Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T02:59:33.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Two Manipulable Objects as Enrichment for Captive Chimpanzees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

J D Pruetz  and
M A Bloomsmith
J D Pruetz
Affiliation:
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Anthropology
M A Bloomsmith
Affiliation:
The University of Texas, M D Anderson Cancer Center Science Park, Department of Veterinary Resources, Route 2, Box 151-B1, Bastrop, Texas 78602
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness of kraft wrapping paper and rubber toys as enrichment for 22 chimpanzees group-housed in conventional indoor/outdoor runs. Objects were tested separately during 67 hours of data collection using a group scan sampling technique. Paper was used a mean 27 per cent of the available time, while the Kong Toys™ were used a mean 10 per cent of the available time. The degree of object manipulation and object contact was higher with the paper, but the level of social play and solitary play with the object was not differentially affected by the two objects. The objects had differing effects on the subjects’ levels of grooming, but affiliation, agonism, inactivity and sexual behaviour did not vary according to the object being used. A gender-by-age interaction was found, with immature males exhibiting the highest levels of solitary play with objects. Object use steadily declined over the first hour of exposure, showing evidence of habituation. Object use when the Kong Toy™ was present declined over the course of the study, but use of the paper remained consistent. Texture, destructibility, portability, complexity and adaptability may be important in determining the object's value as effective enrichment. The destructible wrapping paper was a more worthwhile enrichment object than the indestructible Kong Toy™ for the captive chimpanzees in this study.

Keywords

animal welfarebehavioural managementenvironmental enrichmentgreat apespsychological well-being

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , May 1992 , pp. 127 - 137
Copyright
© 1992 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bayne, A L, Dexter, S L, Etzler, D 1990 Monitoring an enrichment program: A pilot evaluation. Lab Animal 19(7): 33–42Google Scholar
Bloomsmith, M A, Alf ord, P L, Maple, T L 1988 Successful feeding enrichment for captive chimpanzees. American Journal of Primatology 16: 155–164Google ScholarPubMed
Bloomsmith, M A 1989 Feeding enrichment for captive great apes. In Segal, E F (ed) Housing, Care and Psychological Well-being of Captive and Laboratory Primates, pp 336–356. Noyes Publications: Park Ridge, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
Bloomsmith, M A, Finlay, T W, Merhalski, J J, Maple, T L 1990a Rigid plastic balls as enrichment devices for captive chimpanzees. Laboratory Animal Science 40: 319–322Google ScholarPubMed
Bloomsmith, M A, Keeling, M E, Lambeth, S P 1990b Videotapes: environmental enrichment for singly housed chimpanzees. Lab Animal 19(1): 42–46Google Scholar
Bloomstrand, M A, Riddle, K, Alford, P A, Maple, T L 1986 Objective evaluation of a behavioral enrichment device for captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biology 5: 293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brent, L, Eichberg, J W 1991 Primate puzzleboard: A simple environmental enrichment device for captive chimpanzees. Zoo Biology 10: 353–360Google Scholar
Brent, L, Lea, D R, Eichberg, J W 1989 Evaluation of two environmental enrichment devices for singly caged chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). American Journal of Primatology Supplement 1: 65–70Google Scholar
Brent, L, Lee, D R, Eichberg, J W 1991 Evaluation of a chimpanzee enrichment enclosure. Journal of Medical Primatology 20: 29–34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryant, C E, Rupniak, N M J, Iversen, S D 1988 Effects of different environmental enrichment devices on cage stereotypies and autoaggression in captive cynomolgus monkeys. Journal of Medical Primatology 17: 257–269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fouts, R S, Abshire, M L, Bodamer, M, Fouts, D H 1989 Signs of environment: Toward the psychological well-being of chimpanzees. In Segal, E F (ed) Housing, Care and Psychological Well-being of Captive and Laboratory Primates, pp 376–388. Noyes Publications: Park Ridge, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
Goodall, J 1986 The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, ch 18 pp 559-560. Harvard Balknap Press: Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
Lambeth, S P, Bloomsmith, M A in press Mirrors as enrichment for captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Laboratory Animal ScienceGoogle Scholar
Line, S W 1987 Environmental enrichment for laboratory primates. Journal of American Veterinary Medicine Association 190: 854–859Google ScholarPubMed
Maki, S, Alford, P L, Bloomsmith, M A, Franklin, J 1989 Food puzzle device simulating termite fishing for captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). American Journal of Primatology Supplement 1: 71–78Google Scholar
Maki, S, Bloomsmith, M A 1989 Uprooted trees facilitate the psychological well-being of captive chimpanzees. Zoo Biology 8: 79–87Google Scholar
O’Neill, P 1988 Developing effective social and environment enrichment strategies for macaques in captive groups. Lab Animal 17(4): 23–35Google Scholar
Paquette, D, Prescott, J 1988 Use of novel objects to enhance environments of captive chimpanzees. Zoo Biology 7: 15–23Google Scholar
Reinhardt, V 1989 Evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of two environmental enrichment objects for singly caged rhesus macaques. Lab Animal 18(6): 31–33Google Scholar
Scheflferly, N 1988 Use of toys as a means of environmental enrichment in captive juvenile chimpanzees. American Journal of Primatology 14: 445Google Scholar
Tripp, J K 1985 Increasing activity in captive orangutans. Provision of manipulable and edible materials. Zoo Biology 4: 225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, G C, Fragaszy, D M 1985 Effects of manipulatable objects on the activity of captive Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Zoo Biology 4: 317–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S F 1982 Environmental influences on the activity of captive apes. Zoo Biology 1: 201–209Google Scholar