enclosure size equals home range or territory in the wild

[zooman]

Wondering what animals zoo's can commercially achieve this for?

If adequate food is available, l would assume home range or territory in the wild would be reduced considerably.

The idea "enclosure size equals home range or territory in the wild " is raised in the book Zoo Animals

 

[sealion]

I doubt many zoos do because the main reason why animals have such large territories in the wild is because they have to search that area for food. This is something that the public don't seem to realise.... :|

 

[Steve Robinson]

Stuart, this is a very appropriate time to contemplate this issue.

A group is addressing spatial requirements for captive animals even as we speak. Their deliberations will go to the Commonwealth government to form the basis of the new Australia wide exhibited animals Standards.

There are a variety of views held by members of the group.

It will be interesting to see what Zoochatterers think about the subject.

 

[^Chris^]

If adequate food is available, l would assume home range or territory in the wild would be reduced considerably.

Thinking about this, for me, is raising as many questions as it is answering. In the wild the area of an animal's territory is governed almost entirely by the area necessary to have access to all the resources it requires. When these resources are plentiful within an area we see that the area's carrying capacity is increased and territory size decreases. I think territory size is very fluid and is dependent upon the amount of resources. In the wild, obviously, there is a limit to resources and at this limit we see a 'natural' minimum territory size. However in a zoo, where all the animal resources are provided for it, this perhaps is not relevant?

I do think there are minimum sized enclosures required by animals though. I advocate large enclosures as much as anyone because I think these are important for animal's mental and physical health, but these limits may not be the same as the limits imposed by resource levels in the wild. An animal never actively considers something like 'how much room do I need to keep fit?' but would never have to in the wild because the limit set by resource requirement would provide a much higher threshold.

I suppose there are other factors determining territory size. Some male animals will try and have as large an area as possible in order to have access to more females. I suppose it is also dependent upon pressure from animals in neighbouring territories- if density is low it might not be such a strain to maintain a slightly bigger territory than necessary.

In short, I guess what I'm trying to say, is I can't help but think it's too complicated a question for a simple answer.

But I'll try. One possible candidate I would suggest are prairie dogs? Apparently there natural territory size is about an acre [1] . That could be achieved in a zoo and because they are quite a visible species the public would be able to see them too. In some zoos prairie dogs do have large enclosures- especially in any where they may also share with an animal like bison. I know Chester's lived like this in the 90s.

I think any animal it would be practically achievable for would be a:
Small species.
With a comparitively small territory even for a species of its size.
Easily visible within that area (i.e. not a vole or shrew that would disappear in half an acre of grassland!).

I don't know if I've gone overkill on the question but I like things like this. Very interesting.

 

[zooman]

An animal never actively considers something like 'how much room do I need to keep fit?'

Hi Chris, great to read your response and l could not agree more that this question is the catalyst to so many more questions.

My animal of choice is a gorilla and l am constantly amazed by the appearance of a silverback who never seems to exercise!

The latest question now is "how different is the quantity of food ingested by a captive animal compared to its wild counterpart!"

The captive l would assume is almost lethargic in comparison.

I bet Pertinax knows the answer to gorilla diet!

 

[Devi]

It's worth thinking about migratory species, like reindeer, who live in a relatively small area until resources run out and then move to a new one, sometimes they can travel hundreds of miles over a year.
What do we count as territory then? Each local area or the full range?

 

[DDcorvus]

It's worth thinking about migratory species, like reindeer, who live in a relatively small area until resources run out and then move to a new one, sometimes they can travel hundreds of miles over a year.
What do we count as territory then? Each local area or the full range?

The question would be then why would that species migrate. For food, for breeding, water etc etc. And the next question would be: Will this species still migrate if the reason for the original migration is taken away.

 

[^Chris^]

Hi Chris, great to read your response and l could not agree more that this question is the catalyst to so many more questions.

My animal of choice is a gorilla and l am constantly amazed by the appearance of a silverback who never seems to exercise!

The latest question now is "how different is the quantity of food ingested by a captive animal compared to its wild counterpart!"

The captive l would assume is almost lethargic in comparison.

I bet Pertinax knows the answer to gorilla diet!

But in terms of gorillas, an enclosure equal in size to a wild territory would be near impossible- at least very unlikely and impractical from a public pov-apparently territory size for a group of gorillas will be a minimum of 7 square km (over 1500 acres) [2].

With animals like gorilla (or bears, cats, dogs, anything) I don't think it's always enclosure size that's a problem. Or the amount of food they eat (I mean, that can be easily regulated). I think its to do with the amount of time and energy they have to use to get the required amount of food. Animals in the wild don't really tend to have 'spare time' whilst in zoos they do. The advantage of a large space is it takes an animal a longer amount of time to explore it's whole enclosure in a morning, and if food is distributed all over that space, it takes it longer to find it's food. But if the food is being provided by keepers, the area doesn't necessarily have to be quite as large as the natural territory.

I guess what I'm saying is that animals need both lots of space but also an incentive to use it.

One thing I really don't like though (and so far I realise I may appear to be arguing in support of it) is the argument that if sufficient enrichment is provided, and the food sufficiently difficult to find/acquire, animals areas don't have to be very large at all. Basically- if the animal has everything it needs in a small area- then that is all the area it needs. I can't help but disagree. I think enclosure size offers it's own form of enrichment that there is no substitute for. This goes beyond just foraging, but also habits of territory defense, patrolling, marking, investigation etc and natural types of movement and exercise.

And whilst we're talking about making animals exercise and utilising the amount of space offered (an area of discussion that overlaps with the recent 'comfortable life' thread), would anyone be opposed to me dressing as a lion and chasing my local zoos antelope around to give them a much needed leg-stretch?

Anyway, this is starting to get beyond the point. I think enclosures the size of wild territories are both impractical and unnecessary for 99% of species. Nevertheless, I would still say the bigger, the better (within practical and sensible limits)!

 

[zooman]

I was actually expecting some members to suggest a actual spacial size. As l am sure that tamarins and certain lemurs would have reasonably small areas or not?

 

[^Chris^]

I was actually expecting some members to suggest a actual spacial size. As l am sure that tamarins and certain lemurs would have reasonably small areas or not?

Bristol zoo had free-ranging marmosets and I think the theory went that by convincing the marmosets that their territory was all within a set area (in this case the tapir and capybara enclosure) they would remain within these bounds despite being able to move beyond it if they so desired. I have a feeling that said marmosets are no longer free-ranging but it lends support to your idea that their territories aren't particularly large.

However, a quick look on the internet, it appears a group of lion tamarins will range over an area of around 100 acres (perhaps that's why Bristol's marmosets weren't trusted!) . That'd be considered a fairly large enclosure by most zoos.

 

[zooman]

So how does apenheul do it?

I know they have some very clever bridges and very well hidden barriers. I am sure that l have seen a group of lion tamarins remain in a certain area without restraint.

 

[zooman]

Quote
SPCA executive officer Deirdre Moss pointed out that individual pink dolphins in the wild have a home range of 30 sq km to 400 sq km.
Quote

The size ratio to captive counterparts is just absurd, i would suggest akin to being in a bath!

 

[zooman]

. Their deliberations will go to the Commonwealth government to form the basis of the new Australia wide exhibited animals Standards.

With so few Federal standards it is interesting that animal exhibits are getting them.

As Police, Education, Road laws are all state or territory based to name a few!

 

[Jurek7]

Smaller deer and wallabies in safari parks?

In Whipsnade, there are semi-free wallabies, muntjac etc. I think safari park is much larger than territory size of them. Otherwise, interesting idea would be why they stay in?

Ducks which often spend all breeding season on one pond?

 

[^Chris^]

Smaller deer and wallabies in safari parks?

In Whipsnade, there are semi-free wallabies, muntjac etc. I think safari park is much larger than territory size of them. Otherwise, interesting idea would be why they stay in?

Ducks which often spend all breeding season on one pond?

I think deer in deer parks would be an example certainly, but deer parks can be huge. I suppose old-style british deer parks were probably first established for deer-hunting, and hunting wouldn't really work so well in a small area. Woburn's, for example, is 3000 acres according to their website- probably larger than most the species in there's natural range (although I would expect the deer density in the park is greater than would be observed in the wild).

 

[Pertinax]

In Whipsnade, there are semi-free wallabies, muntjac etc. I think safari park is much larger than territory size of them. Otherwise, interesting idea would be why they stay in?

Whipsnade has a boundary (animal proof) fence surrounding it- so Muntjac and Chinese water deer, Wallabies etc are not free to leave.

 

[Pertinax]

Woburn's, for example, is 3000 acres according to their website- probably larger than most the species in there's natural range (although I would expect the deer density in the park is greater than would be observed in the wild).

Woburn Deer Park probably is comparable to the areas used by many wild Deer though sometimes they do travel greater distances at some seasons and depending on the species.

You are correct that it is far more heavily stocked than a similar area in the wild would be. (x10?)

 

[Pertinax]

With animals like gorilla (or bears, cats, dogs, anything) I don't think it's always enclosure size that's a problem. Or the amount of food they eat (I mean, that can be easily regulated). I think its to do with the amount of time and energy they have to use to get the required amount of food. Animals in the wild don't really tend to have 'spare time' whilst in zoos they do.

I'd say that's a pretty good appraisal of the situation. Lets take a wild Gorilla group for example- there is a fair amount of longer distance 'travelling' to new areas in search of food etc, which doesn't happen even in the largest zoo enclosures- except from indoors to outside and back again.

Zoo Gorillas do have a lot of 'downtime' which in the wild is taken up with travelling and searching for their food. In the zoo these elements are removed as all food is 'served' to them. Obesity can be controlled by regulating the amount of food given. Some other habits often attributed to 'boredom' (I would perhaps prefer the term 'empty time' as I don't think they are 'bored' as such) are regurgitation and reingestion of food, coprophagy(faeces eating) and hair plucking. I believe R& R and coprophagy are habits derived to make up for what in the wild would be more time spent foraging.

 

[zooman]

S

A group is addressing spatial requirements for captive animals even as we speak. Their deliberations will go to the Commonwealth government to form the basis of the new Australia wide exhibited animals Standards.

Hi Steve, l am wondering has any of the above been made publicly available?

 

[gentle lemur]

Think laterally and think aquatic to get the best examples.
Obviously stationary creatures like sponges, stony corals, tubeworms, barnacles and many bivalves fill the bill. Sea anemones can move, but don't usually bother unless they are unhappy.
Even animals that can move rapidly may not normally do so: adult clownfishes won't venture far from their anemone so a large tank certainly provides them with a natural home range (although their larvae may drift for long distances in the plankton). Likewise cleaner fishes and cleaner shrimps stay in very restricted territories and wait for their food to be brought to them by their 'clients'. I don't know if anyone has measured the home ranges of the smallest seahorse species (like Hippocampus zosterae or H. barbiganti) but they are such weak swimmers that I doubt if their ranges are large.
I think the best story is about the fish species which can be found in the jungles of south east Asia in the small pools made when water collects in an elephant's footprint. However I suspect that this tale may be apochryphal and I haven't got my reference books at home to check it. Some of the smaller anabantids, such as some Betta and Parosphronemus species, which can breathe air, would undoubtedly survive in such circumstances for several days - but probably not indefinitely.

Alan