Curious creatures: a multi-taxa investigation of responses to novelty in a zoo environment.

Belinda A Hall,Rebecca E Doyle,Alicia Burns,Vicky Melfi,David M Mcgill

doi:10.7717/peerj.4454

Abstract

The personality trait of curiosity has been shown to increase welfare in humans. If this positive welfare effect is also true for non-humans, animals with high levels of curiosity may be able to cope better with stressful situations than their conspecifics. Before discoveries can be made regarding the effect of curiosity on an animal’s ability to cope in their environment, a way of measuring curiosity across species in different environments must be created to standardise testing. To determine the suitability of novel objects in testing curiosity, species from different evolutionary backgrounds with sufficient sample sizes were chosen. Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia) n = 12, little penguins (Eudyptula minor) n = 10, ringtail lemurs (Lemur catta) n = 8, red tailed black cockatoos (Calyptorhynchus banksia) n = 7, Indian star tortoises (Geochelone elegans) n = 5 and red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) n = 5 were presented with a stationary object, a moving object and a mirror. Having objects with different characteristics increased the likelihood individuals would find at least one motivating. Conspecifics were all assessed simultaneously for time to first orientate towards object (s), latency to make contact (s), frequency of interactions, and total duration of interaction (s). Differences in curiosity were recorded in four of the six species; the Barbary sheep and red tailed black cockatoos did not interact with the novel objects suggesting either a low level of curiosity or that the objects were not motivating for these animals. Variation in curiosity was seen between and within species in terms of which objects they interacted with and how long they spent with the objects. This was determined by the speed in which they interacted, and the duration of interest. By using the measure of curiosity towards novel objects with varying characteristics across a range of zoo species, we can see evidence of evolutionary, husbandry and individual influences on their response. Further work to obtain data on multiple captive populations of a single species using a standardised method could uncover factors that nurture the development of curiosity. In doing so, it would be possible to isolate and modify sub-optimal husbandry practices to improve welfare in the zoo environment.

Highlights

Individuals in a single population will often have different behavioural responses when faced with the same conditions (Coleman, 2012; Mehta & Gosling, 2008)
The time it took for the Indian tortoises to orient towards the stationary object varied but no contact was made (Figs. 4 and 3), and of the three penguins that orientated towards the stationary object, two made contact for a brief period
The red kangaroos varied between individuals in their response to the stationary object, differing in both time to orient and time to make contact (Figs. 4 and 3)

Summary

Introduction

Individuals in a single population will often have different behavioural responses when faced with the same conditions (Coleman, 2012; Mehta & Gosling, 2008). Determining the traits that allow animals to adapt to life in captivity is difficult, as multiple factors from both an evolutionary level and an individual level are at play. Variation in individual traits such as boldness and previous experience further influence how an individual can manage challenges faced in captivity (Franks et al, 2013; Stoinski, Jaicks & Drayton, 2012; Tetley & O’Hara, 2012). To be able to assess how different species manage life in captivity, it is important to identify traits that are shared between animals that thrive in a captive setting and create an efficient and effective way to detect these traits both between and within species. Parallels between coping with captive life and ‘‘human-induced rapid environmental change’’ in the wild have already been made, suggesting that species which exhibit high behavioural plasticity in the wild are able to cope well with captive housing with the inverse being true (Mason et al, 2013)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion