Group differences in captive gorillas’ reaction to large crowds

Kuhar, Christopher W.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.011

Cited by 75 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Human impact studies have typically been limited to the effect of unfamiliar visitors on primates' behavior and wellbeing [Davey, 2007;Fernandez et al, 2009;Hosey, 2000Hosey, , 2008 and have often drawn wellbeing conclusions based on data pooled across primate species [e.g., Chamove et al, 1988;Hosey, 2000;Hosey & Druck, 1987;Mitchell et al, 1992]. Recent work suggests that visitor effect studies (VES) may not capture the full range of primate-human interactions in the zoo and suggest the need to explore individual or species behavior differences [Hosey, 2008;Kuhar, 2008;Stoinski et al, 2011]. Specifically, VES may be improved or extended by (1) considering humans other than unfamiliar visitors, (2) considering primates' social initiatives rather than or in addition to their responses to humans, and (3) considering potential differences prior to pooling species data to draw conclusions regarding humannon-human primate interaction and visitor effects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Human–animal relationships in zoo‐housed orangutans (P. abelii) and gorillas (G. g. gorilla): The effects of familiarity

Smith

2014

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I examined human-animal relationships (HARs) in zoo-housed orangutans (Pongo abelii) and gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) to see if they followed patterns similar to conspecific relationships in great apes and humans. Familiarity and social relationships guide humans' and great apes' behaviors with conspecifics. Inter-individual relationships, based on shared social history, and "generalized" relationships, based on a history of interactions with relevant classes of individuals, guide behavior with familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics, respectively. I examined whether both familiarity and social relationships similarly guides great apes' cross-species interactions with humans. I used repeated measures MANOVA to compare hourly rates and average durations of ape-initiated human-directed behaviors (HDBs) between familiar and unfamiliar humans and between great ape species. HDB patterns were consistent with familiarity-based HAR predictions, indicating more negative relationships with unfamiliar humans and more positive relationships with familiar humans. Findings for unfamiliar humans are consistent with negative effects of humans on apes' behavior reported in traditional visitor effect studies (VES). However, findings for familiar humans may be overlooked in VES due to pooling across levels of human familiarity or failure to consider humans other than primarily unfamiliar visitors. Additionally, species differences in apes' HDBs suggest that data pooling across species, common in many zoo studies, may mask important differences. These findings have important methodological implications for studies of human-animal interaction as well as for captive animal wellbeing.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Human–animal relationships in zoo‐housed orangutans (P. abelii) and gorillas (G. g. gorilla): The effects of familiarity

Smith

2014

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While visitors can hypothetically be a negative, neutral, or positive influence on zoo animals (Hosey, 2000), the most common behavioural changes reported are generally interpreted as negative in terms of animal welfare. These include decreased social behaviour (Chamove et al, 1988, Glatston et al, 1984, Mallapur et al, 2005, Wood, 1998, increased abnormal behaviour (Blaney and Wells, 2004, Chamove et al, 1988, Mallapur and Chellam, 2002, Mallapur et al, 2005, Skyner et al, 2004, Wells, 2005 and increased aggression (Blaney and Wells, 2004, Chamove et al,1 988, Glatston et al, 1984, Kuhar, 2008, Mitchell et al, 1991, Wells, 2005. More recently, physiological changes indicative of decreased welfare have been reported in relationship to visitor-related variables in spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyii rufiventris; Davis et al, 2005) and black rhinoceros (Dicornis bicornis; Carlstead and Brown, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the presence or absence of visitors, the number of visitors appears to have a measureable effect on the behaviour of captive primate species (Birke, 2002, Chamove et al, 1988, Cooke and Schillaci, 2007, Fa, 1989, Glatston, 1984, Hosey and Druck, 1987, Kuhar, 2008, Mitchell et al, 1991, Skyner et al, 2004, Todd et al, 2006, Wells, 2005, Wood, 1998 and this variable is the most frequently reported in the literature. It is less clear whether there is a visitor density effect on other mammals commonly housed in zoos, due in part to the relatively few visitor effect studies carried out on non-primates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The visitor effect in petting zoo-housed animals: Aversive or enriching?

Farrand

Hosey

Buchanan‐Smith

2014

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies were carried out on the effect of visitors on mixed-breed goats, llama, and Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs housed in a petting zoo display within a safari park. In the first study we investigated the effect of the presence and density of visitors on the animals' behaviour and in the second, the effect of animal grooming by the visitors. We hypothesised that the animals' behaviour would be negatively affected by presence of visitors compared to periods of their absence, but this hypothesis was not fully supported by the data. Goat and llama behaviour was unaffected by the presence of the public, while the pigs showed decreased inactivity and social behaviour, both affiliative and aggressive, when visitors were present.All three study species exhibited increased levels of non-aggressive interaction with the public when visitor density was higher but the level of avoidance or aggression towards visitors was not dependent on density. The goats were less often in physical contact with other goats and less likely to be within proximity of a non-conspecific when visitor numbers were high, whereas the pigs showed decreased feeding, a behaviour that constituted a majority of their activity budget. Species differences were observed in the proportion of samples the study groups interacted in a non-aggressive manner with visitors, goats being most likely and llama the least likely to engage in this behaviour. In the second study visitors were provided with a grooming tool and asked to groom the animals, but no significant behavioural change was observed in either goats or pigs as a result. Visitors groomed goats, but not pigs, more than they interacted with them in non-grooming interactions, and goats, but not pigs, responded less to grooming as visitor density increased.Although significant behavioural changes in all three study species were associated with either visitor presence or density, the low levels of avoidance of visitors, visitor-directed aggression, or animaldirected aggression, suggest the welfare of the study animals was not profoundly impacted by visitorrelated stimuli. Furthermore, there was no evidence that grooming by the public was enriching for the animals. The species differences reported here do suggest, however, that Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs and 3 llama are more sensitive to visitor pressure than goats and particular attention to their welfare may be necessary when they are housed in petting zoo displays.

show abstract

“…This important area of work includes many more studies than those reviewed here (e.g. There has also been considerable debate regarding the effect of zoo visitors on animal behavior and welfare, with some studies reporting neutral or positive effects and others reporting behavior indicative of increased stress (Claxton, 2011;Davey, 2007;Farrand, Hosey, & Buchanan-Smith, 2014;Fernandez, Tamborski, Pickens, Timberlake, 2009;Hosey, 2000Hosey, , 2005Kuhar, 2008;Ross, Londsdorf, Stoinski, 2007;Smith & Kuhar, 2010;Stoinski, Jaicks, Drayton, 2012;Wells, 2005). Davey (2007) suggested that more study is needed before strong conclusions may be drawn, and called on zoo staff to monitor stress indicators in animals as a means of assessing visitor effects at specific exhibits.…”

Section: Enrichment Goals Strategies and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Davey (2007) suggested that more study is needed before strong conclusions may be drawn, and called on zoo staff to monitor stress indicators in animals as a means of assessing visitor effects at specific exhibits. Similarly, Kuhar (2008) and Stoinski et al (2012) emphasized the importance of monitoring visitor effects on individual animals after finding inconsistent affects among several groups of gorillas. Fernandez et al (2009) provided some specific and testable recommendations (involving zoo staffing, exhibit design, and enrichment strategies) for balancing the need to generate visitor interest with the potential adverse impacts of large crowds on animal welfare.…”

Section: Enrichment Goals Strategies and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%