Skip to main content

What defines successful integration into a social group for hand-reared chimpanzee infants?

Abstract

Hand-rearing of captive great ape infants is sometimes necessary but can have negative behavioral consequences. Modern hand-rearing protocols, including early integration into a diverse group of conspecifics, appear to reduce the negative consequences of hand-rearing, but the process of integration is not well studied. We investigated six potential metrics of success during the introduction of two hand-reared chimpanzee infants into a troop of nine other chimpanzees at the Maryland Zoo in Baltimore. Little aggression was observed and the infants continue to be maintained in the troop at publication. As we predicted, during the introduction the hand-reared infants showed consistent levels of stress-related behaviors, participated in affiliative interactions with all available partners, and acted, received, and mutually engaged in these interactions. Solitary behaviors by these infants were similar to a mother-reared infant in the same group. Each infant also formed a relationship with a specific female that involved nest-sharing, carrying, retrieval, and intervening to reduce risk to the infant; these relationships could be classified as allomothering because they involved maternal behavior but occupied significantly less of the infants’ time than a maternal relationship. Contrary to our prediction, the hand-reared infants therefore spent significantly less time in social behavior than a mother-reared infant of the same age. In addition, the hand-reared infants continued to show strong social preferences for each other as introductions progressed and to direct a low but consistent number of nonfeeding social behaviors to humans. The successful introduction of hand-reared infants appeared to involve adding conspecific social relationships to the infants’ social repertoire, but not eliminating social interactions directed at humans.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  • Bard KA (1996) Responsive care: behavioral interventions for nursery-reared chimpanzees. In: Landau VI (ed) The 1996 ChimpanZoo Conference. ChimpanZoo, Sponsored Program of the Jane Goodall Institute, Tucson

  • Beck BB, Power ML (1988) Correlates of sexual and maternal competence in captive gorillas. Zoo Biol 7:339–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomsmith MA, Pazol KA, Alford PL (1994) Juvenile and adolescent chimpanzee behavioral development in complex groups. Appl Anim Behav Sci 39:73–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomsmith MA, Baker KC, Ross SR, Lambeth SP (2005) Early rearing conditions and captive chimpanzee behavior: some surprising findings. In: Sackett GP, Ruppenthal GC, Elias K (eds) Nursery rearing of nonhuman primates in the 21st century. Kluwer, New York, pp 289–312

  • Boesch C, Boesch-Achermann H (2000) The chimpanzees of the Tai forest: behavioural ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brent L, Bramblett CA, Bard KA, Bloomsmith MA, Blangero J (1997) The influence of siblings on wild infant chimpanzee social interaction. Behav 134:1189–1210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colegrave N, Engel J, Plowman AB (2006) Randomisation tests. In: Plowman AB (ed) Zoo research guidelines: statistics for typical zoo datasets. BIAZA, London, pp 7–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook S, Hosey GR (1995) Interaction sequences between chimpanzees and human visitors at the zoo. Zoo Biol 14:431–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport RK, Rogers CM (1968) Intellectual performance of differently reared chimpanzees: 1. Delayed response. Am J Ment Defic 72:674–680

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport RK, Menzel EW Jr, Rogers CM (1961) Maternal care during infancy: its effect on weight gain and mortality in the chimpanzee. Am J Orthopsychiat 31:803–809

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport RK, Menzel EW Jr, Rogers CM (1966) Effects of severe isolation in “normal” juvenile chimpanzees. Arch Gen Psychiat 14:134–138

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport RK, Menzel EW Jr, Rogers CM (1969) Intellectual performance of differentially reared chimpanzees: II. Discrimination-learning set. Am J Ment Defic 73:963–969

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport RK, Rogers CM, Rumbaugh DM (1973) Long-term cognitive deficits in chimpanzees associated with early impoverished rearing. Devel Psychol 9:343–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deWaal F (1982) Chimpanzee politics. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jendry C (1996) Utilization of surrogates to integrate hand-reared infant gorillas into an age/sex diversified group of conspecifics. Appl Anim Behav Sci 48:173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King NE, Mellen JD (1994) The effects of early experience on adult copulatory behavior in zoo-born chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biol 13:51–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maple TL (1980) Orangutan behavior. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin P, Bateson P (1993) Measuring behavior: an introductory guide, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann CM, Rothman JM (1999) Changes in nearest neighbor associations in a captive group of western lowland gorillas after the introduction of five hand-reared infants. Zoo Biol 18:261–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meder A (1989) Effects of hand-rearing on the behavioral development of infant and juvenile gorillas (Gorilla g. gorilla). Dev Psychobiol 22:357–376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meder A (1990) Integration of hand-reared gorillas into breeding groups. Zoo Biol 9:157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel EW Jr (1964) Patterns of responsiveness in chimpanzees reared through infancy under conditions of environmental restriction. Psychol Forsch 27:337–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel EW Jr, Davenport RK, Rogers CM (1963a) Effects of environmental restriction upon the chimpanzee’s responsiveness in novel situations. J Comp Physiol Psychol 56:329–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel EW Jr, Davenport RK, Rogers CM (1963b) The effects of environmental restriction upon the chimpanzee’s responsiveness to objects. J Comp Physiol Psychol 56:78–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pazol K, McDonald S, Baker K, Smuts B (1998) Placing hand-reared chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) into adult social groups: a technique for facilitating group interactions. Lab Prim Newsl 37(3):11–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Read BW, Meier JE (1996) Neonatal care protocols. In: Kleiman DG, Allen ME, Thompson KV, Lumpkin S (eds) Wild mammals in captivity: principles and techniques. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 41–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan S, Thompson SD, Roth AM, Gold KC (2002) Effects of hand-rearing on the reproductive success of western lowland gorillas in North America. Zoo Biol 21:389–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strasser D (2002) Great apes. In: Gage LJ (ed) Hand-rearing wild and domestic mammals. Iowa State Press/Blackwell, Ames, pp 125–131

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Watts E, Meder A (1996) Introduction and socialization techniques for primates. In: Kleiman DG, Allen ME, Thompson KV, Lumpkin S (eds) Wild mammals in captivity: principles and techniques. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 67–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood W (1998) Interactions among environmental enrichment, viewing crowds, and zoo chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biol 17:211–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The assistance of Tammy Chaney and the animal care staff in the Chimpanzee Forest at MZiB was invaluable. We are also grateful to Steve Ross for his input on the ethogram, observation procedures, and an earlier draft of this manuscript, to Abigail Kaplan and Chelsea McIntyre for their assistance in behavioral data collection, and to two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions on the manuscript. This project was approved by the research committee at MZiB, which deemed IACUC approval unnecessary because of the strictly observational nature of the project. All care received by the primates met standards of the United States Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health, and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meredith J. Bashaw.

Appendix: Hand-rearing and introduction process

Appendix: Hand-rearing and introduction process

During hand-rearing, both chimpanzees received 24 h/day responsive care (as in Bard 1996) from one or more of six MZiB staff members and 10 volunteer assistants, including daily protected contact (PC) socialization with the chimpanzee troop through mesh. Observations of PC interactions and a consideration of individual history led MZiB staff to begin integration by introducing Rozi and Asali to the two oldest females in the troop on 12 January 2006. While the adults were attentive to the infants, both infants were distressed, screaming and moving away from the adults for several hours. Over the next few days, the infants became more comfortable, eventually allowing themselves to be groomed and carried. From this point forward, the infants were treated like other members of the troop except that they were bottle-fed through the mesh. Jambo was born into this group (hereafter the nursery group) on 20 January 2006 and stayed with her mother.

Gradually, other MZiB chimpanzees were added to the nursery group. Two adolescent female chimps were added on 31 January 2006. The older adolescent, daughter of the oldest and alpha female of the troop, showed moderate interest in and behaved appropriately toward both infants, while the subordinate female showed inappropriate behaviors, often grabbing and carrying infants roughly. Because this created tension among others in the group, the subordinate female was removed at the end of the first day of introduction. The nursery group therefore consisted of two adult females, one adolescent female, and three infants.

On 28 March 2006, the alpha male was introduced to the nursery group during the day and separated overnight. After 2 weeks of daily introductions he was allowed to remain with the nursery group overnight. One week later, following an overnight altercation with an unknown aggressor that resulted in moderately serious injury to Rozi, the alpha male was removed from the nursery group. After this event, the nursery group was returned to six animals. Data collection began on these six animals on 5 July 2006.

The remaining three female chimpanzees were added to the nursery group on 3 and 5 September 2006. The youngest adolescent was introduced first, on 3 September, followed by the remaining two adolescents on 5 September. All females showed interest and behaved appropriately toward both infants. The last two females introduced (including the one removed from the nursery group in January 2006) each paired with an infant in a relationship that included play, defense, carrying and nest-sharing behaviors. After these introductions, the nursery group included a total of nine animals: two adult females, four juvenile females, and three infants.

Finally, on 19 February 2007, the alpha and subordinate males were added to the nursery group. No problems were observed. Both males interacted appropriately with the infants; the subordinate male frequently played with both infants. This completed the introduction with all 11 MZiB chimpanzees in one group.

About this article

Cite this article

Bashaw, M.J., Gullott, R.L. & Gill, E.C. What defines successful integration into a social group for hand-reared chimpanzee infants?. Primates 51, 139–147 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-009-0176-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-009-0176-8

Keywords

  • Captive management
  • Orphan
  • Allomother
  • Social behavior
  • Pan troglodytes