Social Behavior Deficiencies in Captive American Alligators (Alligator mississippiensis)

被引:3
作者
Walsh, Zane Cullinane [1 ]
Olson, Hannah [1 ]
Clendening, Miranda [1 ]
Rycyk, Athena [1 ]
机构
[1] New Coll Florida, Div Nat Sci, Sarasota, FL 34243 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL GARDENS | 2022年 / 3卷 / 01期
关键词
alligator; animal welfare; behavioral observation; comparative; social behavior; WELFARE; CROCODILES; REPTILES; STRESS;
D O I
10.3390/jzbg3010011
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Understanding how the behavior of captive American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) congregations compares to wild congregations is essential to assessing the welfare of alligators in captivity. Wild alligator congregations perform complex social behaviors, but it is unknown if such behaviors occur in captive congregations as frequently. We observed the behaviors of a captive and wild congregation of American alligators in Florida, USA in January 2021. Social behaviors were, on average, 827% more frequent in the wild congregation than the captive, and the wild congregation had a richer repertoire of social behaviors, with growling and HOTA (head oblique tail arched) behaviors being particularly common. High walking, a nonsocial behavior, dominated the behavioral repertoire of the captive congregation (94% of behaviors, excluding feeding) and may be a stereotypy that can be used as an indicator of welfare. Both congregations experienced human disturbance and displayed flushing as a species-specific defense reaction. Captive environments differ from the wild with respect to size, structure, stocking density, resource availability, and human presence. These differences translate into behavioral differences between wild and captive congregations. We identified important behavioral differences between wild and captive alligator congregations that can serve as a platform for more detailed investigations of alligator welfare in captivity.
引用
收藏
页码:131 / 146
页数:16
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]  
Alligood C., 2015, Animal Behavior and Cognition, V2, P200, DOI DOI 10.12966/ABC.08.01.2015
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2021, MATLAB
[3]   Testing a key assumption of wildlife buffer zones: is flight initiation distance a species-specific trait? [J].
Blumstein, DT ;
Anthony, LL ;
Harcourt, R ;
Ross, G .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2003, 110 (01) :97-100
[4]   SPECIES-SPECIFIC DEFENSE REACTIONS AND AVOIDANCE LEARNING [J].
BOLLES, RC .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1970, 77 (01) :32-48
[5]  
Boucher M, 2021, HERPETOL CONSERV BIO, V16, P86
[6]   ROLE OF A PREDATORS EYE SIZE IN RISK PERCEPTION BY BASKING BLACK IGUANA, CTENOSAURA-SIMILIS [J].
BURGER, J ;
GOCHFELD, M ;
MURRAY, BG .
ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 1991, 42 :471-476
[7]  
Clippinger TL, 2000, J ZOO WILDLIFE MED, V31, P303, DOI 10.1638/1042-7260(2000)031[0303:MAMAWA]2.0.CO
[8]  
2
[9]   Quantifying the long-term impact of zoological education: a study of learning in a zoo and an aquarium [J].
Collins, Courtney ;
Corkery, Ilse ;
McKeown, Sean ;
McSweeney, Lynda ;
Flannery, Kevin ;
Kennedy, Declan ;
O'Riordan, Ruth .
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, 2020, 26 (07) :1008-1026
[10]   An educational intervention maximizes children's learning during a zoo or aquarium visit [J].
Collins, Courtney ;
Corkery, Ilse ;
McKeown, Sean ;
McSweeney, Lynda ;
Flannery, Kevin ;
Kennedy, Declan ;
O'Riordan, Ruth .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, 2020, 51 (05) :361-380