Health, welfare and conservation

Research in African ape sanctuaries has emerged as an important context for our understanding of comparative cognition and behavior. While much of this work has focused on experimental studies of cognition, these animals semi-free-range in forest habitats and therefore can also provide important information about the behavior of primates in socioecologically-relevant naturalistic contexts. In this “New Approaches” article, we describe a project where we implemented a synthetic program of observational data collection at Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Uganda, directly modeled after long-term data collection protocols at the Kibale Chimpanzee Project in Uganda, a wild chimpanzee field site. The foundation for this project was a strong partnership between sanctuary staff, field site staff, and external researchers. We describe how we developed a data-collection protocol through discussion and collaboration among these groups, and trained sanctuary caregivers to collect novel observational data using these protocols. We use these data as a case study to examine: (1) how behavioral observations in sanctuaries can inform primate welfare and care practices, such as by understanding aggression within the group; (2) how matched observational protocols across sites can inform our understanding of primate behavior across different contexts, including sex differences in social relationships; and (3) how more robust collaborations between foreign researchers and local partners can support capacity-building in primate range countries, along with mentoring and training students more broadly.

Pathogen surveillance for great ape health monitoring has typically been performed on non-invasive samples, primarily feces, in wild apes and blood in sanctuary-housed apes. However, many important primate pathogens, including known zoonoses, are shed in saliva and transmitted via oral fluids. Using metagenomic methods, we identified viruses in saliva samples from 46 wild-born, sanctuary-housed chimpanzees at two African sanctuaries in Republic of Congo and Uganda. In total, we identified 20 viruses. All but one, an unclassified CRESS DNA virus, are classified in five families: Circoviridae, Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Picobirnaviridae, and Retroviridae. Overall, viral prevalence ranged from 4.2% to 87.5%. Many of these viruses are ubiquitous in primates and known to replicate in the oral cavity (simian foamy viruses, Retroviridae; a cytomegalovirus and lymphocryptovirus; Herpesviridae; and alpha and gamma papillomaviruses, Papillomaviridae). None of the viruses identified have been shown to cause disease in chimpanzees or, to our knowledge, in humans. These data suggest that the risk of zoonotic viral disease from chimpanzee oral fluids in sanctuaries may be lower than commonly assumed.

Infectious disease is a major concern for both wild and captive primate populations. Primate sanctuaries in Africa provide critical protection to thousands of wild‐born, orphan primates confiscated from the bushmeat and pet trades. However, uncertainty about the infectious agents these individuals potentially harbor has important implications for their individual care and long‐term conservation strategies. We used metagenomic next‐generation sequencing to identify viruses in blood samples from chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in three sanctuaries in West, Central, and East Africa. Our goal was to evaluate whether viruses of human origin or other “atypical” or unknown viruses might infect these chimpanzees. We identified viruses from eight families: Anelloviridae, Flaviviridae, Genomoviridae, Hepadnaviridae, Parvoviridae, Picobirnaviridae, Picornaviridae, and Rhabdoviridae. The majority (15/26) of viruses identified were members of the family Anelloviridae and represent the genera Alphatorquevirus (torque teno viruses) and Betatorquevirus (torque teno mini viruses), which are common in chimpanzees and apathogenic. Of the remaining 11 viruses, 9 were typical constituents of the chimpanzee virome that have been identified in previous studies and are also thought to be apathogenic. One virus, a novel tibrovirus (Rhabdoviridae: Tibrovirus) is related to Bas‐Congo virus, which was originally thought to be a human pathogen but is currently thought to be apathogenic, incidental, and vector‐borne. The only virus associated with disease was rhinovirus C (Picornaviridae: Enterovirus) infecting one chimpanzee subsequent to an outbreak of respiratory illness at that sanctuary. Our results suggest that the blood‐borne virome of African sanctuary chimpanzees does not differ appreciably from that of their wild counterparts, and that persistent infection with exogenous viruses may be less common than often assumed.

The Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA) is the unified voice of primate rescue and rehabilitation pro- jects in Africa, and includes 23 member organizations in 13 countries. PASA improves animal welfare by regularly evaluating these sanctuaries to ensure that they operate at a high standard of care, building the capacity of sanctuary staff and providing crisis support to mitigate emergencies. Moreover, PASA works with its member organizations to raise awareness globally about wildlife issues and to conduct other large-scale conservation projects. In these endeavours, PASA ben- efits greatly from the local experience and connections of its member organizations. Finally, nearly all PASA- member sanctuaries host researchers, thereby contribut- ing to our knowledge of the great apes and other Afri- can primates. Much of PASA’s work is made possible by support from zoos around the world. A brief precis of the current work carried out by PASA and its mem- ber organizations is given, along with descriptions of conservation programmes that are planned for the future.

The Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA), the largest association of wildlife centers in Africa, includes 22 organizations that collectively house more than 3,000 rescued primates (Table 1; Figure 1). Prior to PASA’s formation, these organizations had similar goals and were facing similar challenges, but typically did not communicate with one another. In 2000, conservationists and primatologists arranged a meeting in Uganda to bring these groups together for the first time. The directors of the organizations agreed there was a need for improved ongoing communication and, as a result, PASA was formed.

As many studies of cognition and behavior involve captive animals, assessing any psychological impact of captive conditions is an important goal for comparative researchers. Ferdowsian and colleagues (2011) sought to address whether captive chimpanzees show elevated signs of psychopathology relative to wild apes. They modified a checklist of diagnostic criteria for major depression and posttraumatic stress disorder in humans, and applied these criteria to various captive and wild chimpanzee populations. We argue that measures derived from human diagnostic criteria are not a powerful tool for assessing the psychological health of nonverbal animals. In addition, we highlight certain methodological drawbacks of the specific approach used by Ferdowsian and colleagues (2011). We propose that research should (1) focus on objective behavioral criteria that account for species-typical behaviors and can be reliably identified across populations; (2) account for population differences in rearing history when comparing how current environment impacts psychological health in animals; and (3) focus on how changes in current human practices can improve the well-being of both captive and wild animals.

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are often used in movies, commercials and print advertisements with the intention of eliciting a humorous response from audiences. The portrayal of chimpanzees in unnatural, human-like situations may have a negative effect on the public’s understanding of their endangered status in the wild while making them appear as suitable pets. Alternatively, media content that elicits a positive emotional response toward chimpanzees may increase the public’s commitment to chimpanzee conservation. To test these competing hypotheses, participants (n = 165) watched a series of commercials in an experiment framed as a marketing study. Imbedded within the same series of commercials was one of three chimpanzee videos. Participants either watched 1) a chimpanzee conservation commercial, 2) commercials containing ‘‘entertainment’’ chimpanzees or 3) control footage of the natural behavior of wild chimpanzees. Results from a post- viewing questionnaire reveal that participants who watched the conservation message understood that chimpanzees were endangered and unsuitable as pets at higher levels than those viewing the control footage. Meanwhile participants watching commercials with entertainment chimpanzees showed a decrease in understanding relative to those watching the control footage. In addition, when participants were given the opportunity to donate part of their earnings from the experiment to a conservation charity, donations were least frequent in the group watching commercials with entertainment chimpanzees. Control questions show that participants did not detect the purpose of the study. These results firmly support the hypothesis that use of entertainment chimpanzees in the popular media negatively distorts the public’s perception and hinders chimpanzee conservation efforts.