|
|
|
Title: Sampling the behaviour of the common squirrel monkey (Saimiri sciureus) in the wild and in captivity: a comparison of methods
Author: Bryony Partner
Establishment: The University of Kent and Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology
Summary: The study compared focal and scan sampling methods of behavioural data collection in order to assess which method is most suitable for behavioural studies in captivity, and the wild. The results of the study suggest that focal animal sampling is most suitable for studies of captive behaviour, whilst scan sampling is most suitable for studies of wild behaviour.
Complete article:
The study compared two methods of behavioural data collection in order to assess which method is most suitable for behavioural studies in captivity, and the wild. The two methods compared were scan and focal animal sampling, which differ in the number of animals and types of behaviours sampled at any one time. Scan sampling allows the observer to record the general behaviour of each animal at a specific time, whereas focal sampling allows the observer to concentrate on the behaviour of one animal throughout a specific time period. Scan and focal sampling were undertaken on the captive group of squirrel monkeys at Colchester Zoo and Monkey Rainforest. Behaviour was also later filmed in captivity, and the footage used to undertake scan and focal sampling in order to directly compare the two methods. These methods were then repeated in the Peruvian rainforest.
The results of the study suggest that focal animal sampling is most suitable for studies of captive behaviour; perhaps it is easier to focus on one animal for a period of time without losing sight of them. Conversely, scan sampling is most suitable for studies of wild behaviour; perhaps it is easier to scan a larger and more dispersed groups rather than attempt to focus on one individual.
The many benefits of filming behavioural data were discussed, such as the ability to rewind the footage and zoom in to observe a particular behaviour. However, it does significantly increase the amount of time taken to process the data, and may not be practical in a field setting.
|
|
|
|
