Animal behavior institute
Advance your career &
EDUCATION ONLINE!
Our programs in Zoo & Aquarium Science and
Wildlife Rehabilitation give you the training you need
to grow and advance in your field.
Small class sizes and professional faculty guarantee
you a personal education with the individual attention
you deserve.
START TODAY AND EARN YOUR CERTIEICATE
IN AS LITTLE AS SIX MONTHS!
learning
partner
ASSOCIATION
OF ZOOS CU
AQUARIUMSOi
Visit us at
www.AiiimalEdu.com
Toll free
(866) 755-0448
a more personal education
f
ACCREDITED
BUSINESS
137 ABOUT THE COVER
138 FROM THE PRESIDENT
140 COMING EVENTS
142 TREES FOR YOU AND ME
CONSERVATION STATION
152-153
Project Mecistops:
Conserving West African Crocodilians
Lauren Augustine, Matthew Shirley,
and Matt Eschenbrenner
MAY 13 2015
143 CHAPTER NEWS
FEATURED ARTICLES
144-147
A Comparative Study on the White-handed Gibbon
(Hylobates lar) Vocalization
Kristilee Kodis
148-151
Substrate Preference for Escape Trails in
Short-eared Elephant Shrews
Madeleine Parsed, Kenton Kerns,
and Ashton Shaffer
ENRICHMENT OPTIONS
154-157
Planters for Primates: Using container
gardens as animal enrichment
Mylisa Whipple
TRAINING TALES
158-160
There ARE New Ways to Train an Old Cat: How to
re-engage interest and compliance in training
Nicole Beaupre and Amanda Giardina
Voting for AAZK Board of Directors
opens midnight Aprii 15th through
June 1, 2015
(see P. 161 for details)
Step Up
To Quality, Value and Convenience!
Discover what tens of thousands of
customers — including commercial
reptile breeding facilities, veterinar-
ians, and some of our country’s most
respected zoos and aquariums — have
already learned: with Rodentpro.com®,
you get quality AND value! Guaranteed.
RodentPro.com® offers only the
highest quality frozen mice, rats,
rabbits, guinea pigs, chickens and
quail at prices that are MORE than
competitive. We set the industry
standards by offering unsurpassed
quality, breeder direct pricing and year-
round availability.
With RodentPro.com®, you’ll know
you’re getting exactly what you order:
clean nutritious feeders with exact
sizing and superior quality. And with
our exclusive shipping methods, your
order arrives frozen, not thawed.
Order online!
WWW. RodentPro. com
It’s quick, convenient
and guaranteed!
RO. Box 118
Ingiefieid, IN 47618-9998
Tel: 812.867.7598
Fax: 812.867.6058
E-mail: info@rodentpro.com
We guarantee it.
Feeding Your Reptile Is Our Passion! ™
©2013 Rodentpro.com, He.
AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION
of ZOO KEEPERS
MISSION STATEMENT
American Association of Zoo Keepers, inc.
The American Association of Zoo Keepers, inc. exists to
advance excellence in the animai keeping profession,
foster effective communication beneficiai to animai care,
support deserving conservation projects, and promote
the preservation of our natural resources and animal life.
About the Cover
This month's covercomesto us from Clyde Nishimura of Smithsonian's National
Zoological Park, featuring a short-eared elephant shrew (Macroscelides
proboscideus).
The short-eared elephant shrew is the smallest of the 17 living species of
elephant shrew, also known as sengi. Interestingly, they are more closely
related to elephants than shrews. They weigh between one and 1.5 ounces,
and have a body length of about four inches. Their fur is gray brown, with a
white underside. Their nostrils are at the tip of a flexible snout.
Their home range includes Namibia, southern Botswana, and the cape of
south Africa. Elephant shrews burrow into sandy soil in arid semi-desert, dry
grass, or shrubland. Their mostly insectivorous diet includes ants, termites,
berries, and tender shoots of young plants. After a gestation of 56 days, an
elephant shrew gives birth to a litter of one or two during the wet season.
Young start their own hunting at two-weeks-old. At five to six-weeks-old, they
are sexually mature and seek out their own home range. They keep trails
clear of debris for fast escape from predators and keep their tails horizontal
while they move. They clean themselves with dust baths.
Articles sent to Animat Keepers’ Forum will be reviewed by the editorial staff for
publication. Articles of a research or technical nature will be submitted to one or more
of the zoo professionals who serve as referees for AKF. No commitment is made to the
author, but an effort will be made to publish articles as soon as possible. Lengthy articles
may be separated into monthly installments at the discretion of the Editor. The Editor
reserves the right to edit material without consultation unless approval is requested in
writing by the author. Materials submitted will not be returned unless accompanied
by a stamped, self-addressed, appropriately-sized envelope. Telephone, fax or e-mail
contributions of late-breaking news or last-minute insertions are accepted as space
allows. Phone (330) 483-1104; FAX (330) 483-1444; e-mail is shane.good@aazk.org. If
you have questions about submission guidelines, please contact the Editor. Submission
guidelines are also found at: aazk.org/akf-submission-guidelines/.
Deadline for each regular issue is the 3rd of the preceding month. Dedicated issues may
have separate deadline dates and will be noted by the Editor.
Articles printed do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the AKF staff or the American
Association of Zoo Keepers, Inc. Publication does not indicate endorsement by the Association.
Items in this publication may be reprinted providing credit to this publication is given
and a copy of the reprinted material is forwarded to the Editor. If an article Is shown to
be separately copyrighted by the author(s), then permission must be sought from the
author(s). Reprints of material appearing in this Journal may be ordered from the Editor.
Regular back issues are available for $6.00 each. Special issues may cost more.
MEMBIRSHIP SERVICES
Animal Data Transfer Forms available for download at aazk.org. AAZK Publications/
Logo Products/Apparel available at AAZK Administrative Office or at aazk.org.
FSC
MIX
Paper from
responsible sources
FSC* C1 12081
ANIMAL KEEPERS^ FORUM
TO CONTACT THE AKF EDITOR:
Shane Good, Media Production Editor
P.O. Box 535, Valley City, OH 44280
330-483-1104
shane.good@aazk.org
AAZK Administrative Office
American Association of Zoo Keepers
8476 E. Speedway Blvd.
Suite 204
Tucson, AZ 85710-1728
520-298-9688 (Phone/Fax)
E-mail: Ed.Hansen@aazk.org
Chief Executive/Financial Officer: Ed Hansen
EDITOR
Shane Good
GRAPHIC DESIGNER
Elizabeth Thibodeaux
ENRICHMENT OPTIONS COLUMN COORDINATORS
Julie Hartell-DeNardo, Saint Louis Zoo
Casey Plummer, Caldwell Zoo
Ric Kotarsky, Tulsa Zoo & Living Museum
ATC COLUMN COORDINATORS
Kim Kezer, Zoo New England
Jay Pratte, Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo
Beth Stark-Posta, Toledo Zoo
CONSERVATION STATION COORDINATORS
Amanda Ista, Milwaukee County Zoo
Mary Ann Cisneros, Disney's Animal Kingdom
Animal Keepers' Forum is published monthly by AAZK, Inc.
Ten dollars of each membership fee goes toward the annual publication
costs of Animal Keepers' Forum. Postage paid at Tucson, AZ.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PRESIDENT: Bob Cisneros,
Big Bear Alpine Zoo, Big Bear Lake, CA
VICE PRESIDENT: Penny Jolly, Disney's Animal Kingdom,
Lake Buena Vista, FL
Kelly Wilson, Detroit Zoological Society
Royal Oak, Ml
Bethany Bingham, Utah's Hogle Zoo
Salt Lake City, UT
Wendy Lenhart, Philadelphia Zoo
Philadelphia, PA
COMMITTEES/COORDINATORS/
PROJECT MANACERS
BY-LAWS
Chair: Ric Kotarsky, Tulsa Zoo
GRANTS COMMITTEE
Chair: Jessica Munson, Milwaukee County Zoo
BEHAVIORAL HUSBANDRY COMMITTEE
Co-Chairs: Julie Hartell-Denardo, Saint Louis Zoo
Megan Wright, Blank Park Zoo
BOWLING FOR RHINOS, NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGER
Patty Pearthree, Cary, NC
ETHICS
Chair: Penny Jolly, Disney's Animal Kingdom
CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
Co-Chairs: Christy Poelker, Saint Louis Zoo,
Janee Zakoren, Sequoia Park Zoo,
AWARDS
Chair: Janet McCoy, The Oregon Zoo
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Co-Chairs: Melaina Wallace, Disney's Animal Kingdom
Ellen Gallagher, John Ball Zoo
CONFERENCE PROGRAM MANAGER
Victor Aim, Oakland Zoo
ICZ COORDINATORS
Norah Farnham, Woodland Park Zoo
Sara Wunder Steward, Busch Gardens Tampa
COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE
Chair: Bethany Bingham, Utah's Hogle Zoo
NATIONAL ZOO KEEPER WEEK, PROGRAM MANAGER
Robin Sutker, Baltimore Zoo
'■'AzK.ORO
May 2015 | Vol. 42, No. 5 | 137
FROM THE PRESIDENT
"He knew a path that
wanted walking; He
knew a spring that
wanted drinking; A
thought that wanted
further thinking”
— Robert Frost
I took an oath when I first joined the Board of Directors with AAZK. With that oath, 1
promised to uphold and defend the by-laws, our constitution, and the mission of our
Association. As a member of the Board of Directors and your President, those documents
serve as a guide in both decision making and future planning for all things AAZK. In
past communications, I have referred to our mission as the rudder which helps direct
the Association and as a leader, 1 make constant reference to these articles, insuring
that my actions, real or potential, are in line with the needs of the Association.
An oath, or affirmation, is our promise of performance and can be found in several
professions today. In the animal care industry, our veterinarians took an oath of office
upon receiving their diploma. And while we have no such official oath as animal care
professionals, I am constantly referencing the “Five Freedoms” of animal welfare in
my Job. I hold these freedoms as my personal oath and my pledge to assure that the
minimum standards of animal welfare are being met. In the small zoo where I work, we
have all embraced these as guiding principles for all that we do for the animals in our
collection. We use these freedoms as the starting point for identifying animal welfare
concerns, communicating these concerns and developing solutions for best practices
in animal care.
For those who are not aware of the “Five Freedoms”, they are as follows;
► Freedom from Hunger and Thirst: by ready access to fresh water and a diet to
maintain full health and vigor.
► Freedom from Discomfort: by providing an appropriate environment including
shelter and a comfortable resting area.
► Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease: by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
► Freedom to Express Normal Behavior: by providing sufficient space, proper facilities
and company of the animal’s own kind.
► Freedom from Fear and Distress: by ensuring conditions and treatment which
avoid mental suffering.
The “Five Freedoms” were originally created 50 years ago as part of a report on the
welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. They were later
adopted as the “Five Freedoms” and widely used as the basis for defining the ideal
states for animal welfare.
I am responsible for the collection of animals in my institution and when I dialogue with
staff about the care and management of our animals, we reference these freedoms
together. It has become our common ground for animal care, communication, and
problem-solving. As animal care professionals, we do three things all day; 1) we care
for animals, 2) we communicate effectively, and 3) we solve problems. And when we
perform these three things, we integrate the “Five Freedoms”.
The “Five Freedoms” represent our common ground for communication and problem-
solving; the litmus paper for animal welfare. Moreover, they have become our pledge
to provide the best care for our animals. I have never had to take an oath as an animal
care professional, and as simple as these freedoms may be, they have become my
personal oath and pledge.
This is the thought that warrants further thinking; how often do we reference these
freedoms in all that we do as animal care professionals?
As always, I welcome your thoughts and input. E-mail me at bob.cisneros@aazk.org; I
would love to hear from you. Drop me a line and I promise to write back.
Respectfully,
The National Archives. "Farm Animal Welfare Council; The Five Freedoms” http://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121007104210/http;/www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm
11 : . HS;-i t
138 I ANIMAL KEEPERS' FORUM
r-ARNlVO^^
CARN1X25?
PREMIUM NUTRITION FOR YOUR CARNIVORES
Your animals are your zoo. Protect and care for them with the most nutritous carnivore entree in the
industry. The first all-pork complete diet formulated specifically for zoo carnivores, Carnivore Essentials
is backed by years of extensive field research and testing, and proven to be a safe, nutritious diet for
all carnivores. Your animals deserve only the very best. Feed them Carnivore Essentials.
www.CarnivoreEssentials.com 800-890-7039 sales@CarnivoreEssentials.com
SjriMedrmhU.
Swine Resources
pi f Post upcoming events here!
tv tIM I e-mailshane.good@aazk.org
June 1-5, 2015
Prosimian TAG Meeting and
Workshop
Myakka City, FL
Hosted by The Lemur
Conservation Foundation.
For more information contact
Alison Grand at:
agrand@lemurreserve.org.
June 14-18, 2015
International Rhino Keepers'
Workshop
Chester, England
Hosted by Chester Zoo
For more information and Call
for Papers, go to:
rhinokeeperassociation.org/
rhino-keeper-workshop/
September 9-13, 2015
International Congress on
Zookeeping
Leipzig, Germany
Hosted by Leipzig Zoo and
the International Congress of
Zookeepers (ICZ).
For more information visit:
iczoo.org.
June 1-5, 2015
Conservation Breeding
Centers for Wildlife
Sustainability
Smithsonian Conservation
Biology Institute (National Zoo),
Front Royal, VA
For more information go to:
SMConservation.gmu.edu
July 10-16, 2015
Felid TAG Conference and
Husbandry Course
Pittsburgh, PA
Hosted by Pittsburgh Zoo and
PPG Aquarium
For more information go to:
http://pittsburghzoo.org/
felidtagconference
September 17-21, 2015
AZA National Conference
Salt Lake City, UT
Hosted by Utah's Hogle Zoo
For more information visit:
aza.org.
June 2-4, 2015
Chimpanzee Husbandry
Workshop
Detroit, Ml
Hosted by Detroit
Zoological Society
For more information go to:
detroitzoo.org/animals/
chimpanzeeworkshop
August 6-9, 2015
13*" Annual Symposium
on the Conservation and
Biology of Tortoises and
Freshwater Turtles
Tucson, AZ
For more information go to:
turtlesurvival.org/conference
October 5-9, 2015
Giraffe Care Workshop
Colorado Springs, CO
Hosted by Cheyenne
Mountain Zoo
For more information visit:
cmzoo.org/index.php/giraffe-
ca re-workshop/
AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION
of ZOO KEEPERS
September 27 - Oct. 1, 2015
AAZK National Conference
St. Louis, MO
Hosted by Saint Louis Zoo and
St. Louis Chapter of AAZK
More details can be found
at: www.stlzoo.org/animals/
soyouwanttobeazookeeper/
americanassociationofzooke/
October 12-16
Zoos and Aquariums
Committing to Conservation
Conference (ZACC)
Denver, CO
Hosted by Denver Zoo
For more information go to:
http://www.denverzoo.org/ZACC
140 I ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM
Enter coupon
code ''ho||ou)|og"
at checK out
and get io% OFF
Offer expires G/31/2015
Moll
OW
Full
Round
Logs
Starting at
$‘>9.99
3(^
Round
Logs
Starting at
$29.99
1/2
Round
Logs
Starting at
$29.99
N sturs ll_y!
Natural Enrichment with Real Logs!
PayPar SffSA
DISCOVER I
T^prIss
www.hollowlog.com
An 1C WOOD LLC company/ www.icwoodllc.com
LIKE US ON
ICWOODLLC
Hope for Polar Bears: AAZK Trees for You & Me
for you and me
Thanks for competing for polar bears and the Arctic;
we raised $11,838.07 in this year's Chapter Challenge!
Brookfield Chapter is the recipient of the
grand prize- a living, breathing tree!
What do you plan to do with your Chapter’s funds?
Final standings:
Brookfield ► $3,355.45
Greater Philadelphia ► $1,663.00
1. Use the funds in your own community— by planting
on the grounds of your own zoo or aquarium or by
supporting a local tree-planting project.
2. Donate the funds to SaveNature.Org, an international
tree-planting organization that works to protect tropical
rainforests. With this option, the Chapter should talk
about the importance of rainforests in combating
climate change as part of the fundraising process.
3. Donate the funds to Polar Bears International in
support of Acres for the Atmosphere projects.
Lincoln Park ► $1,350.00
Columbus ► $1,094.00
Greater Cleveland ► $1,000.00
Greater Houston ► $792.62
Milwaukee ► $757.00
Tulsa ► $580.00
Fresno Chaffee ► $500.00
Toronto Zoo ► $273.00
Let us know what you are doing at
aac@polarbearsinternational.org.
Plant a tree. Help a polar bear. It's as simple as that!
San Antonio ► $200.00
Rocky Mountain ► $155.00
Portland ► $100.00
Ainftricfii ; Assoi ■
142 ANIMAL KEEPERS' FORUM
CHAPTER NEWS
The Portland Chapter of AAZK had a very busy year
in 2014! For BFR last year we raised $47,284.46! This makes
for a grand total of $292,842.50 since AAZK began raising
funds for this important project.
Our very own Carolyn Leonard was second place overall in
raising funds and right now she is at Lewa enjoying an amazing
trip with fellow Chapter member Kim Voyle. Congratulations
Carolyn, we cannot wait to hear ail about it!
Another big project for us this year was our second Conservation
Comedy Night and Auction raising $28,000 which we split
between two wonderful non-profit organizations: Ruaha
Carnivore Project in Tanzania and the Portland Chapter of
the Audubon Society. We also held many smaller fund raisers
bringing in over $1200 which benefitted Trees for You and Me,
Orang Outreach, and The Amur Leopard Project.
We also supported continuing education for our members and
helped to send two to the 2014 National AAZK Conference in
Orlando, FL.
In January, we voted in new Chapter Officers for 2015: President
Becca Van Beek, VP Anne Lauerman, Tres. Michael lllig. Interim
Sec. Chris Wright and Liaison Michelle Schireman. Many thanks
to Philip Fensterer (Past President) for his exemplary service!
The new year has begun with our Chapter finalizing our Chapter
Mission Statement and updating our Chapter By-Laws. Plus our
Bowling For Rhinos date is already set for June 13th! And as
always we have some other amazing fund raisers in the works!
A special congrats goes to Chapter member Philip Fensterer
who was recently accepted as a member of the National AAZK
Conservation Committee!
Please ‘Like’ us on our Facebook page to keep up to date on
all of our activities!
Guests enjoying the Portland Chapter of AAZK's Comedy Night Fundraiser
MEMBERSHIP
Has its Benefits!
Membership with the
American Association of Zoo Keepers
inciudes a subscription to Animal
Keepers' Forum and free or discounted
admission to many zoos and aquariums
in the U.S. and Canada.
To downioad an appiication or to appiy
oniine, piease visit AAZK.ORG.
AAZK is a non-profit
voiunteer organization
(U.S. 501c3) made up of
professionai zoo keepers
and other interested
persons dedicated to
professionai animal care
and conservation.
AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION
of ZOO KEEPERS
A Comparative Study on the
White-handed Gibbon (Hylobates lar)
Vocaiization
Kristilee Kodis
Abstract
White-handed gibbons (Hylobates lar) have been studied fortheir
vocalizations which are unlike other species. In the wild and in
captivity they are found to be very vocal and active. Zoos try to
provide their animals with adequate habitats mimicking their
natural environments in order to preserve their natural behaviors
and vocalizations. This study followed a male and female pair-
bond of gibbons who have lived together for 10 years at Wildlife
Safari in Winston, OR. The study looked at the frequency and
duration of female vs. male vocalizations duringthe morningand
evening. The data were then compared to wild gibbons to look
at the difference between captive and wild vocalizations. This
study showed that the time between vocalizations and duration
of vocalizations between captive and wild gibbons is different
and that the male and female vocalizations do not completely
follow past studies.
Introduction
In the last decade animal communication has become a
topic that is in the process of being understood, so scientists
can fully comprehend how animals interact with each other.
Understanding communication between different and the same
species can be used to help save these species by allowing
humans to better understand movement patterns and habits.
Animals use advanced language techniques to communicate
with one another, they have developed mechanisms for
vocalizations based on their different habitats, proximity,
and senses. Animal vocalizations need to overcome habitat
challenges such as the distance in the desert, the trees in the
forest, and the density of water. They are also used for sensory
differences, such as color vision differences and olfactory
senses, and proximity differences, such as the distance
between one animal and the next.
In animal communication, natural selection favors species which
vocalize to affect the behavior of listeners and listeners who
acquire information from vocalizations, using this information
to represent their environment (Seyfarth and Dorothy, 2003).
Animals rely on verbal and nonverbal signs to fully communicate
a meaning or action.
Gibbons (Hylobates) are apes from the old world monkey families.
Gibbon vocalizations are well heard and known of but still not
understood. There are many different studies taking place to
understand their many vocalizations and why they make them.
White-handed gibbons (Hylobates lar) produce their loud
vocalizations using a throat sac located beneath the chin to help
enhance and project sound. The sac allows them to collect air for
a louder, longer, more projected vocaiization (Palombit, 1996).
White-handed gibbons make family pairs with a primary couple
and their offspring. They have a very in-depth social system,
and have been known to howl as a means for communication.
Couples perform “duets," which are interactive vocalizations
between the breeding pair in a family unit (Palombit, 1996).
Each morning as a believed means to advertise their territory
and reinforce their pair-bonds, the breeding pair of white-handed
gibbons will take part in a “duet.” Females lead the “duet” of
morning vocalizations with louder, more dominant vocalizations,
while males give a following vocalization (Palombit, 1996). Their
loud resonant songs can be heard up to a half-mile away (Chivers
and Reicharcf, 1980). Songs by far exceed those of all other
species due to the sound-amplifying throat sac.
White-handed gibbons have been found in Indochina and
Thailand, west of Mekong River, Tenasserim; Malay Peninsula
and Sumatra (Fleissmann, 1991). They live in tropical rain forests
from sea level to about 6,500 feet in elevation, but much of their
habitat has been destroyed due to deforestation (Fleissmann,
1991). Tropical rainforests are thick with trees and vocalizations
need to be louder and longer with a higher resonance to be heard
through all of the foliage.
Because gibbons are found in many different zoos and their
calls are commonly heard by guests, many studies have
been done on their vocalizations. Studies have focused on
vocalizations in the pair bond, immature female vocalizations,
and the effect of predators on vocalizations.
In past studies of measuring vocalizations, results indicate there
were no obvious acoustic differences between the vocalizations
gibbons make during breeding pairs and song duets as when they
see predators until they looked at the data under closer scrutiny
(Clarke et al., 2006). It has been found that male gibbons would
start vocalizations if a predator was around which is uncommon
for regular “duets” (Clarke et al., 2006).
Other studies have found that males with increased vocalization
have a higher probability of forming pair-mating and “duets”
(Barelli et al., 1998). Vocalizations also have a large role in the
decision-making process (Barelli et al., 1998). Gibbons are known
to participate in their duets around sunrise and sunset (Palombit,
144 I ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM
1996). Their vocalizations can be heard up to a half-mile, take
approximately half an hour and are started by the adult female
(Palombit, 1996). The duets start with an introductory sequence
that leads to an organizing sequence for the great-vocalization
sequence of the female which is often then followed by a male
vocalization (Chivers and Reicharcf, 1980). The combination of
these vocalizations alternate for about three-minute intervals for
about fifteen minutes (Palombit, 1996).
Many other experiments have been performed to see if vocal
cues could be used to train female gibbons using operant
conditioning. The use of males has not been explored due to
the fact females are the dominant leaders of vocalizations. In a
study by Koda, Oyakawa, Kato and Masataka (2007), which was
done on the vocalization of an immature female primate, the
study found that when taking vocalization training step by step,
the study could use operant conditioning to pair a reward with
a v-card and vocalization (Koda et al., 2007). Those immature
female gibbons remembered and were cognizant of what they
were iearning (Koda et al., 2007).
Both of these studies have shown that vocalizations can be
learned and analyzed based on environment and circumstances.
The aim of my comparative study was to test whether vocalizations
differ between female and male white-handed gibbons to see
if there is a difference in duration and frequency. This study
compared the frequency and duration between the white-handed
gibbons found at Wildlife Safari and vocalizations between wild
and captive white-handed gibbons. The null hypothesis is that
there is no difference in vocalization duration or frequencies
between males and female vocalizations and that there is no
difference in the vocalizations found between captive and wild
white-handed gibbons.
Methods
Two white-handed gibbons were observed at Wildlife Safari in
Winston, Oregon in the lower area of the Zoo called the Village.
The gibbons are a male and a female; the male is a pale buff
gibbon named Santos and is 22-years-old while the female is a
black gibbon named Rerun and is 23-years-old. Both gibbons
were born and raised in zoos, never having experienced their
native habitats.
The gibbons live by themselves on an island in the middle of the
lower part of the Village, surrounded by water. Every morning
the gibbons were given their diet and enrichment between 9:00
am and 9:30 am. Every evening the gibbons were given their
diets and put into their houses for the night between 6:00 pm
and 6:30 pm.
During the day the gibbons could freely roam their island and
only had interactions with keepers for morningfeedings, morning
enrichment, afternoon training, evening diets and being put up
for the night into their houses. The only interactions the gibbons
have with the public were when the public watched the gibbons
and made vocalizations towards the gibbons.
To determine when to base the hours of the study, data were
collected for three days by the study observer from 4:00 am
to 12:00 pm and 2:00 pm to 7:00 pm to record when gibbon
vocalizations were prominent. Keepers were also questioned
about and asked to record when the keepers heard the gibbons'
vocalizations for a week to determine the vocalization activity
hours. After being determined, the parameters of the research
study were set.
Every other day for four weeks the gibbons were watched from
9:00 am to 11:30 am in the mornings and 4:30 pm to 6:30
pm in the evenings to collect and record the frequency/pitch
and duration of the gibbon vocalizations. Vocalizations were
categorized as vocalization 1 being a short “woop", vocalization
2 being a “woop”, vocalization 3 being a long “woooop" and
vocalization 4 being a “Whooooooop”. During the original
preliminary week of gathering data to find a call, the calls were
timed and set so during the data collection time the calls would
be easily recorded with a ranking of 1-4.
In the experiment a frequency recorder, voice recorder, multiple
stopwatches, a clock, pen, and paper were used to make
measurements and recordings. The frequency recorder was
a Sony Walkman*® WM-D6 because it works well in rough field
conditions. The voice recorder, Sony - Digital Voice Recorder
Model number ICDPX312, records up to 536 hours. The
frequency recorder and voice recorder were set on a bench side
by side, started at the beginning of the research time, either
9:00 am or 4:30 pm, and turned off at the end of the designated
research time, either 11:30 am or 6:30 pm.
The voice recorder and frequency recorder were left on the entire
time of the experiment and timed with a regular clock so they
could be accurately recorded. Multiple stopwatches were turned
on and off and the time data were recorded based on when
May 2015 | Vol. 42, No. 5 | '.45
Categories
Vocalization
Length of vocalization
1
Short “woop”
0 - 0.4 seconds
2
“Woop”
0.4 - 2.3 seconds
3
Long “woooop”
2.3 - 5.6 seconds
4
“Whooooooop”
5.6-1- seconds
Figure 1: A categorized version of the gibbon vocalizations explained above.
During the original preliminary week of gathering data to find a call, the calls
were timed and set so during the data collection time the calls would be easily
recorded with a ranking of 1-4.
the gibbon vocalization started, when the gibbon vocalization
stopped, and if the male or female gibbon was vocalizing. Each
time a stop watch was stopped, the data were recorded on a data
sheet for the day. Male and female vocalizations were recorded
on a data sheet, when the female would start to vocalize a
stopwatch was started and a data sheet was filled out with the
1-4 point schema according to what vocalizations the female
was making. When the female would stop the vocalization
the stopwatch was stopped. When the male would vocalize a
stopwatch was started and a data sheet was filled out with the
1-4 point schema according to what vocalizations the male was
making. If both the male and female were vocalizing, a stopwatch
would be started for both, along with a data sheet beingfilled out
for both of the gibbons. When the male stopped vocalizing, his
stopwatch and data sheet were stopped and done beingfilled
out. When the female stopped vocalizing, her stopwatch and
data sheet were stopped and done beingfilled out. Males and
female vocalizations were recorded as separate entities, not as
a combined vocalization. If the gibbons were in the middle of a
vocalization when the designated time was over, the rest of their
vocalization would be recorded and used in the data collection.
Results
After the data were collected it was then analyzed in two ways.
First, the vocalizations made by the male and the vocalizations
made by the female gibbon in captivity were compared using
Microsoft® Excel. Secondly, the types of observed vocalizations
recorded in captivity through the research at Wildlife Safari were
listed (Figures 1 and 2) and compared to the wild vocalizations
(Figure 2) in Clarke, Reichard and Zuberbuhler's (2006) paper.
When looking at vocalizations between the male and female
gibbons, both the female and the male initiated vocalizations.
Females initiated vocalizations 92.8% of the time while males
only initiated vocalizations 7.2% of the time. After a time span of
30 minutes or more, males were most likely to start vocalizations.
Vocalizations never started before the gibbons received their
diets; they started 10 to 30 minutes after diets were received.
The female gibbon was the only gibbon to use a number 4
vocalization: it had the highest frequencies and were the loudest,
longest vocalization witnessed during the study. The entire
length and amount of the vocalizations differed during each of
the different days of study. On seven of the observation days
the male vocalizations were a minimum, between 10-20, while
the female amount of vocalizations did not really vary. Female
vocalizations reached up to 2500Flz while male vocalizations
reached ITOOFIz. No afternoon vocalizations were witnessed.
The captive gibbon research was compared to the wild gibbon
study performed by Clarke, Reichard and Zuberbuhler (2006).
Clarke etal. (2006) found that female great vocalizations lasted on
average 17.43±1.32 s and they were rapidly produced within the
first two minutes ofthe vocalization. The female gibbon in captivity
had a great vocalization that lasted 14.62±2.32 seconds and took
on average 10±5 minutes to be produced after the vocalizations
started. Clarke et al. (2006) found great vocalizations during
the first two minutes of a duet were connected to the song duet
complexities and after that time period female great vocalizations
were related to the presence of predators.
These data could not be compared to the gibbons in captivity
because predators were not present. Clarke et al. (2006) found
males usually replied to female great vocalizations within
1.0±3.4 seconds. While in captivity, the female gibbon's great
vocalization was later in the duet and only answered by a male
vocalization 86.2% of the time. Clarke et al. (2006) found
female great vocalizations to be a loud and penetrating two-
humped vocalization; the vocalization lasted on average 17.4
±1.32 seconds with a swift male reply within 1.0±3.4 seconds.
In captivity, the great vocalization of the female reached the
highest pitch, which was never reached by the male. The female
vocalization lasted 22.4 ±2.82 seconds while the male replied
either within 0.5±2.2 seconds or 10.3±2.1 seconds or did not
occur at all and was followed up by another female vocalization.
Discussion
When looking at the comparison ofthe captive male and female
vocalizations, it was found that females have the dominant
vocalizations. Females, the majority of the time, start the first
vocalization ofthe morning, known as the initiation vocalization.
Then a duet between a male and female takes place using
vocalizations 1 thru 3. Then the female would give a vocalization
4, which may or may not be followed by a male vocalization.
When there is a break, stop or lull in the vocalizations, a male
or female will start the vocalization again.
Females are more likelyto start morning vocalizations and reach
frequencies not found in male vocalizations. The female used
all vocalization categories while males used vocalizations 1-3
(Figure 1). The female used vocalization 2 and 3 the most and 4
only two to four times in a morning’s vocalization. The male used
vocalization 1 and 3 the most and never made a vocalization
number 4. The vocalizations did not go in a synchronized order, 1
Categories
Vocalization
Length of
vocalization
Clarke, Reichard and
Zuberbuhler (2006)
Vocalization (Figure 3)
1
Short “woop"
0 - 0.4 seconds
‘Wa’&'hoo’
2
“Woop”
0.4 - 2.3
seconds
‘Leaning wa’
3
Long “woooop”
2.3 -5.6
seconds
‘oo’
4
“Whooooooop”
5.6-i- seconds
‘Sharp wow’&
‘waoo’
Figure 2: A categorized version of the gibbon vocalizations explained above.
During the original preliminary week of gathering data to find a call, the calls
were timed and set so during the data collection time, the calls would be easily
recorded with a ranking of 1-4. The data from the comparative study were then
added in, showing the calls they classified and the sounds they classified them
to the data collected. This gave the data a common comparative value.
146 I ANIMAL KEEPERS' FORUM
Number of the call and a description
of what the cail sounds iike
Other information adding insight
into the call
(1) The ‘wa’ note is a short and
steeply rising note, appearing as
a more or less straight line on the
spectrogram: sometimes appearing
slightly concave.
It consistently spans over 100 Hz in
the frequency domain, which sets it
aside from the ‘hoo’ note.
(2) The ‘hoo’ is a low frequency,
quiet note consistently spanning
a much narrower frequency range
than ‘wa’ notes.
(3) The ‘leaning wa’ notes may be
more or less straight like the ‘wa’
notes, but longer in duration, and
therefore lean more to the right;
sometimes they have a slight bump
in the middle.
(4) The ‘oo’ note is of a relatively
even pitch and therefore produces
a flat note, as seen on the
spectrogram, of varying duration.
Sometimes it may rise slightly at
the start.
(5) The ‘sharp wow’ note is a loud
and penetrating note. It rises steeply
at first then falls steeply to produce
a concave curve.
It invariably spans more than 700
Hz in the frequency domain. The end
of the note may be prolonged
horizontally.
(6) The ‘waoo’ note is highly
variable. It always rises steeply at
first, but then may hold pitch at an
even level or fall in pitch to create a
convex curve.
It spans a much lower frequency
range than the ‘sharp wow’.
Figure 3: The description of calls in the paper by Clarke, Reichard and
Zuberbuhler (2006), The Vocal Behavior of Free-Ranging White-handed Gibbons
(HYLOBATES EAR) In Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. The calls were combined
to fit the 4 range calls predetermined (Figure 2).
to 2 to 3 to 4; they did not go in any apparent order. A vocalization
1 could be followed by a 2 or 3, the only reoccurring order was the
female made a vocalization 3 after a 4. There was no consistency
on what vocalizations happened where or when that could be
observed by the researcher.
Males were found to take part in solo vocalizations. There would be
a five to seven minute break between the duet vocalizations and
then the male would have a three to ten minute solo vocalization
with no answer from the female. After a short break of two to four
minutes the male's duet vocalizations would start again.
The female reached up to 2500Hz in her vocalizations while the
male reached up to 1700Hz. The difference in the frequencies
is due to the vocalization 4. Each of the vocalizations does
not have a frequency number that can be directly categorized
with a number but there is a frequency range for each of the
vocalizations. The female projecting vocalization 4 gives her a
louder vocalization and higher frequency than that of the male.
When comparing wild and captive gibbons there were many
differences observed. A major difference was in the time of
vocalizations. The gibbons in the wild vocalized at dawn and dusk,
while the gibbons in captivity vocalized between 9:30 and 11:30
in the morning, with no night vocalizations. The captive gibbons
made morning vocalizations that appeared to be dependent on
their diets, while vocalizations at night were not heard.
The female great vocalizations, vocalization 4, in wild gibbons
were found in the beginning of the duet while in captive
gibbons it was always towards the end of the duet. Female
great vocalizations in the wild took a shorter amount to start
and lasted longer than the great vocalization from the female in
captivity. The male reply to a female great vocalization was very
different between captive and wild gibbons. The male answer
to the female vocalization in captivity was either sooner or later
than wild animals.
The biggest difference found in vocalizations was when looking at
males in captivity vs. wild. The responsesto vocalizations, start of
vocalizations, and stop of vocalizations were the most different.
Studying male gibbon vocalizations has future research potential.
Factors that could not be measured in the captive study were
measured in the wild study; for example, the complexities of the
vocalizations and the effect of predators in the environment.
Environmental complexities could have the biggest effect on
gibbon vocalizations but were not looked at. The gibbons found
at Wildlife Safari do not face environmental factors, problems or
issues that gibbons in the wild do. All of the factors and issues
that can have an effect on gibbon vocalizations or vocalizations
those gibbons would learn from family members, as a learned
behavior. Because the gibbons in captivity have never been in
a native habitat with different gibbons, there might be learned
vocalizations which are not present. The captive gibbons have a
manufactured environment to increase their happiness though
stimulation, the gibbons do not have natural predators, they do
not have to try to survive and the gibbons do not have to worry
about their diets because it is brought to them daily. There are
many factors that were not approached in this study that could
account for differences in vocalizations. There are similarities
between captive and wild gibbons, but more importantly there
are many differences. Future research on differences in captive
gibbons' vocalizations will help to clear up any questions not
covered in this study because captive gibbons at only one zoo
will not necessarily behave or vocalize the same.
References
Barelli, C., Boesch, C., Heistermann, M., and U. Reichard. 1998.
Female white-handed gibbons (Hylobates lar) lead group
movements and have priority of access to food resources.
Behaviour 145:965-981.
Chivers, D., and J. Raemaekers. 1980. Long-term Changes in
Behaviour. In Malayan Forest Primates: Ten Years' Study in Tropical
Rainforest, ed. D.J. Chivers. Plenum Press.
Clarke E., Reicharcf, U., and K. Zuberbuhler. 2006. The Vocal
Behaviour of Free-Ranging White-handed Gibbons (HYLOBATES
LAR) In Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. International Journal of
Primatology 27:361.
Heissmann, T. 1991. Sympatry Between White-handed Gibbons
(Hylobates lar) and Pileated Gibbons (H. pileatus) in Southeastern
Thailand. Primates 32(3):357.
Koda, H., Oyakawa, C., Kato, A., and N. Masataka. 2007.
Experimental evidence for the volitional control of vocal production
in an immature gibbon. Behaviour 14(60):681-692.
Palombit, R. 1996. Pair Bonds in Monogamous Apes: A Comparison
of the Siamang Hylobates syndactylus and the White-Handed
Gibbon (Hylobates lar). Behaviour 133(5/6):321-356.
Seyfarth, R., and D. Cheney. 2003. Signalers and Receivers in Animal
Communication. Annual Review of Psychology 54:145-173
May 2015 [ Vol. 42, No, 5 | 147
Substrate Preference for Escape Trails
in Short-eared Elephant Shrews
Madeleine Parsell, Behavioral Enrichment Intern
Kenton Kerns, Biologist
Ashton Shaffer, Keeper
Smithsonian’s National Zoological Park,
Small Mammal House
Washington, DC
Adult Short-eared Elephant Shrew.
Picture courtesy of Clyde Nishimura
Introduction
Macroscelides proboscideus (short-eared elephant shrew) hails
from desert and semi-desert habitats in Namibia, southern
Botswana, and South Africa, thus S.E. elephant shrews are
adapted to dry, sandy terrain (Dohring, 2002; Rathbun, 2009;
Smit, et al., 2010; Smithers, 1971; Stuart, 2013). Although this
species’ fossil records date back to the Eocene (Macrini, 2004),
there is a deficit in data concerning behavioral ecology (Rathbun
and Rathbun, 2006). Information regarding elephant shrews
date back as far as the early 19th century, but has since gone
under many revisions. For instance, the assessment that S.E.
elephant shrews are diurnal (Smithers, 1971) has been dismissed
in more recent years. S.E. elephant shrews are now thought to
be crepuscular, though reports concerning activity are likely to
be biased given this species’ keen sight, auditory and olfactory
senses and their naturally skittish behavior (Rathbun, 2009;
Unger, 1999).
Despite the limited information available concerning S.E.
elephant shrew behavior, it is well established that they construct
what is essentially a highway system of trails. These trail systems
aid the shrews in avoiding predation by allowing them to travel
more quickly between foraging locations and shelter (Rathbun,
2009; Unger, 1999). According to Unger (1999), these paths are
developed passively by traveling along the same route repeatedly,
which creates shallow burrows in the substrate. Shrews actively
maintain these highway systems by removing any debris and
barriers using their mouths and forefoot sweeping and forehead
pushing motions (Rathbun, 2009; Unger, 1999).
To discover new means of enrichment for captive S.E. elephant
shrews in a zoo setting, animal staff at the Smithsonian National
Zoo’s Small Mammal house developed an experiment utilizing
the animal’s natural behavior of trail building. This experiment
explores preference for finer and coarser substrates in relation
to trail use using a singly-housed adult female S.E. elephant
shrew. The shrew was alternately presented with three different
substrates (chinchilla dust bath, mulch, and small river rocks)
other than her “normal” substrate, a semi-fine sand. Two
assumptions were made that guided the design of this study:
(1) coarser substrates are more difficult to manipulate than
finer substrates, such that it takes more time and/or costs more
energy to manipulate coarser substrates, and (2) preference
for a particular substrate indicates reduced fitness cost (less
energy output and/or reduced risk of predation). Based on these
L48 I ANIMAL KEEPERS' FORUM
assumptions, it was hypothesized that fine substrates would be
preferred over coarse substrates.
Materials & Methods
This study was conducted from 10 October through 12 November
2013 with a singly-housed adult (two-years-old) female short-
eared elephant shrew in her habitat at the Smithsonian’s
National Zoological Park’s Small Mammal House. The habitat
provided a variety of substrates similar to those found in
the shrew’s natural habitat. Sand, approximately 8cm deep,
coated the floor of the exhibit. The exhibit itself is shaped like
a pentagon, with two glass walls for visitors to view the habitat.
The remaining three walls have shallow, plaster outcroppings
that provide built-in trails that zigzag up the walls approximately
1.22m. Two long, thin tree branches protrude out of a collection
of rocks on either side of the entrance to the exhibit. A number
of large rocks and a small, hollow log form a half-circle facing
the entrance. In approximately the center of the half-circle there
is a sturdy root-like structure. The exhibit is 1.52-meter square
with a 2.44-meter ceiling (Figure 1).
S.E. elephant shrews are most active in the evening and early
morning when the Small Mammal House is closed, thus behavior
was recorded using a nocturnal video camera. Recordings of
the baseline and subsequent experiments (chinchilla dust bath,
mulch, and small river rocks) began before substrates were
added to the exhibit in the afternoon and ended the following
morning when the exhibit was cleaned. Start times ranged from
roughly 1330 to 1630 hrs, while end times ranged from 0820
to 0930 hrs. To be as consistent as possible in the analysis, only
data from the first five hours of video capture and from midnight
until 0820 hrs was used. This was considered one day’s worth
of data.
Three different substrates of varying coarseness were used to
test the S.E. elephant shrew’s affinity: Kaytee® Chinchilla Dust
Bath (fine; 521 Clay Street, P.O. Box 230 Chilton, Wl 53014;
http://www.kaytee.com). Riverside Mulch™ Shredded Hardwood
(coarse; RR 8 South Branch River Road, Romney, WV 26757;
http://www.riversidemulch.com), and river rocks (very coarse)
with approximately a 2cm diameter. The “normal” substrate
lining the floor of the habitat was a sand best described as
semi-fine with grains of varying sizes. The coarsest grains were
up to approximately 3mm in diameter and the finest were too
fine to measure.
The shrew’s affinity to each substrate was tested by adding a
patch of the experimental substrate (dust bath, mulch, or rocks)
to the middle of trail A (Figure 1). Trail A was chosen as the
experimental trail because it was visible to the naked eye and
was most traversed by the shrew according to observations by
keeper staff. All paths, (A, B, C, D and E), were preexisting and
developed by the shrew prior to the start of the study (Figure 1).
Before the study commenced, baseline behavior watches were
conducted by adding a patch of new, normal substrate (semi-
fine sand) to the middle of path A and observing the shrew’s
movements among paths A, B, C, D and E. The normal sand was
added to create a disturbance similar to that caused by adding
Figure 1. Short-eared elephant shrew exhibit with escape trails A through E
and experimental substrate zone (shaded circle).
the experimental substrates to the enclosure. This was important
for comparing responses to substrates because it ensured that
the variations in the shrew’s behavior were due to the particular
substrate added, rather than the disturbance created by adding
a substrate. The baseline substrate was left in the exhibit for
four days before the first experiment began. Response to the
baseline and all subsequent experiments were measured by
recording the number of times each trail was used and the time
spent traversing each path in seconds.
In the afternoon of day five, the patch of new sand was scooped
out and replaced with dust bath on trail A. The substrate was left
in the enclosure for four days. When the dust bath was removed,
the resulting hole was filled by shifting existing exhibit sand.
To avoid a bleed-over of response from each experiment into
the next, a minimum of a three-day buffer was used where no
substrates were added to the enclosure. Mulch and rocks were
added using the same procedures.
Data were analyzed from the first day only, because that was
when response to the substrate was strongest. Subsequent
days provided valuable qualitative data, providing insight into
how behavior changed with extended exposure to the substrate.
Because behavioral change, such as acclimation, was not
pertinent to the study, subsequent days were not statistically
analyzed.
Data Analysis
Time spent on trails data were analyzed using R software via a
hypothesis test in which the proportion of time (seconds) spent
on trail A was compared to the amount of time spent on all trails.
Data were included in the analysis if at least half of the trail
was used by the shrew. Three comparisons were analyzed: (1)
baseline versus dust bath, (2) baseline versus mulch, and (3)
baseline versus rocks. Statistical significance was established
at the 0.05 level (p< 0.05).
May 2015 | Vol. 42, No. 5 | 149
Results
Dust Bath
When dust bath was present, the shrew spent more time in
seconds on trail A than on all other trails combined. Under dust
bath conditions, the shrew spent approximately 80% of her time
on trail A versus all other trails (Figure 2). This was statistically
greater than the proportion of time spent on trail A under baseline
conditions (approximately 63%). The shrew spent less than half
as much time on trail A under baseline conditions at 357 seconds
compared to dust bath conditions at 805 seconds. Conversely,
there was very little difference in combined time spent on ail
other trails (B-E), with 212 seconds under baseline conditions
and 208 seconds under dust bath conditions. The shrew also
tended to use all trails more when dust bath was present versus
the baseline (table 1); this was especially true for trail A, which
saw an increase from 17 uses under baseline to 72 uses when
dust bath was present.
Mulch
When mulch was present, the shrew spent less time on trail A
than on all other trails combined. The shrew spent only 18% of
her time on trail A during the mulch experiment versus 63% under
baseline conditions (Figure 3). The shrew spent almost nine
times more seconds on trail A under baseline conditions (357
seconds) than dust bath condition (41 seconds). She also spent
slightly less time on all othertrails when mulch (187 seconds) was
present compared to the baseline experiment (212 seconds). In
general, the shrew was less active when mulch was present by
spending less time on ail trails and using all trails less (table 1),
with the exception of trail B. Out of all experiments, trail B was
used most frequently when mulch was present.
Rocks
The proportion of time spent on trail A under rocks conditions
versus the baseline was notsignificantly different (Figure 4). She
spent approximately 58% of her time on trail A when rocks were
present, which is only 5% less than the baseline at 63%. The
shrew spent much less time on all trails in general, with only 61
seconds on trail A and 44 seconds on all other trails combined.
She also used all trails far less during the rocks experiment
compared to ail other experiments (table 1).
Substrate
Trail A
Trail B
Trail C
Trail D
Trail E
Baseline
17
0
10
6
16
Dust
72
6
11
6
24
Mulch
9
15
0
0
13
Rocks
4
1
0
1
1
900
Trail A All Other Trails
Figure 2. Time spent on trail A and trails B through E combined during baseline
and dust bath experiments. The short-eared elephant shrew spent approximately
80% of her time on trail A when dust bath was present versus 63% of her time
on trail A during the baseline, which was a statistically significant difference.
The shrew spent more than twice as much time on the dust bath trail A than the
baseline trail A at 805 and 357 seconds, respectively.
Figure 3. Time spent on trail A and trails B through E during baseline and mulch
experiments. The shrew spent significantly less time on trail A than on all other
trails combined when mulch was present than during the baseline, with 18%
and 63% of her time on trail A, respectively. The shrew spent almost nine times
more seconds on trail A under baseline conditions than dust bath conditions,
with 357 and 41 seconds on trail A respectively.
400
350
300
- 250
(/)
I 200
0)
~ 150
E
i= 100
50
0
Trail A All Other Trails
Table 1. Number of times ail trails were used during study. Generally all trails
were used more during the dust bath experiment when compared to the
baseline, especially trail A with 72 uses when dust bath was present compared
to 17 uses during the baseline. Conversely, all trails were used far less when
rocks were present, which may be due to the shrew being ill. The shrew also
tended to use all trails less when mulch was present except for trail B, which
was used most when mulch was present.
Figure 4. Time spent on trail A and trails B through E during baseline and rocks
experiments. The shrew spent drastically less time on all trails when rocks were
present versus the baseline, yet there was not a statistical difference between
the baseline and the rocks experiment in the proportion of time spent on trail
A versus all other trails combined. Due to illness detected in the shrew shortly
after the commencement of this experiment, results were inconclusive.
It ion of
150 I ANIMAL KEEPERS' FORUM
Discussion
There were a couple of inconsistencies in data coiiection, such
as the first half of trail A not being visible during the mulch trial.
While this may have somewhat influenced the values used for
the analysis, the findings are still valid. Because the mulch patch
itself was still visible, the shrew’s interaction and avoidance of
the substrate were still observable. The shrew actively avoided
the mulch more than in any other experiment with 15 instances
of avoidance, versus zero for the baseline and six for dust bath
(table 1). The shrew avoided the substrate more than she crossed
it (table 1). When crossingthe substrate the shrew often seemed
to show trepidation by pausing before crossing. Furthermore, the
camera was fixed the second day and all of path A was visible for
the remainder of the study. Rather than seeing similar or higher
activity levels on subsequent days, drastically less activity was
noted. When mulch was present the shrew was less active on ail
trails (table 1). These observations suggest that the statistical
findings are an accurate assessment of the shrew’s affinity to
mulch. It is exceedingly clear the shrew strongly disliked mulch.
During the rocks experiment, the shrew was drastically less active
across all trails compared to the other experiments (table 1).
Given that the rock data does not follow any pattern reflected in
the other experiments, it is likely that the extent of her inactivity
was caused by an illness that was discovered the following day.
Furthermore, the resulting small sample sizes made analyzing
the data difficult. As such, the rock trial was inconclusive and
should be repeated in future experiments.
The greatest activity by far was observed during the dust bath
experiment with 72 uses of trail A and greater activity across
most trails in general when compared to the baseline (table 1).
While the shrew seemed to show trepidation when crossing the
mulch, this was very rarely, if ever, the case for the dust bath.
The shrew rarely slowed down or paused before crossingthe dust
bath, and in some cases she would retrace her steps over the
dust bath a number of times before continuing to her destination
along the path. Although there were six instances of substrate
avoidance, it is still abundantly clear that the shrew had a very
strong affinity to the dust bath.
Due to her affinity towards the dust bath and her seeming
distaste for the mulch, it is very possible the shrew preferred finer
substrates to coarser substrates. Yet, without proficient rocks
data it is difficult to conclude this with complete confidence. The
shrew may have disliked the mulch for a number of reasons other
than coarseness, such as water content or odor. This being said,
the shrew did seem to show distaste and discomfort in crossing
mulch and rocks, respectively, which in light ofthe shrew’s strong
affinity to the dust bath suggests a preference for finer substrates.
Thus, further testing may demonstrate that short-eared elephant
shrews greatly prefer fine substrates to coarse substrates in
escape trails. Future studies should reexamine affinity to small
rocks and repeat all experiments with a larger sample size.
In regards to future animal enrichment, it was abundantly clear
that adding any substrate to the exhibit was
enriching. The addition of all substrates invoked
inquisitive behaviors in the shrew, such as smelling the foreign
material, markingterritory, and reestablishingtrails. As previously
stated, response to the substrate was strongest on the first day,
regardless of affinity. By extrapolation, if the same substrate is
continuously used as enrichment, it may lose its novelty and
effect overtime. As such, adding a variety of different substrates
on rotation or randomly would be most enriching in the longterm
for this animal.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the Digital Animal Behavior Lab and
Smithsonian’s Women’s Committee for the use of their camera
equipment, which was imperative to this study. I am also grateful
to the keepers at the Small Mammal Flouse for their input and
extensive help in experimental set-up. In particular, I would like to
thank Kenton Kerns and Ashton Shaffer for their help during the
planning and execution of this project, as well as their help with
editing. Finally, I’d like to thank James Bernhard for his valuable
assistance with statistics.
Literature Cited
Dohring, A. 2002. "Macroscelides proboscideus" (On-line),
Animal Diversity Web. Accessed October 04, 2013 at .
Macrini, T. 2004. “Macroscelides proboscideus" (On-line), Digital
Morphology. Accessed October 4, 2013 at .
Rathbun, G.B. 2009. Why is there discordant diversity in sengi
(Mammalia: Afrotheria: Macroscelidea) taxonomy and ecology?
African Journal of Ecology 47:1-13.
Rathbun, G.B. and C.D. Rathbun. 2006. Social structure ofthe
bushveld sengi (Elephantulus intufi) in Namibia and the evolution
of monogamy in the Macroscelidea. Journal of Zoology 269:391-
399.
Smit, H.A., Watson, J., and B. Jansen van Vuuren. 2010. Relative
importance of habitat connectivity in shaping the genetic profiles
of two southern African elephant-shrews. Journal of Biogeography
37:857-864.
Smithers, R.FI.N. 1971. The mammals of Botswana. Thesis: University
of Pretoria.
Stuart, C., Perrin, M., FitzGibbon, C., and M. Griffin. (lUCN SSC
Afrotheria Specialist Group) & Smit, H. (Stellenbosch University).
2008. Macroscelides proboscideus. In: lUCN 2013. lUCN Red List
of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. Accessed October 4, 2013
at .
Unger, R. 1999. “Short-eared Elephant-Shrews Macroscelides
proboscideus" (On-line). Accessed October
4, 2013 at .
May 2015 Vol. 42. No. 5 [ 151
CONSERVATION STATION
EDITORS: Amanda Ista, Milwaukee County Zoo • Mary Ann Cisneros, Disney's Animal Kingdom
Lauren Augustine^, Matthew Shirley^, and Matt Eschenbrenner^
^Smithsonian's National Zoological Park
3001 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington DC 20008
Augustinel@si.edu
^Rare Species Conservatory Foundation
P.O. Box 1371, Loxahatchee, FL 33407
mshirley@rarespecies.org
^Albuquerque BioPark Zoo
903 Tenth Street SW Albuquerque, NM 87102
meschenbrenner@cabq.gov
The West African slender-snouted crocodile (Mecistops
cataphractus) is the least known and one of the most critically
endangered crocodilians In the world. Historic threats include
large-scale loss of habitat, illegal hunting for the trade of leather
and bushmeat, and conflict with artisanal fisheries. These threats
have resulted in highly fragmented, reduced populations. To
date, few studies have examined even the basics of status,
distribution and ecology of M. cataphractus and, for this reason.
Project Mecistops was established in 2005. Distributed from the
Gambia River in West Africa to Lakes Tanganyika and Mweru
borderingthe Democratic Republic of Congo, M. cataphractus is
in the process of being recognized as two unique species - one in
Central Africa and one in West Africa. In order to directly address
the problem of small population size in the West African species.
Project Mecistops is working with the Zoo National d’AbidJan
PlRS’ FORirri
(ZNA) to incorporate captive breeding and reintroduction into
the conservation of slender-snouted crocodiles.
The ZNA has the largest captive population of slender-snouted
crocodiles in the world, but in order to meet Project Mecistops’
goals of breeding and reintroduction, improved crocodilian
husbandry and management was needed. To help staff
specialize, the ZNA formed a new crocodile team and began
hands-on training to improve crocodile care. In addition to gaining
experience at the zoo, in 2014 the crocodile team leader became
the first African keeper awarded the Behler Scholarship to attend
the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums' “Crocodilian
Biology and Captive Management” course at the St. Augustine
Alligator Farm and Zoological Park (SAAF). Specialist crocodile
keepers from the Albuquerque BioPark, San Diego Zoo, and SAAF
gave furthertrainingon egg collection, incubation, and crocodile
training through visits to the ZNA. During their visit they helped
construct an incubator using an old refrigerator retrofitted with
the electrical components from a Lyon RLl Reptile Incubator.
Internal temperature was set at 32C with internal humidity
between 90 and 95 percent.
This incubator was then used when the first clutch of eggs was
laid on the 19'" of March 2014. On the 12'" of June, after 86
days of incubation, the ZNA successfully hatched the first of what
would eventually be 24 M. cataphractus neonates. This marked
the first successful captive reproduction of M. cataphractus at
With the help of its many supporters,
Project Mecistops is working to reverse
the extinction trajectory of Africa’s most
Critically Endangered crocodilian.
the ZNA since the 1990’s.
Hatchlings will be reared to 1-1.5 meters, optimal release size,
before being reintroduced into protected areas of Cote d’Ivoire
and throughout West Africa. The reintroduction strategy is being
drafted in collaboration with the Ivorian national parks agency,
to ensure the released crocodiles are monitored and protected,
and with local communities, to increase awareness about the
on-going threats to Mecistops.
As this project continues to add valuable information to the
understanding of M. cataphractus, other species of crocodilians
in West Africa are also being studied. African crocodiles of the
genera Osteolaemus and Crocodylus were previously considered
monotypic, but recently evidence has been published supporting
splits into three and two species, respectively. These splits
have several conservation implications. First, this reduces
the known ranges and population sizes of the crocodiles in
question, making conservation needs more imminent. Secondly,
this increases the number of crocodilian species in need of
conservation action, further dividing resources. Lastly, these
splits have captive breeding ramifications. Zoological institutions.
as well as crocodile farms, have played vital roles in crocodilian
conservation. Distinguishingspecies in captive breedingfacilities
and ensuring proper pairings to preserve genetic integrity is an
important aspect of crocodilian conservation.
Although Project Mecistops is abroad, animal keepers here
in the U.S. are doing their part to contribute to this significant
conservation effort. In addition to the involvement of San
Diego Zoo, the Albuquerque BioPark, and the SAAF, the Greater
Baltimore American Association of Zoo Keepers (AAZK) Chapter
and the Houston AAZK Chapter both donated funds to support
this project and an animal keeper from the Smithsonian National
Zoological Park traveled to Cote d’Ivoire in September of 2014
with supplies. With the help of its many supporters. Project
Mecistops isworkingto reverse the extinction trajectory of Africa’s
most Critically Endangered crocodilian.
References
Craig, G.C., Gibson, D.S.C., and J.M. Hutton. 1992. A population
model for the Nile crocodile with an analysis of sustainable
harvesting strategies. Crocodiles: Proceedings of the 11th Working
Meeting of the lUCN-SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. 78-81.
Miller, G. 2010. Preliminary Survey of the Distribution, Habitat and
Status of Crocodiles in Sapo National Park, Liberia. 37.
Shirley, M.H. 2010. Slender-snouted Crocodile Crocodylus
cataphractus. In: Manolis S.C., Stevenson C. Crocodiles. Status
Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Darwin: Crocodile Specialist
Group, p. 54-58.
Shirley, M.H., Villanova, V., Vliet, K.A., and J.D. Austin. In Press.
Genetic barcoding facilitates captive management of three cryptic
African crocodile species complexes. Animal Conservation.
doi:10.1111/acv.l2176
Shirley, M.H., Vliet, K.A., Carr, A.N., and J.D. Austin. 2014. Rigorous
approaches to species delimitation have significant implications for
African crocodilian systematics and conservation. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B: Biology 281(1776):20132483. doi: 10.1098/
rspb.2013.2483
Shirley, M.H., Oduro, W., and H. Yaokokore-Beibro. 2009.
Conservation status of crocodiles in Ghana and Cote-d’lvoire, West
Africa. Oryx. 43:136-145.
Waitkuwait, W.E. 1985a. Contribution a I’etude des crocodiles en
Afrique de I'Ouest. Nature et Faune 1:13-29.
Waitkuwait, W.E. 1985b. Investigations of the breeding biology of the
West African slender-snouted crocodile Crocodylus cataphractus.
Amphibia-Reptilia 6:387-399
http://www.iucnredlist.org/news/west-africas-crocodile-
conservationists-in-tralning
http://www.sospecies.org/sos_projects/reptiles/african_slender_
snouted_crocodile/
May 2015 | Vol. 42, No. 5 | 153
ENRICHMENT OPTIONS
EDITORS: Julie Hartell-DeNardo, St. Louis Zoo • Casey Plummer, Caldwell Zoo • Ric Kotarsky, Tulsa Zoo & Living Museum
Planters for Primates:
Using container gardens as animai enrichment
Mylisa Whipple, M.S.
Keeper/Primates
Saint Louis Zoo, St. Louis, Missouri
Introduction:
Providing captive animals with live plants
from which they can actually forage can
be a great way to bring out the natural
behaviors of animals in zoos. Doing so
is not only beneficial to the animals by
giving them an opportunity to forage more
naturally, but can enhance the visitor’s
experience while at the zoo. Depending
on the facilities of a particular zoo, it may
be a challenge to provide live plants for the
animals for various reasons. For instance,
at the primate house at the Saint Louis
Zoo, the basic structure of the indoor
habitats for the monkeys and lemurs has
concrete floors with a variety of rockwork
and artificial trees, plus glass between
the animals and the zoo visitors. There
is no place to include live plants within
these types of enclosures. In addition,
if typical planters with live plants were
installed within the habitats, the animals
would most likely decimate or destroy the
plants fairly quickly.
After attending the 2011 International
Conference for Environmental Enrichment
(iCEE) in Portland, Oregon, the author got
an idea from one of the presentations. The
presentation was entitled “Leaf me alone,
I don’t need enrichment: Problems and
solutions to enriching langurs!” which was
given by a staff member from the Hewlett’s
Wild Animal Park in England (Kingston,
2011). In the presentation, among other
enrichment devices, they talked about
planters they put in their outdoor habitats
for the langurs, a type of leaf-eating
primate. Each planter was covered with
mesh so that the animals could only
eat the parts of the live plant growing
up through the mesh. These planters
appeared to be a permanent installation,
ratherthan something that could easily be
removed. However, this was definitely an
idea that could be modified into a portable
enrichment device for the indoor primates
at the Saint Louis Zoo.
Purpose and General Description
of the Enrichment:
The Saint Louis Zoo’s primate house
is home to three species of leaf-eater
monkeys: Black and White Colobus
Monkeys (Colobus guereza), Francois’
Langurs (Trachypithecus francoisi), and
Spectacled Langurs (Trachypithecus
obscurus). One of the challenges that zoo
keepers face is that it can be difficult to
find new ways to provide food enrichment
to animals with specialized diets. These
are animals that cannot get typical food
enrichments that monkeys with a more
generalized type of diet could receive.
However, by adding live plants to exhibits
through enrichment devices, not only can
these animals now receive a larger variety
of food enrichment, but these devices
can also bring out their natural foraging
behaviors. Also, these devices can be
used for many of the other non-human
154 I A-:iMAL KEEPERS' FORUM
primate species, not just the leaf-eaters.
They can be provided not only as foraging
enrichment, but also as investigational
enrichment that may stimulate many of
the animals’ senses. So, keeping the
“leaf-eaters” in mind in particular, but
also realizing that this can be beneficial
to all of the monkeys and lemurs as well,
a plan and proposal was developed for
creating portable “enrichment container
gardens” for the non-human primates at
the Saint Louis Zoo. After the proposal
was approved, the primate house staff
was able to start building four of these
enrichment devices.
The “enrichment container garden” is
a deep, light-weight planter used for
growing a variety of herbs or other edible
plants. The container is sturdy enough to
be placed on the ground of an indoor or
outdoor animal habitat. It is heavy enough
that the animals cannot tip it over, but
light enough that keepers can remove
it from the animal habitats as needed.
A small mesh cover allows the plants to
grow through the mesh without allowing
the animals to access the whole plant.
Making the Planters:
Four 45.72cm X 45.72cm X 38.10cm
(18in X 18in X15in) planters were
purchased that could be customized as
needed. They were chosen because of
their size and because of the materials
from which they were made. Each planter
was made from a composite of recycled
polymers and reclaimed poplar. (New
Age Pet EcoConcepts™ Square Planters
were purchased from homedepot.com for
$69.98 each.) For the covers, a frame
had to be fabricated by the zoo’s keeper
staff. Built out of composite wood and
mesh, each cover is 48.26cm X 48.26cm
X 2.54cm (19in X 19in X lin) in total size.
The composite wood was used to create
a frame and 2.54cm (lin) mesh was
attached to this frame using L-brackets.
Composite wood was chosen because it
is supposed to last longer than regular
wood. Two hinges were used on one side
of the planter to attach the cover. Then
the opposite side of the cover can be
locked down with a pad lock run through
a latching mechanism that is attached to
the cover and the planter. The pad lock
was added to prevent the animals from
openingthe planter lid and having access
to the entire plant and soil. Flandles were
Materials Needed Per
Enrichment Device:
• Planter box*
• Mesh cover*** with composite
wood frame**
• 4 L-brackets with bolts and nuts*
• Metal spray paint***
• 2 hinges with screws*
• 2 handles with bolts and nuts**
• Latching mechanism & Lock*
• Potting soil*
• Gravel ***
• Seeds*/Plants **
• Gardening liner ***
• Grow lights for winter**
^Environmental Enrichment Committee (EEC) funds
**Primate Unit enrichment funds
***Reused/Repurposed items
added to the side of the planters to help
with transporting them.
Planting, Plant Care, and Storage:
For this project, chives (Allium
schoenoprasum), rosemary (Rosmarinus
officinalis), basil (Ocimum basilicum)
and cilantro (Coriandrum sativum) were
the chosen herbs. Because many of the
non-human primates eat flowers as a
part of their diet in the wild, pansy flowers
(Viola tricolor van hortensis) were also
planted after receiving proper approval.
In choosing plants, three things needed
to be considered:
1. The plants needed to be on the zoo’s
existing approved herb/browse list
or needed to be approved by the
zoo’s veterinarians, nutritionist, and
horticulturalist.
2. The plants needed to be something
that the animals would like.
3. The plants needed to be able to grow
through the mesh.
To prepare for planting, the bottom of the
planter needed to allow for drainage, and
the planters that were purchased already
had gaps in the bottom that allowed for
this. A gardening liner was added to the
inside of the planter and then a small
layer of gravel was added on top of this
to allow for better drainage and to give
the planter more weight to prevent it
from being tipped over. Then potting soil
was added to the desired height. When
adding the soil and planting the plants, it
was taken into consideration that only the
tops of the plant should grow out of the
mesh. This allows for the leaves or flowers
of the plants to be foraged on, without the
main parts of the plants being damaged.
Before giving the planters to the animals
as enrichment, the plants need to be given
time to establish themselves and grow up
through the mesh.
During the warmer months, a storage
location was identified outdoors that
would allow for plenty of sunlight. During
the colder months, a storage location
was identified inside our building with
plant grow lights and an available water
source nearby. Specific staff members
were assigned to make sure that the
plants were cared for and watered on a
regular basis.
May 2015 | Vol. 42, No. 5 | 155
TERRARIUM HOODS
REPTISUN LED UVB &
UP HO
lOUTPin MODULES
I MDOMunS:
"Unw [f
• lONfiurt n.0M(>owi^«
REPTISUN LED UVB 24
TERRAR UM HOOD
• BRILLIANT LIGHT! 6500K daylight high
output LEDs for truly naturalistic lighting.
• PLANT GROVnrTH: 620 nm RED LEDs
stimulate live plant growth.
• MOONLITE®: 465 nm BLUE LED simulates
nighttime lighting "Lunar Effect."
• LONG LIFE: 20,000 hour life range for
LEDs, 12 months for the *REPTISUN 5.0
T5HO UVB LAMP!
‘Only available with REPTISUN LED UVB
TERRARIUM HOOD.
REPTISUN LED AVAILABLE IN;
9"-13", 18"-26", 30"-38" and
48 ''-60" sizes
REPTISUN LED UVB AVAILABLE IN:
14", 24", 30", 36" and 48" sizes
WWW.ZOOMED.COM
Use and Cleaning:
In order to use the planters as enrichment for multiple
species during the warmer months, the following protocol
was used:
• Planters could only be put into a habitat for 1-2 days
at a time.
• They should be placed on a flat surface.
• The lid should be locked in place.
• Once the planter is removed from a habitat, any feces
or food that is in or on the planter is removed.
• The outside of the planter is rinsed off (or could be
wiped down with a diluted bleach solution if needed).
• The plant is rinsed off with water.
• The planter is placed outside in sun for several days, which
allows for disinfection without the use of chemicals, and
gives the plants a chance to grow up through the mesh
again. Because the planters will be used for multiple
species, this time for disinfection is important.
Record Keeping:
A chart was created to keep track of the use of the
“enrichment container gardens.” Each planter was
identified with a number and the types of plants within it
were listed with this number.
The keepers would then fill out the chart each time a
planter was given to the animals. Information recorded
would include the planter number, the group it was given
to, the date, the initial reaction of the group, whether or
not the plants were eaten, which plants were eaten, and
a comments section.
Results:
The enrichment planters have been a successful form
of enrichment for the animals. Though not all of the
animals necessarily foraged from them, all of the animals
appeared to have an interest in them, thus they are still
recommended for use as enrichment for both leaf-eater
species as well as non-leaf-eater species of primates.
The Budget:
Fortunately, at the Saint Louis Zoo, each unit in the Animal
Division has a budget allowance for purchasing enrichment
items. In addition to this, the Environmental Enrichment
Committee (EEC) at the Saint Louis Zoo also has a budget
for purchasing some enrichment items for the different
units at the zoo. Once a year the different units must
submit proposals to the EEC for desired enrichment items.
The primate unit was able to obtain the majority of the
money for these enrichment container gardens thanks to
the funding provided by Saint Louis Zoo’s EEC.
For zoos that may not have a budget for enrichment items,
the following could be considered:
• Modify the plans as needed to fit the budget you have.
• Repurpose existing planters or build the planters
rather than purchase them.
• Try growing the plants from seed which is less
expensive, but takes more time and nurturing.
Changes Made and Future
Considerations:
• The enrichment project is now in its
second year and a few changes have
been made since the project began.
► Growing plants from seed was difficult
and the plants did not winter well
indoors. Instead, it has been decided
to purchase plants or use donated
plants each spring to restock the
container gardens.
► In 2014, the Primate House received
a donation of several basil and
rosemary plants. All four container
gardens were stocked with a mix of
both of these herbs and also pansy
flowers that were purchased usingthe
Primate House enrichment budget.
• Because of the natural destructiveness
of some of the Zoo’s primate groups,
particularly the Allen’s Swamp
Monkeys (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)
and the Lion-tailed macaques
(Macaca silenus), it was decided
not to give the enrichment container
gardens to these groups during the
first year of their use. It was decided
in the second year to try one of the
planters with the Swamp Monkeys.
Unfortunately, they started to take
the planters apart. In the future, a
plan will be considered to construct
planters that might hold up to more
destructive animals.
• In addition to this, it will be necessary
to construct a separate planter that is
specific to animals that have potential
health concerns, such as herpes B in
Lion-tailed macaques.
• Consider trying to plant other herb
and browse options, and consider
using plants that grow more quickly.
Acknowledgements:
Special thanks are in orderforthe Saint
Louis Zoo’s Environmental Enrichment
Committee for making this project
possible. Thank you to the Saint
Louis Zoo’s horticulture, nutrition, and
veterinary staff for their help in providing
approval for herbs and plants. Also, a big
thank you goes out to ail of the keeper
staff at the primate house for helpingwith
each aspect of this project, particularly
Ethan RiepI (Keeper/Primates), for his
handy know-how skills and for building
the covers for the planters. Thanks to Joe
Knobbe (Zoological Manager/Primates)
for his assistance in this project and
for providing comments during the
process of writing this article. Thanks
to Bill Houston (General Curator) for his
comments as well.
References:
Kingston-Jones, M., Clarke, L., and C. Field.
2011. “Leaf me alone, I don’t need
enrichment: Problems and solutions to
enriching langurs!" Proceedings from
the 2011 International Conference for
Environmental Enrichment (ICEE) in
Portland, OR.
Editor’s Comments
By Casey Pfummer
I must confess, the moment this article crossed my desk, I stole the idea
for use in my zoo! This particular enrichment is appealing for a number of
reasons - it is novel; it stimulates most of the senses; it’s inexpensive; it’s
easy to remove and clean, and it regenerates! When not in use, the boxes
can easily be moved to areas of sun or shade that are already being watered
- the boxes can be designed to complement existing gardens. Not only is
this enrichment great for the animals, but it allows our horticulture staff to
participate directly in animal enrichment - most of the time, when animals
“enjoy” the horticulture (i.e. destroy it), it’s maddening for the horticulture
staff. This enrichment allows the horticulture staff to make creative, usable
enrichments without sacrificing their plants! In addition, with a few signs,
this is an opportunity to educate our visitors both on enrichment and the
symbiosis of the plant and animal worlds.
May 2015 | Vol. 42, No. 5 | 157
TRAINING TALES
EDITORS: Jay Pratte, Henry Doorly Zoo • Kim Kezer, Zoo New England • Beth Stark-Posta, Toledo Zoo
There ARE New Ways to Train an Old Cat:
How to re-engage interest and compliance in training
Nicole Beaupre and Amanda Giardina, Senior Zoo Keepers
Zoo New England, Franklin Park Zoo, Boston, Massachusetts
Introduction
Zoo New England’s training program with Christopher, our
21-year-old male African lion {Panthera leo), illustrates our
successful use of adaptive methods. Christopher’s training
program began shortly after he arrived at the Franklin Park Zoo
when he was eight-years-old, and most of his behaviors were
established within 2V2 years of training. Christopher is very
food-motivated, which facilitated training, allowing us to perform
routine health maintenance without anesthesia. We use the
following methods to gain the necessary medical information to
provide essential care and create treatment plans.
1. Weighing
2. Oral exam
3. Hand injection
4. Blood collection
5. Blood pressure
After 10 years of consistent training, we began to see a
degradation of Christopher’s compliance. We have seen him
slow down as he ages, resting more often. We had to work with
these changes and adapt our methods to successfully continue
a training program that meets our veterinary care objectives,
asking him for new and complex behaviors.
Training
At Zoo New England, we train our lion using protected contact,
without the use of a chute or restraint device. The lion’s diet
of ground horsemeat is used as reinforcement, with a clicker
as a bridge. Training sessions generally are no longer than
10 minutes, four times per week. Christopher’s established
behaviors include tail present, over, down, hip present, scale,
open mouth, station, target, paw, and up.
Through establishing tail presentation, we are able to perform two
of our more complex behaviors, blood collection (Miller, 2002)
and blood pressure (Miller, 2012). The verbal cue of “tail", given
in one of his off-exhibit dens, signals Christopher to move his tail
under the mesh into a keeper area (Figure 1). We can access
Christopher’s tail from two positions: down and over. Down is
sternal recumbency with his side pressed against the mesh. Over
is lateral recumbency with his back pressed against the mesh.
Tail presentation was first established for blood collection, and
several years later was adapted for blood pressure.
ii;.j ".s.Oi 1:: _ ; OT r'Cn: Usep
'.58 ANIMAL KEEPERS' FORUM
Challenges
Christopher began to lose interest duringtraining sessions, lying
down or walking away from even the most basic behaviors. We
were obtaining blood pressure readings monthly, collecting blood
every two months, and handling his tail during maintenance
sessions. We primarily attribute Christopher’s drastic decrease in
compliance to over-handling of his tail at a time when his abilities
were changing with age. It was frustrating as trainers because we
were used to training a cat who excelled. It took time to accept
that we had to step back and understand that his abilities had
drastically changed. In addition to possible over-handling of his
tail, we explored other possibilities such as:
1. The veterinarians’ increased requests for blood samples
as he ages
2. Training too often, sometimes twice daily
3. High expectations from trainers
4. The presence of a veterinary technician
5. Not enough variety in his training routine
Problem Solving
Our first step was to revise our training goals, prioritizing based
on what was most important for him medically. Even before
focusing on re-establishing tail presentation, we had to come
up with creative ways to encourage Christopher to engage with
the trainer and begin training, to maintain his interest for the
duration of the session, and to increase the likelihood of success
in basic training.
To engage with the trainer and initiate participation in a session we:
1. Incorporate play, such as a stick waved under the mesh.
2. Offer novel items, such as a ball or other toy, as a target.
We found both of these effective means to increase engagement
with the trainer.
To maintain Christopher’s interest for the duration of a session we:
1. Incorporate simple behaviors that he offers readily within
sessions, such as open. This helps to break up a challenging
session.
2. Increasethefrequency of food reward while working on more
complex behaviors.
3. Change the type of food reward. We have sometimes found
greater compliance using beef liver or ground beef.
4. Use play as a reward during good sessions or to break up
a longer session.
W'hile troubleshooting ways to maintain his interest we found
some techniques to be ineffective, such as giving Christopher
a timeout when trainers briefly stepped away, left the building
or trained other cats nearby. None of these improved his
compliance.
To keep interest in training over time we began to:
1. Vary the time of day for sessions. We train when he is most
receptive.
2. Change the frequency of sessions. If we have a good session,
we take a day off from training and if we have a bad session,
we train again the following day.
3. Strive to maintain his compliance with both trainers. We
adjust which of his two trainers act as primary for a given
session based on how well he participated for that trainer in
the previous session. If he has a good session with a primary
trainer, the other trainer serves as primary the next time.
We found that using these approaches helped to make training
more novel and kept him interested.
Once Christopher was consistently participating in sessions
again, we had to reestablish tail presentation for blood collection.
We assigned three locations in one of his off-exhibit dens for his
training to standardize our approach, as well as to assess the
progression of each training session based on Christopher’s
participation. At Location 1, trainers have no access to his
tail. Locations 2 and 3 give access to either of the two lateral
tail veins. We begin sessions asking for simple behaviors at
Location 1 (Figure 2), and then proceed to Location 2 or 3 if he
is complying. This helps to ensure that we are only handling his
tail when he is most receptive to training.
Conclusion
in the last few years, we went from training a highly motivated
cat to training a cat that would rarely participate. We were able
to regain most of his previous behaviors and motivation once
we were able to accept his changing abilities, re-prioritize our
training goals, and become more creative in our approaches. We
still face challenges on a regular basis. However, with a better
understanding and acceptance of changes in Christopher’s
behaviors as he ages, not only has Christopher developed a
renewed interest in training, we have also learned new ways to
work through training challenges to continue to provide him with
the best possible care.
May 2015 | Vol. 42, No. 5 | 159
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank:
► Kim Kezer, Training Coordinator at Zoo New England, who
was instrumental in helping us narrow our focus for this
paper as well as guiding our development as trainers
► Our editors, Dr. Susan Bartlett, Veterinarian, and Pearl Yusuf,
Former Assistant Curator Hooves & Horns
► The veterinary technicians who helped with blood pressure
training, Jessica Honeywell and Jean Orlando
► Christopher’s past trainers who built the foundation for
his training program, Nicole Chiapparo, Suzy Kaplan,
Kim Prapuolenis, Victoria Shaw, Nicole Smith, Charlotte
Speakman, and Erin Ward
► And of course, Christopher Lion forteaching us patience and
helping us to become better trainers.
References
Miller, A. 2002. Catch a Tiger by the Tail: Tiger Training at Disney’s
Animal Kingdom. Animal Keepers’ Forum. 29(7): 299-303.
Miller, A. 2012. Catch a Tiger by the Tail: The Next Phase of Tiger
Training at Disney’s Animal Kingdom. Animal Keepers' Forum.
39(2):90-94.
Christopher lion
July 23, 1993 -April 9, 2015
BHC Comments by Jay Pratte
Aside from the great training involved, there are two aspects
to this Tale that I like very much. The first is the discussion
of why an animal’s behavior may change or break down
over time. As animals age, their senses will dull, they may
be tired more often, or may be enduring some physical
(or mental, social, etc) issues that we are not aware of.
There could be changes or exhibit dynamics, new keeper
staff, construction in the zoo, and any number of things
that can trigger behavioral change. The important part is
RECOGNIZING that change, and trying to understand why
it is occurring. The authors list several ideas and steps they
took to address the problem they were observing, and as
a result had multiple tools at their disposal to implement
some improvements. The problem-solving approach, and
willingness to be flexible in applying new ideas, led to a
successful goal resolution; in this case, an increase in
Christopher’s participation. It is a brilliant example of how
as trainers we need to think about more than just training
an animal to do “X”.
It is also good to see the use of non-reward techniques
discussed. At some point in our careers, we have all utilized
negative reinforcement or punishment methods (i.e.-time
out) during conditioning. While they may not be preferred
methods, and do have their own resulting potential
consequences, often trainers shy away from discussing
any application of these, often to avoid “negative” feelings
about the training or possibly to avoid Judgment. While we
strive to advocate and generally use positive reinforcement
techniques, there are times when other methods may be
necessary. These should always be thoughtful, and the
animal should always be provided with an alternative that
does enable the possibility of a reward. So it is appreciated
that the authors shared their full experiences, along with
howeffectivelytheyfelt it impacted the training. Thank you
for sharing your Training Tale!
SHARE YOUR TRAINING TALE!
Submit your “Training Taies" and experiences in operant
conditioning to share with Animal Keepers’ Forum
readers. This opportunity provides a convenient outlet
for you to exhibit your training challenges, methods and
milestones with the AAZK member network.
Send entries to:
Kim Kezer at kkezer@zoonewengland.com
Shane Good at shane.good@aazk.org
(Use Training Tales Submission as the subject)
iHO I ANIMAL KEEPERS' FORUM
issociation " Zoo
Voting for AAZK Board of Directors opens
midnight April 15*" through June 1, 2015
HOW IT WORKS
AAZK will electronically mail your ballot
to the primary e-mail contact that you
have registered with AAZK on April 15'".
It will include your personal voting code
and instructions on how to view the
Ballot, Candidate Profiles and Platform
Statements. Professional members will
then have the opportunity to enter their
e-mail address and code printed on the
instructions to cast and verify their votes
for up to three (3) candidates.
If you do not receive an e-mail regarding
the election process, contact AAZK (info@
aazk.org) for verification and to have a
replacement e-mail ballot and code to be
sent to an alternate e-mail you provide.
WHAT YOU SHOULD DO NOW:
Ensure your primary e-mail contact that you
registered with AAZK is still valid.
► If you have recently changed your
e-mail address, you will need to
contact AAZK (info@aazk.org) to
update your e-mail.
► If you have recently changed
employers and utilized a facility
e-mail previously as your e-mail
with AAZK, you will need to contact
AAZK (info@aazk.org) to update
your address to a personal or
employer e-mail.
Vanishing M
Ided Wire Mesh
Stainless Steel
Handwoven
Mesh
CONSULTING <& DISTRIBUTING, INC.
8620 i. Old Vail Rd, Stte 100
Tucson, AZ 85747
(520) 434 - 8281 Phone
(520) 434 - 0151 Fax r.
www.athruzcages.com
•When you require wire mesh
)A,thru z; offers the greatest selection
A'' 'kv.ORG
May 2015 | Vol. 42, No. 5 | 161
Photo Courtesy of Tampa’s Lowry Park Zoo
What kind of a name is “Rocky Lou”? Think of a half-ball with a mirror.
The more curious your animals are, the more they will enjoy the Rocky Lou. As they rock it, the reflection will
continuously change. Maybe they will even recognize themselves.
17” diameter with PETG Mirror. (36) colors to choose from. Replaceable mirror is recessed into body to
reduce damage. By cutting holes around the perimeter and cutting a large inlet hole behind the mirror, we
can transform the standard Rocky Lou into an entertaining feeder called the “Rocky Lou Feeder”.
Call or e-mail to be added to the monthly
mailing list of overstock items, which are
dramatically reduced, as well as monthly
specials on products!
M/IWRfcTovBox«coiM
sales@wifdlifetoybox.com
(866) 793-0376
WWW. wi i d I ifetoybox.com
Penguin Nebulization Unit
Lyon's Penguin Nebulization unit was designed with
Professional Keepers to address issues of patient stress,
effective and efficient delivery of medication and post
treatment clean-up.
Sized specifically for Penguins this unit helps simplify the
often complicated and stressful process of treatment
delivery via nebulization.
Features easy access and sized to give the patient a
secure and calming environment without the use of
masks or other direct contact methods.
Lyon's dedicated nebulization unit allows you to provide
better, faster more effective treatment with less
medication.
Quick clean-up, no more messy situations nebulizing in
larger care spaces and wasted time cleaning them.
The Penguin Nebulization Unit, another solution for the
care and preservation of companion, exotic and
endangered animals.
Lyon ProCore Products, ''Designed
STANDARD FEATURES
• Sized specifically for Penguins
• Quick Sealing for efficient delivery
• Quick and Easy to clean
• See Through Guillotine Door
• Can be used upright or on its side
• Includes Easy Dose Nebulizer Cup
• Powder Coated Steel Construction
• Designed with Vets for Vets
• Made in the USA
• 2 Year \A/arranty
with Professionals for Professionals"
Characteristic
Dimensions
Overall Height, Width, Depth
311/2x18 1/8x18 3/4
Interior Height, Width, Depth
30 X 18 X 18
Main Door Height and Width
31 1/4 X 17 3/4
All dimensions are in inches
Specifications subject to change without notice.
‘EjjcefCence inJ^nimaC Care Since 19] J
Lyon Technologies Inc.
1690 Brandywine Ave, Ste A.
Chula Vista, California USA, 91911
619 216-3400 info@lyonusa.com
AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION
of ZOO KEEPERS
8476 E. Speedway Blvd.
Suite 204
Tucson, AZ 85710-1728
U.S.A.
“Dedicated to
Professional Animal Care”
"Connecting Keepers Worldwide'
facebookxom/AAZKinc
@AMKinc
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
SMITHSONtAN LIBRARIES
iiniMiiiiiii
3 9088 01813 2019
■k-k-kifk’kisifie'kic*'ie
AUTO**3-DIGIT 200
P1 T8
Smithsonian Institution
Smithsonian Institution Library
Nhb25 MRC 154
PO Box 37012
Washington DC 20013-7012
Central Nebraska Packing, Inc. offers:
Classic & Premium Frozen Carnivore Diets
• ALSO AVAILABLE •
HORSE SHORT LOINS / HORSE & BEEF BONES
MEAT COMPLETE WITH TAURINE (RAW MEAT SUPPLEMENT FOR ALL CARNIVORES)
BROOD ALL INFRA-RED HEATERS
MEMBER: AZA I AAZV I AAZK
NEBRASKA BRAND
877.900.3003 | 800.445.2881
P.O. Box 550, North Platte, NE 69103-0550
info@nebraskabrand.com • nebraskabrand.com
FELINE & SENIOR FELINE I BIRD OF PREY I CANINE I SPECIAL BEEF FELINE