The activity budgets of captive orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) in two different Indonesian zoos




Abstract. Dalimunthe NP, Alikodra HS, Iskandar E, Atmoko SSU. 2021. The activity budgets of captive orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) in two different Indonesian zoos. Biodiversitas 22: 1912-1919. In nature, orangutans spent most of the activity budgets for foraging. It is presumed that orangutan in captivity carries out different activities. This study aimed to investigate the activity of Bornean Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) in different zoos with different types of cage according to their design, enrichments, and diets. It was conducted at two different Indonesian zoos, namely Ragunan Zoo (TMR) and Taman Safari Indonesia (TSI). The study used a total of 11 orangutans. From each zoo, orangutan individuals from each zoo and each age and sex class (adult male, adult female, and juvenile/juvenile) were used in the present study. The activity budgets were compared between age-sexual classes, cage types, and weekday-holiday categories. Environmental enrichment analysis was also used. The total observation time in this study for each individual was 4,500 minutes. The adult male had more resting activity than other groups, while the juvenile group showed a higher percentage of social, moving, and feeding activities. It was also observed that there were different activity budgets between individuals in a separate cage and week-holiday groups. Overall, it was assumed that the difference in orangutan activity budgets was influenced by cage types, individual arrangements, and environmental enrichment. Meanwhile, a juvenile showed a higher percentage of enrichment using. Enrichment was influenced by cage type and individual arrangement.


Ancrenaz M, Gumal M, Marshall AJ, Meijaard E, Wich SA & Husson S. 2016. Pongo pygmaeus. In the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: E.t17975a17966347. Gland, switzerland, and Cambridge, uk: International Union for Conservation of Nature. Available a 2016-1.rlts.t17975a17966347.en.
Bani SN, Perwitasari-Farajallah D, Utami-Atmoko SS, Sihite J. 2018. Adaptation behavior of Bornean Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus morio) reintroduction in Kehje Sewen Forest, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biodiversitas. 19 (3): 989-996.
Basalamah F, Utami-Atmoko ss, Perwitasari-Farajallah D, Qayim I, Sihite J, van noordwijk M, willems E, van Schaik CP. 2018. Monitoring orangutan reintroduction: Results of activity budgets, diets, vertical use and associations during the first year post-release in Kehje Sewen Forest, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biodiversitas. 19 (2): 689-700.
Benson-Amram S, Weldele ML, Holekamp KE. 2013. A comparison of innovative problem-solving abilities between wild and captive spotted hyaenas, Crocuta crocuta. Anim Behav. 85: 349-356.
Bloomfield RC, Gillespie GR, Kerswell KJ, Butler KL, Hemsworth PH. 2015. Effect of partial covering of the visitor viewing area window on positioning and orientation of zoo orangutans: A Preference Test. Zoo Biol. 34 : 223-229.
Choo Y, Todd PA, Li D. 2011. Visitor effects on zoo orangutans in two novel, naturalistic enclosures. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 133: 78-86.
Choo YT. 2011. Orangutan behaviour in captivity: Activity budgets, enclosure use and the visitor effect. [Thesis]. Singapore: National University.
Clark FE. 2011. Great ape cognition and captive care: Can cognitive challenges enhance well-being? Appl Anim Behav Sci. 135: 112.
Clark FE & Smith LJ. 2013. Effect of a cognitive challenge device containing food and non-food rewards on chimpanzee well-being. Am J Primatol. 75: 807-816.
Clark FE. 2017. Cognitive Enrichment and Welfare: Current Approaches and Future Directions. Anim Behav Cogni. 4 (1): 52-71.
Crosby K. 2015. Effects of natural vs non-natural enrichment items on captive orangutan behavior. (Thesis). Indiana: Department of Biology Ball State University Muncie.
Dalimunthe NP, Alikodra HS, Iskandar E, Utami-Atmoko SS. 2020. Manajemen Pakan dan Pemenuhan Nutrisi Orangutan Kalimantan (Pongo pygmaeus). di Taman Safari Indonesia dan Taman Margasatwa Ragunan. J Biol Indo. 16 (1): 57-66.
Forss SIF, Schuppli C, Haiden D, Zweifel N, van Schaik CP. 2015. Contrasting responses to novelty by wild and captive orangutans. Am J Primatol. 77: 1109-1121. (doi:10.1002/ajp.22445).
Ivana G, Martin H, Jitka S. 2017. Environmental Enrichment in the Awareness of Zoo Visitors and the General Public. Annual Resear Rev Biol. 20 (2): 1-5.
Kanamori T, Kuze N, Bernard H, Malim TP, Kohshima S. 2010. Feeding ecology of Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus morio) in Danum Valley, Sabah, Malaysia: A 3-year record including two mast fruiting. Am J Primatol 72: 820-840.
Lehner SR, Burkart JM, van Schaik CP. 2010. An evaluation of the geographic method for recognizing innovations in nature, using zoo orangutans. Primates. 51: 101-118. https://doi:10.1007/s10329-009-0184-8.
Loken B, Spehar SS, Rayadin Y. 2013. Terrestriality in the Bornean Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus morio) and Implications for Their Ecology and Conservation. Am J Primatol. 75: 1129-1138.
Maple TL, Bloomsmith MA. 2018. Introduction: The science and practice of optimal animal welfare. Behav Process. 156: 1-2.
Mendonca RS, Kanamori T, Kuze N, Hayashi M, Bernard H, Matsuzawa T. 2016. Development and behaviour of wild infant-juvenile East Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus morio) in Danum Valley. Primates. DOI 10.1007/s10329-016-0567-6.
Morrogh-Bernard HC et al. 2009. Orangutan activity budgets and diet. In: Wich SA, Atmoko SSU, Setia TM, van Schaik CP, editors. Orangutans: Geographic variation in behavioral ecology and conservation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p 119-134.
Nayasilana IN, Hadisusanto S, Wijayanto H, Utami-Atmoko SS, Prasetyao D, Sihite J, Van Schaik CP. 2017. Behavioral ecology of reintroduced Orangutans in the Bukit Batikap, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biodiversitas. 18 (3): 875-886.
Nater A, Maja P. Mattle-Greminger, Nurcahyo A, Nowak MG, Manuel M, Desai T, Groves C, Pybus M, Sonay TB, et al. 2017. Morphometric, Behavioral, and Genomic Evidence for a New Orangutan Species. Curr Biol. 27 (22): 3487-3498.
Ortiz ST, MaxwellA and Hansen KA. 2017. Research as an enrichment tool to improve welfare in captive animals. Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Veterinary Science. 2(1): 1-6.
Pearson EL, Davis JM, Litchfield CA. 2010. A Case Study of Orangutan and Siamang Behavior Within a Mixed-Species Zoo Exhibit. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 13(4): 330-346.
Shariman PSMA and Ruppert N. 2017. Effect of environmental enrichment on activities of captive orangutans at Taiping Zoo, Malaysia. Malay Nat J. 69 (4): 327-335.
Singleton I, Wich SA., Nowak M & Usher G. 2016. Pongo abelii. In The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: e.T39780A102329901. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom: International Union for Conservation of Nature. Available at
Swaisgood RR, Sheperdson DJ. 2005. Scientific approaches to enrichment and stereotypies in zoo animals: What’s been done and where should we go next? Zoo Biol. 24: 499-518.
van Schaik CP, Burkart J, Damerius L, Forss SIF, Koops K, van Noordwijk MA and Schuppli C. 2015. The reluctant innovator: orangutans and the phylogeny of creativity. Phil Trans R Soc B. 371: 20150183.
Vasconcellos AS, Adania CH, and Ades C. 2012. Contrafreeloading in maned wolves: implications for their management and welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 140: 85-91. applanim.2012.04.012.
Whilde J & Marples N. 2010. The behavior of a zoo-housed infant orangutan after the death of its mother. Zoo Biol. 29 : 1-7.
Whitehouse J, Micheletta J, Powell1 LE, Bordier C , Waller BM. 2013. The Impact of Cognitive Testing on the Welfare of Group Housed Primates. Plos One. 8(11): e78308.
Young RJ, de Azevedo CS, Cipreste CF. 2020. Environmental Enrichment: The Creation of Opportunities for Informal Learning. In: Melfi VA, Dorey DR, Ward SJ. Zoo Animal Learning and Training. New Jersey (US): John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Most read articles by the same author(s)