ENCLOSURE UTILIZATION AND ENRICHMENT STRUCTURE PREFERENCES OF CAPTIVE COYOTES

Jeffrey T. Schultz, Julie K. Young

Abstract


Environmental enrichment improves well-being of captive animals using a variety of tools, including adding complexity to the physical environment. Designing enrichment structures requires an understanding of behavioral and biological responses to enrichment efforts. Captive coyotes (Canis latrans) utilize shelter structures to hide, rest, and display vigilant behavior. Because these simple structures are regularly used, new and more complex enrichment structures could enhance enclosure enrichment. This study examined the time captive coyotes spent at discrete, complex enclosure features to determine: (1) how coyotes utilize enclosure space and shelter structures; and (2) if coyotes have a preferred enrichment structure design. Three enrichment structure designs (ramp, closed, and neutral) were installed simultaneously in 0.6-ha enclosures during two breeding seasons (January – March). Additional coyote pairs were monitored in control enclosures with simple structures. GPS-collars and scan sampling were used throughout a 28-day testing period to record space use and behavior. Coyotes spent most of their time at perimeter and open areas, but also exhibited a preference for shelter structures. Coyotes utilized the complex enrichment structures in treatment enclosures more than simple structures in control enclosures. Although there was no statistical preference for one specific type of complex structure, composite evidence from GPS-collars and behavioral data suggested that coyotes were most frequently located at ramp structures. Coyotes utilized ramp structures more during the daytime and demonstrated higher rates of vigilance there. This study advances the knowledge of captive coyote spatial patterns while helping improve environmental enrichment planning for captive facilities through the exploration of adding complexity to animal enclosures.


Keywords


Canis latrans; environmental enrichment; GPS collars; space use

Full Text:

PDF XPS

References


Altmann, J. 1974. Observational Study of Behavior: Sampling Methods. Behaviour, 49: 227-266.

Arias-Del Razo, I., L. Hernández, J. W. Laundré and L. Velasco-Vázquez. 2012. The landscape of fear: habitat use by a predator (Canis latrans) and its main prey (Lepus californicus and Sylvilagus audubonii). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 90: 683-693.

Arjo, W. M. and D. H. Pletscher. 1999. Behavioral responses of coyotes to wolf recolonization in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77: 1919-1927.

Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67.

Begg, C. B. and R. Gray. 1984. Calculation of Polychotomous Logistic Regression Parameters Using Individualized Regressions. Biometrika, 71: 11.

Bekoff, M. and M. C. Wells. 1981. Behavioural budgeting by wild coyotes: The influence of food resources and social organization. Animal Behaviour, 29: 794-801.

Beyer, H. L., D. T. Haydon, J. M. Morales, J. L. Frair, M. Hebblewhite, M. Mitchell and J. Matthiopoulos. 2010. The interpretation of habitat preference metrics under use-availability designs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365: 2245-2254.

Bloomsmith, M. A., L. Y. Brent and S. J. Schapiro. 1991. Guidelines for developing and managing an environmental enrichment program for nonhuman primates. Laboratory Animal Science, 41: 372-377.

Bowers, M. A., K. Gregario, C. J. Brame, S. F. Matter and J. L. Dooley. 1996. Use of space and habitats by meadow voles at the home range, patch and landscape scales. Oecologia, 105: 107-115.

Bowman, J. L., C. O. Kochanny, S. Demarais and B. D. Leopold. 2000. Evaluation of a GPS collar for white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 141-145.

Brummer, S. P., E. M. Gese and J. A. Shivik. 2010. The effect of enclosure type on the behavior and heart rate of captive coyotes. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 125: 171-180.

Busk, P. L. and L. A. Marascuilo. 2015. Statistical analysis in single-case research. Single-Case Research Design and Analysis (Psychology Revivals): New Directions for Psychology and Education: 159.

Frair, J. L., J. Fieberg, M. Hebblewhite, F. Cagnacci, N. J. DeCesare and L. Pedrotti. 2010. Resolving issues of imprecise and habitat-biased locations in ecological analyses using GPS telemetry data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365: 2187-2200.

Gese, E. M., O. J. Rongstad and W. R. Mytton. 1988. Home Range and Habitat Use of Coyotes in Southeastern Colorado. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 52: 640.

Gese, E. M. and R. L. Ruff. 1997. Scent-marking by coyotes, Canis latrans: the influence of social and ecological factors. Animal Behaviour, 54: 1155-1166.

Gese, E. M., R. L. Ruff and R. L. Crabtree. 1996. Foraging ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans): the influence of extrinsic factors and a dominance hierarchy. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 74: 769-783.

Gilbert-Norton, L. B., L. A. Leaver and J. A. Shivik. 2009. The effect of randomly altering the time and location of feeding on the behaviour of captive coyotes (Canis latrans). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 120: 179-185.

Gilbert-Norton, L. B., R. R. Wilson and J. A. Shivik. 2013. The Effect of Social Hierarchy on Captive Coyote (Canis latrans) Foraging Behavior. Ethology, 119: 335-343.

Grow, S., R. Allard and D. Luke. 2015. The Role of AZA-Accredited Zoos and Aquariums in Butterfly Conservation. Butterfly Conservation in North America. Springer Netherlands, pp. 23-34.

Hansen, M. C. and R. A. Riggs. 2008. Accuracy, Precision, and Observation Rates of Global Positioning System Telemetry Collars. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72: 518-526.

Harris, C. E. and F. F. Knowlton. 2001. Differential responses of coyotes to novel stimuli in familiar and unfamiliar settings. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79: 2005-2013.

Hunter, S. C., M. Gusset, L. J. Miller and M. J. Somers. 2014. Space Use as an Indicator of Enclosure Appropriateness in African Wild Dogs (Lycaon pictus). Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 17: 98-110.

Jensen, S. P., S. J. Gray and J. L. Hurst. 2003. How does habitat structure affect activity and use of space among house mice? Animal Behaviour, 66: 239-250.

Kistler, C., D. Hegglin, H. Würbel and B. König. 2010. Structural enrichment and enclosure use in an opportunistic carnivore: the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Animal Welfare, 19: 391.

Kluever, B. M. and E. M. Gese. 2016. Spatial response of coyotes to removal of water availability at anthropogenic water sites. Journal of Arid Environments, 130: 68-75.

Kuczaj, S., T. Lacinak, O. Fad, M. Trone, M. Solangi and J. Ramos. 2002. Keeping environmental enrichment enriching. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 15.

Larsen, M. J., S. L. Sherwen and J.-L. Rault. 2014. Number of nearby visitors and noise level affect vigilance in captive koalas. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 154: 76-82.

Law, G. and A. Reid. 2010. Enriching the lives of bears in zoos. International zoo yearbook, 44: 65-74.

Lenth, R. V. 2016. Least-Squares Means: TheRPackagelsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69.

Lyons, J., R. J. Young and J. M. Deag. 1997. The effects of physical characteristics of the environment and feeding regime on the behavior of captive felids. Zoo Biology, 16: 71-83.

Mallapur, A., Q. Qureshi and R. Chellam. 2002. Enclosure Design and Space Utilization by Indian Leopards (Panthera pardus) in Four Zoos in Southern India. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5: 111-124.

Mallapur, A., N. Waran and A. Sinha. 2005. Use of Enclosure Space by Captive Lion-Tailed Macaques (Macaca silenus) Housed in Indian Zoos. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 8: 175-186.

Mellen, J. and M. Sevenich MacPhee. 2001. Philosophy of environmental enrichment: Past, present, and future. Zoo Biology, 20: 211-226.

Mettler, A. E. and J. A. Shivik. 2007. Dominance and neophobia in coyote (Canis latrans) breeding pairs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 102: 85-94.

Mills, L. S. and F. F. Knowlton. 1991. Coyote space use in relation to prey abundance. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 69: 1516-1521.

Newberry, R. C. 1995. Environmental enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 44: 229-243.

Patterson, B., S. Bondrup-Nielsen and F. Messier. 1999. Activity patterns and daily movements of the eastern coyote, Canis latrans, in Nova Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 113: 251-257.

Rafacz, M. L. and R. M. Santymire. 2013. Using odor cues to elicit a behavioral and hormonal response in zoo-housed African wild dogs. Zoo Biology, 33: 144-149.

Renner, M. J. and J. P. Lussier. 2002. Environmental enrichment for the captive spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus). Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 73: 279-283.

Ross, S. R., S. J. Schapiro, J. Hau and K. E. Lukas. 2009. Space use as an indicator of enclosure appropriateness: A novel measure of captive animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 121: 42-50.

Samuelson, M. M., L. K. Lauderdale, K. Pulis, M. Solangi, T. Hoffland and H. Lyn. 2016. Olfactory Enrichment in California Sea Lions (Zalophus californianus): An Effective Tool for Captive Welfare? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 20: 75-85.

Schell, C. J., J. K. Young, E. V. Lonsdorf, J. M. Mateo and R. M. Santymire. 2016. Olfactory attractants and parity affect prenatal androgens and territoriality of coyote breeding pairs. Physiology and Behavior, 165: 43-54.

Sekar, M., T. Rajagopal and G. Archunan. 2008. Influence of Zoo Visitor Presence on the Behavior of Captive Indian Gaur (Bos gaurus gaurus) in a Zoological Park. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 11: 352-357.

Shivik, J. A., M. M. Jaeger and R. H. Barrett. 1996. Coyote Movements in Relation to the Spatial Distribution of Sheep. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 60: 422.

Shivik, J. A., G. L. Palmer, E. M. Gese and B. Osthaus. 2009. Captive Coyotes Compared to Their Counterparts in the Wild: Does Environmental Enrichment Help? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 12: 223-235.

Skaug, H., D. Fournier, A. Nielsen, A. Magnusson and B. Bolker. 2013. Generalized linear mixed models using AD model builder. R package version 0.7, 7.

Team, R. C. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2014.

Way, J. G., I. M. Ortega and E. G. Strauss. 2004. Movement and Activity Patterns of Eastern Coyotes In a Coastal, Suburban Environment. Northeastern Naturalist, 11: 237-254.

Wells, D. L. 2009. Sensory stimulation as environmental enrichment for captive animals: A review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 118: 1-11.

Wells, D. L. and P. G. Hepper. 2000. The influence of environmental change on the behaviour of sheltered dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 68: 151-162.

Wells, M. C. and M. Bekoff. 1981. An observational study of scent-marking in coyotes, Canis latrans. Animal Behaviour, 29: 332-350.

Young, J. K., W. F. Andelt, P. A. Terletzky and J. A. Shivik. 2006. A comparison of coyote ecology after 25 years: 1978 versus 2003 This is Welder Wildlife Foundation Contribution No. 651. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 84: 573-582.


Refbacks



 

 

Journal of Zoo Biology

© ESci Journals Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

.