Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:42:47.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural enrichment and enclosure use in an opportunistic carnivore: the red fox (Vulpes vulpes)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

C Kistler ,
D Hegglin ,
H Würbel  and
B König
C Kistler*
Affiliation:
Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH 8057 Zürich, Switzerland
D Hegglin
Affiliation:
SWILD, Urban Ecology & Wildlife Research, Wuhrstrasse 12, CH 8003 Zürich, Switzerland
H Würbel
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Welfare and Ethology, Clinical Veterinary Sciences, University of Giessen, D 35392 Giessen, Germany
B König
Affiliation:
Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH 8057 Zürich, Switzerland
*
* 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.

An increasing number of zoos keep their animals in natural-looking enclosures, but it is often unclear whether or not the species’ behavioural and ecological needs are being adequately met. For species that suffer predation in the wild, structural enrichment in captivity can play a crucial role in connection with enclosure use. Firstly, we examined the effectiveness of structural enrichment in modifying enclosure use in an opportunistic carnivore, the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). In a test enclosure, we placed both long wooden and cover structures that simulated natural habitat in predetermined sectors. A group of four foxes were exposed to four treatments: (i) structural enrichment in location 1 (LOC1s); (ii) structural enrichment in location 2 (LOC2); (iii) structural enrichment removed (REM); and (iv) structural enrichment again in location 1 (LOC1e). Sectors containing long wooden structures were preferred significantly compared to the rest of the enclosure. Sector use was selectively shifted to those in which cover structures were present. Structural enrichment had no significant effect on activity. Secondly, in a new outdoor enclosure, we compared the use of sectors with cover or elongated structures with that of corresponding sectors without structures. All individuals showed a significant preference for sectors containing structures. In the course of the three-week observation period, there was a significant decline in preference for structures and a significant increase in activity (week 1 < week 2 = week 3). These results suggest that in medium-sized carnivores, structural enrichment is beneficial when natural features with a net-like distribution over the habitat are simulated.

Keywords

animal welfareenvironmental enrichmentred foxstructural preferenceVulpes vulpeszoo
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , November 2010 , pp. 391 - 400
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Adkins, CA and Stott, P 1998 Home ranges, movements and habitat associations of red foxes Vulpes vulpes in suburban Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Journal of Zoology 244: 335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, J 1974 Observational study of behaviour — sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227–267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aschwanden, J, Gygax, L, Wechsler, B and Keil, NM 2009 Loose housing of small goat groups: influence of visual cover and elevated levels on feeding, resting and agonistic behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, PJ and Harris, S 2000 Interaction rates between members of a group of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Mammal Review 30: 239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaney, EC and Wells, DL 2004 The influence of a camouflage net barrier on the behaviour, welfare and public perceptions of zoo-housed gorillas. Animal Welfare 13: 111–118Google Scholar
Broom, DM 2007 Quality of life means welfare: how is it related to other concepts and assessed? Animal Welfare 16: 45–53Google Scholar
Buchwalder, T and Wechsler, B 1997 The effect of cover on the behaviour of Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlstead, K 1991 Husbandry of the fennec fox Fennecus zerda: environmental conditions influencing stereotypic behaviour. International Zoo Yearbook 30: 202–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavallini, P and Lovari, S 1991 Environmental factors influencing the use of habitat in the red fox, Vulpes vulpes. Journal of Zoology 223: 323–339Google Scholar
Conover, WJ 1980 Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 2nd Edition. Wiley: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Contesse, P, Hegglin, D, Gloor, S, Bontadina, F and Deplazes, P 2004 The diet of urban foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and the availability of anthropogenic food in the city of Zurich, Switzerland. Mammalian Biology 69: 81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doncaster, CP and Macdonald, DW 1997 Activity patterns and interactions of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Oxford city. Journal of Zoology 241: 73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furrer, CT 1999 Schlafplatzorte und Aufzuchtsplätze des Rotfuchses Vulpes vulpes in der Stadt Zürich - Angebot und Nutzung im urbanen Lebensraum. MSc Thesis, University of Zurich, Switzerland. [Title translation: Resting and rearing sites of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the city of Zurich: availability and utilisation in an urban habitat]Google Scholar
Gloor, S 2002 The rise of urban foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Switzerland and ecological and parasitological aspects of a fox population in the recently colonised city of Zurich. PhD Thesis, University of Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Gusset, M 2005 Faecal glucocorticoid level is not correlated with stereotypic pacing in two captive margays (Leopardus wiedii). Animal Welfare 14: 157–159Google Scholar
Hartmann, M and Schiess, M 1997 Ropes as climbing structures for clouded leopards (Neofelis nebulosa Griffith 1821). Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Environmental Enrichment pp 62–71. 21-25 August 1997, Copenhagen Zoo, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Hartmann-Furter, M 2000 A species-specific feeding technique for European wildcats (Felis s. sylvestris) in captivity. Säugetierkundliche Informationen 4: 567–575Google Scholar
Hediger, H 1942 Wildtiere in Gefangenschaft. Eine Grundlage der Tiergartenbiologie. Benno Schwaber & Co: Verlag, Basel, Switzerland. [Title translation: Wild animals in captivity: an outline of the biology of zoological gardens]Google Scholar
Hughes, BO and Duncan, IJH 1988 The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, M, Hancocks, D and Crockett, C 1984 Naturalistic solutions to the behavioral problems of captive animals. Der Zoologische Garten NF 54: 28–42Google Scholar
Jacobs, J 1974 Quantitative measurement of food selection. Oecologia 14: 413–417CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kistler, C, Hegglin, D, Würbel, H and König, B 2009 Feeding enrichment in an opportunistic carnivore: the red fox. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116: 260–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucherini, M, Lovari, S and Crema, G 1995 Habitat use and ranging behaviour of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in a Mediterranean rural area: Is shelter availability a key factor? Journal of Zoology 237: 577–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, DW 1988 Running With The Fox. Unwin Hyman: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Mallapur, A and Chellam, R 2002 Environmental influences on stereotypy and the activity budget of Indian Leopards (Panthera pardus) in four zoos in Southern India. Zoo Biology 21: 585–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maple, T and Perkins, L 1996 Enclosure furnishing and structural environmental enrichment. In: Kleinmann, D, Allen, E, Thompson, K and Lumpkin, S (eds) Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques pp 212–222. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, H 1982 Behavioural Enrichment in the Zoo. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Marks, CA and Bloomfield, TE 2006 Home-range size and selection of natal den and diurnal shelter sites by urban red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Melbourne. Wildlife Research 33: 339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G, Clubb, R, Latham, N and Vickery, S 2007 Why and how should we use environmental enrichment to tackle stereotypic behaviour? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 163–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, GJ 1991 Stereotypies: a critical review. Animal Behaviour 41: 1015–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellen, J, Stevens, V and Markowitz, H 1981 Environmental enrichments for servals, Indian elephants and Canadian otters. International Zoo Yearbook 21: 196–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimon, AJ and Broom, DM 2001 The welfare of farmed foxes Vulpes vulpes and Alopex lagopus in relation to housing and management: a review. Animal Welfare 10: 223–248Google Scholar
Ödberg, FO 1987 The Influence of cage size and environmental enrichment on the development of stereotypies in bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Behavioural Processes 14: 155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, TB 1992 The nature and evolution of behavioural needs in mammals. Animal Welfare 1: 203–220Google Scholar
Rabin, LA 2003 Maintaining behavioural diversity in captivity for conservation natural behaviour management. Animal Welfare 12: 85–94Google Scholar
Renner, MJ and Lussier, JP 2002 Environmental enrichment for the captive spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus). Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 73: 279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricci, S, Colombini, I, Fallaci, M, Scoccianti, C and Chelazzi, L 1998 Arthropods as bioindicators of the red fox foraging activity in a Mediterranean beach-dune system. Journal of Arid Environments 38: 335–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, MH 1998 Enriching the lives of zoo animals, and their welfare: where research can be fundamental. Animal Welfare 7: 151–175Google Scholar
Schetini de Azevedo, CS, Cipreste, CF and Young, RJ 2007 Environmental enrichment: a GAP analysis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, JM and Meia, JS 1996 Habitat use by the red fox Vulpes vulpes in a mountainous area. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 8: 223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, JM, Meia, JS and Aubry, S 1994 Activity of foxes, Vulpes vulpes, in the Swiss Jura mountains. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 59: 9–13Google Scholar
White, JG, Gubiani, R, Smallman, N, Snell, K and Morton, A 2006 Home range, habitat selection and diet of foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in a semi-urban riparian environment. Wildlife Research 33: 175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiedenmayer, C 1997 Causation of the ontogenetic development of stereotypic digging in gerbils. Animal Behaviour 53: 461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Würbel, H 2001 Ideal homes? Housing effects on rodent brain and behaviour. Trends in Neurosciences 24: 207–211CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Würbel, H, Chapman, R and Rutland, C 1998 Effect of feed and environmental enrichment on development of stereotypic wire-gnawing in laboratory mice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60: 69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabel, CJ and Taggart, SJ 1989 Shift in red fox, Vulpes vulpes, mating system associated with El Niño in the Bering Sea. Animal Behaviour 38: 830–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, JH 1999 Biostatistical Analysis, 4th Edition. Prentice Hall: New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar