Influence of enclosure design on the behaviour and welfare of Pogona vitticeps
- PMID: 40472003
- PMCID: PMC12140227
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322682
Influence of enclosure design on the behaviour and welfare of Pogona vitticeps
Abstract
Complex or naturalistic enclosures have become increasingly accepted as those best-suited to improve an animal's welfare. However, designing such enclosures can be difficult if little is known about the animal in the wild, and enclosures that aim to replicate natural habitats must still be assessed to ensure their assumed benefits are realized. Therefore, this study examined the behaviour and physiology of captive-bred bearded dragons (Pogona vitticeps) living in naturalistic- and standard-style enclosures. First, we assessed whether naturalistic-style enclosures better accommodated a lizard's behaviour by examining if lizards in these enclosures were inactive for a similar amount of time as their wild counterparts, if they used their enclosures more evenly than standard-housed lizards, and if naturalistic enclosures provided better thermal heterogeneity than standard enclosures. Then, we examined if living in naturalistic-style enclosures improved the lizard's welfare by examining behaviours related to stress and relaxation as well as heterophil to lymphocyte (H:L) ratios. Although naturalistic enclosures did offer better thermal heterogeneity, evidence that they better accommodated a lizard's behaviour or improved their welfare was equivocal: lizards spent the majority of their day inactive, in one area of the enclosure, and performed similar amounts of behaviours related to stress and relaxation, regardless of enclosure style. Furthermore, H:L ratios were only lower for female lizards in naturalistic enclosures. Our results may have been influenced by the timeline of data collection but could also suggest that standard enclosures are sufficient for P. vitticeps, that P. vitticeps perceive standard- and naturalistic-style enclosures as similar, or that the potential benefits of naturalistic enclosures were hampered by the enclosure's size. Ultimately, it was apparent that structural complexity alone was insufficient to influence lizard welfare, highlighting the importance of considering the animal's motivations throughout their life and aspects other than enrichment for effective enclosure design.
Copyright: © 2025 Denommé et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures










Similar articles
-
Do naturalistic enclosures provide suitable environments for zoo animals?Zoo Biol. 2012 May-Jun;31(3):362-73. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20404. Epub 2011 Jun 17. Zoo Biol. 2012. PMID: 21688309
-
Drivers of stereotypic behaviour and physiological stress among captive jungle cat (Felis chaus Schreber, 1777) in India.Physiol Behav. 2019 Oct 15;210:112651. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.112651. Epub 2019 Aug 13. Physiol Behav. 2019. PMID: 31419448
-
Costs and benefits of living in a vegetated, compared with non-vegetated, enclosure in male Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata).Zoo Biol. 2022 Mar;41(2):97-107. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21657. Epub 2021 Nov 3. Zoo Biol. 2022. PMID: 34734424
-
Don't use it? Don't lose it! Why active use is not required for stimuli, resources or "enrichments" to have welfare value.Zoo Biol. 2023 Jul-Aug;42(4):467-475. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21756. Epub 2023 Feb 13. Zoo Biol. 2023. PMID: 36779682 Review.
-
Diagnostic Clinical Pathology of the Bearded Dragon (Pogona vitticeps).Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract. 2022 Sep;25(3):713-734. doi: 10.1016/j.cvex.2022.06.002. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract. 2022. PMID: 36122948 Review.
References
-
- Warwick C, Steedman C, Jessop M, Toland E, Lindley S. Assigning degrees of ease or difficulty for pet animal maintenance: the EMODE system concept. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2013;27(1):87–101. doi: 10.1007/s10806-013-9455-x - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources