The Impact of COVID-19 Zoo Closures on Behavioural and Physiological Parameters of Welfare in Primates

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Primates are some of the most cognitively advanced species held in zoos, and their interactions with visitors are complex. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a unique opportunity to understand the impact of zoo visitors on animals, in comparison to “empty zoos”. This study sought to understand the impact of facility closures and subsequent reopenings on behavioural and physiological parameters of welfare in four primate species housed in the UK: bonobos (Pan paniscus) (n = 8), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) (n = 11), and western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) (n = 6) held at Twycross Zoo (TZ); and olive baboons (Papio anubis) (n = 192) held at Knowsley Safari (KS). Behavioural data were collected from April–September 2020 (KS) and November 2020–January 2021 (TZ). Faecal samples were collected during morning checks from October–November (TZ) and July–November 2020 (KS). Faecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGMs) were measured using ELISA kits. Statistical analysis for behavioural observations was undertaken using general linear models. Enclosure usage was assessed using t-tests and Mann–Whitney U-tests as appropriate. Bonobos and gorillas spent less time alone when facilities were open to the public (p = 0.004, p = 0.02 respectively). Gorillas spent less time resting when the facility was open to the public (p = 0.04), and chimpanzees engaged in more feeding (p = 0.02) and engagement with enrichment (p = 0.03) when the zoo was open to the public than when it was closed. Olive baboons performed less sexual and dominance behaviour and approached visitor cars more frequently when the safari park was opened to the public than they did the ranger’s vehicle during closure periods. There were no significant changes in physiological parameters for any of the study species. The results suggest variable impacts of the zoo closures on zoo-housed primates. We recommend future work that seeks to understand the impact of individual-level differences on “visitor effects” and that differences between animal experiences in zoos and safari parks are further explored in a range of species.

Related collections

Most cited references 74

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Depression and cortisol responses to psychological stress: a meta-analysis.

Heather M. Burke, Mary Davis, Christian Otte … (2005)

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine the association between depression and cortisol responses to psychological stressors. A total of seven studies comparing plasma or cortisol responses to psychological stressors in clinically depressed (MDD) and non-depressed (ND) individuals (N = 196: 98 MDD, 98 ND; 83 men, 113 women; mean age = 40 years) were included. Sample size-adjusted effect sizes (Cohen's d statistic) were calculated and averaged across baseline (before stressor onset), stress (stressor onset up to 25 min after stressor offset), and recovery (more than 25 min after stressor offset) periods. Overall, MDD and ND individuals exhibited similar baseline and stress cortisol levels, but MDD patients had much higher cortisol levels during the recovery period than their ND counterparts. There was also a significant time of day effect in which afternoon studies were more likely to reveal higher baseline cortisol levels, blunted stress reactivity, and impaired recovery in MDD patients. This blunted reactivity-impaired recovery pattern observed among the afternoon studies was most pronounced in studies with older and more severely depressed patients.

0 comments Cited 259 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

David J. Mellor, Ngaio Beausoleil, Katherine Littlewood … (2020)

Simple Summary This review outlines the latest in a succession of updates of the Five Domains Model, which, at each stage, incorporated contemporary verified scientific thinking of relevance to animal welfare assessment. The current update includes, within the structure of the Model, specific guidance on how to evaluate the negative and/or positive impacts of human behaviour on animal welfare. Persons whose actions may be evaluated include, but are not limited to, livestock handlers, owners of draught animals, veterinary care staff, pound/shelter staff, zoo-keepers, wildlife managers, hunters, researchers, companion animal owners, owners of sport/recreational animals, animal trainers and service animal handlers. Situations where human–animal interactions may have negative welfare impacts include: when animals have had little or no prior human contact, when human presence adds to already threatening circumstances, when human actions are directly unpleasant, threatening and/or noxious, when humans’ prior actions are remembered as being aversive or noxious and when the actions of bonded humans cause unintended harms. In contrast, situations where human–animal interactions may have positive welfare impacts include: when the companionable presence of humans provides company and feelings of safety, when humans provide preferred foods, tactile contacts and/or training reinforcements, when humans participate in enjoyable routine activities or in engaging variable activities, when the presence of familiar humans is calming in threatening circumstances and when humans act to end periods of deprivation, inhibition or harm. The explicit delineation within the Model of the potential impacts of human interactions on the welfare of animals enhances the Model’s utility. Additional updates in this latest version are also explained. Abstract Throughout its 25-year history, the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment has been regularly updated to include at each stage the latest authenticated developments in animal welfare science thinking. The domains of the most up-to-date Model described here are: 1 Nutrition, 2 Physical Environment, 3 Health, 4 Behavioural Interactions and 5 Mental State. The first four domains focus attention on factors that give rise to specific negative or positive subjective experiences (affects), which contribute to the animal’s mental state, as evaluated in Domain 5. More specifically, the first three domains focus mainly on factors that disturb or disrupt particular features of the body’s internal stability. Each disturbed or disrupted feature generates sensory inputs which are processed by the brain to form specific negative affects, and these affects are associated with behaviours that act to restore the body’s internal stability. As each such behaviour is essential for the survival of the animal, the affects associated with them are collectively referred to as “survival-critical affects”. In contrast, Domain 4, now named Behavioural Interactions, focusses on evidence of animals consciously seeking specific goals when interacting behaviourally with (1) the environment, (2) other non-human animals and (3) as a new feature of the Model outlined here, humans. The associated affects, evaluated via Domain 5, are mainly generated by brain processing of sensory inputs elicited by external stimuli. The success of the animals’ behavioural attempts to achieve their chosen goals is reflected in whether the associated affects are negative or positive. Collectively referred to as “situation-related affects”, these outcomes are understood to contribute to animals’ perceptions of their external circumstances. These observations reveal a key distinction between the way survival-critical and situation-related affects influence animals’ aligned behaviours. The former mainly reflect compelling motivations to engage in genetically embedded behavioural responses, whereas the latter mainly involve conscious behavioural choices which are the hallmarks of agency. Finally, numerous examples of human–animal interactions and their attendant affects are described, and the qualitative grading of interactions that generate negative or positive affect is also illustrated.

0 comments Cited 119 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Social modulation of stress responses.

Courtney Detillion, Erica R. Glasper, Rebecca A DeVries (2003)

Social interactions can profoundly affect the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Although most research on social modulation of glucocorticoid concentrations has focused on the consequences of exposure to stressful social stimuli, there is a growing body of literature which suggests that social support in humans and affiliative behaviors in some animals can provide a buffer against stress and have a positive impact on measures of health and well-being. This review will compare HPA axis activity among individuals for whom social relationships are maintained through aggressive displays, such as dominance hierarchies, vs. individuals engaging in high levels of prosocial behavior. We also will examine oxytocin, a neuropeptide that is well known for promoting social behavior, as the physiological link between positive social interactions and suppression of the HPA axis. Despite many examples of social interaction modulating the HPA axis and improving health outcomes, there is relatively little known regarding the underlying mechanisms through which social behavior can provide a buffer against stress-related disease.