Cited by 74Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesPrimate Behavior and EcologyConservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education

A Survey of Husbandry Practices for Lorisid Primates in N orth A merican Zoos and Related Facilities

Fuller, Grace, Kuhar, Christopher W., Dennis, Patricia M., Lukas, Kristen E.·2013·Zoo Biology

Abstract

Zoos and related facilities in North America currently manage five species in the primate family Lorisidae: the greater (Nycticebus coucang), Bengal (N. bengalensis) and pygmy (N. pygmaeus) slow lorises, red slender loris (Loris tardigradus), and potto (Perodicticus potto). We used an online survey to describe institutional housing and husbandry practices for these species and assess the extent to which practices are consistent with established guidelines. Our results show that most captive lorisids are housed solitarily or in pairs. Most individuals occupy a single exhibit space in a building dedicated to nocturnal animals. Facilities are commonly meeting recommendations for abiotic exhibit design and are providing animals with an enriched environment. However, pottos and slender lorises currently occupy exhibit spaces smaller than the recommended minimum, and the impact of cleaning protocols on olfactory communication should be critically evaluated. Few facilities are taking advantage of the benefits of positive reinforcement training for promoting animal welfare. Research is greatly needed on the effects of exhibit lighting on behavior, health, and reproduction; and to determine how best to manage the social needs of lorisids with naturally dispersed social structures. Although captive populations of slender lorises, pottos, and slow lorises are declining, we suggest that improved husbandry knowledge has the potential to positively influence population sustainability and t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/zoo.21049

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Species within a MSE were often managed by two or more keepers ensuring optimal husbandry was maintained.

    “Fuller et al., (2012) assessed keeper management of a mixed Lorisidae exhibit, and stated species within a MSE were often managed be two or more keepers ensuring optimal husbandry was maintained, supporting this study.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fuller, G., Kuhar, C. W., Dennis, P. M., & Lukas, K. E.
Affiliations
Cleveland Metroparks Zoo (US)
Corresponding author
Fuller, Grace
Venue
Zoo Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-11-15
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
88-100
ISSN
  • 0733-3188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2361
OpenAlex
W1871012910
Cited by
74
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 3
FWCI
3.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Zoo Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
Keywords
Lorisidae, slow lorises, potto, zoo animal welfare, exhibition design, environmental enrichment, olfactory communication, cleaning protocols, positive reinforcement training, social needs, nocturnal animals
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Husbandry, Animals, Zoo, Conservation of Natural Resources, Data Collection, Fertility, Housing, Animal, Lorisidae, North America, Species Specificity, Internet

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