Abnormal repetitive route-tracing in captive Carnivora: is natural foraging niche a risk factor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In zoological collections, species from the diverse order Carnivora are charismatic and popular. Some of these species typically fare well in captivity, living long, healthy lives, breeding readily, and showing few or no behavioural problems. However, others do not adjust as well, with signs of compromised welfare such as poor reproduction, and abnormal repetitive route-tracing (e.g. pacing) being prevalent. One long-standing hypothesis is that restricting hunting behaviour compromises carnivore well-being. Support for this hypothesis includes that route-tracing is usually at its most intense immediately prior to feeding; that route-tracing is more prevalent in Carnivora than other mammalian orders; and that previous work suggested that species with long chase distances in the wild spend the most time route-tracing in captivity. Using phylogenetic comparative methods this study further explores relationships between foraging niche and carnivore welfare. We updated an extensive database of abnormal behaviours and infant mortality rates in captive Carnivora, to now include data on route-tracing (the most common abnormal behaviour in these animals) and other repetitive behaviours (e.g. repetitive oral behaviours like bar-biting) in 2,337 individuals from 57 species held in zoos worldwide. Next, we investigated the predictive power of various aspects of foraging niche on captive welfare, including: species-typical foraging methods and hunting style, mode of locomotion, top speeds attained and gaits used during chase, among others. Our findings are important at two levels. By understanding the evolutionary basis of species variation in captive carnivore welfare, the welfare of thousands of individuals may be improved. For example, practical recommendations can be made to tailor enrichment and husbandry design to better support performance of highly motivated behaviour. In addition, there are long-term fundamental gains to be made from this study, as findings should be integrated into zoological collection planning and management: all highly topical issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".