Search

Exotic rodents are becoming increasingly popular in industry; however, there is limited empirical evidence to guide husbandry practices. African pygmy dormice (Graphiurus murinus) are typical in this respect. This research aimed to determine the effect of environmental enrichment on the behavior (including stereotypical scratching at the glass walls of the enclosure) and space use of a group of eight African pygmy dormice at Sparsholt College Hampshire, UK. An apple-wood climbing grid and three raised (at various heights above the substrate) woven-wicker nest boxes were provided. Instantaneous scan sampling was used to record 150 hours of nocturnal behavior (19:00–07:00 daily) over five experimental phases (phase 1 baseline; phase 2 climbing grid provided; phase 3 lower nest box provided; phase 4 middle nest box provided; phase 5 higher nest box provided). Space use was determined using the modified Spread of Participation Index. Nest box use was recorded continually. The provision of the climbing grid significantly increased the groups' time spent eating, digging, gnawing, and climbing and significantly decreased stereotypic scratching at glass. It also significantly changed the use of all enclosure zones, with mice utilizing the highest zones as soon as they were accessible. The addition of raised nesting opportunity saw the highest zones of the enclosure become those preferentially used. It also totally diminished stereotypic scratching at glass. The highest nest box was preferentially used and use of terrestrial nest boxes (those placed directly on top of the substrate) reduced significantly when raised alternatives were provided. This study suggests those working with African pygmy dormice should provide an enriched enclosure via "arboreal" opportunity to increase active behaviors and reduce stereotypy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Performance of abnormal repetitive behavior (ARB) is noted in many captive wild species. ARB can be categorized into 2 basic forms: those whose aim appears to be to compulsively reach an inappropriate goal and those whose performance is linked to an inappropriate motor function. Although the negative welfare connotations of ARBs are well known, the precise reason for their performance remains the subject of debate. As zoos move forward in collection planning and to gather more evidence on the biological needs of the species being kept, the idea that ARBs may be part of a coping function adds more weight to arguments that some species may not be suitable for the zoo at all. Modern-day definitions of animal welfare tell us to measure the well-being of the individual based on its attempts at coping with its immediate environment. A failure to cope, and hence performance of ARB, is an objective and measurable welfare metric that may highlight which species are appropriate for captivity. As conservation pressures on zoos mount, and the need to take in more captive-naive species increases, research on why captive wild animals develop ARB can be used to inform practice. In this article, we aim to review the welfare issues across 3 basic categories of zoo animal (mammals, birds, and ectothermic vertebrates) and critique how research into ARBs can be used by zoos to promote wild-type behavior patterns by providing biologically relevant management and husbandry regimes, which allow animals the key components of control and choice over what they do and how they do it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this response, we show how the points raised in Rose et al. (2017) are relevant across taxa. The original article reviewed literature on 3 basic “groups” of animal, with a specific remit of identifying welfare needs within these groups. The focus of this article did not intend to exclude other types of animal but to show the extent of research needs in those already studied. The ideas presented are relevant to those studying other taxa, specifically scientists and zoo biologists with more expertise and knowledge of invertebrates. We feel that there is much to be gained from collaboration between individuals and institutions to adapt the questions for assaying welfare proposed by Rose et al. (2017) to a wider range of captive vertebrate and invertebrate taxa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]