A cross-species comparison of abnormal behavior in three species of singly-housed old world monkeys

Lutz, Corrine K.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2017.10.010

Cited by 16 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…feasibility). Furthermore, the expression of abnormal behaviour, which includes stereotypical/abnormal repetitive and self-harm behaviours, among others, is thought to reflect poor welfare as it is either pathological or associated with environmental coping 36 , 62 and so is often used as a proxy for welfare 61 , 63 , 64 . However, many types of observable behaviour are yet to be validated as a means of assessing welfare and are only now being empirically explored to define their role in macaque welfare assessment (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The identification of effective welfare indicators for laboratory-housed macaques using a Delphi consultation process

Truelove

Martin

Langford

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the importance for both animal welfare and scientific integrity of effective welfare assessment in non-human primates, there has been little or no consensus as what should be assessed. A Delphi consultation process was undertaken to identify the animal- and environment-based measures of welfare for laboratory-housed macaques and to determine their relative importance in on-site welfare assessments. One-hundred fifteen potential indictors were identified through a comprehensive literature search, followed by a two-round iterative electronic survey process to collect expert opinion. Stable group response and consensus about the validity, reliability, and feasibility of the proposed indicators (67.5% agreement) was achieved by the completion of Round Two. A substantially higher proportion of environment-based measures (72%: n = 44/61) were considered as valid, reliable, and feasible compared to the animal-based measures (22%: n = 12/54). The indicators that ranked most highly for assessing welfare were the presence of self-harm behaviours and the provision of social enrichment. This study provides an empirical basis upon which these indicators can be validated and then integrated into assessment tools developed for macaques and emphasises the need to include both animal- and environment-based indicators for accurate welfare monitoring.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The identification of effective welfare indicators for laboratory-housed macaques using a Delphi consultation process

Truelove

Martin

Langford

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To assess the effect of the feeder on the behavior of the red‐handed tamarins, we created the category stress‐related behaviors (SRB), including coprophagy and self‐directed behaviors. Although these behaviors are found in wild animals and maybe adaptive, they both have been related to stressful and conflict situations within controlled environments (Lutz, 2014; Lutz, 2018; Prates & Bicca‐Marques, 2005; Spiezio et al, 2017; Troisi, 2002; Troisi & Schino, 1987). The gum‐eating behavior was included in the category “feeding/foraging” as in the first‐period gum arabic was provided in bowls with other food; however, to compare the time spent feeding on gum between marmosets and tamarins, the duration of gum feeding from the new feeder was also collected (Table 2).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, coprophagy occurs in both captive and wild nonhuman primates and may have an adaptive value in these species; however, in controlled environment, this behavior has been related to factors such as nutritional deficiency and medical problems but also boredom and social stress (Krief, Jamart, & Hladik, 2004; Prates & Bicca‐Marques, 2005). Therefore, coprophagy has been classified as abnormal behavior and has been identified as a possible indicator of poor well‐being (i.e., Lutz, 2018; Prates & Bicca‐Marques, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gum feeder as environmental enrichment for zoo marmosets and tamarins

Regaiolli¹,

Angelosante

Marliani

et al. 2020

Zoo Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tamarins and marmosets are small‐bodied social callitrichines. Wild callitrichines feed on exudates, such as sap and gum; particularly, marmosets are mainly gummivores, while tamarins consume gums only occasionally and opportunistically. Zoo marmosets and tamarins are usually provided with gum arabic as an alternative to the exudates normally found in the wild. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a gum feeder on the behavior and well‐being of four zoo‐managed callitrichines. We studied four cotton‐top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus), four red‐handed tamarins (S. midas), two pygmy marmosets (Cebuella pygmaea), and three Geoffroy's marmosets (Callithrix geoffroyi) housed at Parco Natura Viva (Italy). We conducted the study over two different periods, a baseline (control, without the gum feeder) and then a gum feeder (when the gum feeder was provided) period. We used continuous focal animal sampling to collect behavioral data, including durations of social and individual behaviors. We collected 240 min of observations per period per study subject, with a total of 3,120 min for all the subjects in the same period and of 6,240 min in both periods. We analyzed data by using nonparametric statistical tests. First, we found that the gum feeder promoted species‐specific behaviors, such as exploration, and diminished self‐directed behaviors, suggesting an enriching effect on tamarin and marmoset behavior. Moreover, in red‐handed tamarins, the provision of the gum feeder reduced the performance of self‐directed and abnormal behavior, specifically coprophagy. These results confirm that gum feeders are effective foraging enrichment tools for zoo marmosets and tamarins.

show abstract

“…Finally, our logistic regression models controlled for age and sex, while prior PCA work on laboratory rhesus macaques pooled males and females [13,34]. This is important as age and sex affected the likelihood to display half or more of these behaviours, as previously documented [5][6][7]9,15,16,20,82]. Consequently, as mentioned earlier, some previous components identified could have merely reflected the confounding effects of sex and age.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Recommendations for Abnormal Behaviour Ethograms in Monkey Research

Polanco

McCowan

Niel

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory monkey ethograms currently include subcategories of abnormal behaviours that are based on superficial morphological similarity. Yet, such ethograms may be misclassifying behaviour, with potential welfare implications as different abnormal behaviours are likely to have distinct risk factors and treatments. We therefore investigated the convergent validity of four hypothesized subcategories of abnormal behaviours (‘motor’, e.g., pacing; ‘self-stimulation’, e.g., self-sucking; ‘postural’, e.g., hanging; and ‘self-abuse’, e.g., self-biting). This hypothesis predicts positive relationships between the behaviours within each subcategory. Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) data on 19 abnormal behaviours were obtained from indoor-housed animals (n = 1183). Logistic regression models, controlling for sex, age, and the number of observations, revealed that only 1/6 ‘motor’ behaviours positively predicted pacing, while 2/3 ‘self-abuse’ behaviours positively predicted self-biting (one-tailed p-value < 0.05). Furthermore, ‘self-stimulation’ behaviours did not predict self-sucking, and none of the ‘postural’ behaviours predicted hanging. Thus, none of the subcategories fully met convergent validity. Subsequently, we created four new valid subcategories formed of comorbid behaviours. The first consisted of self-biting, self-hitting, self-injurious behaviour, floating limb, leg-lifting, and self-clasping. The second comprised twirling, bouncing, rocking, swinging, and hanging. The third comprised pacing and head-twisting, while the final subcategory consisted of flipping and eye-poking. Self-sucking, hair-plucking, threat-biting, and withdrawn remained as individual behaviours. We encourage laboratories to replicate the validation of these subcategories first, and for scientists working with other species to validate their ethograms before using them in welfare assessments.

show abstract

A cross-species comparison of abnormal behavior in three species of singly-housed old world monkeys

Cited by 16 publications

References 40 publications

The identification of effective welfare indicators for laboratory-housed macaques using a Delphi consultation process

The identification of effective welfare indicators for laboratory-housed macaques using a Delphi consultation process

Gum feeder as environmental enrichment for zoo marmosets and tamarins

Recommendations for Abnormal Behaviour Ethograms in Monkey Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About