Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:46:18.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of behaviours of common squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) between enclosure designs at Cotswold Wildlife Park and Woburn Safari Park

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

N Tosar  and
J C Litten-Brown
N Tosar
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom
J C Litten-Brown*
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom
*
Email: j.c.litten-brown@reading.ac.uk
Get access

Extract

The ability of a species to adapt to their captive conditions depends on how well the enclosure resembles its natural environment (Mallapur and Choudhury, 2003). Enabling captive animals to exert some control over their environment (e.g. feeding habits) allows for high animal welfare standards which has recently been achieved through environmental ‘enrichment’ using complex and diverse enclosure designs (Carlstead, 1996). The principal method of assessing a captive animal’s welfare is by observing their behaviours and comparing it to its wild relatives (Carlstead, 1996). Building on previous work (Williams and Litten-Brown, 2008), the objective of this study was to determine whether enclosure design has an effect on the behaviours of captive common squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus).

Type
Theatre Presentations
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 2009 , April 2009 , pp. 129
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Davis, N, Schaffner, CM, Smith, TE 2005. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90, 131–141.Google Scholar
Carlstead, K. 1996. In Wild Mammals in Captivity (eds Kleiman, DG, Allen, ME, Thompson, KV and Lumpkin, S). pp 317–333. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, RC, Long, YC, Zhong, T and Xiao, L 1997. International Journal of Primatology 19, 13–51.Google Scholar
Kruk, MR, Westphal, KGC, Van Erp, AMM, Asperen, J van, Cave, BJ, Slater, E, Koning, J de and Haller, J 1998. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews 23, 163–177.Google Scholar
Mallapur, A and Choudhury, BC 2003. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6, 275–284.Google Scholar
Williams, C and Litten-Brown, JC 2008. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, p 146.Google Scholar