The Application of
Qualitative Behaviour Assessment
to wild African elephants
Françoise Wemelsfelder
Norah Njraini
Sarah Cleaveland
Scottish Agricultural College, UK
Amboseli Trust for Elephants, Kenya
University of Glasgow, UK
1
Outline presentation
Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA):
Methodology for welfare assessment in farm animals:
expressive, psychological character of how animals behave
Develop for wild animals / conservation: elephant study
Presentation: - Background on QBA
- Elephant study
- Conclusions
2
Background
QBA = Integrated assessment
of ‘whole animal’
=
Assessing ‘body language’
(eg relaxed/curious/content - tense/anxious/distressed)
Building on existing tradition of Qualitative Assessment:
- Individual differences
- Temperament
- Personality
- Experience
3
Background
Scientific validation:
Spontaneous judgments (Free Choice Profiling)
- high agreement + repeatability
- good correlation with behaviour +
physiological measures
- pigs, cattle, poultry, sheep, dogs, horses
QBA = robust
(Wemelsfelder, 2007; Wemelsfelder et al., 2001a,b; 2009)
Pre-fixed list of descriptors:
- develop for practical field application
4
Elephant Study
Sarah Cleaveland - RCVS Trust Project
“Investigating new methods of animal welfare assessment for
wildlife conservation interventions”
Opportunity to work with elephants
in Amboseli National Park
Stayed at research camp, guided by
Norah Njraini, research manager
Much previous work on elephants
Cynthia Moss, Joyce Poole, et al.
5
Elephant Study
Project Aim: QBA: assess body language in African elephants
Video footage: wide range of body language expressions
- 28 clips (1 min) Amboseli elephants
- 8 clips UK Zoo/Safari park
- NOT a comparative welfare study
- observers told:
“exploring elephant body language”
6
Elephant Study
Can observers agree + see meaningful patterns of expression?
- 12 scientists: 4 elephant experts + 8 farm animal experts
- Free Choice Profiling Methodology: 2 phases
Phase 1:
Phase 2:
calm
Watch clips
Generate own terms
No statistics
Watch clips again
tense
Score own terms only
Input into statistics
angry
gentle
unsure
-Statistics (Generalised Procrustes Analysis): calculate consensus even though
observers all use different descriptors - interpret consensus dimensions
by correlating to individual assessments
7
Consensus
0. 8
Observer
0.6
0.4
6
12
9
0.2
Agreement
8
p < 0.001
2
0
4
5
3 10
-0.2
7
11 1
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
Axis 2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
8
Consensus Dimensions
30
% variance
explained
varianceexplained
28
24
25
58% variance explained
20
15
10
6
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
roots
roots
9
Correlation of Consensus with EE observer 1
Dimension 1
Word Chart
elephant
expert
Observer 1
Dimension 2
10
Correlation of Consensus with EE observer 2
Dimension 1
Word Chart
elephant
expert
Observer 2
Dimension 2
11
Correlation of Consensus with FAE observer 1
Dimension 1
Word Chart
farm animal
expert
Observer 1
Dimension 2
12
Correlation of Consensus with FAE observer 2
Dimension 1
Word Chart
farm animal
expert
Observer 2
Dimension 2
13
Consensus Plot
0.25
relaxed / playful / content
Dimension 1 - 28%
0.15
All
observers
0.05
-0.05
lethargic
resigned
stoic
sociable
interested
excited
Dimensions
1+2
-0.15
tense / agitated / disturbed
-0.25
-0.25
-0.15
-0.05
0.05
0.15
0.25
Dimension 2 - 24%
14
Consensus Plot
0.25
relaxed / playful / content
Lame / sick
Zoo/Safari park
Dimension 1 - 28%
0.15
All
observers
0.05
-0.05
lethargic
resigned
stoic
sociable
interested
excited
Dimensions
1+2
-0.15
tense / agitated / disturbed
-0.25
-0.25
-0.15
-0.05
0.05
0.15
0.25
Dimension 2 - 24%
15
Correlation of Consensus with EE observer 1
sociable / interested / excited
Dimension 2
Word Chart
aimless
bored
purposeful
laboured
elephant
expert
Observer 1
lethargic / resigned / stoic
Dimension 3
16
Consensus Plot
0.20
sociable / interested / excited
Lame / sick
All
observers
Zoo/Safari park
Dimension 2 - 24%
0.10
aimless
0.00 bored
purposeful
laboured
Dimensions
2+3
-0.10
-0.20
-0.20
lethargic / resigned / stoic
-0.10
0.00
Dimension 3 - 6%
0.10
0.20
17
Conclusions
Elephant Body Language:
Good agreement
Convergent terminologies
Meaningful dimensions relevant to health and welfare
Compatible with other work on elephant gestures / displays
(e.g. Joyce Poole and colleagues: “Elephant voices gestures data base”)
QBA encourage and formalise use of (subtle) qualitative
terminologies
18
Conclusions
Application:
Pre-fixed QBA scoring lists: problem/task - specific
Combine with other indicators for:
- Welfare monitoring
- Compare natural - captive environments
- Compare quiet - conflicted areas of human-elephant co-habitation
- Assess effects of interventions: e.g. translocation
Extend to other species
19
Acknowledgements
Funding: RCVS Trust „Blue Skye‟ Programme
Cynthia Moss and staff at Amboseli research camp
Staff at UK Zoo/Safari Park
Marianne Farish, SAC
Observers:
Stirling University: Phyllis Lee, Vicky Fishlock, Michelle Klailova, Lizzie Webber
SAC: Emma Baxter, Louise Buckley, Kenny Rutherford, Lesley Smith, Kirsty
McIlvaney, Sarah Ison, Spiridoula Athanasiadou, Cindy Wood
20