Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:22:37.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Food distribution effects on the behaviour of captive common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

SJ Bjone ,
IR Price  and
PD McGreevy
SJ Bjone
Affiliation:
University of New England, School of Psychology, Armidale, New South Wales, 2351, Australia
IR Price*
Affiliation:
University of New England, School of Psychology, Armidale, New South Wales, 2351, Australia
PD McGreevy
Affiliation:
University of Sydney, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus, are widely used by research laboratories and are commonly provided with food in bowls. These centralised, unchallenging sources of food result in high foraging success for low foraging effort. Foraging devices, which require more skill and effort for foraging success, may broaden the behavioural profiles of marmosets by including more elements of their natural ethogram, reflecting improved welfare. The behaviour of eight female common marmosets was examined as a function of four different food distributions: food centrally located in a stationary bowl; food in a bowl that changed location each day; food centrally located in a stationary bowl, in addition to hidden food in a clustered food source (cluster feeder) or hidden food in dispersed food sources (dispersed feeders). Both the cluster and dispersed feeder distributions increased foraging, and there was a trend for reduced scratching and grooming in the presence of the feeders compared with the bowl-only treatments. The cluster feeder increased the amount of time a marmoset spent in a large room annexed to the home rooms more than the dispersed feeders, and this effect was sustained throughout the day after the feeders had been removed. Both feeders increased activity and movements within all areas of the annexed room compared with the bowl-only treatments; therefore, both feeder types improved the welfare of the captive marmosets more than the provision of food bowls.

Keywords

activityanimal welfare, Callithrix jacchusenvironmental enrichmentforagingspace use
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 131 - 140
Copyright
© 2006 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Altmann, J 1974 Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227–267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, JR and Chamove, AS 1984 Allowing captive primates to forage. In: Proceedings of the LASA/UFAW symposium ‘Standards in Laboratory Animal Management‘ pp 253–256. The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Araújo, A, Arruda, MF, Alencar, AI, Alburquerque, F, Nascimento, MC and Yamamoto, ME 2000 Body weight of wild and captive common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). International Journal of Primatology 21: 317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayne, KAL, Hurst, JH and Dexter, SL 1992 Evaluation of the preference to and behavioral effects of an enriched environment on male rhesus monkeys. Laboratory Animal Science 42: 38–45Google ScholarPubMed
Bayne, KAL, Strange, GM and Dexter, SL 1994 Influence of food enrichment on cage side preference. Laboratory Animal Science 44: 624–629Google ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM 1986 Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142: 524–526CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM 1991 Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchanan-Smith, HM 1994 Environmental enrichment in captive marmosets and tamarins. Humane Innovations and Alternatives 8: 559–564Google Scholar
Buchanan-Smith, HM, Shand, C and Morris, K 2002 Cage use and feeding height preferences of captive common marmosets (Callithrix j. jacchus) in two-tier cages. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5: 139–149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chamove, AS and Rohrhuber, B 1989 Moving Callitrichid monkeys from cages to outside areas. Zoo Biology 8: 151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cilia, J and Piper, DC 1997 Marmoset conspecific confrontation: an ethologically-based model of anxiety. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 58: 85–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, JE 1994 The common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus). ANZCCART News 7: 1–8Google Scholar
Ely, A, Freer, A, Windle, C and Ridley, RM 1998 Assessment of cage use by laboratory-bred common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Laboratory Animals 32: 427–433CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrari, SF 1993 Ecological differentiation in the Callitrichidae. In: Rylands, AB (ed) Marmosets and Tamarins: Systematics, Behaviour, and Ecology pp 314–328. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Hannaford, G 1996 Feeding bowl height preferences in captive common marmosets. Australian Primatology 11: 5–13Google Scholar
Johnson, EO, Kamilaris, TC, Carter, CS, Calogero, AE, Gold, PW and Chrousos, GP 1996 The biobehavioral consequences of psychogenic stress in a small, social primate (Callithrix jacchus jacchus). Biological Psychiatry 40: 317–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keppel, G 1991 Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook. Prentice Hall: New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
Kitchen, AM and Martin, AA 1996 The effects of cage size and complexity on the behaviour of captive common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus jacchus. Laboratory Animals 30: 317–326CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleiman, DG, Beck, BB, Dietz, JM, Dietz, LA, Ballou, JD and Coimbra-Filho, AF 1986 Conservation program for the golden lion tamarin: captive research and management, ecological studies, educational strategies, and reintroduction. In: Benirschke, K (ed) Primates: The Road to Self-Sustaining Populations pp 959–979. Springer-Verlag: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuczaj, S, Lacinak, T, Fad, O, Trone, M, Solangi, M and Ramos, J 2002 Keeping environmental enrichment enriching. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 15: 127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maestripieri, D, Schino, G, Aureli, F and Troisi, A 1992 A modest proposal: displacement activities as an indicator of emotions in primates. Animal Behaviour 44: 967–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, W, Alonso, C and Langguth, A 1982 Field observations on Callithrix jacchus jacchus L. Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde 47: 334–346Google Scholar
Majolo, B, Buchanan-Smith, HM and Bell, J 2003 Response to novel objects and foraging tasks by common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) female pairs. Lab Animal 32: 32–38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrissey, G 1994 Optimal foraging in the captive-bred common marmoset, Callithrix jacchus. In: Bunyan, J (ed) Welfare and Science pp 337–339. Royal Society of Medicine: London, UKGoogle Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 1997 Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. NHMRC: Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 2003 Policy on the Care and Use of Non-Human Primates for Scientific Purposes. NHMRC: Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Norcross, JL and Newman, JD 1999 Effects of separation and novelty on distress vocalizations and cortisol in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus). American Journal of Primatology 47: 209–2223.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, E and Reinhardt, V 1994 Cage stumptailed macaques voluntarily work for ordinary food. In Touch 1: 10–11Google Scholar
Poole, TB 1988 Normal and abnormal behaviour in captive primates. Primate Report 22: 3–12Google Scholar
Poole, TB 1990 Environmental enrichment for marmosets. Animal Technology 41: 81–86Google Scholar
Poole, TB, Hubrecht, R and Kirkwood, JK 1999 Marmosets and tamarins. In: Poole T and English P (eds) The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, 7th Edition pp 559-573. Blackwell Science: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, V 1994 Caged rhesus macaques voluntarily work for ordinary food. Primates 35: 95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothe, H 1971 Some remarks on the spontaneous use of the hand in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus). In: Krummer, H (ed) Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Primatology, Volume 3: Behavior pp 136–141. Basel: Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Rylands, AB and de Faria, DS 1993 Habitats, feeding ecology, and home range size in the genus Callithrix. In: Rylands, AB (ed) Marmosets and Tamarins: Systematics, Behaviour, and Ecology pp 262–272. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, CE, Chalmers, NR and Monteiro da Cruz, MAO 1989 Home range use and the exploitation of gum in the marmoset Callithrix jacchus jacchus. International Journal of Primatology 10: 123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schapiro, SJ, Suarez, SA, Porter, LM and Bloomsmith, MA 1996 The effects of different types of feeding enhancements on the behavior of single caged, yearling rhesus macaques. Animal Welfare 5: 129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, L 1991 Environmental enrichment for single housed common marmosets. In: Box, HO (ed) Primate Responses to Environmental Change pp 265–274. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, MF and Poole, TB 1976 An ethogram of the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus jacchus): general behavioural repertoire. Animal Behaviour 24: 428–451CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabachnick, BG and Fidell, LS 2001 Using Multivariate Statistics. Allyn and Bacon: Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar