Bethany L. Krebs1*
Karli R. Chudeau2
Caitlin L. Eschmann1Celina W. Tu2
Eridia Pacheco2
Jason V. Watters1,2- 1Animal Wellness Department, San Francisco Zoological Society, San Francisco, CA, United States
- 2Animal Science Department, University of California, Davis, CA, United States
Animal-based measures reflecting the welfare state of individuals are critical for ensuring the well-being of animals under human care. Anticipatory behavior is one potential animal-based measure that has gained traction in recent years, as it is theorized to relate to animals' reward sensitivity. It is of particular interest as an assessment for animals living under human care, as the predictability of the captive environment lends itself to the development of this class of behaviors. Animals are likely to exhibit anticipation in locations related to the anticipated event, often in temporally predictable time frames, and before specific contexts they experience in their day-to-day management. In this sense and under certain circumstances, anticipatory behaviors are likely to drive observed behavioral or space use patterns of animals under human care. Drawing conclusions from such data without identifying anticipation may result in misleading conclusions. Here we discuss how space, time, and context are related to patterns of anticipatory behaviors in animals under human care, how unidentified anticipation may alter conclusions regarding animal behavior or welfare under certain circumstances.
Introduction
Anticipatory behavior is a common phenomenon, documented in numerous species (1–9), in facilities where animals are cared for by humans (10). Briefly, anticipatory behavior is a suite of behaviors exhibited by animals during the appetitive phase (i.e., the searching phase of a behavioral sequence), aimed at the acquisition of a resource (11, 12). Readily observable anticipation is likely to develop under conditions where the availability of resources is predictable, either due to timing or cues in the environment (4, 13).
The past decade has seen a proliferation of animal welfare focused studies that assess anticipatory behavior to gain an understanding of animals' emotional states (14–17). This growth in research is evident in zoos and aquariums (hereafter zoos) where accreditation standards globally increasingly require assessing the welfare of all species living in zoological institutions (18–21). Anticipatory behavior provides a unique opportunity to study psychological states of animals and the factors influencing them with little manipulation. Indeed, in comparison to other approaches thought to assess animals' own reflections of their underlying psychological state, such as cognitive bias assessments, observations of anticipatory behavior rely on minimal intervention (9, 22, 23).
The manifestation of anticipatory behavior is greatly affected by many factors. Animals under human care generally receive primary reinforcing components of their care either on fixed schedules, following reliable or semi-reliable cues associated with them, or some combination of these. Thus, animals may anticipate based on the timing of events or the timing and sensory modality of the cues associated with these events (4, 24–26). The physical structure of the environment in which the behavior occurs can influence this behavior, as positive opportunities commonly occur in the same location(s) in the animals' space, such as feeding in a regular location or training sessions occurring where staff can access the animal (9, 23, 25). Additionally, the contexts in which the events occur can influence the manifestation of anticipatory behaviors (27, 28). Context itself can be multifaceted with variations in season, social situation, and cyclically hormonally-driven motivations (28–31).
Anticipatory behavior can be observed in animals that live in either captive or wild settings. Liberal interpretations of the behavior include all forms of behaviors associated with appetitive responses aimed at the acquisition of any perceived need (11, 32, 33). More conservative interpretations include responses tied to a clearly discernible (by the observer) cue(s) or to an observable pattern in the timing of events (11, 32, 33). Animals in wild settings thus express anticipatory behavior in a variety of ways and the general class of behavior is a core component of an ecologically relevant behavioral time budget.
Early studies labeled anticipatory behavior as ‘food anticipatory activity’ and demonstrated this behavior can become quite pronounced when animals rely on humans for scheduled caretaking (6, 13, 34, 35). These studies also occurred in laboratory settings where the factors that can shape the behavior were greatly simplified. Zoos provide more complex environments than those typically afforded lab animals, but are also subject to similar issues of scheduled care events, which can foster the development of anticipatory behavior (10). More recently, zoos have undergone a strong shift toward a focus on animal welfare (36) and emulating environments more in line with those the animals evolved in (37); nevertheless, much of the described behavior in zoo animals, the manner by which they utilize space, engage in daily rhythms, and even interact with conspecifics is shaped by patterns of anticipatory behavior. This may be particularly true in older descriptions that predate a focus on providing animals enriched environments (38) and longer lasting opportunities to be engaged in their environment (39). Anticipatory patterns across species appear to have specific relationships to the environmental contexts, timing of daily care events, and the spaces animals experience in their daily lives. Thus, unidentified anticipatory patterns have the potential to alter conclusions drawn from behavioral observations (40).
Here, we review how anticipation is expressed across space, time, and under different contexts. We discuss potential challenges of drawing conclusions from behavioral data collected from animals exhibiting anticipatory behaviors, and potential methods to identify or account for anticipation within existing datasets.
Anticipatory behavior
Anticipatory behavior is a suite of behaviors, expressed by animals during the appetitive phase, or before a desired outcome is acquired (10, 33). This class of behaviors is goal-directed, and aimed at acquiring desired outcomes (10, 33). In this paper, we will use the phrase anticipatory behavior to refer to animals' responses toward positive outcomes such as: breeding opportunities, positive social interactions, or food, and also behavioral opportunities to obtain primary reinforcers such as positive reinforcement training or enrichments (8, 9, 25, 41). Animals can express anticipation toward negative or unpleasant events as well (42, 43). Given the focus of modern accredited zoos is on providing positive quality of life and minimizing pain or distress (19, 20, 44), for the purposes of this paper we will focus on anticipation of positive outcomes.
As a welfare indicator, anticipatory behavior is thought to indicate an animal's own perception of its reward sensitivity (3, 45–47). Animals in a positive state of well-being are expected to exhibit frequent but low intensity anticipatory behavior toward known rewards. Animals in a more negative state may show infrequent but intense anticipation toward known positive outcomes (10). In essence, animals with fewer positively reinforcing opportunities will intensely anticipate the rare events they do receive. Intense anticipation may appear similar to an abnormal repetitive behavior such as pacing (10, 40). With further consideration of the timing, context, and location of the behavior, it may be possible to distinguish between abnormal behaviors and anticipatory patterns (40). Anticipatory behavior itself is neither a positive nor negative welfare indicator, rather the intensity with which it is expressed has been suggested as a graded welfare indicator for individual animals (9, 10).
Anticipatory behavior is not one single behavior, but rather a suite of behaviors an animal expresses ahead of acquiring a predictable reward to prepare to engage with the opportunity (9), and can take several forms. The first is an increased level of activity ahead of gaining the desired outcome. A generalized increase in locomotion or activity has been documented across taxa ahead of predictable feedings (2, 25, 30, 31, 46–53). Alternatively, animals may sit and wait for the arrival of the anticipated outcome (23, 31, 54). Studies suggest differences between species in how anticipation is expressed (23, 31). Given anticipatory behavior is expressed across many species and is prone to developing under predictable conditions, it may be a complicating factor in interpreting behavioral data collected on animals living in human care. Behavioral data is often used to inform animal management decisions and draw conclusions about animal welfare (14, 55, 56). Understanding how anticipation influences animals' use of space, and varies with the timing and context of behavioral observations may thus have far reaching impacts on the care of captive animals.
Anticipatory behavior and space use
Anticipatory behavior develops from the learned association between a temporal or other cue and an outcome (4, 24, 26). As animals learn to associate a time or stimuli with an event, they are also likely to learn the location the event happens as well. When the timing and location of a positive outcome are both unpredictable, evidence suggests animals vary their space use and behavior (57). This response may be related to how animals have evolved to express appetitive/anticipatory behaviors—in measured amounts throughout the day. In many zoos, caregivers or keepers provide opportunities in predictable places due to necessary constraints on exhibit access. In the same way animals can learn to associate unintentional cues provided by keeper presence with positive events (26), animals learn to associate specific places with predictable events occurring there (22, 58, 59). The learned associated between a desired event and a location may result in the development of anticipatory behaviors. The relationship between anticipatory behavior and space use will depend on which style of anticipation individuals express. For example, animals showing a sit-and-wait anticipatory pattern may approach an area they are fed, then sit or stand nearby until they are fed (23, 31, 54). The space use by this individual would not vary measurably during the anticipatory period. Animals exhibiting more active anticipation may repeatedly approach areas an event happens while stopping to look, listen, or otherwise gather information about whether the desired event is about to occur (25, 60, 61). Information gathering behaviors are also likely to be directed toward where the event is expected to occur, specifically if the event is dependent on caretaker presence (8, 9, 61). If there are several vantage points from which animals can gather information (e.g., about the location of their keepers), animals may move rapidly between two points while anticipating, pausing to listen or watch at each (60). An animal exhibiting this type of anticipation may show space use in a limited area of their enclosure, perhaps along an apparently fixed path. The active form of anticipation is potentially more likely to be (mis-)identified as an abnormal repetitive behavior.
Studies of animal space use in zoos have utilized a variety of methods (62), and have been used to draw conclusions about animal welfare (63–66), enclosure suitability for a species (67, 68), and species level preferences or needs for substrates (68, 69). A common assumption of many space use assessments is that varied space use is preferable to animals using only a limited portion of an enclosure (62). As an anticipating animal may only be using a small portion of its exhibit, space use data collected in the anticipatory period may indicate a lower diversity in space use measures. This may be particularly problematic for studies assessing enclosure suitability or substrate preferences for a given species.
For example, anticipating dolphins have been observed spending time at the surface of their pools, waiting and watching for their trainers' approach (25). This study was designed specifically to measure anticipatory behavior. To this end, the researchers conducted observations immediately before training sessions when the dolphins received food as a reinforcer. In this example, the event the animals are anticipating is predictable to them, and the animals can gain additional information about the arrival of the event by spending time in a specific area (i.e., the surface of the pool). If researchers collected data in the same time frame but did not know the training was about to occur, the observed space use and behavioral patterns may have been interpreted differently. If the data were used to assess pool depth preference, the conclusions may have suggested dolphins prefer using the surface rather than deeper parts of the pools. The lower activity levels and use of a smaller area could also be interpreted as signs of poor welfare in the time period before the training session. It should be noted, the same animals were observed after the training sessions and showed different behavioral patterns and fewer surface-oriented behaviors than during the anticipatory period (25).
Identifying and accounting for anticipation in spatial data
Based on the previously described relationship between space and anticipation, several space use patterns may be of use in identifying anticipation. Clustered use of only a small area may indicate sit-and-wait form of anticipation occurring. Space use indicating a fixed path may be suggestive of the more active form of anticipation. Either form of anticipatory behavior would be expected to focus near where a desirable outcome is expected to occur. If the event is dependent on the presence of care staff, the animal's behavior may also be focused in areas where staff access the animal's enclosure.
Although we are discussing spatial data here, the distribution of data collection in time needs to be considered in determining whether anticipation might be influencing how animals use space. Balancing the start time of observations as much as possible throughout the day will help avoid undue influence of any specific management event. It is not uncommon for researchers in zoos to group data into broad pre-defined time periods (e.g., morning 10:00–12:00, afternoon 12:01–14:00, etc.,), depending on the animal's behavioral patterns or when it is most feasible to collect data. Data collection is then ideally balanced across all pre-defined time periods. This is a valid approach to addressing temporal variation in animal behavior. Within pre-defined time periods, however, the start times of observation sessions may not be balanced throughout the entire time period. For instance, perhaps due to timing constraints, ‘morning’ observations are started most days at 10:00, but the ‘morning’ time period extends through noon. If the animal receives its daily morning feed at 10:30 on most days, its behavior at 10:00 may differ from its behavior at 11:30. The behavioral observations throughout the entire day may be balanced between “morning” and “afternoon” time periods, while still overrepresenting an anticipatory period in the “morning”. Thus, the animal's space use between 10:00 and 10:30 may not be representative of how the animal uses its enclosure when it is not waiting to be fed. Ensuring there is some variation in the start time of observations within broader pre-defined time periods will keep anticipation from unduly influencing the observed patterns of animal space use.
If space use is being used to determine whether anticipation is occurring, examining the animal's space use throughout the day at the same shorter timescale will be useful to verify space use patterns suggestive of anticipation. If a particular time period shows evidence of anticipation, it may be beneficial to exclude these data from analyses related to space use. Analyzing how animals use space outside of anticipatory time periods may provide a more independent measure of how the animal interacts with its enclosure or substrates independent of management events.
Anticipatory behavior and time
By definition, anticipatory behavior is dependent on time, as anticipation occurs before a predictable outcome (13, 24, 70, 71). Outcomes can become predictable to animals either by happening at approximately a similar time every day (53, 72, 73), being cued (intentionally or not, (8, 23, 26), or some combination of the two. Vertebrates have a well-developed internal clock, allowing them to develop a sense of when predictable events will occur in captive settings (24, 74). Reliable or semi-reliable cues animals learn in relation to caretaker behavior or environmental conditions can lead to anticipatory behavior as well (34, 75, 76). Feeding is commonly used to set, or entrain, circadian rhythms in laboratory studies (34, 77–79). The timing of feedings effectively set animals' internal clocks and circadian rhythms. Studies of rats and mice in laboratories have used wheel running as an index for activity level, and have quantified wheel revolutions throughout the day in relation to timing of feeds (80, 81). Measures of wheel running have provided insight into how anticipatory behaviors are expressed as predictable events approach. Specifically, anticipatory activity begins at low levels of intensity at time points before a predictable event, increases as the time of the expected event approaches, and then drops off suddenly when the desired event arrives. The sudden cessation of anticipatory behavior occurs when the animal is able to consummate the motivation the anticipation was directed toward (81). This structured temporal pattern of behavior can be contrasted with abnormal repetitive behaviors. Abnormal repetitive behaviors are typically described as functionless, and can result from varied etiologies (10, 82, 83). Based on the current understanding of these behaviors, there is no theory to suggest a temporal structure to when animals would express abnormal repetitive behaviors. Thus, this well-documented temporal pattern of behavior in anticipating animals shows the most promise as a diagnostically relevant factor for differentiating these classes of behaviors (40).
Food anticipatory activity has been documented in a wide variety of species (5, 8, 22, 23, 25, 27, 44, 48, 49, 56, 84, 85); however, the majority of this research was conducted in laboratory settings. Few studies outside of laboratories have examined how long before an event anticipation begins, nor what factors might impact the onset of anticipatory behaviors. Laboratory studies suggest food anticipatory activity tends to increase within an hour of expected feedings (13, 81, 82). Whether sit-and-wait anticipation is also expressed in a similar time frame is not known. Logistically, it may be more difficult to quantify changes to this style of anticipation over time. Increasingly rapid locomotion or location changes can be quantified, but measuring the intensity of an immobile behavior is challenging.
Animal behavior research has emphasized the value in understanding the relative importance of different resources to animals under human care (28, 84–86). As some resources will matter more than others depending on an animal's current state, animals can demonstrate behaviorally how much a given resource ‘matters’ to them by how much effort they will put in to obtain it (87, 88). Similarly, we may expect animals may express anticipation differently toward different resources. One study of domestic hens (Gallus gallus) demonstrated that the intensity of anticipation varies according to how much the reward is valued (89), and a study of a captive sea lion (Zalophus californianus) indicated the animal expressed more intense anticipation toward the first feed of the day compared to later feeds (9). As many non-domesticated species show seasonality of behavior and physiology associated with changes in behavioral drives, we may expect seasonal variations in anticipation as well. The extent to which an animal anticipates a particular event could vary seasonally, or the specific resources an animal anticipates may change throughout the year. For example, seasonal molting in birds increases the animal's energy requirements resulting in more food consumption (90, 91). Given the additional metabolic requirements of this process, animals may be more strongly motivated by food when they are undergoing a molt than at other times of the year. They may also exhibit more intense anticipation toward feedings than other opportunities during this time.
Identifying and accounting for anticipation in temporal data
Statistical methods already used to account for variation over the course of the day or study period, or to account for temporal autocorrelation may be useful for accounting for variation in behavior over time due to anticipation. Specifically, using generalized linear mixed models with a random effect for time of day to analyze behavioral data may help account for periods of significant anticipatory behavior in a data set, or account for variation in sampling through time (92). Assessing the response variables for temporal autocorrelation and including a variance structure accounting for this may also help account for temporal patterns within the data (92). As generalized linear mixed model methods can also tolerate uneven sampling across time periods, somewhat unbalanced timing of observations can be accounted for using this modeling method. Accounting for seasonal or annual variation is often done utilizing this method in other fields, and this may be useful for longer term zoo research as well (92, 93).
Ensuring observations are generally balanced throughout the day is another practical way to account for temporal variation in behavioral patterns. Even if timing of observations is grouped into pre-defined time periods, ensuring observation start times within each time period are varied can help balance out any anticipation captured in the observations. As previously stated, descriptions of how long before an event anticipation might be expected to begin are lacking outside of laboratory studies. As such, assessing behavioral data at a relatively short temporal scale, such as hour by hour, for signs of anticipation may be advisable. If a specific time period shows a much higher or lower activity level, determining whether any management events of particular importance to the animal occur around that time may help identify the behavior as anticipatory. When possible, determining whether the animal shows an increase followed by a sudden decrease in a particular behavior (e.g., walking or pacing) may be definitively used to identify a pattern as anticipatory. This approach would require repeated behavioral observations at a fine temporal scale, and may not always be feasible. Depending on the behavioral variables of interest for the study, excluding anticipatory periods from further analysis may be warranted.
As anticipation is directed toward a specific outcome, it is important to understand not only the temporal patterns of the behavior but also what management events happen and when they typically occur in a given day. As accredited zoos focus more on ensuring good welfare for animals in their care, most animals receive multiple daily positive opportunities in the form of feeding, enrichment, positive reinforcement training sessions, changing social groups, and other management decisions aimed at providing a varied and stimulating environment (20, 94, 95). Zoo animals may anticipate any of these events, but anticipation is most likely to develop for events that occur repeatedly, around approximately the same time, and/or are preceded by a cue or string of cues (9, 26, 76). Understanding the general time frame of daily management events an animal receives will therefore be a critical piece of information for understanding when the animal may be expressing anticipation.
Finally, if a concern is raised regarding a behavioral pattern that appears to be abnormal, the temporal patterns of the behavior may be useful in distinguishing between abnormal repetitive behaviors and intense anticipation. Specifically, if the behavior in question increases over a short period of time, and then decreases rapidly or stops after the arrival of a management event, there would be reason to conclude the behavior is anticipatory in nature. If it is not feasible to conduct detailed behavioral assessments in the time period the behavior is generally observed, an interview with care staff regarding the animal's regular daily schedule may help establish a timeline for when rewarding events occur for the animal.
Context
The factors we are referring to as ‘contexts’; in this review are any additional covariates that may impact study outcomes. Contexts or circumstances change in zoos throughout the day, weeks, or even months. As previously discussed, time and space are important and influence anticipatory behavior. For this paper, we are defining contexts as circumstances in a zoo that are out of the animal's control, and vary within space and time - essentially any covariate that can influence behavior. This is not a comprehensive list of all contexts animals experience in zoos, however we've attempted to broadly classify previous studies of relevant contexts here.
Anticipatory behavior and contexts
The impact of many specific contexts on anticipatory behavior have not yet been explicitly explored. In general, the direction of the relationship between a given context and anticipatory patterns will depend on the animal's level of reward sensitivity (10, 11, 33). The relationship between context and anticipation will also depend on whether the individual perceives the context as a positive or negative outcome (5, 23, 42, 96). We are including context as a separate factor from space and time, because although contexts vary within space and time, anticipation also varies between contexts (61, 97–99). In turn, variation in context will influence how anticipation is expressed in time and space. For instance, an animal with varied enrichment may demonstrate its lower reward sensitivity through less intense anticipation (45, 100).
Human contexts
One context that receives significant attention in all zoological institutions is the effect of humans. Visitors and care staff are present on a daily basis. Repeated interactions with humans may be considered human-animal relationships (HAR), and the relationships between animal care staff and the animals they care for can have implications for animal behavior and well-being (101–105). Studies have shown that HARs can have a positive, negative, or neutral effect for animals and depend on the quality and quantity of interactions between two individuals (105). A case study of two zoo animals suggests that animals under human care can find social interactions with non-caretaking humans positive, even when the interaction resulted in no primary reinforcement (23). This study demonstrated this social interaction was rewarding enough to lead to the development of anticipatory behaviors when the interaction followed a reliable signal (23). Besides the quality of an animal's relationship with its caretakers, keeper presence is one of the major factors that influences daily conditions animals experience (106). Keeper presence is often associated with positive events for the animal, and animals are generally highly attuned to cues related to their keepers (26, 105, 107). The arrival or presence of caretakers likely shapes daily patterns of animal behavior. The majority of an animal's feedings, enrichments, or training sessions will occur within a short time of a keepers' arrival (49, 108). For instance, dolphins anticipating positive reinforcement training sessions orient themselves according to keeper presence and activity (25). The context of care staff presence may therefore influence the timing and spatial components of animals' behaviors. Thus, an individual animal's experience of its relationship with its caretakers and the frequency of keeper visits both have potential to impact anticipatory patterns.
Zoo visitor presence is known to impact animal behavior in various ways. Interactions between visitors and zoo animals are a subset of human-animal relationships studied in zoos known as the visitor effect. The effect of visitor presence on animals is well–documented (109, 110). The nature of the impact that visitors have on animal behavior varies. Studies have shown varying levels of negative impact associated with high visitor density, including increased corticoid concentrations (111, 112), increased hiding behavior (113), increased abnormal repetitive behaviors (114, 115), and increased intra-group aggression (116). The impact of crowd size is variable, however, with some studies finding a negative relationship and others finding no impact, even in the same species (109, 117). Animals' response to visitor presence is likely influenced by species and individual personality (117, 118). To date, little or no research we could find has been done investigating the relationship between visitor numbers and anticipation in zoo settings. This may be an avenue for future investigation. How an animal's anticipatory patterns change with visitor numbers is likely to depend on whether it perceives visitor presence as aversive or enriching. The predicted relationship between reward sensitivity and intensity of anticipation can be useful in predicting how animals' anticipation may vary with visitor numbers (10). Animals finding visitor presence stressful would be expected to exhibit more intense anticipation under high visitor numbers. Animals experiencing visitor presence as enriching may exhibit minimal anticipation when visitor numbers are high. The potential for correlation between higher visitor numbers and events the animals perceive as high value may complicate such a study. Specifically, if trainings or feedings are advertised to zoo visitors, the timing of increased visitor numbers at the animal's exhibit and the time leading up to the management event may be confounded.
Social contexts
The social context of animals also impacts many aspects of how they interact with their environments (see (119) for an in-depth review). The social context of an animal includes intra-specific interactions with conspecifics. The nature of intra-specific interactions is expected to vary with the size and composition of the group (120), as well as the individual temperaments of the group members (120, 121). An animal's social context may also include any individuals of another species with which the animal shares space (122, 123). Social context does not only include animals with physical access to each other, as both conspecifics or heterospecifics within the perceptible range of an individual animal may impact its behavior. For example, okapi (Okapia johnstoni) with visual access to conspecifics exhibit more pacing (124), and the sex-ratio of animals in surrounding pens impacts breeding behavior in giant pandas (125). In a mixed-species example, alarm calling and vigilance in brown capuchins (Cebus apella) decreased with the addition of a visual barrier between the primates and a small felid in a nearby exhibit (126). Studies of anticipation and social contexts in zoo animals are limited; however, laboratory studies indicate social interactions can have significant impacts on anticipatory patterns of individuals (46).
Environmental contexts
It has long been recognized that inappropriate environmental conditions can compromise animal well-being. Due to this, zoo scientists are increasingly interested in empirically assessing the environmental conditions animals experience to ensure animals can achieve positive well-being. Assessments have examined animals' responses to the myriad environmental conditions they are subject to, such as artificial lighting (127, 128), sound levels (129–131), or the thermal environment (132, 133). Such environmental measurements may be the main focus of the study, or included as a covariate expected to impact animal responses (134, 135). Interest in the impact of complex changes to normal environmental conditions is also increasing, with more research being conducted on events held at or impacting zoos (136–139).
The most common method to provide changes to the environment is environmental enrichment. Environmental enrichment is a component of animal husbandry that aims to provide a dynamic environment through varied behavioral opportunities for animals under human care (62, 140–144). Environmental enrichment can take many forms, including feeding strategies, sensory, social, structural, and cognitive enrichments (143, 145). Giving enrichment daily is common, but the type of enrichment, frequency, and timing can vary between enclosures, species, and zoos. Type, frequency (times throughout the day), timing, and location of enrichment can be an essential context to consider when collecting behavioral data. Studies in farm animals indicate a variety of animals exhibit anticipatory behavior ahead of receiving environmental enrichment opportunities (5, 30, 144). Enriched environments are generally associated with indicators of positive well-being in animals, such as increased engagement with their environments (146–148), positive judgment biases (149, 150), and play behaviors (41, 151, 152). Enrichments providing problem solving opportunities have also been associated with lowered intensity of anticipatory behaviors (60), as well as other indicators of positive well-being in animals (153, 154).
Identifying and accounting for anticipatory behavior in relation to contexts
The contexts an animal experiences are likely to interact with anticipation by modulating the animal's overall reward sensitivity (10). As already stated, any outcomes the animal finds to be positive are candidates for the animal to express anticipation toward, and the more of these an individual experiences the less intense overall anticipation is expected to be. Thus, when a study aims to alter one or more contexts an animal experiences, gaining as complete a picture of what the individual's ‘normal’ day comprises ahead of any changes is critical. This is already a common feature of many studies in zoos, with baseline data collected ahead of any manipulations to the environment or animal management. Alongside the collection of baseline behavioral data, understanding the timing, frequency, and individual preferences for various contexts and events study animals experience in their daily lives can provide a more complete understanding any resulting changes observed during the study.
Context is also included here as it is expected to vary in both space and time, suggesting animals may be experiencing their environments differently throughout the course of the day. This seemingly basic statement has important implications for anticipatory patterns of individual animals. It is common for zoo animals to be shifted into publicly visible spaces when the zoo opens, and they receive a portion of their daily diet and novel enrichment for the day. By later in the day, the enrichment has been engaged with or emptied of food, and the animal's diet may be consumed. The environment the same animal experiences 4 h after shifting may be significantly different in terms of context than the environment it shifted into in the morning, with potentially fewer behavioral opportunities available (26, 39). Thus, the biological relevance of the animal's environment is likely to change throughout the day. The timing of events in relation to one another and potentially the order of events may all be important contexts to consider as well.
Anticipation may be an unrecognized source of variations among behaviors of group-living individuals, as each individual has the potential to experience a given context differently. For example, a more dominant group member may have the opportunity to exploit feedings or enrichments first, or subordinate individuals may not receive as many positive social interactions with other group members. Less dominant animals may thus be expected to display more intense anticipation on average than more dominant individuals. Ruling out whether this is the case may help account for results when a change is observed in behavior at the group level; but, the outcome is driven by a single animal's response. Considerations of context will necessarily vary according to what the overall question of a study is.
Conclusion
Throughout this review, we discussed space, time, and context separately—but in practice, all of these factors are interconnected. How animals use space or experience different contexts are constantly changing through time. Understanding space use, temporal patterns, or contexts influencing animal behaviors requires concurrent understanding of each of the other factors in many cases.
We have identified several specific patterns of how anticipatory behaviors are expressed in relation to space, time and contexts, based on reviewing the existing research. Specifically, if a behavior is anticipatory, it would be expected to (1) occur in an area proximal to where a positive event occurs (2) increase in frequency or intensity as the time of a predictable positive outcome approaches (3) cease to be expressed when consummation of the motivation occurs and (4) be modulated by other contexts expected to change individual's reward sensitivity (e.g., decrease in intensity with increased opportunities to obtain rewards and vice versa). These patterns can be useful for identifying anticipation in animals living under human care.
The extensive body of research into how animals use their spaces, respond to changes over time, and other contexts influencing animal behavior have been a major part of the zoo animal welfare field. As the focus of animal management and care moves toward the goal of providing more choice, control, and complexity for animals, the methods used for measuring how animals respond to these changes need to shift as well. By integrating spatial and temporal considerations explicitly into how we measure animal behavior, we can improve our understanding of the prevalence of anticipatory behaviors, and clarify how these behaviors may have inadvertently shaped our conclusions about animals' preferences and requirements.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
BK conceptualized the manuscript. BK, KC, CE, CT, and EP wrote the manuscript. BK, KC, CE, CT, EP, and JW provided significant edits to the manuscript. JW is the principle investigator and provided logistical support to all contributors. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Rochelle Stiles for her assistance in editing the manuscript. We also thank the two reviewers for their constructive feedback.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Reebs SG, Lague M. Daily food-anticipatory activity in golden shiners: a test of endogenous timing mechanisms. Physiol Behav. (2000) 70:35–43. doi: 10.1016/S0031-9384(00)00240-7
2. Moe RO, Bakken M, Kittilsen S, Kingsley-Smith H, Spruijt BM, A. note on reward-related behaviour and emotional expressions in farmed silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes)—basis for a novel tool to study animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2006) 101:362–8. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.004
3. van der Harst JE, Spruijt BM. Tools to measure and improve animal welfare: reward-related behaviour. Anim Welf. (2007) 16:67–73.
4. Antle MC, Silver R. Neural basis of timing and anticipatory behaviors. Eur J Neurosci. (2009) 30:1643–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06959.x
5. Anderson C, Yngvesson J, Boissy A, Uvnas-Moberg K, Lidfors L. Behavioural expression of positive anticipation for food or opportunity to play in lambs. Behav Process. (2015) 113:152–8. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.02.003
6. Brenes JC, Schwarting RKW. Individual differences in anticipatory activity to food rewards predict cue-induced appetitive 50-kHz calls in rats. Physiol Behav. (2015) 149:107–18. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.05.012
7. Clegg I, Delfour F. Cognitive judgement bias is associated with frequency of anticipatory behavior in bottlenose dolphins. Zoo Biol. (2018) 37:67–73. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21400
8. Clegg ILK, Rödel HG, Boivin X, Delfour F. Looking forward to interacting with their caretakers: dolphins' anticipatory behaviour indicates motivation to participate in specific events. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2018) 202:85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.01.015
9. Podturkin AA, Krebs BL, Watters JV. A quantitative approach for using anticipatory behavior as a graded welfare assessment. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2022):1–15. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2021.2012783
10. Watters JV. Searching for behavioral indicators of welfare in zoos: uncovering anticipatory behavior. Zoo Biol. (2014) 33:251–6. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21144
11. Alcaro A, Panksepp J. The seeking mind: primal neuro-affective substrates for appetitive incentive states and their pathological dynamics in addictions and depression. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2011) 35:1805–20. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.03.002
12. Balsam P, Sanchez-Castillo H, Taylor K, Van Volkinburg H, Ward RD. Timing and anticipation: conceptual and methodological approaches. Eur J Neurosci. (2009) 30:1749–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06967.x
13. Mistlberger RE. Food-anticipatory circadian rhythms: concepts and methods. Eur J Neurosci. (2009) 30:1718–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06965.x
14. Whitham JC, Wielebnowski N. New directions for zoo animal welfare science. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2013) 147:247–60. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.02.004
15. Shepherdson D, Lewis KD, Carlstead K, Bauman J, Perrin N. Individual and environmental factors associated with stereotypic behavior and fecal glucocorticoid metabolite levels in zoo housed polar bears. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2013) 147:268–77. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.01.001
16. Carlstead K, Shepherdson D. Alleviating Stress in Zoo Animals with Environmental Enrichment. In: Mench JA, editor. The Biology of Animal Stress: Basic Principles and Implications for Animal Welfare. New York, NY: CABI Publishing (2000). p. 337–49.
17. Ward SJ, Sherwen S, Clark FE. Advances in applied zoo animal welfare science. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2018) 21:23–33. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2018.1513842
18. Veasey JS, Waran NK, Young RJ. On comparing the behaviour of zoo housed animals with wild conspecifics as a welfare indicator. Anim Welf. (1996) 5:13–24.
19. Mellor DJ, Hunt S, Gusset M, editors. Caring for Wildlife: The World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy. Gland: WAZA Executive Office (2015).
20. Mellor D. Updating animal welfare thinking: moving beyond the “five freedoms” towards “a life worth living”. Animals. (2016) 6:21. doi: 10.3390/ani6030021
21. Binding S, Farmer H, Krusin L, Cronin K. Status of animal welfare research in zoos and aquariums: where are we, where to next? J Zoo Aquar Res. (2020) 8:166–74. doi: 10.19227/jzar.v8i3.505
22. Bethell EJ, A. “how-to” guide for designing judgment bias studies to assess captive animal welfare. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2015) 18:S18–42. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2015.1075833
23. Krebs BL, Torres E, Chesney C, Kantoniemi Moon V, Watters JV. Applying behavioral conditioning to identify anticipatory behaviors. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2017) 20:155–75. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2017.1283225
24. Mistlberger RE, Antle MC. Entrainment of circadian clocks in mammals by arousal and food. In: Piggins HD, Guilding C, editors. Essays in Biochemistry: Chronobiology. Essays in Biochemistry. 49. London: Portland Press Ltd (2011). p. 119–36.
25. Jensen ALM, Delfour F, Carter T. Anticipatory behavior in captive bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus): a preliminary study. Zoo Biol. (2013) 32:436–44. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21077
26. Watters JV, Krebs BL. Assessing and enhancing the welfare of animals with equivocal and reliable cues. Animals. (2019) 9:680. doi: 10.3390/ani9090680
27. Hansen SW, Jeppesen LL. Temperament, stereotypies and anticipatory behaviour as measures of welfare in mink. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2006) 99:172–82. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.10.005
28. van den Berg CL, Pijlman FTA, Koning HAM, Diergaarde L, Van Ree JM, Spruijt BM. Isolation changes the incentive value of sucrose and social behaviour in juvenile and adult rats. Behav Brain Res. (1999) 106:133–42. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4328(99)00099-6
29. Imfeld-Mueller S, Hillmann E. Anticipation of a food ball increases short-term activity levels in growing pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2012) 137:23–9. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.01.012
30. Dudink S, Simonse H, Marks I, de Jonge FH, Spruijt BM. Announcing the arrival of enrichment increases play behaviour and reduces weaning-stress-induced behaviours of piglets directly after weaning. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2006) 101:86–101. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.12.008
31. van den Bos R, Meijer MK, van Renselaar JP, van der Harst JE, Spruijt BM. Anticipation is differently expressed in rats (Rattus norvegicus) and domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) in the same pavlovian conditioning paradigm. Behav Brain Res. (2003) 141:83–9. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4328(02)00318-2
32. Burgdorf J, Panksepp J. The neurobiology of positive emotions. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2006) 30:173–87. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.06.001
33. Panksepp J, Moskal J. Dopamine and SEEKING: subcortical “Reward” Systems and Appetitive Urges. In: Elliot A, ed. Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group (2008) p. 67–87.
34. Mistlberger RE. Circadian food-anticipatory activity: formal models and physiological mechanisms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (1994) 18:171–95. doi: 10.1016/0149-7634(94)90023-X
35. Escobar C, Martinez-Merlos MT, Angeles-Castellanos M, Minana MD, Buijs RM. Unpredictable feeding schedules unmask a system for daily resetting of behavioural and metabolic food entrainment. Eur J Neurosci. (2007) 26:2804–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05893.x
36. Powell DM, Watters JV. The evolution of the animal welfare movement in US zoos and aquariums. Zool Gart. (2017) 86:219–34. doi: 10.1016/j.zoolgart.2017.04.007
37. Finlay T, James LR, Maple TL. People's perceptions of animals: the influence of zoo environment. Environ Behav. (1988) 20:508–28. doi: 10.1177/0013916588204008
38. Shepherdson DJ, Mellen JD, Hutchins M. Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. (1999).
39. Brando S, Buchanan-Smith HM. The 24/7 approach to promoting optimal welfare for captive wild animals. Behav Process. (2018) 156:83–95. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.09.010
40. Watters JV, Krebs BL, Eschmann CL. Assessing animal welfare with behavior: onward with caution. J Zool Bot Gard. (2021) 2:75–87. doi: 10.3390/jzbg2010006
41. Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, et al. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiol Behav. (2007) 92:375–97. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003
42. Marlin NA, Sullivan JM, Berk AM, Miller RR. Preference for information about intensity of signaled tailshock. Learn Motiv. (1979) 10:85–97. doi: 10.1016/0023-9690(79)90052-3
43. Shankman SA, Robison-Andrew EJ, Nelson BD, Altman SE, Campbell ML. Effects of predictability of shock timing and intensity on aversive responses. Int J Psychophysiol. (2011): 80:112–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.02.008
44. Sherwen SL, Hemsworth LM, Beausoleil NJ, Embury A, Mellor DJ. An animal welfare risk assessment process for zoos. Animals. (2018) 8:130. doi: 10.3390/ani8080130
45. van der Harst JE, Baars AM, Spruijt BM. Standard housed rats are more sensitive to rewards than enriched housed rats as reflected by their anticipatory behaviour. Behav Brain Res. (2003) 142:151–6. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4328(02)00403-5
46. van der Harst JE, Baars AM, Spruijt BM. Announced rewards counteract the impairment of anticipatory behaviour in socially stressed rats. Behav Brain Res. (2005) 161:183–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2005.02.029
47. Peters SM, Bleijenberg EH, van Dierendonck MC, van der Harst JE, Spruijt BM. Characterization of anticipatory behaviour in domesticated horses (Equus caballus). Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2012) 138:60–9. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.01.018
48. Knutson B, Burgdorf J, Panksepp J. Anticipation of play elicits high-frequency ultrasonic vocalizations in young rats. J Comp Psychol. (1998) 112:65–73. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.112.1.65
49. Waitt C. Buchanan-Smith HM. What time is feeding?: How delays and anticipation of feeding schedules affect stump-tailed macaque behavior. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2001) 75:75–85. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00174-5
50. Amiez C, Procyk E, Honore J, Sequeira H, Joseph JP. Reward anticipation, cognition, and electrodermal activity in the conditioned monkey. Exp Brain Res. (2003) 149:267–75. doi: 10.1007/s00221-002-1353-9
51. de Jonge FH, Tilly SL, Baars AM, Spruijt BM. On the rewarding nature of appetitive feeding behaviour in pigs (Sus scrofa): do domesticated pigs contrafreeload? Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2008) 114:359–72. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.03.006
52. Moe RO, Nordgreen J, Janczak AM, Spruijt BM, Zanella AJ, Bakken M. Trace classical conditioning as an approach to the study of reward-related behaviour in laying hens: a methodological study. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 121:171–8. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.10.002
53. Gottlieb DH, Coleman K, McCowan B. The effects of predictability in daily husbandry routines on captive Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2013) 143:117–27. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.10.010
54. Bloomsmith MA, Lambeth SP. Effects of predictable versus unpredictable feeding schedules on chimpanzee behavior. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1995) 44:65–74. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)00570-I
55. Watters JV, Margulis SW, Atsalis S. Behavioral monitoring in zoos and aquariums: a tool for guiding husbandry and directing research. Zoo Biol. (2009) 28:35–48. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20207
56. Wark JD, Cronin KA, Niemann T, Shender MA, Horrigan A, Kao A, et al. Monitoring the behavior and habitat use of animals to enhance welfare using the Zoo Monitor app. Anim Behav Cogn. (2019) 6:158–67. doi: 10.26451/abc.06.03.01.2019
57. Watters JV, Miller JT, Sullivan TJ. Note on optimizing environmental enrichment: a study of fennec fox and zoo guests. Zoo Biol. (2011) 30:647–54. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20365
58. Roelofs S, Boleij H, Nordquist RE, van der Staay FJ. Making decisions under ambiguity: Judgment bias tasks for assessing emotional state in animals. Front Behav Neurosci. (2016) 10:119. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00119
59. Hintze S, Melotti L, Colosio S, Bailoo JD, Boada-Saña M, Würbel H, et al. A cross-species judgment bias task: integrating active trial initiation into a spatial Go/No-go task. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:5104. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23459-3
60. Krebs BL, Watters JV. Simple but temporally unpredictable puzzles are cognitive enrichment. Anim Behav Cogn. (2017) 4:119–34. doi: 10.12966/abc.09.02.2017
61. Makowska IJ, Weary DM. Differences in anticipatory behaviour between rats (Rattus norvegicus) housed in standard versus semi-naturalistic laboratory environments. PLoS One. (2016) 11:e0147595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147595
63. Ross SR, Schapiro SJ, Hau J, Lukas KE. Space use as an indicator of enclosure appropriateness: A novel measure of captive animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 121:42–50. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.08.007
64. Stroud P. Defining issues of space in zoos. J Vet Behav. (2007) 2:219–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2007.10.003
65. Holdgate MR, Meehan CL, Hogan JN, Miller LJ, Soltis J, Andrews J, et al. Walking behavior of zoo elephants: associations between GPS-measured daily walking distances and environmental factors, social factors, and welfare indicators. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:e0150331. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150331
66. Rose PE, Brereton JE, Croft DP. Measuring welfare in captive flamingos: activity patterns and exhibit usage in zoo-housed birds. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2018) 205:115–25. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.015
67. Hunter SC, Gusset M, Miller LJ, Somers MJ. Space use as an indicator of enclosure appropriateness in African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2014) 17:98–110. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2014.884401
68. Edwards MJ, Hosie CA, Smith TE, Wormell D, Price E, Stanley CR. Principal component analysis as a novel method for the assessment of the enclosure use patterns of captive Livingstone's fruit bats (Pteropus livingstonii). Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2021) 244:105479. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105479
69. Holdgate MR, Meehan CL, Hogan JN, Miller LJ, Rushen J, de Passillé AM, et al. Recumbence behavior in zoo elephants: determination of patterns and frequency of recumbent rest and associated environmental and social factors. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:e0153301. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153301
70. Braesicke K, Parkinson JA, Reekie Y, Man M-S, Hopewell L, Pears A, et al. Autonomic arousal in an appetitive context in primates: a behavioural and neural analysis. Eur J Neurosci. (2005) 21:1733–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03987.x
71. di Sorrentino EP, Schino G, Visalberghi E, Aureli F. What time is it? Coping with expected feeding time in capuchin monkeys. Anim Behav. (2010) 80:117–23. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.04.008
72. Bassett L. Effects of Predictability of Feeding Routines on the Behaviour and Welfare of Captive Primates, University of Stirling, Scotland (2003).
73. Silva KM, Timberlake W, A. behavior systems view of the organization of multiple responses during a partially or continuously reinforced interfood clock. Anim Learn Behav. (2005) 33:99–110. doi: 10.3758/BF03196054
74. Mistlberger RE. Neurobiology of food anticipatory circadian rhythms. Physiol Behav. (2011) 104:535–45. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.04.015
75. de Groot MHM, Rusak B. Housing conditions influence the expression of food-anticipatory activity in mice. Physiol Behav. (2004) 83:447–57. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.08.037
76. Rimpley K, Buchanan-Smith HM. Reliably signalling a startling husbandry event improves welfare of zoo-housed capuchins (Sapajus apella). Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2013) 147:205–13. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.04.017
77. Stephan FK. The “other” circadian system: food as a zeitgeber. J Biol Rhythms. (2002) 17:284–92. doi: 10.1177/074873002129002591
78. Davidson AJ, Tataroglu O, Menaker M. Circadian effects of timed meals (and other rewards). In: Young MW, editor. Circadian Rhythms. Methods in Enzymology. 393. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press Inc (2005). p. 509–23.
79. Solis-Salazar T, Martinez-Merlos MT, Angeles-Castellanos M, Mendoza J, Escobar C. Behavioral and physiological adaptations in rats during food-entrainment. Biol Rhythm Res. (2005) 36:99–108. doi: 10.1080/09291010400028757
80. Storch K-F, Weitz Charles J. Daily rhythms of food-anticipatory behavioral activity do not require the known circadian clock. PNAS. (2009) 106:6808–13. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0902063106
81. Pendergast JS, Yamazaki S. Effects of light, food, and methamphetamine on the circadian activity rhythm in mice. Physiol Behav. (2014) 128:92–8. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.01.021
82. Mason GJ. Stereotypies: a critical review. Anim Behav. (1991) 41:1015–37. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80640-2
83. Mason G, Clubb R, Latham N, Vickery S. Why and how should we use environmental enrichment to tackle stereotypic behaviour? Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2007) 102:163–88. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.041
84. Bloomfield RC, Gillespie GR, Kerswell KJ, Butler KL, Hemsworth PH. Effect of partial covering of the visitor viewing area window on positioning and orientation of zoo orangutans: a preference test. Zoo Biol. (2015) 34:223–9. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21207
85. Dorey NR, Mehrkam LR, Tacey J, A. method to assess relative preference for training and environmental enrichment in captive wolves (Canis lupus and Canis lupus arctos). Zoo Biol. (2015) 34:513–7. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21239
86. de Jonge FH, Ooms M, Kuurman WW, Maes JHR, Spruijt BM. Are pigs sensitive to variability in food rewards? Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2008) 114:93–104. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.004
87. Inglis IR, Forkman B, Lazarus J. Free food or earned food? A review and fuzzy model of contrafreeloading. Anim Behav. (1997) 53:1171–91. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0320
88. Matthews LR, Ladewig J. Environmental requirements of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions. Anim Behav. (1994) 47:713–9. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1994.1096
89. Moe RO, Nordgreen J, Janczak AM, Spruijt BM, Bakken M. Effects of signalled reward type, food status and a mu-opioid receptor antagonist on cue-induced anticipatory behaviour in laying hens (Gallus domesticus). Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2013) 148:46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.08.001
90. Cyr N, Wikelski M, Romero LM. Increased energy expenditure but decreased stress responsiveness during molt. Physiol Biochem Zool. (2008) 81:452–62. doi: 10.1086/589547
91. Thompson DC, Boag DA. Effect of molting on the energy requirements of Japanese quail. Condor. (1976) 78:249–52. doi: 10.2307/1366861
92. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, et al. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. (2009) 24:127–35. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008
93. Kushlan JA. Responses of wading birds to seasonally fluctuating water levels: strategies and their limits. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. (1986) 9:155–62. doi: 10.2307/1521208
94. Franks B, Higgins ET. Effectiveness in humans and other animals: a common basis for well being and welfare. In: Olson JM, Zanna MP, editors. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 46. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 46. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press Inc (2012). p. 285–346.
95. Allard SM, Bashaw MJ. Empowering zoo animals. In: Kaufman AB, Bashaw MJ, Maple TL, editors. Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their role in Conservation and Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2019). p. 241–73.
96. Gliner JA. Predictable vs. unpredictable shock: preference behavior and stomach ulceration. Physiol Behav. (1972) 9:693–8. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(72)90036-4
97. Wichman A, Keeling LJ, Forkman B. Cognitive bias and anticipatory behaviour of laying hens housed in basic and enriched pens. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2012) 140:62–9. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.05.006
98. Keith DR, Hart CL, Robotham M, Tariq M, Le Sauter J, Silver R. Time of day influences the voluntary intake and behavioral response to methamphetamine and food reward. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. (2013) 110:117–26. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2013.05.011
99. Destrez A, Deiss V, Leterrier C, Calandreau L, Boissy A. Repeated exposure to positive events induces optimistic-like judgment and enhances fearfulness in chronically stressed sheep. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2014) 154:30–8. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.01.005
100. van der Harst JE, Fermont PCJ, Bilstra AE, Spruijt BM. Access to enriched housing is rewarding to rats as reflected by their anticipatory behaviour. Anim Behav. (2003) 66:493–504. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2003.2201
101. Carlstead K, Mellen J. Kleiman DG. Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in US zoos: individual behavior profiles and their relationship to breeding success. Zoo Biol. (1999) 18:17. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2361
102. Carlstead K. A comparative approach to the study of keeper–animal relationships in the zoo. Zoo Biol. (2009) 28:589–608. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20289
103. Carlstead K, Paris S, Brown JL. Good keeper-elephant relationships in North American zoos are mutually beneficial to welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2019) 211:103–11. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.11.003
104. Hemsworth PH. Ethical stockmanship. Aust Vet J. (2007) 85:194–200. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2007.00112.x
105. Ward SJ, Melfi V. Keeper-animal interactions: Differences between the behaviour of zoo animals affect stockmanship. PLoS ONE. (2015) 10:e0140237. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140237
106. Hoy JM, Murray PJ, Tribe A. Thirty years later: Enrichment practices for captive mammals. Zoo Biol. (2010) 29:303–16. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20254
107. Cole J, Fraser D. Zoo animal welfare: the human dimension. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2018) 21(Sup. 1):49–58. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2018.1513839
108. Bassett L, Buchanan-Smith HM. Effects of predictability on the welfare of captive animals. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2007) 102:223–45. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.029
109. Davey G. Visitor behavior in zoos: a review. Anthrozoös. (2006) 19:143–57. doi: 10.2752/089279306785593838
110. Davey G. Visitors' effects on the welfare of animals in the zoo: a review. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2007) 10:169–83. doi: 10.1080/10888700701313595
111. Carlstead K, Brown JL. Relationships between patterns of fecal corticoid excretion and behavior, reproduction, and environmental factors in captive black (Diceros bicornis) and white (Ceratotherium simum) rhinoceros. Zoo Biol. (2005) 24:215–32. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20050
112. Rajagopal T, Archunan G. Sekar M. Impact of zoo visitors on the fecal cortisol levels and behavior of an endangered species: Indian blackbuck (Antelope cervicapra L). J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2011) 14:18–32. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2011.527598
113. Stevens J, Thyssen A, Laevens H, Vervaecke H. The influence of zoo visitor numbers on the behaviour of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina). J Zoo Aquar Res. (2013) 1:31–4.
114. Hashmi A, Sullivan M. The visitor effect in zoo-housed apes: the variable effect on behaviour of visitor number and noise. J Zoo Aquar Res. (2020) 8:268–82.
115. Wells DL, A. note on the influence of visitors on the behaviour and welfare of zoo-housed gorillas. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2005) 93:13–7. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.06.019
116. Mitchell G, Herring F, Obradovich S, Tromborg C, Dowd B, Neville LE, et al. Effects of visitors and cage changes on the behaviors of mangabeys. Zoo Biol. (1991) 10:417–23. doi: 10.1002/zoo.1430100505
117. Sherwen SL, Hemsworth PH. The visitor effect on zoo animals: Implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare. Animals. (2019) 9:366. doi: 10.3390/ani9060366
118. Stoinski TS, Jaicks HF, Drayton LA. Visitor effects on the behavior of captive western lowland gorillas: the importance of individual differences in examining welfare. Zoo Biol. (2012) 31:586–99. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20425
119. Price EE, Stoinski TS. Group size: determinants in the wild and implications for the captive housing of wild mammals in zoos. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2007) 103:255–64. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.021
120. Doelling CR, Cronin KA, Ross SR, Hopper LM. The relationship between personality, season, and wounding receipt in zoo-housed Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata): A multi-institutional study. Am J Primatol. (2021) 83:e23332. doi: 10.1002/ajp.23332
121. Racevska E, Hill CM. Personality and social dynamics of zoo-housed western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). J Zoo Aquar Res. (2017) 5:116–22. doi: 10.19227/jzar.v5i3.275
122. Buchanan-Smith HM. Mixed-species exhibition of neotropical primates: analysis of species combination success. Int Zoo Yearb. (2012) 46:150–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1090.2011.00151.x
123. Veasey J, Hammer G. Managing captive mammals in mixed-species communities. In: Kleiman DG, Thompson KV, Kirk Baer C, editors. Wild mammals in captivity: Principles and Techniques. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (2010). p. 151–61.
124. Troxell-Smith S, Miller L. Using natural history information for zoo animal management: a case study with okapi (Okapia johnstoni). J Zoo Aquar Res. (2016) 4:38–41. doi: 10.12966/abc.05.05.2017
125. Owen MA, Swaisgood RR, Zhou X, Blumstein DT. Signalling behaviour is influenced by transient social context in a spontaneously ovulating mammal. Anim Behav. (2016) 111:157–65. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.008
126. Larson JM. Mitigation of alarm calls and vigilant behavior in captive brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella): using a visual barrier to reduce stress from a nearby Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) predator. 2017.
127. Ferguson GW, Gehrmann WH, Chen TC, Dierenfeld ES, Holick MF. Effects of artificial ultraviolet light exposure on reproductive success of the female panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) in captivity. Zoo Biol. (2002) 21:525–37. doi: 10.1002/zoo.10054
128. Fuller G, Raghanti MA, Dennis PM, Kuhar CW, Willis MA, Schook MW, et al. A comparison of nocturnal primate behavior in exhibits illuminated with red and blue light. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2016) 184:126–34. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.08.011
129. Larsen MJ, Sherwen SL, Rault J-L. Number of nearby visitors and noise level affect vigilance in captive koalas. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2014) 154:76–82. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.02.005
130. Orban DA, Soltis J, Perkins L, Mellen JD. Sound at the zoo: using animal monitoring, sound measurement, and noise reduction in zoo animal management. Zoo Biol. (2017) 36:231–6. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21366
131. Pelletier C, Weladji RB, Lazure L, Paré P. Zoo soundscape: daily variation of low-to-high-frequency sounds. Zoo Biol. (2020) 39:374–81. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21560
132. Wark JD, Wierzal NK, Cronin KA. Mapping shade availability and use in zoo environments: a tool for evaluating thermal comfort. Animals. (2020) 10:1189. doi: 10.3390/ani10071189
133. Young T, Finegan E, Brown RD. Effects of summer microclimates on behavior of lions and tigers in zoos. Int J Biometeorol. (2013) 57:381–90. doi: 10.1007/s00484-012-0562-6
134. Rose PE, Scales JS, Brereton JE. Why the “visitor effect” is complicated. Unraveling individual animal, visitor number, and climatic influences on behavior, space use and interactions with keepers—A case study on captive hornbills. Front Vet Sci. (2020) 7:236. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00236
135. Rose P, Badman-King A, Hurn S, Rice T. Visitor presence and a changing soundscape, alongside environmental parameters, can predict enclosure usage in captive flamingos. Zoo Biol. (2021) 40:363–75. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21615
136. Readyhough TS, Joseph S, Vyas K, Schreier AL. The effects of zoo lights on animal welfare: A case study of great Indian hornbills at Denver Zoo. Zoo Biol. (2022) 41:263–70. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21681
137. Cronin KA, Bethell EJ, Jacobson SL, Egelkamp C, Hopper LM, Ross SR. Evaluating mood changes in response to anthropogenic noise with a response-slowing task in three species of zoo-housed primates. Anim Cogn. (2018) 5:209–21. doi: 10.26451/abc.05.02.03.2018
138. Fanning L, Larsen H, Taylor PS, A. preliminary study investigating the impact of musical concerts on the behavior of captive Fiordland penguins (Eudyptes pachyrhynchus) and collared peccaries (Pecari tajacu). Animals. (2020) 10:2035. doi: 10.3390/ani10112035
139. Harley JJ, Rowden LJ, Clifforde LM, Power A, Stanley CR. Preliminary investigation of the effects of a concert on the behavior of zoo animals. Zoo Biol. (2022) 41:308–27. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21676
140. Watters JV, Krebs BL, Pacheco E. Measuring Welfare Through Behavioral Observation and Adjusting It with Dynamic Environments. In: Kaufman A, Bashaw M, Maples T, editors. Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Roles in Conservation and Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (2018). p. 212–40. doi: 10.1017/9781108183147.009
141. Shepherdson D. The role of environmental enrichment in the captive breeding and reintroduction of endangered species. In: Olney PJS, Mace GM, Feistner ATC, editors. Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and Captive animals. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands (1994). p. 167–77
142. Swaisgood RR, Shepherdson DJ. Scientific approaches to enrichment and stereotypies in zoo animals: what's been done and where should we go next? Zoo Biol. (2005) 24:499–518. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20066
143. de Azevedo CS, Cipreste CF, Young RJ. Environmental enrichment: a GAP analysis. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2007) 102:329–43. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.034
144. Puppe B, Ernst K, Schon PC, Manteuffel G. Cognitive enrichment affects behavioural reactivity in domestic pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2007) 105:75–86. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.016
145. Young RJ. Why bother with environmental enrichment? In: Young, RJ editor. Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing (2003). p. 20–30. doi: 10.1002/9780470751046
146. Podturkin AA. In search of the optimal enrichment program for zoo-housed animals. Zoo Biol. (2021) 40:527–40. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21642
147. Watters JV. Toward A predictive theory for environmental enrichment. Zoo Biol. (2009) 28:608–22. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20284
148. Špinka M, Wemelsfelder F. Environmental challenge and animal agency. Anim Welf . (2011) 27-43. doi: 10.1079/9781845936594.0027
149. Richter SH, Schick A, Hoyer C, Lankisch K, Gass P, Vollmayr B, et al. glass full of optimism: enrichment effects on cognitive bias in a rat model of depression. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. (2012) 12:527–42. doi: 10.3758/s13415-012-0101-2
150. Franks B, Champagne FA, Higgins ET. How enrichment affects exploration trade-offs in rats: implications for welfare and well-being. PLoS ONE. (2013) 8:5. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083578
151. Panksepp J, Yovell Y. Preclinical modeling of primal emotional affects (seeking, panic and play): gateways to the development of new treatments for depression. Psychopathology. (2014) 47:383–93. doi: 10.1159/000366208
152. Burghardt GM. Play in fishes, frogs and reptiles. Curr Biol. (2015) 25:R9–10. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.10.027
153. Meehan CL, Mench JA. The challenge of challenge: can problem solving opportunities enhance animal welfare? Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2007) 102:246–61. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.031
Keywords: animal welfare, welfare indicator, reward sensitivity, zoo animal, welfare assessment
Citation: Krebs BL, Chudeau KR, Eschmann CL, Tu CW, Pacheco E and Watters JV (2022) Space, time, and context drive anticipatory behavior: Considerations for understanding the behavior of animals in human care. Front. Vet. Sci. 9:972217. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.972217
Received: 18 June 2022; Accepted: 12 August 2022;
Published: 06 September 2022.
Edited by:
Nicole Kemper, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, GermanyReviewed by:
Paul Rose, University of Exeter, United KingdomLisette M. C. Leliveld, Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology (FBN), Germany
Copyright © 2022 Krebs, Chudeau, Eschmann, Tu, Pacheco and Watters. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Bethany L. Krebs, bethanyk@sfzoo.org