[Ed]

Hi Brent,
I left out the whole discussion of why a person would want to create a multispecies enclosure as this is a personal decision that needs to be made by each person when comes to their enclosures. With the exception of educational institutions, I doubt that most people at this time set-up multispecies enclosures at home as they are content to concentrate on one species at a time. However, my personal opinion is that if someone does try it they should at least be given the best information available so they may potentially succeed at the attempt.

With regard to your point about hard to breed species and elbow room, this may not be the reason (or the whole reason) as the sucess that results in keeping them in single species enclosures may be due to the maximization of suitable habitat as the mistake often made in multiple species enclosures is not in attempting to pick suitable cage mates but in attempting to maximize the available niches to maximize the number of species that can be placed together. If this is the way in which the enclusure is prepared then most of the time the attempt is doomed to failure.

A properly setup and stocked multispecies exhibit does not mean that it will be action packed or even that you will see all of the animals all the time. It doesn't even mean that anything has to be visible (unless one of the species is very visible (such as emerald tree boas or tortoises).
As Brent commented, if you make simplistic enclosures then the animals may have less interesting behaviors which the average member of the public may never see, but may get lucky and see it (I remember a faimily about 5 years ago watching a RETF lay eggs on exhibit, they stayed for the entire time, watching that one act.


By the way has anyone else seen the article in the 2004 summer issue of the Herpetological Bulletin on D. truncatus? The author indicates that this species coexists just fine with arboreal species such as D. ventrimalculatus.


Ed

 

[Ed]

Hi,
I was checking my dendroboard messages and I accidently deleted one from someone asking me some questions.
If you are waiting for a response please send me the message again.

Sorry about that
Ed

 

[bbrock]

Hi Brent,
I left out the whole discussion of why a person would want to create a multispecies enclosure as this is a personal decision that needs to be made by each person when comes to their enclosures. With the exception of educational institutions, I doubt that most people at this time set-up multispecies enclosures at home as they are content to concentrate on one species at a time. However, my personal opinion is that if someone does try it they should at least be given the best information available so they may potentially succeed at the attempt.

Hi Ed,
All I can say is that you are a [email protected]#$ trouble maker! Just kidding of course. Yes, I agree that the reasons why people want to create multispecies enclosures is a personal choice and of course it is important that those who try have the best information available. You've provided some great food for thought and by no means am I opposed to mixed species setups. I've done it myself. The only reason I got a little pissy is because I was afraid this was being used like intelligence on WMD. There are people very eager to try mixed vivs and I was afraid that some might just skip to the bottom line and say "yes, here is proof I can do it". But what your articles have really said is that it can be done with a lot of thought, caution, and consideration. I just felt it was important to point out some of the trade-offs involved. One bone I will pick though is that I'm uncomfortable defining stress as simply something that interferes with homeostasis. That certainly covers the physiological response to stress but I don't think it adequately covers behavioral components. Stress can create a shift in behavior. The shift is not always negative. For example drought stress can prime an animal for breeding behavior when moisture returns. But stress can also interfere with desired behaviors. The stress of too many competitors could interfere with breeding behaviors even though the animal is able to "maintain homeostasis". I'd just like to see the definition broadened a bit is all.

With regard to your point about hard to breed species and elbow room, this may not be the reason (or the whole reason) as the sucess that results in keeping them in single species enclosures may be due to the maximization of suitable habitat as the mistake often made in multiple species enclosures is not in attempting to pick suitable cage mates but in attempting to maximize the available niches to maximize the number of species that can be placed together. If this is the way in which the enclusure is prepared then most of the time the attempt is doomed to failure.

I think we are on the same page here. When I said "elbow room", I wasn't thinking strictly about the physical space a frog has. I was thinking also of the "psychological space", meaning the ability to feel secure, unchallenged, and uninterupted, when an animal wishes. But a bias I have is that I don't think we have a good handle on the "needs" of some of these difficult to breed species and I feel like putting them in large, well designed, single species enclosures provides the best chance of getting successful reproduction and figuring out their needs. As knowledge is gained, then we will know more about what modifications can be made and still meet their requirements. The reason I bring it up is that space in a private collection is limited. If a hobbyist sets up a large vivarium, the mixed species display seems to be the coveted prize. It's a nice prize but I would like to see these large displays also coveted for the opportunity they provide for breeding difficult and rare species. I think this is an important niche for small collection hobbyists that isn't being filled. Wow, now that is preachy. Sorry about that. I just like to see different angles of participation in the hobby explored because everyone has different skills and potential contributions that can be made.

 

[Ed]

Hi Brent,

snip " One bone I will pick though is that I'm uncomfortable defining stress as simply something that interferes with homeostasis. That certainly covers the physiological response to stress but I don't think it adequately covers behavioral components. Stress can create a shift in behavior. The shift is not always negative. For example drought stress can prime an animal for breeding behavior when moisture returns. But stress can also interfere with desired behaviors. The stress of too many competitors could interfere with breeding behaviors even though the animal is able to "maintain homeostasis". I'd just like to see the definition broadened a bit is all. "


But isn't the behavioral modification an attempt to deal with the physiological effect of the stress and return the animal to a homeostasis? It is only (in general to repeat what I said (not so much for you but for some who may be surfing the thread)) when these behavioral shifts cannot accomedate the physiological effects of the stress that the animal cannot adapt to the situatuon and may die. Which has been documented (although I am only aware of anecdotal documentations) with respect to constant aggressive interactions over the limited reproductive resources (such as we see in tincts on occasion). As this should not be a constant stressor (as for example the females are not constantly receptive and the males can only tend a limited number of clutches of eggs) for the animals, the keeper is required to recognize and correct the situation by supplying more reproductive resources (such as oviposition sites) and/or reducing the density of the animals. (I am of course assuming you are referring to same species/genus reproductive interference and not across genera. In cross genera reproductive interference such as call interference, anurans adapt their calling to prevent overlap and interference (as is seen in multispecies choruses)).

(Some partly coherent thoughts).
Ed

 

[bbrock]

Hi Brent,

But isn't the behavioral modification an attempt to deal with the physiological effect of the stress and return the animal to a homeostasis? It is only (in general to repeat what I said (not so much for you but for some who may be surfing the thread)) when these behavioral shifts cannot accomedate the physiological effects of the stress that the animal cannot adapt to the situatuon and may die.

I don't think so. At least I'm having a hard time making the connection to homeostasis. Many behaviors are completely optional. They are not necessary to maintain physiological homeostasis. Play might be an example, although a bad one for frogs. I just think there are some stresses, or levels of stress, that could alter an animals behavior but not have any significant impact on physiology. Maybe we are saying the same thing but I'm just having a hard time accepting that a "stress" must always affect physiology in order to be considered a stress.

 

[Ed]

Hi Brent,
I think I understand the issue.

Does this sound right?

All of an animal's available behaviors are not the result of an animal's attempts to return to or maintain homeostasis due to stress(es) but behavioral changes in response to stressor(s) are the result of animals attempting to return to homeostasis. (getting back to your play example). (Just for a comment here, as a joke some dice were placed in with Atelopus zeteki at the Baltimore Zoo and the Atelopus were noted to be wrestling the dice around the cage. Was this play behavior, or were the frogs acting on some other stimuli is unknown but I thought it was interesting).

(That said, I have a hard time picturing behaviors that are in response to a stress that does not affect the physiological homeostasis of the animal as even changes in hormones affect the homeostasis of the animal. There may be a resetting of the homeostasis such as when males may be calling but this is usually a drain on resources the animal has and can result in death or abandonment of eggs/tadpoles if the energetic outlay is excessive)

However, the animal's ability to have or use some of those behaviors may also be directly affected by the status of the animal with respect to homeostasis. For example, I would be surprised to see play behavior in an animal that is heat stressed, starved, or injured. (I know I'm taking it to extremes here for simplicity).

Ed

 

[bbrock]

Hi Brent,
I think I understand the issue.

Does this sound right?

All of an animal's available behaviors are not the result of an animal's attempts to return to or maintain homeostasis due to stress(es) but behavioral changes in response to stressor(s) are the result of animals attempting to return to homeostasis. ...snip

We're getting closer and the anecdote about the zeteki is very interesting. I think it is the term homeostasis that is bothering me but maybe I can learn to live with it. Homeostasis is the mechanism that maintains a condition at an optimal point or range. But it seems like some behaviors may be "left over" behaviors that occur only when all of the "homestatic" conditions are met. I'll stick with play because my better example that comes to mind is not suitable for family hour. Suppose that play is a left over behavior that happens when there is nothing else to do. If an animal does not need, or want, to eat, breed, sleep, fight, patrole, etc. then it plays. Play (for this example) is the lowest priority behavior and only happens if there is nothing of higher priority left to do. Let's also assume that no benefit comes from play, it is only a time filler. On one hand I can see the connection to homeostasis but it is an indirect one. The animal's well-being is not dependent on the ability to play and there is no driver trying to push toward an optimal range of homeostasis to provide for play but play does not happen unless other homestatic needs have been met. So technically I'll accept that your definition of stress works but to my little brain, it requires a bit of a stretch to accomodate what I would consider the more subtle stressors. From a pure husbandry and maintenance standpoint, defining stress as something that interferes with homeostasis is fine but if I were writing the rules, I would include anything that interferes with the expression of desired natural behaviors to also be a stressor. Okay, enough semantics for me today. I'm off to play in the snow.

 

[Ed]

Hi Brent,
Sorry for the long delay in getting back to this but it has been busy..

snip "But it seems like some behaviors may be "left over" behaviors that occur only when all of the "homestatic" conditions are met. I'll stick with play because my better example that comes to mind is not suitable for family hour. Suppose that play is a left over behavior that happens when there is nothing else to do. If an animal does not need, or want, to eat, breed, sleep, fight, patrole, etc. then it plays. Play (for this example) is the lowest priority behavior and only happens if there is nothing of higher priority left to do. Let's also assume that no benefit comes from play, it is only a time filler."

I'm not sure that play is a left over behavior as in animals (well birds and mammals) that are deprived of stimulation that allows them to play, sterotypical behaviors (such as incessent pacing, self mutilation) rapidly become established. The animal may not engage in play behavior, but it seems to be a requirement for a healthy animal. (This is assuming we are discussing adult animals who do not need play behaviors to practice hunting techniques, etc).



"On one hand I can see the connection to homeostasis but it is an indirect one. The animal's well-being is not dependent on the ability to play and there is no driver trying to push toward an optimal range of homeostasis to provide for play but play does not happen unless other homestatic needs have been met. So technically I'll accept that your definition of stress works but to my little brain, it requires a bit of a stretch to accomodate what I would consider the more subtle stressors. From a pure husbandry and maintenance standpoint, defining stress as something that interferes with homeostasis is fine but if I were writing the rules, I would include anything that interferes with the expression of desired natural behaviors to also be a stressor. "

Unless the play behavior is required to return the animal to a homeostasis by alleviating stress (such as boredom) and prevents self destructive behaviors....

Ed

 

[bbrock]

I'm not sure that play is a left over behavior as in animals (well birds and mammals) that are deprived of stimulation that allows them to play, sterotypical behaviors (such as incessent pacing, self mutilation) rapidly become established. The animal may not engage in play behavior, but it seems to be a requirement for a healthy animal. (This is assuming we are discussing adult animals who do not need play behaviors to practice hunting techniques, etc).

Well to be fair, the animals in captivity are deprived of many behaviors and play may just be an outlet that can be provided in captivity. For example, a bear allowed to roam, mark, and defend territory, hunt salmon or elk calves, flip rocks for moths, or scour the forest for pine nuts, may stay perfectly sane without play. In captivity, denied of these possibilities, play may provide a suitable outlet. I'm not denying that play doesn't provide a benefit, but I don't think we can say it is a requirement for a healthy animal in the wild. And yes, restricting the argument to adults.

 

[FwoGiZ]

ok so im a beginner and was wondering if i can mix species... after reading the 2 first pages i got tired since it was leading nowhere... people argueing over stupid gallons and stuffs!!! so my question is, i have a 38x22x23 tank and am willing t(if possible) to mix as much species as i can, or maybe juste 2-3 species with couples.. can we mix the different dendrobates? wut bout ranitomeya and phyllobates?
im pretty sure about this one but i ll try it anyway... are there some dart frogs that i could mix with some tree frog??
im aware of all the stress, etc and i really dont want my frog to die because of such a stupid reason, and i want the best for them before my own joy hence why im asking this here , but with such a tank, there must be a way to mix a few species??
tx in advance!

 

[Mywebbedtoes]

Well go back and just read what Ed writes. You don't have to read every responce as some of it is trivial and arguing over pointless details as you brought out. Ed sums this up pretty well and you should have a good idea of the problems associated with mixing after reading his posts. As a self described begginer, almost everyone would tell you to stick with a single species tank, as an understanding of each species habits is benefitial should one take on the complexity of a multi-species tank. But read through all of Ed's posts, I think you will enjoy what you learn.

 

[Otis]

I think Ed brings up a really important point, the floor space is often the only part of the tank being used, at my local zoo there are enclosures that are 5 feet high, 3 feet long and 2 feet and the tanks are housing pac man frogs. I know we are talking about mixing species, but the space given to single species tanks is also important. The floor is covered half by fake tree roots leaving the pac mans about the floor space of a 7 gallon. What is the purpose of these exibits; to educate? if I knew nothing about frogs and saw this exibit I would see nothing wrong with it, not knowing pac mans do not climb and I would walk away thinking that they do based on what I had seen. But what are zoos teaching if they do things like this?

Also, there is also a tank in this exibit that houses D. tinctorius, D. azeurus and D. auratus. As part of my job as a volunteer at the zoo is to tell people about these frogs and I cannot count the times people have asked where to them and proceeded to tell me they were going to get a "blue one, a green one, and a yellow one." Of course then I tell them mixing is not such a good idea for most situatuions. But it's hard to provide an argument against mixing species when you are standing right in front of a tank at a zoo housing three different species. I think that if zoos are going to do this they should provide information about doing this at a private level.

About the reasons for mixing species; animals look exactly the same whether they are housed with other frogs or individually (per species), so what is the appeal of mixed specie tanks? Why not have separate tanks for each species? They will be smaller but still have the same amount of room per frog.

I am not saying mixed specie tanks cannot be done, I have seen many sucessful tanks at zoos, but for the average person it usually doesn't come out right. They can be done with a lot of research, funds, and space but a lot of people dont have all that stuff.


FwoGiZ- in response to your question, I suggest you read all the pages in this post as they will probably answer a lot of your questions, and keep in mind that Ed works at a Zoo and is pretty good at what he does. and I also suggest you rethink your mentality on "stupid gallons and stuffs" as you will find out that stuff matters, just a little.

 

[beachbabe18509]

So I just got through reading most of this, wil lgo back and fill in the blanks later but thought Ed did a great job and that this is an ideal place to put this. I have seen so many begginers come in and post how they plan to mix species, people tell them not to and the go ahead and do it anyway to the detriment of the frog.

Ed set this up nicely say it can be done, but it must be done right. Atleast now when those hard head noobs come blasting in with having to do things "their" way, maybe they can atleast do so with less harm to the frogs.

I personally still have no Desire to set up a multi species tank not unless one day I happen on some monter of a tank say some 3x3x5 or bigger, In that case I could see myself trying it but seeing at my biggest tank currently is a 29g... It's not gonna happen anytime soon