CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 344Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesWildlife Ecology and ConservationStress Responses and Cortisol

Noninvasive assessment of adrenal activity associated with husbandry and behavioral factors in the North American clouded leopard population

Wielebnowski, Nadja C., Fletchall, Norah, Carlstead, Kathy, Busso, Juan M., Brown, Janine L.·2002·Zoo Biology
DOI 10.1002/zoo.10005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The North American clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) population is far from self‐sustaining. Breeding success is poor and behavioral problems (i.e., fur‐plucking, tail‐chewing, excessive hiding or pacing, and intersexual aggression that results in mate killing) are common. This study was undertaken to investigate whether some of these problems may be indicators of chronic stress (as reflected by persistently elevated glucocorticoid levels) and whether they are associated with specific management factors. A fecal corticoid metabolite assay was validated to monitor adrenal activity in clouded leopards. Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) challenges conducted in four clouded leopards established the biological relevance of the assay system. Fecal corticoid concentrations increased 14‐fold above baseline within 24 hours after ACTH administration. Adrenal activity then was monitored in 72 (36 males; 36 females) clouded leopards (65% of the North American Species Survival Plan population) during a 6‐week period and compared to husbandry and behavior data. There was a significant (P < 0.01) gender difference in fecal corticoid concentrations, with females producing higher concentrations than males. Multiple regression analyses revealed negative associations (P < 0.01) between enclosure height, number of hours keepers spent with each animal per week, and corticoid concentrations. A positive correlation (P < 0.001) was found between the number of keepers caring for an individual and…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/zoo.10005

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research on keeper-animal interactions in zoos has received very little attention, with only a few studies attempting to evaluate this relationship.

    “In comparison to the research that has been conducted in the domestic animal industries, research on keeper–animal interactions in zoos has received very little attention [34], with only a few studies attempting to evaluate this relationship [35,36,37,38,39,40].”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [40]

  • Lower faecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations in clouded leopards were associated with a greater amount of time keepers spent with the leopards and a lower number of keepers caring for the animals.

    “and lower faecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations in clouded leopards were found to be associated with two key husbandry variables, a greater amount of time keepers spent with the leopards and a lower number of keepers caring for the animals [40]”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [40]

  • Clouded leopards on public display had higher average glucocorticoid concentrations than animals off display.

    “Similarly, Wielebnowski et al. [40] focused on faecal GC metabolite concentration but studied clouded leopards and found that animals on public display had higher average GC concentrations than animals off display.”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [40]

  • Wielebnowski et al. found a negative correlation between enclosure height and faecal GC concentrations in clouded leopards and interpreted enclosure height as a measure of their ability to avoid contact with other animals and humans.

    “Wielebnowski et al. [40] found a negative correlation between enclosure height and faecal GC concentrations in clouded leopards and interpreted enclosure height as a measure of their ability to avoid contact with other animals and humans.”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [40]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 104 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wielebnowski, N. C., Fletchall, N., Carlstead, K., Busso, J. M., & Brown, J. L.
Affiliations
  • Smithsonian Institution (US)
  • Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (AR)
Corresponding author
Wielebnowski, Nadja C.
ORCID
Venue
Zoo Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-01
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
77-98
ISSN
  • 0733-3188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2361
DOI
10.1002/zoo.10005
OpenAlex
W1986329846
Cited by
344
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 16
FWCI
14.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 78 d)
Locations
Zoo Biology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
Neofelis nebulosa, adrenal function, chronic stress, captive husbandry, animal welfare, ACTH challenge, zoo animal management, species survival plan

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review