| Literature DB >> 31935980 |
Martin W Seltmann1, Susanna Ukonaho1, Sophie Reichert1, Diogo Dos Santos1, U Kyaw Nyein2, Win Htut2, Virpi Lummaa1.
Abstract
Animals are kept in captivity for various reasons, but species with a slower pace of life may adapt to captive environments less easily, leading to welfare concerns and the need to assess stress reliably in order to develop effective interventions. Our aim was to assess welfare of semi-captive timber elephants from Myanmar by investigating the relationship between two physiological markers of stress commonly used as proxies for welfare, faecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations (FGM) and heterophil/lymphocyte ratios (H/L), and link these measures to changes in body condition (determined by body weight). We further assessed how robustly these two markers of stress performed in animals of different age or sex, or in different ecological contexts. We measured FGM concentrations and H/L ratios between 2016 and 2018 from 316 samples of 75 females and 49 males ranging in age from 4 to 68. We found a positive and consistent link between FGMs and H/L ratios in Asian elephants, irrespective of their sex, age, or ecological context. Our results will help to inform managers of (semi-) captive elephants about using heterophil/lymphocyte ratio data from blood smears on site as a potentially cheaper and faster alternative to determining stress than measuring faecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations in the laboratory.Entities:
Keywords: Elephas maximus; cortisol; faeces; heterophils; lymphocytes; welfare
Year: 2020 PMID: 31935980 PMCID: PMC7023510 DOI: 10.3390/ani10010094
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Minima, maxima, and average values of FGM concentrations and H/L ratios for different categories of Asian elephants (sex, age, and season).
| FGM Concentration (ng/g)/H/L Ratio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | Average | Maximum | ||
| Sex | male | 24.0/0.363 | 78.9/1.05 | 195/2.79 |
| female | 19.6/0.296 | 71.5/1.08 | 162/2.53 | |
| Age | taming | 24.30/0.363 | 80.0/1.05 | 195/2.79 |
| training | 22.9/0.296 | 73.9/1.09 | 162/2.28 | |
| working | 25.8/0.323 | 65.6/1.01 | 142/2.23 | |
| retired | 19.6/0.371 | 63.3/1.23 | 143/2.53 | |
| Season | hot | 19.6/0.296 | 66.8/0.976 | 195/2.53 |
| monsoon | 44.9/0.488 | 91.6/0.975 | 158/2.17 | |
| cold | 24.3/0.425 | 81.5/1.31 | 150/2.79 | |
Figure 1(a) The relationship between the H/L ratio and FGM concentrations in Asian elephants. The predicted curve is plotted against the observed raw data. The sample size shown refers to the number of samples/total number of individuals included in the study. (b) The relationship between the H/L ratio and FGM concentrations in Asian elephants. Here, the predicted curve is plotted against the predicted data after adjusting for the confounding variables shown for Model 1 in Table 2. The sample size shown refers to the number of samples/total number of individuals included in the study.
Results from linear mixed-effects models for FGM concentrations and body weight as dependent variables: dependent variable (parameter), independent and confounding variables (variable, confounding variables in italics), interactions (asterisk), F-value (F), degrees of freedom (DF), and p-value. The statistics of the main effects reported in the results section are from Model 1 (for a residual QQ plot indicating the model fit of Model 1 see Figure S1).
| Parameter | Variable | F | DF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | ||||
| FCM | H/L | 6.06 | 1, 186 | 0.0147 |
| sex | 8.38 | 1, 121 | <0.01 | |
|
| 13.5 | 1, 121 | <0.001 | |
| season | 15.0 | 2, 186 | <0.0001 | |
| age | 0.163 | 3, 186 | 0.921 | |
| Model 2 | ||||
| FCM | H/L | 6.34 | 1, 185 | <0.01 |
|
| 7.92 | 1, 121 | <0.01 | |
|
| 13.3 | 1, 121 | <0.001 | |
|
| 15.0 | 2, 185 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 0.171 | 3, 185 | 0.916 | |
| H/L*sex | 0.570 | 1, 185 | 0.451 | |
| Model 3 | ||||
| FCM | H/L | 6.11 | 1, 183 | <0.01 |
|
| 4.28 | 3, 183 | <0.01 | |
|
| 3.64 | 1, 121 | 0.0586 | |
|
| 7.19 | 1, 121 | <0.01 | |
|
| 14.4 | 2, 183 | <0.0001 | |
| H/L*age | 0.817 | 3, 183 | 0.486 | |
| Model 4 | ||||
| FCM | H/L | 2.32 | 1, 184 | 0.130 |
|
| 19.9 | 2, 184 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 8.28 | 1, 121 | <0.01 | |
|
| 7.27 | 1, 121 | <0.01 | |
|
| 0.162 | 3, 184 | 0.922 | |
| H/L*season | 0.246 | 2, 184 | 0.782 | |
| Model 5 | ||||
| Standardised body weight | FCM | 7.14 | 1, 80 | 0.00920 |
|
| 2.02 | 2, 80 | 0.139 | |
|
| 0.0927 | 1, 110 | 0.761 | |
|
| 0.876 | 3, 80 | 0.457 | |
|
| 0.000800 | 1, 110 | 0.977 |
Figure 2The relationship between FGM concentrations and standardised body weight. The predicted curve is plotted against the predicted data after adjusting for the confounding variables shown for Model 5 in Table 2. The sample size shown refers to the number of samples/total number of individuals included in the study.