–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spain, M.S.; Fuller, G.; Allard, S.M. Effects of habitat modifications on behavioural indicators of welfare for Madagascan Giant Hognose Snakes (Leioheterodon madagascariensis). Anim. Behav. Cogn. 2020, 7, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolfensohn, S.; Shotton, J.; Bowley, H.; Davies, S.; Thompson, S.; Justice, W.S.M. Assessment of Welfare in Zoo Animals: Towards Optimum Quality of Life. Animals 2018, 8, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherwen, S.L.; Hemsworth, L.M.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Embury, A.; Mellor, D.J. An Animal Welfare Risk Assessment Process for Zoos. Animals 2018, 8, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellor, D.J.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Littlewood, K.E.; McLean, A.N.; McGreevy, P.D.; Jones, B.; Wilkins, C. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greggor, A.L.; Vicino, G.A.; Swaisgood, R.R.; Fidgett, A.; Brenner, D.; Kinney, M.E.; Farabaugh, S.; Masuda, B.; Lamberski, N. Animal Welfare in Conservation Breeding: Applications and Challenges. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veasey, J.D.; Waran, N.K.; Young, R.J. On comparing the behaviour of zoo housed animals with wild conspecifics as a welfare indicator. Anim. Welf. 1996, 5, 13–24. [Google Scholar]
- Fernandez, E.J.; Ramirez, M.; Hawkes, N.C. Activity and Pool Use in Relation to Temperature and Water Changes in Zoo Hippopotamuses (Hippopotamus Amphibious). Animals 2020, 10, 1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Earl, S.C.; Hopper, L.M.; Ross, S.R. Same Space, Different Species: The Influence of Exhibit Design on the Expression of Zoo-Housed Apes’ Species-Typical Retiring Behaviors. Animals 2020, 10, 836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Williams, E.; Carter, A.; Rendle, J.; Ward, S.J. Understanding Impacts of Zoo Visitors: Quantifying Behavioural Changes of Two Popular Zoo Species during COVID-19 Closures. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021, 236, 105253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finch, K.; Williams, L.; Holmes, L. Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate the Behavioural Impact of a Switch to Carcass Feeding on an Asiatic Lion (Panthera leo persica). J. Zoo Aquar. Res. 2020, 8, 283–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, C.; Arun, A.S.; Jensen, P. Habituation to Environmental Enrichment in Captive Sloth Bears-Effect on Stereotypies. Zoo Biol. 2010, 29, 705–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Della Costa, N.S.; Lèche, A.; Guzmán, D.A.; Navarro, J.L.; Marin, R.H.; Martella, M.B. Behavioral Responses to Short-Term Transport in Male and Female Greater Rheas (Rhea americana) Reared in Captivity. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 849–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hebert, P.L.; Bard, K. Orangutan Use of Vertical Space in an Innovative Habitat. Zoo Biol. 2000, 19, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samson, D.R.; Shumaker, R. Pre-Sleep and Sleeping Platform Construction Behavior in Captive Orangutans (Pongo spp.): Implications for Ape Health and Welfare. Folia Primatol. 2015, 86, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samson, D.R.; Shumaker, R.W. Orangutans (Pongo spp.) Have Deeper, More Efficient Sleep than Baboons (Papio papio) in Captivity: Orangutan and Baboon Sleep Efficiency. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2015, 157, 421–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melfi, V.A.; Feistner, A.T.C. A Comparison of the Activity Budgets of Wild and Captive Sulawesi Black Crested Macaques (Macaca nigra). Anim. Welf. 2002, 11, 213–222. [Google Scholar]
- Hanna, J.B.; Schmitt, D. Interpreting the Role of Climbing in Primate Locomotor Evolution: Are the Biomechanics of Climbing Influenced by Habitual Substrate Use and Anatomy? Int J. Primatol. 2011, 32, 430–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renner, M.J.; Lussier, J.P. Environmental Enrichment for the Captive Spectacled Bear (Tremarctos ornatus). Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 2002, 73, 279–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, M.; Ditmer, M.A.; Teo, S.; Wong, S.T.; Garshelis, D.L. Sun Bears Use 14-year-old Previously Logged Forest More than Primary Forest in Sabah, Malaysia. Ecosphere 2021, 12, e03769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medici, E.P.; Mezzini, S.; Fleming, C.H.; Calabrese, J.M.; Noonan, M.J. Movement Ecology of Vulnerable Lowland Tapirs between Areas of Varying Human Disturbance. Mov. Ecol. 2022, 10, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barongi, R.A. Husbandry and Conservation of Tapirs Tapirus spp. Int. Zoo Yearb. 2007, 32, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altmann, J. Observational Study of Behavior: Sampling Methods. Behaviour 1974, 49, 227–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Brooks, M.E.; Kristensen, K.; van Benthem, K.J.; Magnusson, A.; Berg, C.W.; Nielsen, A.; Skaug, H.J.; Maechler, M.; Bolker, B.M. GlmmTMB Balances Speed and Flexibility Among Packages for Zero-Inflated Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling. R J. 2017, 9, 378–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smithson, M.; Verkuilen, J. A Better Lemon Squeezer? Maximum-Likelihood Regression with Beta Distributed Dependent Variables. Psychol. Methods 2006, 11, 54–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuur, A.F.; Ieno, E.N.; Walker, N.J.; Saveliev, A.A.; Smith, G.M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; Volume 574. [Google Scholar]
- Douma, J.C.; Weedon, J.T. Analysing Continuous Proportions in Ecology and Evolution: A Practical Introduction to Beta and Dirichlet Regression. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2019, 10, 1412–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level/Mixed) Regression Models. 2021. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/DHARMa/index.html (accessed on 1 June 2022).
- Lenth, R.V. Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, Aka Least-Squares Means; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Huettner, T.; Dollhaeupl, S.; Simon, R.; Baumgartner, K.; von Fersen, L. Activity Budget Comparisons Using Long-Term Observations of a Group of Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) under Human Care: Implications for Animal Welfare. Animals 2021, 11, 2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mason, G.J.; Latham, N.R. Can’t stop, won’t stop: Is stereotypy a reliable animal welfare indicator? Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, S57–S69. [Google Scholar]
- Lyons, J.; Young, R.J.; Deag, J.M. The Effects of Physical Characteristics of the Environment and Feeding Regime on the Behavior of Captive Felids. Zoo Biol. 1997, 16, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meehan, C.L.; Mench, J.A. The Challenge of Challenge: Can Problem Solving Opportunities Enhance Animal Welfare? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 102, 246–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nash, R.; Johnston, H.; Robbins, A.; Descovich, K. The Effect of Enrichment Filling and Engagement Time on Regurgitation and Reingestion Behaviour in Three Zoo-Housed Orangutans. J. Zool. Bot. Gard. 2021, 2, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bashaw, M.J. Consistency of Captive Giraffe Behavior under Two Different Management Regimes. Zoo Biol. 2011, 30, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez, E.J.; Tamborski, M.A.; Pickens, S.R.; Timberlake, W. Animal–Visitor Interactions in the Modern Zoo: Conflicts and Interventions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 120, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swaisgood, R.R.; Shepherdson, D.J. Scientific Approaches to Enrichment and Stereotypies in Zoo Animals: What’s Been Done and Where Should We Go Next? Zoo Biol. 2005, 24, 499–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berthier, J.M.; Semple, S. Observing Grooming Promotes Affiliation in Barbary Macaques. Proc. R. Soc. B 2018, 285, 20181964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aureli, F.; Yates, K. Distress Prevention by Grooming Others in Crested Black Macaques. Biol. Lett. 2010, 6, 27–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Testard, C.; Larson, S.M.; Watowich, M.M.; Kaplinsky, C.H.; Bernau, A.; Faulder, M.; Marshall, H.H.; Lehmann, J.; Ruiz-Lambides, A.; Higham, J.P. Rhesus Macaques Build New Social Connections after a Natural Disaster. Curr. Biol. 2021, 31, 2299–2309.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaffner, C.M.; Smith, T.E. Familiarity May Buffer the Adverse Effects of Relocation on Marmosets (Callithrix kuhlii): Preliminary Evidence. Zoo Biol. 2005, 24, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matheson, M.D.; Fragaszy, D.M.; Johnson-Pynn, J.S. Response to Novel Housing in Two Groups of Captive Tufted Capuchin Monkeys (Cebus apella). Primates 2005, 46, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chamove, A.S.; Hosey, G.R.; Schaetzel, P. Visitors Excite Primates in Zoos. Zoo Biol. 1988, 7, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Todd, P.A.; Macdonald, C.; Coleman, D. Visitor-Associated Variation in Captive Diana Monkey (Cercopithecus diana diana) Behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 107, 162–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, E.A.; van Schaik, C.P.; Sitompul, A.; Wright, D.N. Intra-and Interpopulational Differences in Orangutan (Pongo Pygmaeus) Activity and Diet: Implications for the Invention of Tool Use. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2004, 125, 162–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Law, G.; Reid, A. Enriching the Lives of Bears in Zoos. Int. Zoo Yearb. 2010, 44, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laméris, D.W.; Berlo, E.; Sterck, E.H.M.; Bionda, T.; Kret, M.E. Low Relationship Quality Predicts Scratch Contagion during Tense Situations in Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Am. J. Primatol. 2020, 82, e23138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Troisi, A.; Schino, G.; D’Antoni, M.; Pandolfi, N.; Aureli, F.; D’Amato, F.R. Scratching as a Behavioral Index of Anxiety in Macaque Mothers. Behav. Neural Biol. 1991, 56, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, K.E.; Wilke, C.; Lahiff, N.J.; Slocombe, K.E. Scratching beneath the Surface: Intentionality in Great Ape Signal Production. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2020, 375, 20180403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peignot, P.; Jankowski, F.; Anderson, J.R. On Self-Scratching in Captive Mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx). IJFP 2004, 75, 160–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Whitehouse, J.; Micheletta, J.; Waller, B.M. Stress Behaviours Buffer Macaques from Aggression. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 11083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kikusui, T.; Winslow, J.T.; Mori, Y. Social Buffering: Relief from Stress and Anxiety. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2006, 361, 2215–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukas, K.E.; Hoff, M.P.; Maple, T.L. Gorilla Behavior in Response to Systematic Alternation between Zoo Enclosures. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 81, 367–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rangel-Negrín, A.; Dias, P.A.D.; Canales-Espinosa, D. Impact of translocation on the behavior and health of black howlers. In Perspectivas en Primatología Mexicana; Gama-Campillo, L., Pozo-Montuy, G., Contreras-Sánchez, W.M., Arriaga-Weiss, S.L., Eds.; Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco: Villahermosa, Mexico, 2011; pp. 271–288. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, B.; Langton, J. Behaviour Change in Amur Tigers Panthera tigris altaica after an Enclosure Move. J. Zoo Aquar. Res. 2021, 9, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, H.M.; Ong, S.M.; Langat, G.; Bahaman, A.R.; Sharma, R.S.K.; Sumita, S. The Influence of Enclosure Design on Diurnal Activity and Stereotypic Behaviour in Captive Malayan Sun Bears (Helarctos malayanus). Res. Vet. Sci. 2013, 94, 228–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forthman, D.L.; Bakeman, R. Environmental and Social Influences on Enclosure Use and Activity Patterns of Captive Sloth Bears (Ursus ursinus). Zoo Biol. 1992, 11, 405–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shepherdson, D.; Lewis, K.D.; Carlstead, K.; Bauman, J.; Perrin, N. Individual and Environmental Factors Associated with Stereotypic Behavior and Fecal Glucocorticoid Metabolite Levels in Zoo Housed Polar Bears. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 147, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahler, A.E. Activity Budgets and Use of Exhibit Space by South American Tapir (Tapirus terrestris) in a Zoological Park Setting. Zoo Biol. 1984, 3, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arumugam, K. Influence of Enclosure Conditions and Visitors on the Behavior of Captive Malayan Tapir (Tapirus indicus): Implications for Ex-Situ Management and Conservation. IJSRP 2018, 8, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robbins, R.L.; Sheridan, J. Effect of Enclosure Expansion on the Activity Budgets of Eastern Black-and-white Colobus Monkeys, Colobus guereza. Zoo Biol. 2021, 40, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dufour, V.; Sueur, C.; Whiten, A.; Buchanan-Smith, H.M. The Impact of Moving to a Novel Environment on Social Networks, Activity and Wellbeing in Two New World Primates. Am. J. Primatol. 2011, 73, 802–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreira, N.; Brown, J.L.; Moraes, W.; Swanson, W.F.; Monteiro-Filho, E.L.A. Effect of Housing and Environmental Enrichment on Adrenocortical Activity, Behavior and Reproductive Cyclicity in the Female Tigrina (Leopardus tigrinus) and Margay (Leopardus wiedii). Zoo Biol. 2007, 26, 441–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anderson, M.R. Reaching New Heights: The Effect of an Environmentally Enhanced Outdoor Enclosure on Gibbons in a Zoo Setting. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2014, 17, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, R.; McKeown, S.; Quirke, T.; O’Riordan, R.M. The Effect of a New Enclosure on the Behaviour of a Large Captive Group of Lion-Tailed Macaques Macaca Silenus. J. Zoo Aquar. Res. 2021, 9, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, K.; Hemmings, A.J.; McBride, S.D.; Parker, M.O. Causal Factors of Oral versus Locomotor Stereotypy in the Horse. J. Vet. Behav. 2017, 20, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greco, B.J.; Meehan, C.L.; Heinsius, J.L.; Mench, J.A. Why Pace? The Influence of Social, Housing, Management, Life History, and Demographic Characteristics on Locomotor Stereotypy in Zoo Elephants. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 194, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, P.; Roffe, S.; Jermy, M. Enrichment Methods Used for Tapirus indicus (Malayan tapir) at The East Midland Zoological Society: Twycross Zoo. Ratel 2006, 22, 8–13. [Google Scholar]
- Hosey, G. A Preliminary Model of Human–Animal Relationships in the Zoo. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 109, 105–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosey, G.; Melfi, V. Are We Ignoring Neutral and Negative Human-Animal Relationships in Zoos? Zoo Biol. 2015, 34, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Claxton, A.M. The Potential of the Human-Animal Relationship as an Environmental Enrichment for the Welfare of Zoo-Housed Animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 133, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escobar-Ibarra, I.; Mota-Rojas, D.; Gual-Sill, F.; Sánchez, C.R.; Baschetto, F.; Alonso-Spilsbury, M. Conservation, Animal Behaviour, and Human-Animal Relationship in Zoos. Why Is Animal Welfare so Important? J. Anim. Behav. Biometeorol. 2021, 9, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosey, G.; Birke, L.; Shaw, W.S.; Melfi, V. Measuring the Strength of Human–Animal Bonds in Zoos. Anthrozoös 2018, 31, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosey, G.; Melfi, V. Human-Animal Bonds Between Zoo Professionals and the Animals in Their Care: Human-Animal Bonds in Zoos. Zoo Biol. 2012, 31, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, F.; Whitehouse-Tedd, K.; Ward, S. Redefining Human-Animal Relationships: An Evaluation of Methods to Allow Their Empirical Measurement in Zoos. Anim. Welf. 2019, 28, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlstead, K. A Comparative Approach to the Study of Keeper-Animal Relationships in the Zoo. Zoo Biol. 2009, 28, 589–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krebs, B.L.; Marrin, D.; Phelps, A.; Krol, L.; Watters, J.V. Managing Aged Animals in Zoos to Promote Positive Welfare: A Review and Future Directions. Animals 2018, 8, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritzler, C.P.; Lukas, K.E.; Bernstein-Kurtycz, L.M.; Koester, D.C. The Effects of Choice-Based Design and Management on the Behavior and Space Use of Zoo-Housed Amur Tigers (Panthera tigris altaica). Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2021, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, S.R. Issues of Choice and Control in the Behaviour of a Pair of Captive Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus). Behav. Processes 2006, 73, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davey, G. Visitor Behavior in Zoos: A Review. Anthrozoös 2006, 19, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fàbregas, M.C.; Guillén-Salazar, F.; Garcés-Narro, C. Do Naturalistic Enclosures Provide Suitable Environments for Zoo Animals? Suitability in Naturalistic Enclosures. Zoo Biol. 2012, 31, 362–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozella, L.; Anfossi, L.; Di Nardo, F.; Pessani, D. Effect of Weather Conditions and Presence of Visitors on Adrenocortical Activity in Captive African Penguins (Spheniscus demersus). Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 2017, 242, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Posta, B.; Huber, R.; Moore III, D.E. The Effects of Housing on Zoo Elephant Behavior: A Quantitative Case Study of Diurnal and Seasonal Variation. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 2013, 26, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, P.E.; Croft, D.P. Social Bonds in a Flock Bird: Species Differences and Seasonality in Social Structure in Captive Flamingo Flocks over a 12-Month Period. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 193, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlstead, K.; Seidensticker, J. Seasonal Variation in Stereotypic Pacing in an American Black Bear Ursus americanus. Behav. Processes 1991, 25, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watters, J.V.; Margulis, S.W.; Atsalis, S. Behavioral Monitoring in Zoos and Aquariums: A Tool for Guiding Husbandry and Directing Research. Zoo Biol. 2009, 28, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iredale, S.K.; Nevill, C.H.; Lutz, C.K. The Influence of Observer Presence on Baboon (Papio spp.) and Rhesus Macaque (Macaca mulatta) Behavior. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 122, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherwen, S.L.; Hemsworth, P.H. The Visitor Effect on Zoo Animals: Implications and Opportunities for Zoo Animal Welfare. Animals 2019, 9, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashmi, A.; Sullivan, M. The Visitor Effect in Zoo-Housed Apes: The Variable Effect on Behaviour of Visitor Number and Noise. J. Zoo Aquar. Res. 2020, 8, 268–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finch, K.; Leary, M.; Holmes, L.; Williams, L.J. Zoo Closure Does Not Affect Behavior and Activity Patterns of Palawan Binturong (Arctictis binturong whitei). J. Zool. Bot. Gard. 2022, 3, 398–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodenough, A.E.; McDonald, K.; Moody, K.; Wheeler, C. Are “Visitor Effects” Overestimated? Behaviour in Captive Lemurs Is Mainly Driven by Co-Variation with Time and Weather. J. Zoo Aquar. Res. 2019, 7, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Data collection timeline and summary for four Islands project species: Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii), crested macaque (Macaca nigra), Malayan sun bear (Heloarctos malayanus) and Malayan tapir (Tapirus indicus) at Chester Zoo, UK. Stems and points indicate the number of hours of observation data and number of observation sessions per day, respectively. Arrows (reading from left to right) indicate the date of relocations to the new Islands exhibit from within the core zoo and subsequent 28 days (Early-Post). Data stems and points prior to the arrow signifies Pre-Move period and stems and points beyond the arrow signifies Post-Move periods.
Figure 1.
Data collection timeline and summary for four Islands project species: Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii), crested macaque (Macaca nigra), Malayan sun bear (Heloarctos malayanus) and Malayan tapir (Tapirus indicus) at Chester Zoo, UK. Stems and points indicate the number of hours of observation data and number of observation sessions per day, respectively. Arrows (reading from left to right) indicate the date of relocations to the new Islands exhibit from within the core zoo and subsequent 28 days (Early-Post). Data stems and points prior to the arrow signifies Pre-Move period and stems and points beyond the arrow signifies Post-Move periods.
Figure 2.
Proportion of time Sumatran orangutans spent performing each behaviour (expressed as a percentage of the total observation time) under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions. The model’s fitted values are represented by coloured horizontal lines, and their respective 95% confidence intervals are depicted as black error bars. Coloured boxes with black horizontal lines depict the medians and quartiles of the response. Grey dots represent raw data points, shaded according to frequency (dark indicates many observations, light indicates few).
Figure 2.
Proportion of time Sumatran orangutans spent performing each behaviour (expressed as a percentage of the total observation time) under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions. The model’s fitted values are represented by coloured horizontal lines, and their respective 95% confidence intervals are depicted as black error bars. Coloured boxes with black horizontal lines depict the medians and quartiles of the response. Grey dots represent raw data points, shaded according to frequency (dark indicates many observations, light indicates few).
Figure 3.
Proportion of time crested macaques spent performing each behaviour (expressed as a percentage of the total activity budget) under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions. The model’s fitted values are represented by coloured horizontal lines, and their respective 95% confidence intervals are depicted as black error bars. Coloured boxes with black horizontal lines depict the medians and quartiles of the response. Grey dots represent raw data points, shaded according to frequency (dark indicates many observations, light indicates few).
Figure 3.
Proportion of time crested macaques spent performing each behaviour (expressed as a percentage of the total activity budget) under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions. The model’s fitted values are represented by coloured horizontal lines, and their respective 95% confidence intervals are depicted as black error bars. Coloured boxes with black horizontal lines depict the medians and quartiles of the response. Grey dots represent raw data points, shaded according to frequency (dark indicates many observations, light indicates few).
Figure 4.
Proportion of time Malayan sun bears spent performing each behaviour (expressed as a percentage of the total observation time) under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions. The model’s fitted values are represented by coloured horizontal lines, and their respective 95% confidence intervals are depicted as black error bars. Coloured boxes with black horizontal lines depict the medians and quartiles of the response. Grey dots represent raw data points, shaded according to frequency (dark indicates many observations, light indicates few).
Figure 4.
Proportion of time Malayan sun bears spent performing each behaviour (expressed as a percentage of the total observation time) under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions. The model’s fitted values are represented by coloured horizontal lines, and their respective 95% confidence intervals are depicted as black error bars. Coloured boxes with black horizontal lines depict the medians and quartiles of the response. Grey dots represent raw data points, shaded according to frequency (dark indicates many observations, light indicates few).
Figure 5.
Proportion of time Malayan tapirs spent performing each behaviour (expressed as a percentage of the total observation time) under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions. The model’s fitted values are represented by coloured horizontal lines, and their respective 95% confidence intervals are depicted as black error bars. Coloured boxes with black horizontal lines depict the medians and quartiles of the response. Grey dots represent raw data points, shaded according to frequency (dark indicates many observations, light indicates few).
Figure 5.
Proportion of time Malayan tapirs spent performing each behaviour (expressed as a percentage of the total observation time) under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions. The model’s fitted values are represented by coloured horizontal lines, and their respective 95% confidence intervals are depicted as black error bars. Coloured boxes with black horizontal lines depict the medians and quartiles of the response. Grey dots represent raw data points, shaded according to frequency (dark indicates many observations, light indicates few).
Figure 6.
Proportion of the observation time (expressed as a percentage of the total observation time) Sumatran orangutans and crested macaques spent out of sight of observers/public under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions. The model’s fitted values are represented by coloured horizontal lines, and their respective 95% confidence intervals are depicted as black error bars. Coloured boxes with black horizontal lines depict the medians and quartiles of the response. Grey dots represent raw data points, shaded according to frequency (dark indicates many observations, light indicates few).
Figure 6.
Proportion of the observation time (expressed as a percentage of the total observation time) Sumatran orangutans and crested macaques spent out of sight of observers/public under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions. The model’s fitted values are represented by coloured horizontal lines, and their respective 95% confidence intervals are depicted as black error bars. Coloured boxes with black horizontal lines depict the medians and quartiles of the response. Grey dots represent raw data points, shaded according to frequency (dark indicates many observations, light indicates few).
Figure 7.
Proportion of observation time (expressed as a percentage of the total observation time) Malayan sun bears and Malayan tapirs spent out of sight of observers/public under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions. The model’s fitted values are represented by coloured horizontal lines, and their respective 95% confidence intervals are depicted as black error bars. Coloured boxes with black horizontal lines depict the medians and quartiles of the response. Grey dots represent raw data points, shaded according to frequency (dark indicates many observations, light indicates few).
Figure 7.
Proportion of observation time (expressed as a percentage of the total observation time) Malayan sun bears and Malayan tapirs spent out of sight of observers/public under the pre-, early-post- and post-enclosure-move conditions. The model’s fitted values are represented by coloured horizontal lines, and their respective 95% confidence intervals are depicted as black error bars. Coloured boxes with black horizontal lines depict the medians and quartiles of the response. Grey dots represent raw data points, shaded according to frequency (dark indicates many observations, light indicates few).
Table 1.
Study species, subjects and data collection periods. Females represented by ♀, males represented by ♂.
Table 1.
Study species, subjects and data collection periods. Females represented by ♀, males represented by ♂.
| Species | Adult | Sub-Adult | Moving Date (Y-M-D) | Pre-Move Data Collection | Post-Move Data Collection | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ||||
| Sumatran orangutan | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 January 2016 | 17 October 2015 to 12 January 2016 | 19 January 2016 to 10 May 2016 |
| Crested macaque | 8 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 12 August 2015 | 14 January 2015 to 11 August 2015 | 18 August 2015 to 17 December 2015 |
| Malayan sun bear | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 August 2017 | 21 November 2016 to 2 June 2017 | 7 August 2017 to 31 August 2017 |
| Malayan tapir | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 17 July 2017 | 18 April 2017 to 1 June 2017 | 8 August 2017 to 14 September 2017 |
Table 2.
Descriptions of behaviours used for analysis.
| Behavioural Category | Cross-Species Definition |
|---|---|
| Abnormal | Any repetitive, unnatural, or stereotypical behaviours that show no obvious goal or function to the individual: Includes pacing, window licking, over-grooming, self-directed aggression, head swaying/throwing. |
| Autogroom | An individual picking, licking, scratching, biting, rubbing, or slow-brushing their own body. |
| Explore | Investigating and/or searching for things inside the enclosure: includes sniffing, scratching, staring and digging. |
| Feed | Ingesting food. |
| Forage | Actively searching for and/or manipulating food. |
| Interaction with humans | Move and/or direct attention towards human(s): Includes keepers and visitors and often involves eye-contact. |
| Locomotion | Moving from one place to another: Includes climbing, swimming and bi/quadrupedal movement. |
| Object manipulation | Actively or passively touching, playing with, sniffing, or otherwise engaging with an object: Includes nest-building and engagement with enrichment items/puzzle feeders. |
| Other | Any behaviour not subsumed in the other categories: includes excretion and vocalisation. |
| Play | Excitable, non-aggressive, playful behaviour: includes running, pursuit, mock-fighting, bucking and leaping. Can be alone or with another individual. |
| Rest | Individual is observed sitting, lying, or standing without movement. |
| Negative social interaction with conspecific | Aggressive and/or threatening behaviour between individuals. Includes slapping, hitting, displacement, charging and antagonistic facial expressions. |
| Positive social interaction with conspecific | Affiliative behaviour between individuals: Includes allogrooming, maternal behaviour, contact-sitting, nuzzling, mating and affiliative facial expressions. |
| Vigilance | Individual is observing/scanning and aware of surroundings; eyes and/or head in movement. |
| Not visible | Individual is not visible from observer’s viewing position. |
Table 3.
Number of behavioural sampling points used for analysis by species and enclosure-move condition.
Table 3.
Number of behavioural sampling points used for analysis by species and enclosure-move condition.
| Species | Number of Sampling Points (Hours:Minutes) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Move | Early-Post | Post-Move | Total | |
| Sumatran orangutan | 2894 (48:14) | 678 (11:18) | 2594 (43:14) | 6166 (102:46) |
| Crested macaque | 3916 (65:16) | 1111 (18:31) | 2046 (34:06) | 7073 (117:53) |
| Malayan sun bear | 6762 (112:42) | 1459 (24:19) | 0 (0:0) | 8221 (137:01) |
| Malayan tapir | 7305 (121:45) | 1098 (18:18) | 6222 (103:42) | 14,6225 (243:45) |
| Total | 20,877 (347:57) | 4346 (72:26) | 10,862 (181:02) | 36,085 (601:25) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Finch, K.; Waterman, J.O.; Cowl, V.B.; Marshall, A.; Underwood, L.; Williams, L.J.; Davis, N.; Holmes, L. Island Life: Use of Activity Budgets and Visibility to Evaluate a Multi-Species Within-Zoo Exhibit Move. Animals 2022, 12, 2123. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162123
AMA Style
Finch K, Waterman JO, Cowl VB, Marshall A, Underwood L, Williams LJ, Davis N, Holmes L. Island Life: Use of Activity Budgets and Visibility to Evaluate a Multi-Species Within-Zoo Exhibit Move. Animals. 2022; 12(16):2123. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162123
Chicago/Turabian StyleFinch, Katherine, James O. Waterman, Veronica B. Cowl, Ashleigh Marshall, Lydia Underwood, Leah J. Williams, Nick Davis, and Lisa Holmes. 2022. "Island Life: Use of Activity Budgets and Visibility to Evaluate a Multi-Species Within-Zoo Exhibit Move" Animals 12, no. 16: 2123. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162123
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
