Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T20:40:12.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of Motivation in the Lizard, Chalcides Ocellatus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

T M Skelton ,
N K Waran  and
R J Young
T M Skelton
Affiliation:
Animals Department, Edinburgh Zoo, Murrayfield, Edinburgh EH12 6TS
N K Waran
Affiliation:
Animals Department, Edinburgh Zoo, Murrayfield, Edinburgh EH12 6TS Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
R J Young*
Affiliation:
Animals Department, Edinburgh Zoo, Murrayfield, Edinburgh EH12 6TS
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess whether running an alleyway can be used to measure the motivation of lizards. Six, eyed skinks, Chalcides ocellatus, were trained to run an alleyway to reach sand in which to hide. Each skink was deprived of sand for 0, 1, 5 or 15 minutes on four occasions and the times to run the alleyway and the latencies to move were recorded. When the sand was 38cm from the start, the three deprivation periods resulted in decreased latencies and increased speed (P < 0.01), but there was no difference between the speeds or latencies for any of the deprivation periods. In a second experiment, the sand was moved to 94cm from the start. Latencies to move did decrease (p < 0.05) as in the first experiment, but speed did not increase. Within certain constraints, this methodology appears to be a good way of assessing motivation of reptiles.

Keywords

animal welfareeyed skinklizardmotivationsubstrate deprivation.
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1996 , pp. 63 - 69
Copyright
© 1996 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Abramson, C I and Feinman, R D 1990 Lever-press conditioning in the crab. Physiology and Behavior 48: 267–272Google ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, B A and Meese, G B 1977 Sensory reinforcement and illumination preference in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 25: 497–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beilharz, R G and Zeeb, K 1981 Applied ethology and animal welfare. Applied Animal Ethology 7: 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1983 Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurements of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S and Beardsley, T 1986 Reinforcing properties of access to litter in hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure, J-M 1994 Choice tests for space in groups of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J A and Roper, T J 1978 A comparison of the properties of different reinforcers. In: Rosenblatt, J S, Hinde, R A, Beer, C and Busnel, M C (eds) Advances in the Study of Behaviour pp 155–255. Academic Press: New York, San Francisco and LondonGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O and Duncan, I J H 1988 The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, F D 1969 Thermal reinforcement and thermoregulatory behaviour in the lizard Dipsosaurus dorsalis: an operant technique. Animal Behaviour 17: 446–451CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilgour, R, Foster, T M, Temple, W, Matthews, L R and Bremner, K J 1991 Operant technology applied to solving farm animal problems. An assessment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 141–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsbury, B A 1993 Thermoregulatory set points of the eurythermic lizard Elgaria multicarinata. Journal of Herpetology 27: 241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koene, P and Vossen, J M H 1991 Strain differences in rats with respect to speed of conflict-resolution. Behaviour Genetics 21: 21–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, A B, Appleby, M C and Macleod, H A 1988 Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: the effect of food restriction. Animal Production 47: 131–137Google Scholar
Lorenz, K Z 1950 The comparative method in studying innate behaviour patterns. Symposium of the Society of Experimental Biology 4: 221–268Google Scholar
Mattison, C 1987 The Care of Reptiles and Amphibians in Captivity, revised edition. Blandford Press: Poole, UKGoogle Scholar
McFarland, D 1989 Problems of Animal Behaviour. Longman Scientific & Technical: Harlow, UKGoogle Scholar
Petherick, J C and Rutter, S M 1990 Quantifying motivation using a computer-controlled push-door. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, J C, Sutherland, R H, Waddington, D and Rutter, S M 1992 Measuring the motivation of domestic fowl in response to a positive and a negative reinforcer. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roper, T J 1973 Nesting material as a reinforcer for female mice. Animal Behaviour 21: 733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roper, T J 1983 Learning as a biological phenomenon. In: Halliday, T R and Slater, P J B (eds) Genes, Development and Learning pp 178–212. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Ryan, B F, Joiner, B L and Ryan, TA 1992 MIN/TAB Handbook, 2nd edition. PWS-Kent Publishing Company: Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B F 1932 On the rate of formation of a conditioned reflex. Journal of General Psychology 7: 274–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, K 1982 Dust-bathing in the domestic fowl - diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 487–495Google Scholar
Young, R J 1993 Factors Affecting Foraging Motivation in the Domestic Pig. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Young, R J, Macleod, H A and Lawrence, A B 1994 Effect of manipulandum design on operant responding in pigs. Animal Behaviour 47: 1488–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar