Non-invasive assessment of adrenocortical activity as a measure of stress in giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis)

Additional file 1: Full dataset in Microsoft Excel workbook format.BACKGROUND : Numbers of giraffes are declining rapidly in their native habitat. As giraffe research and conservation efforts increase, the demand for more complete measures of the impact of conservation interventions and the effects of captive environments on animal health and welfare have risen. We compared the ability of six different enzyme immunoassays to quantify changes in fecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGM) resulting from three sources: adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation test, transport, and time of day that samples were collected. RESULTS : Two male giraffes underwent ACTH injections; all six assays detected FGM increases following injection for Giraffe 1, while only three assays detected FGM increases following injection for Giraffe 2. Consistent with other ruminant species, the two 11-oxoetiocholanolone assays (one for 11,17-dioxoandrostanes and the other for 3α,11-oxo metabolites) measured the most pronounced and prolonged elevation of FGM, while an assay for 3β,11β-diol detected peaks of smaller magnitude and duration. Both of the 11-oxoetiocholanolone assays detected significant FGM increases after transport in Giraffes 3–7, and preliminary data suggest FGM detected by the assay for 11,17-dioxoandrostanes may differ across time of day. CONCLUSIONS : We conclude the assay for 11,17-dioxoandrostanes is the most sensitive assay tested for FGM in giraffes and the assay for FGM with a 5β-3α-ol-11-one structure is also effective. 11-oxoetiocholanolone enzyme immunoassays have now been demonstrated to be successful in a wide variety of ruminant species, providing indirect evidence that 5β-reduction may be a common metabolic pathway for glucocorticoids in ruminants. As FGM peaks were detected in at least some giraffes using all assays tested, giraffes appear to excrete a wide variety of different FGM. The assays validated here will provide a valuable tool for research on the health, welfare, and conservation of giraffes.The Association of Friends and Supporters of Goethe University Frankfurt provided financial support for F. Sicks to travel to Vienna to analyze fecal samples and von Opel Hessische Zoostiftung supported a studentship for F. Sicks. One commercial funder [Tierpark Berlin] provided support in the form of salary for F. Sicks during data analysis and preparation of this manuscript. The specific role of this author is articulated in the ‘Author Contributions’ section.http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcvetresam2016Anatomy and PhysiologyParaclinical Science

Examining evident interdisciplinarity among prides of lion researchers

Lions (Panthera leo) have experienced dramatic population declines in recent decades and today, inhabit just a fraction of their historic range. The reasons behind these declines are many, but conflict with humans, principally motivated by lion depredation of livestock, is among the most influential. Recent calls within the scientific community have identified that wicked problems like these should be addressed using interdisciplinary approaches. Here we examined the extent to which human-lion conflict research has been interdisciplinary. We conducted an extensive review of the literature and uncovered 88 papers, published between 1990 and 2015, that assessed human-lion interaction and the ecology of lions exposed to anthropogenic disturbance. While human-lion conflict research experienced near-exponential growth (y = 8E-194e0.222x, R2= 0.76) across this time period, the number of co-authors engaged in this research changed very little (x = 3.28, se = 0.19). Moreover, co-authors of this research tended to be affiliated with units from just three highly-related STEM disciplines (biology, wildlife management, and environmental science). Comparatively, co-authors affiliated with units in the humanities and social sciences occurred in < 4% of all papers examined. Our analysis also presents a novel framework that positions human-lion conflict research as having not two dimensions, as has been commonly conceptualized, but five dimensions. These dimensions include not only the human and the lion dimensions, but also the livestock, wild prey, and environmental dimensions. None of the papers that we evaluated concurrently studied all five of these dimensions to determine their impact on human-lion conflict. Furthermore, despite the fact that human-lion conflict research was primarily developed by co-authors from STEM disciplines, the most common dimension evaluated was the human dimension which requires social science and humanities expertise. Our analysis indicates that interdisciplinarity among human-lion conflict research has historically been low. These low levels of interdisciplinarity observed from 1990 to 2015 however, are not necessarily representative of the ongoing efforts to develop more inclusive research teams. Thus, we discuss the implications of this research for the development of sustainable solutions to conserve lions and preserve human well-being and identify potential avenues forward to create more interdisciplinary prides of lion researchers