- Email: [email protected]
A note on comparative enclosure facility usage by wild and captive-born capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris)
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89 (2004) 139–143
A note on comparative enclosure facility usage by wild and captive-born capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) Selene S.C. Nogueira a,∗ , La´ıs G. Bernardi b , Sérgio L.G. Nogueira-Filho c a
Departamento de Ciˆencias Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Rod. Ilhéus Itabuna, km16 Ilhéus, Bahia 45650-000, Brazil b Departameno de Produção Animal, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil c Departamento de Ciˆ encias Agrárias e Ambientais, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil Received 21 May 2003; received in revised form 21 December 2003; accepted 26 April 2004
Abstract This study compared the use of the enclosure facilities (sheltered area, water-tank and exercise area) by wild versus captive-born capybaras. A total of 44 adult capybaras were kept in eight groups: four groups of animals born in the wild and caught as adults and four groups of those born and reared in captivity. Each group comprised one male and four to six females in one of eight outdoor enclosures. The observations were made during daylight, from 6:00 to 18:00 h. Wild animals used the water-tank more than did captive-born animals during the early hours and at the end of the day. These results were related to escape behavior among capybaras. The caretakers cleaned the enclosure between 7:00 and 9:00 h, and fed the animals in the afternoon, between 14:00 and 18:00 h. In this study, we showed that captive-born capybaras behave differently during periods when humans are present in their enclosures than do wild caught capybaras. Consequently, we hypothesize that the caretaker continued to represent a threat to wild-caught animals, in spite of their having been maintained in captivity for 2 years prior to the study. © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Facilities use; Captivity; Animal welfare; Capybaras
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 73 6805262; fax: +55 73 6805226. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.S.C. Nogueira). 0168-1591/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.04.007
140
S.S.C. Nogueira et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89 (2004) 139–143
1. Introduction The capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) is widely distributed in Latin America, has a semi-aquatic habit and lives in groups that can vary from a male and two females to 100 individuals (Ojasti, 1973; Alho et al., 1987; Yáber and Herrera, 1994; González-Jiménez, 1995). As a consequence of human disturbance in its habitat, the capybara damages corn, rice, sugarcane, and other crops in some parts of Brazil. As well, it may compete with cattle and other domestic livestock for pasture during the dry season. In those places, the capybara is considered an agricultural pest (Moreira and Macdonald, 1997). Under these circumstances, the Brazilian environmental agency (IBAMA) allows the capture and introduction into on-farm captive breeding programs of those wild animals (Nogueira et al., 1999). Since the commercial husbandry of this species has grown in the last 15 years as an alternative animal production system, some issues regarding the effects of captivity on the welfare of capybaras have become important for the Brazilian authorities to address. The capybara is an unusual species that has been domesticated in Brazil. Price (1984) defines domestication as “a process by which a population of animals become adapted to man and to captive environment . . . ”. Some studies identify behavior differences between captive-born and wild populations in order to analyze the effects of domestication upon behavior (Price, 1984). To develop appropriate captive husbandry techniques for capybaras, more basic behavioral information is needed about the processes of adaptation to captive conditions among non-domesticated members of this species. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to compare the behavioral habits, measured by the relative use of enclosure facilities of wild caught and captive-born capybaras maintained in an intensive breeding system.
2. Methods 2.1. Animals and housing A total of 44 capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) were studied at the Departamento de Produção Animal of the Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz” (ESALQ), Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Among them, 24 were born and reared in captivity (4 males and 20 females) and 20 were born in the wild and caught as adults (4 males and 16 females). The wild capybaras were caught at the Klabin S/A forest reserve, in Telˆemaco Borba, in the state of Paraná, Brazil, and they had been kept at ESALQ for 2 years prior to this study. The animals were kept in eight groups, four of those born in the wild and four with those born and reared in captivity. Each group comprised one male and four to six females in one of eight outdoor enclosures, surrounded with 1.8-m high mesh wire fence. Each enclosure was 120 m2 in area, comprising 22 m2 of sheltered area, and 98 m2 of exercise area. There was no grass area. The sheltered area was used to protect the animals from the rain and sun. Built into the floor of the enclosure there were a 0.5 m2 drinker and a water-tank, which was approximately 2 m × 3 m and 1 m deep, where the capybaras could swim (Fig. 1).
S.S.C. Nogueira et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89 (2004) 139–143
141
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the facilities components of the capybara enclosures.
The caretakers cleaned the enclosure, between 7:00 and 9:00 h, and fed the animals in the afternoon, between 14:00 and 18:00 h. An experimental ration (16% crude protein and 3.8 kcal/g of energy), and Pennisetum purpureum grass were provided to the animals daily ad libitum. 2.2. Observations and data analysis Observations were made during daylight hours (6:00–18:00 h). Each group was observed for a total of 48 h, 24 h in the morning and 24 h in the afternoon, on a random schedule, totaling 384 h over a 3-month period. Observations were made from a position in front of the enclosure (see Fig. 1). Scan samples (Altmann, 1974), of the position of each individual in the group, were taken every 20 min. The number of times that each animal category (wild-caught versus captivity-born capybaras groups) was observed in the different enclosure facilities (sheltered, exercise and water-tank) were analyzed in three periods (PI, from 6:00 to 9:40 h; PII, from 10:00 to 13:40 h, and PIII, from 14:00 to 18:00 h). These periods were chosen according to the average environmental temperature and the presence or absence of the caretakers inside the enclosures. The data were compared by chi-square analysis (Siegel, 1975), that were conducted within periods after we lumped it from all pens within a treatment—captive-born versus wild-caught capybaras. Finally, we excluded from the data analysis some observations when the individuals were in a transition place during the scanning events, per example, between the exercise and sheltered areas.
3. Results The wild animals used the water-tank more than did the captive-born animals (X2 = 61.43, d.f. = 2; P < 0.001), during the early hours (PI: 32 times versus 8 times, respectively) and at the end of the day (PIII: 641 times versus 195 times, respectively) (Fig. 2). Meanwhile,
142
S.S.C. Nogueira et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89 (2004) 139–143
Fig. 2. Enclosure facility use by captive-born and wild-caught capybaras during PI (6:00–9:40 h), PII (10:00–13:40 h) and PIII (14:00–18:00 h).
the captive animals used the exercise area more than the wild-caught animals in all of the three periods (X2 = 9.16, d.f. = 2; P = 0.01). However, there was no difference with respect to the use of the sheltered area in any of the three periods (X2 = 3.07, d.f. = 2; P > 0.10).
4. Discussion Besides the study regarding facilities usage, we also casually observed that the wild-caught capybaras showed flight responses to humans. The captive-born animals, however, were more disposed to the handling conditions, more docile, and were not observed to change their behavior in the presence of humans. In this study, the caretakers cleaned the enclosures each morning (PI) and fed the capybaras in the afternoon (PIII). During these hours all animals could see and hear the caretakers’ movements inside neighboring enclosures through the mesh wire fences as well as in their own pens. The use of the sheltered area (PI) and the exercise area (PIII) by the captive-born animals during these time periods may be due to greater tolerance among these animals regarding caretaker presence inside the enclosures. In the wild, capybaras take baths in the hottest periods of the day to assist with thermoregulation (Azcarate, 1978). In this study neither the wild caught nor the captive reared capybaras used the water-tank for thermoregulation to a large extent during PII (Fig. 2), the
S.S.C. Nogueira et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89 (2004) 139–143
143
hottest part of the day. It is most likely that the wild caught capybaras used the water-tank during PI and PIII (Fig. 2) as an escape area from human activity, as described for capybara in the wild (Ojasti, 1973). Carlstead (1996) suggested that human actions, by caretakers or veterinarians, may contribute to animal disturbance. We observed that captive-born capybaras do not alter their behavior in the presence of humans. In contrast, wild-caught capybaras were observed fleeing into the water-tank when the caretakers were close. Consequently, we hypothesize that the caretakers continued to represent a threat to wild-caught animals, in spite of their having been maintained in captivity for 2 years prior to the study. Some authors describe the capybara as easily adaptable to captive conditions based on normal feeding and reproduction soon after capture (Ojasti, 1973; González-Jiménez, 1995; Nogueira et al., 1999). The results of the current study show, however, that the adult, wild caught capybara do not seem to adapt as easily as expected even after 2 years under captive conditions. Further studies are necessary to describe differences in stress levels between wild and captive-born animals, and to develop appropriate environmental design and husbandry in captivity.
Acknowledgements We are grateful to anonymous reviewers of AABS, to Dr. Janisete Silva, Departamento de Ciˆencias Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, and Dr. Carter Miller for making many helpful suggestions and critically reviewing the manuscript. The work was supported by a fellowship to SSCN from CNPq (Brazil).
References Alho, C.J.R., Campos, Z.M.S., Gonçalves, H.C., Atividade, I., 1987. Ecologia de capivara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) do Pantanal. I. Atividade, sazonalidade, uso de espaço e manejo. Rev. Bras. Biol. 47, 99–110. Altmann, J., 1974. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behavior 49, 223–265. Azcarate, T., 1978. Sociobiologia del Chigüire (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). Doctor of Science Thesis, Univ. Complutense, Madrid, p. 154. Carlstead, K., 1996. Effects of captivity on the behavior of wild mammals. In: Kleiman, D.G., Allen, M.E., Thompson, K.V., Lumpkin, S. (Eds.), Wild Mammals in Captivity Principles and Techniques. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 317–333. González-Jiménez, E., 1995. El capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris): estado actual de su producción. Serie Estudio FAO, Produccion y Sanidad Animal, vol. 122. FAO, Rome, p. 110. Moreira, J.R., Macdonald, D.W., 1997. Técnicas de manejo de capivaras e outros grandes roedores na Amazˆonia. In: Valladares-Padua, C., Bodmer, R.E., Cullen Jr., L. (Eds.), Manejo e Conservação de Vida Silvestre no Brasil. Bras´ılia, DF: CNPq/Belém, PA: Sociedade Civil Mamirauá, pp. 186–213. Nogueira, S.S.C., Nogueira-Filho, S.L.G., Otta, E., Dias, C.T.S., Carvalho, A., 1999. Determination of the causes of infanticide in capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) groups in captivity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 62, 351–357. Ojasti, J., 1973. Estudio del chigüire o capybara. Fondo Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Caracas, p. 275. Price, E.O., 1984. Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. Q. Rev. Biol. 59, 1–32. Siegel, S., 1975. Estat´ıstica não paramétrica para ciˆencias do comportamento. McGraw-Hill, São Paulo, Brazil, p. 350.
A note on comparative enclosure facility usage by wild and captive-born capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) Selene S.C. Nogueira a,∗ , La´ıs G. Bernardi b , Sérgio L.G. Nogueira-Filho c a
Departamento de Ciˆencias Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Rod. Ilhéus Itabuna, km16 Ilhéus, Bahia 45650-000, Brazil b Departameno de Produção Animal, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil c Departamento de Ciˆ encias Agrárias e Ambientais, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil Received 21 May 2003; received in revised form 21 December 2003; accepted 26 April 2004
Abstract This study compared the use of the enclosure facilities (sheltered area, water-tank and exercise area) by wild versus captive-born capybaras. A total of 44 adult capybaras were kept in eight groups: four groups of animals born in the wild and caught as adults and four groups of those born and reared in captivity. Each group comprised one male and four to six females in one of eight outdoor enclosures. The observations were made during daylight, from 6:00 to 18:00 h. Wild animals used the water-tank more than did captive-born animals during the early hours and at the end of the day. These results were related to escape behavior among capybaras. The caretakers cleaned the enclosure between 7:00 and 9:00 h, and fed the animals in the afternoon, between 14:00 and 18:00 h. In this study, we showed that captive-born capybaras behave differently during periods when humans are present in their enclosures than do wild caught capybaras. Consequently, we hypothesize that the caretaker continued to represent a threat to wild-caught animals, in spite of their having been maintained in captivity for 2 years prior to the study. © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Facilities use; Captivity; Animal welfare; Capybaras
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 73 6805262; fax: +55 73 6805226. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.S.C. Nogueira). 0168-1591/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.04.007
140
S.S.C. Nogueira et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89 (2004) 139–143
1. Introduction The capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) is widely distributed in Latin America, has a semi-aquatic habit and lives in groups that can vary from a male and two females to 100 individuals (Ojasti, 1973; Alho et al., 1987; Yáber and Herrera, 1994; González-Jiménez, 1995). As a consequence of human disturbance in its habitat, the capybara damages corn, rice, sugarcane, and other crops in some parts of Brazil. As well, it may compete with cattle and other domestic livestock for pasture during the dry season. In those places, the capybara is considered an agricultural pest (Moreira and Macdonald, 1997). Under these circumstances, the Brazilian environmental agency (IBAMA) allows the capture and introduction into on-farm captive breeding programs of those wild animals (Nogueira et al., 1999). Since the commercial husbandry of this species has grown in the last 15 years as an alternative animal production system, some issues regarding the effects of captivity on the welfare of capybaras have become important for the Brazilian authorities to address. The capybara is an unusual species that has been domesticated in Brazil. Price (1984) defines domestication as “a process by which a population of animals become adapted to man and to captive environment . . . ”. Some studies identify behavior differences between captive-born and wild populations in order to analyze the effects of domestication upon behavior (Price, 1984). To develop appropriate captive husbandry techniques for capybaras, more basic behavioral information is needed about the processes of adaptation to captive conditions among non-domesticated members of this species. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to compare the behavioral habits, measured by the relative use of enclosure facilities of wild caught and captive-born capybaras maintained in an intensive breeding system.
2. Methods 2.1. Animals and housing A total of 44 capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) were studied at the Departamento de Produção Animal of the Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz” (ESALQ), Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Among them, 24 were born and reared in captivity (4 males and 20 females) and 20 were born in the wild and caught as adults (4 males and 16 females). The wild capybaras were caught at the Klabin S/A forest reserve, in Telˆemaco Borba, in the state of Paraná, Brazil, and they had been kept at ESALQ for 2 years prior to this study. The animals were kept in eight groups, four of those born in the wild and four with those born and reared in captivity. Each group comprised one male and four to six females in one of eight outdoor enclosures, surrounded with 1.8-m high mesh wire fence. Each enclosure was 120 m2 in area, comprising 22 m2 of sheltered area, and 98 m2 of exercise area. There was no grass area. The sheltered area was used to protect the animals from the rain and sun. Built into the floor of the enclosure there were a 0.5 m2 drinker and a water-tank, which was approximately 2 m × 3 m and 1 m deep, where the capybaras could swim (Fig. 1).
S.S.C. Nogueira et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89 (2004) 139–143
141
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the facilities components of the capybara enclosures.
The caretakers cleaned the enclosure, between 7:00 and 9:00 h, and fed the animals in the afternoon, between 14:00 and 18:00 h. An experimental ration (16% crude protein and 3.8 kcal/g of energy), and Pennisetum purpureum grass were provided to the animals daily ad libitum. 2.2. Observations and data analysis Observations were made during daylight hours (6:00–18:00 h). Each group was observed for a total of 48 h, 24 h in the morning and 24 h in the afternoon, on a random schedule, totaling 384 h over a 3-month period. Observations were made from a position in front of the enclosure (see Fig. 1). Scan samples (Altmann, 1974), of the position of each individual in the group, were taken every 20 min. The number of times that each animal category (wild-caught versus captivity-born capybaras groups) was observed in the different enclosure facilities (sheltered, exercise and water-tank) were analyzed in three periods (PI, from 6:00 to 9:40 h; PII, from 10:00 to 13:40 h, and PIII, from 14:00 to 18:00 h). These periods were chosen according to the average environmental temperature and the presence or absence of the caretakers inside the enclosures. The data were compared by chi-square analysis (Siegel, 1975), that were conducted within periods after we lumped it from all pens within a treatment—captive-born versus wild-caught capybaras. Finally, we excluded from the data analysis some observations when the individuals were in a transition place during the scanning events, per example, between the exercise and sheltered areas.
3. Results The wild animals used the water-tank more than did the captive-born animals (X2 = 61.43, d.f. = 2; P < 0.001), during the early hours (PI: 32 times versus 8 times, respectively) and at the end of the day (PIII: 641 times versus 195 times, respectively) (Fig. 2). Meanwhile,
142
S.S.C. Nogueira et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89 (2004) 139–143
Fig. 2. Enclosure facility use by captive-born and wild-caught capybaras during PI (6:00–9:40 h), PII (10:00–13:40 h) and PIII (14:00–18:00 h).
the captive animals used the exercise area more than the wild-caught animals in all of the three periods (X2 = 9.16, d.f. = 2; P = 0.01). However, there was no difference with respect to the use of the sheltered area in any of the three periods (X2 = 3.07, d.f. = 2; P > 0.10).
4. Discussion Besides the study regarding facilities usage, we also casually observed that the wild-caught capybaras showed flight responses to humans. The captive-born animals, however, were more disposed to the handling conditions, more docile, and were not observed to change their behavior in the presence of humans. In this study, the caretakers cleaned the enclosures each morning (PI) and fed the capybaras in the afternoon (PIII). During these hours all animals could see and hear the caretakers’ movements inside neighboring enclosures through the mesh wire fences as well as in their own pens. The use of the sheltered area (PI) and the exercise area (PIII) by the captive-born animals during these time periods may be due to greater tolerance among these animals regarding caretaker presence inside the enclosures. In the wild, capybaras take baths in the hottest periods of the day to assist with thermoregulation (Azcarate, 1978). In this study neither the wild caught nor the captive reared capybaras used the water-tank for thermoregulation to a large extent during PII (Fig. 2), the
S.S.C. Nogueira et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89 (2004) 139–143
143
hottest part of the day. It is most likely that the wild caught capybaras used the water-tank during PI and PIII (Fig. 2) as an escape area from human activity, as described for capybara in the wild (Ojasti, 1973). Carlstead (1996) suggested that human actions, by caretakers or veterinarians, may contribute to animal disturbance. We observed that captive-born capybaras do not alter their behavior in the presence of humans. In contrast, wild-caught capybaras were observed fleeing into the water-tank when the caretakers were close. Consequently, we hypothesize that the caretakers continued to represent a threat to wild-caught animals, in spite of their having been maintained in captivity for 2 years prior to the study. Some authors describe the capybara as easily adaptable to captive conditions based on normal feeding and reproduction soon after capture (Ojasti, 1973; González-Jiménez, 1995; Nogueira et al., 1999). The results of the current study show, however, that the adult, wild caught capybara do not seem to adapt as easily as expected even after 2 years under captive conditions. Further studies are necessary to describe differences in stress levels between wild and captive-born animals, and to develop appropriate environmental design and husbandry in captivity.
Acknowledgements We are grateful to anonymous reviewers of AABS, to Dr. Janisete Silva, Departamento de Ciˆencias Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, and Dr. Carter Miller for making many helpful suggestions and critically reviewing the manuscript. The work was supported by a fellowship to SSCN from CNPq (Brazil).
References Alho, C.J.R., Campos, Z.M.S., Gonçalves, H.C., Atividade, I., 1987. Ecologia de capivara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) do Pantanal. I. Atividade, sazonalidade, uso de espaço e manejo. Rev. Bras. Biol. 47, 99–110. Altmann, J., 1974. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behavior 49, 223–265. Azcarate, T., 1978. Sociobiologia del Chigüire (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). Doctor of Science Thesis, Univ. Complutense, Madrid, p. 154. Carlstead, K., 1996. Effects of captivity on the behavior of wild mammals. In: Kleiman, D.G., Allen, M.E., Thompson, K.V., Lumpkin, S. (Eds.), Wild Mammals in Captivity Principles and Techniques. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 317–333. González-Jiménez, E., 1995. El capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris): estado actual de su producción. Serie Estudio FAO, Produccion y Sanidad Animal, vol. 122. FAO, Rome, p. 110. Moreira, J.R., Macdonald, D.W., 1997. Técnicas de manejo de capivaras e outros grandes roedores na Amazˆonia. In: Valladares-Padua, C., Bodmer, R.E., Cullen Jr., L. (Eds.), Manejo e Conservação de Vida Silvestre no Brasil. Bras´ılia, DF: CNPq/Belém, PA: Sociedade Civil Mamirauá, pp. 186–213. Nogueira, S.S.C., Nogueira-Filho, S.L.G., Otta, E., Dias, C.T.S., Carvalho, A., 1999. Determination of the causes of infanticide in capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) groups in captivity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 62, 351–357. Ojasti, J., 1973. Estudio del chigüire o capybara. Fondo Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Caracas, p. 275. Price, E.O., 1984. Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. Q. Rev. Biol. 59, 1–32. Siegel, S., 1975. Estat´ıstica não paramétrica para ciˆencias do comportamento. McGraw-Hill, São Paulo, Brazil, p. 350.