Effect of captivity on morphology: negligible changes in external morphology mask significant changes in internal morphology

Jones, Stephanie; Munn, Adam J.; Byrne, Phillip G.

doi:10.1098/rsos.172470

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among pantherines, living in captivity had a significant effect on skull shape, such as a constricted foramen magnum and wide zygomatic arches attributed to soft diets [ 44 ]. There are also reports of greater cranial thickness and larger crania among captive animals compared to wild conspecifics [ 13 , 18 , 43 , 91 ] and an increase in body size in captivity ([ 6 , 8 , 10 , 20 , 92 ]; but also see [ 21 , 22 , 93 , 94 ]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of reduced mobility on trabecular bone density in captive big cats

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bone responds to elevated mechanical loading by increasing in mass and density. Therefore, wild animals should exhibit greater skeletal mass and density than captive conspecifics. This expectation is pertinent to testing bone functional adaptation theories and to comparative studies, which commonly use skeletal remains that combine zoo and wild-caught specimens. Conservationists are also interested in the effects of captivity on bone morphology as it may influence rewilding success. We compared trabecular bone volume fraction (BVF) between wild and captive mountain lions, cheetahs, leopards and jaguars. We found significantly greater BVF in wild than in captive felids. Effects of captivity were more marked in the humerus than in the femur. A ratio of humeral/femoral BVF was also lower in captive animals and showed a positive relationship to home range size in wild animals. Results are consistent with greater forelimb than hindlimb loading during terrestrial travel, and possibly reduced loading of the forelimb associated with lack of predatory behaviour in captive animals. Thus, captivity among felids has general effects on BVF in the postcranial skeleton and location-specific effects related to limb use. Caution should be exercised when identifying skeletal specimens for use in comparative studies and when rearing animals for conservation purposes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of reduced mobility on trabecular bone density in captive big cats

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The degree to which morphology differs in captivity compared to wild populations may vary among species. For example, while African lions tend to show rather drastic, consistent morphological changes associated with an increase in zygomatic breadth [ 43 , 46 , 125 ], house mice ( Mus musculus ) show little morphological change in captivity [ 23 ]. Even closely related taxa may differ in the degree of change that they exhibit once in captivity [ 38 , 50 , 97 ], possibly due to species ecology where certain traits may predispose a particular species to a specific captive response.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cranial morphology of captive mammals: a meta-analysis

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Captive facilities such as zoos are uniquely instrumental in conservation efforts. To fulfill their potential as bastions for conservation, zoos must preserve captive populations as appropriate proxies for their wild conspecifics; doing so will help to promote successful reintroduction efforts. Morphological changes within captive populations may be detrimental to the fitness of individual animals because these changes can influence functionality; thus, it is imperative to understand the breadth and depth of morphological changes occurring in captive populations. Here, we conduct a meta-analysis of scientific literature reporting comparisons of cranial measures between captive and wild populations of mammals. We investigate the pervasiveness of cranial differences and whether cranial morphological changes are associated with ecological covariates specific to individual species, such as trophic level, dietary breadth, and home range size. Results Cranial measures of skull length, skull width, and the ratio of skull length-to-width differed significantly between many captive and wild populations of mammals reported in the literature. Roughly half of captive populations differed from wild populations in at least one cranial measure, although the degree of changes varied. Carnivorous species with a limited dietary breadth displayed the most consistent changes associated with skull widening. Species with a more generalized diet displayed less morphological changes in captivity. Conclusions Wild and captive populations of mammals differed in cranial morphology, but the nature and magnitude of their cranial differences varied considerably across taxa. Although changes in cranial morphology occur in captivity, specific changes cannot be generalized for all captive mammal populations. The nature of cranial changes in captivity may be specific to particular taxonomic groups; thus, it may be possible to establish expectations across smaller taxonomic units, or even disparate groups that utilize their cranial morphology in a similar way. Given that morphological changes occurring in captive environments like zoos have the potential to limit reintroduction success, our results call for a critical evaluation of current captive husbandry practices to prevent unnecessary morphological changes.

show abstract

“…Despite the above, morphological differences between free-living and captive adult animals have been reported in several mammalian species (Courtney Jones et. al., 2018;O'Regan and Kitchener, 2005;Turner et.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…al., 2014;O´Regan and Kitchener, 2005). Some studies conducted to assess the degree of difference have been focused mainly on primates (Altmann et al, 1993;Bolter and Zihlman, 2003;Lewton, 2017;Phillips-Conroy and Jolly, 1988;Turner et al, 2016), carnivores (Zuccarelli, 2004;Hailemariam et al, 2015;Saragusty, 2014;Weber Rosas et al, 2009) and mice (Courtney Jones et al, 2018;McPhee, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Morphometric Analysis Of Captive Jaguars Vs. Wild Jaguars (Panthera onca) In Venezuela

Cañizales

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Venezuela the oldest, although anecdotical, record known of a captive jaguar is a male in the city of Maracay between 1918 and 1935. Body measurements were made on 22 jaguars kept in Venezuelan zoos between 1996 and 2009 to provide data on external morphometrics and compare with the measurements of 25 free-living animals, published by Hoogesteijn and Mondolfi (1992) and determine whether there are significant differences in the morphology between sexes of captive and free-living animals. The evaluation of morphometric variation was focused on three body measurements and body weight: Head-and-body length (HBL) and Tail length (Tl). Total body length (TBL) was calculated by adding HBL and Tl. Body weight (BW) was determined using a clock scale to the nearest gramme/kilogram. To determine the values all animals were anesthetized. The sexes were analyzed separately. All data were used for the calculation of descriptive statistics. Student t-tests were used with a significance level α 0.05 to establish if there is a significant difference between the measurements and weights of the sexes. The TBL and HBL in captive males were observed to be 8.78% and 12.13%, respectively, less than that of free-living males. A principal components analysis made it possible to assess the variability between HBL, TBL, and BW between sexes and between free-living/wild and captive animals. This study showed no significant differences in the BW of captives and wild females. Some captive males’ jaguars in this study may be thinner than normal, because of their diet and others may be fatter because of the lack of physical activity imposed by captivity. Body mass index (BMI) was used to contrast the difference in the average mass of each sex in both captive and free-living animals. Simple linear regressions and correlation coefficients were used to determine the relationship between body mass and male/female size. According to correlation coefficients, the change in weight that can be attributed to the ratio of weight to body length is 8.55 % for males and 9.83 % for females.

show abstract

Effect of captivity on morphology: negligible changes in external morphology mask significant changes in internal morphology

Cited by 19 publications

References 65 publications

Effects of reduced mobility on trabecular bone density in captive big cats

Effects of reduced mobility on trabecular bone density in captive big cats

Cranial morphology of captive mammals: a meta-analysis

Comparative Morphometric Analysis Of Captive Jaguars Vs. Wild Jaguars (Panthera onca) In Venezuela

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About