<em>By</em>
<em>Stephen Schulze and Kenton Kerns, Small Mammal House Keepers</em>
<em>Smithsonian’s National Zoo, Washington, DC</em>

<em></em>

<strong>Introduction</strong>

The reintroduction of an individual meerkat (<em>Suricata suricatta sp.</em>) to its family group, once it has been rejected and driven out, is notoriously difficult.  Carelessly managed, reintroduction can result in severe cage mate trauma or death.  For this reason, many zoos with meerkats in their collections wind up with rejected individuals living in isolation, a poor situation for a social animal and a strain on zoo resources.  The Small Mammal House at Smithsonian National Zoological Park has had three instances of successful meerkat reintroductions, using a strategy of protected proximity and rotational pairing of non-aggressive members from the group with the ostracized individual.  Exhibit design, common sense, and conscientious observation all contribute to successful management of this delicate process.

<strong>Natural History</strong>

<em>Suricata suricatta siricata</em>, the slender tail meerkat, belongs to the family Herpstidae, and is a highly socialized species of mongoose.  Its habitat ranges throughout the southern Kalahari Desert, including areas of South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe.  This is a mongoose adapted to a dual environment.  The summer months (October to April) bring intense heat, but may also offer short periods of rain and a brief abundance of plant and insect life.  The dry winter months (May to September) bring shorter days and cooler temperatures, but offer fewer and scarcer resources across the grasslands.

Accordingly (we speculate), meerkat strategies for breeding and population control relate directly to an environment that alternates scarcity and abundance.  Females compete for dominance within a family, and theoretically only the alpha pair breeds.  To preserve their breeding prerogative, alpha females might drive rival beta females from the group, permanently or temporarily.  (Beta females, rival or not, do manage to breed, some by meeting roving males from other meerkat groups and some by copulation with beta males within the home group.)  Infanticide between rival dames is common and can cut both ways within a family, with alphas killing beta offspring and betas killing alpha litters, attempting then to substitute their own offspring under alpha care.  These behaviors carry from the wild into captivity and may strongly challenge the stability of a captive group.

<strong>Provenance and Early Captive History of Small Mammal House Group</strong>

The six adult individuals that originally comprised our current collection of meerkats were wild-caught, possibly trapped for removal from private property.  Beyond their wild origin, we know nothing of their provenance.  We had to guess their age(s), settling on a mean of four years, given estimates from various sources.  Based on the voluntary separation of one female individual from the group, we suspected that they were not trapped as a cohesive family, but that the one female, and possibly a beta male, were introduced upon capture.  The stress of capture and transport might account for the relative bonding of the six while in quarantine and upon release into their exhibit space.
<p style="text-align: left;"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2197" title="meerkat_totem" src="http://aecetia.net/gws/aazk/wp-content/uploads/meerkat_totem.jpg" alt="meerkat_totem" width="538" height="717" /></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Meerkat Group at the Small Mammal House (<em>Photo by National Zoo)</em></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">The group was reported to have been skittish and reclusive throughout their 30-day quarantine period, which ended 11 April ‘06.  However, within several days of occupying their exhibit, the group was active on the surface throughout the day and engaged in play, social digging, and foraging behaviors.  Well within a week they were acclimated to the proximity of a keeper at their holding space with the door open, eagerly feeding on mealworms lightly scattered by hand.  Inter-adult aggression had been reported first on 6 July ‘06, and it intensified with intervening lulls throughout the month.  All of the aggression that we observed at that time was female to female.  Males were not observed to have taken part in female hierarchal challenges or alpha female assertions of dominance.  Indeed, they behaved as if utterly indifferent.  Pup vocalizations were first heard 6 August ’06, 103 days after introduction to the exhibit.  These first offspring were almost certainly sired and birthed by the alpha male and female couple, respectively named M’bira and Kora.</p>

One incident of serious aggression was closely observed on 25 July ‘06 involving Kora and a beta female acting as her ally against a third beta female who proved to be pregnant.   The primary attacker was not Kora but her beta ally.  Together they harassed the beta from opposing sides snarling, growling, and barking.  The technique of attack involved sidling or backing toward the opponent, maneuvering until she was distracted enough by Kora for her ally to whirl and bite.

The two incidents of reintroduction that we will relate involved Kora and Baya, one of her female offspring (born 2 Feb. 07).  By May of ‘09 the composition of the family group had changed dramatically from its original configuration, consisting now of five members: the original alpha pair (M’bira and Kora) and three of their offspring from two separate litters (male Ngoni born 2 Feb. 07, and female Baya and male Dogo born 9 May 07).

<strong>Exhibit Design</strong>

The exhibit provides three types of space for the group: a tunnel system, a surface foraging area, and two off-exhibit holds, one for feeding, the other a toilet area.  The tunnel system consists of sections of joined four-inch PVC drainage pipe (corrugated, black) forming one main, semicircular corridor approximately 24 ft. length that branches into several lesser corridors, all but one leading to a surface opening.  Having multiple entry/exits enhances the groups’ sense of safety.  The sole terminal corridor leads to the group lair, a fiberglass hollow that resembles a large rock.  Stone blocks line the exterior of the tunnel system and hide it from sight.  Large stones are piled high in several places, providing lookout locations for the group.  In the center of the exhibit, forming its point of focus, is a half   igloo structure of stone.  The substrate consists of sand, plenty enough to dig and sift through, but nowhere deep enough to tunnel into.  Several logs, some hollow, some solid, add interest and variety.

The exhibit is situated below a sizable skylight.  High wind, severe weather, and passing birds consistently attract the meerkats’ attention and help to simulate a realistic environment with natural stimulations.  Holding spaces are located on either side at the rear end of the exhibit, with access to them regulated by guillotine shift doors.  Each is roughly a four-and-a half-foot cube.  Meerkats mark their territorial parameters with their feces.  Not surprisingly, their toilet area is of their choosing, as far from the lair as possible, located in the holding, left of the entrance door.  The right holding contains food and water.

<strong>Incident One</strong>

No major incidents of aggression occurred in the main meerkat group since October 2007.  By this time, both Kora and her beta daughter Baya were receiving six-month contraceptive implants throughout the year to keep the group stable at five individuals.  On 13 May ‘09, Kora was implanted with a new hormonal contraceptive injected subcutaneously between the scapulas.  The implant was expected to prevent pregnancy for approximately two years.  A few days after implantation, a weeping lesion was observed at the intrascapular site.  Kora was quickly isolated, and under veterinary examination the rejected contraceptive was removed.  The lesion was further opened and flushed to clean the wound and prevent infection, and a new implant was placed caudally to the original site.  Once Kora recovered fully from anesthesia, she was returned to the group.  No more than three hours passed between her removal and return.  No aggression was seen immediately.

Later that afternoon during feeding, keepers noticed Baya scent marking one of the entrances to the tunnels and blocking Kora each time she attempted to leave the tunnels.  When Kora did finally emerge, Baya attempted to tear at the open wound (the original injection site) that was now bleeding.  Kora again retreated to the tunnel.  Baya pursued her and soon re-emerged looking as though she had an earthworm dangling from her jaws.  Fearing it to be a strip of flesh from Kora’s lesion, we decided to immediately remove Baya and isolate her from the group by means of a wire mesh screen secured between the exhibit space and the food hold.

Keepers were unable to successfully separate the animals while they were above ground.  They entered the exhibit, removed the rockwork façade, and began to systematically dismantle a portion of the tunnel system.  The segmented structure of the system proved useful, as we were able to isolate the group within a single ten-foot section, plug one end, then detach the other and plug it in turn.  The entire section was removed to a secure, smaller space.  Baya was safely netted, and then one by one the other meerkats were examined for wounds….

<strong>Want to read the rest of this article?  For this and many more fascinating articles every month, see Animal Keepers’ Forum.  AKF is available only by being a member of AAZK. <a href="http://aecetia.net/gws/aazk/join/">JOIN NOW!</a></strong>