Cited by 16Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, HealthWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Influence of environmental conditions and facility on faecal glucocorticoid concentrations in captive pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis)

Scarlata, CD, Elias, BA, Godwin, JR, Powell, RA, Shepherdson, D, Shipley, LA, Brown, JL·2013·Animal Welfare

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine if housing conditions, specifically pen size and soil enrichment, had an effect on faecal glucocorticoid concentrations in the endangered pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis). The success of the captive breeding programme has been limited, so one hypothesis is that chronic stress due to sub-optimal housing conditions may be responsible for poor fecundity. Faecal glucocorticoid concentrations were assessed in 50 females housed among several pen types at two breeding facilities. The highest glucocorticoid concentrations were found in females housed in 0.37 m2crates as compared to enclosures ranging from 0.96 to 75 m2in size. Results also indicated that enrichment of enclosures with soil had a significant influence on adrenal activity, based on a reduction in glucocorticoid excretion for females moved from non-soil pens to those with soil. Last, a significant facility effect on glucocorticoid concentrations was observed, suggesting that factors other than housing influenced adrenal activity in these rabbits. In conclusion, based on measurements of faecal glucocorticoids, pygmy rabbits are best managed in enclosures that contain soil for digging burrows. Pen size had little effect on stress hormones, except for crates where limited space and/or absence of soil was associated with higher glucocorticoid concentrations. These results underline the importance of monitoring glucocorticoid concentrations in captive breeding programmes to id…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7120/09627286.22.3.357

Cites

3 of 3 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scarlata, C., Elias, B., Godwin, Jr., Powell, R., Shepherdson, D., Shipley, L., & Brown, J.
Affiliations
  • Washington State University (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • Oregon Zoo (US)
Venue
Animal Welfare
Published
2013-08
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
357-368
ISSN
  • 0962-7286 (ISSN-L)
  • 2054-1538
OpenAlex
W2328478749
Cited by
16
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
3.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Animal Welfare (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Rabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
pygmy rabbit, Brachylagus idahoensis, fecal glucocorticoids, captive breeding, housing conditions, pen size, soil enrichment, chronic stress, adrenal function, facility effects, burrowing behavior

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