Abstract

Simple SummarySome studies on zoo penguins have shown that the presence of visitors may be fear-provoking. To manage zoo visitor–animal interactions, it is important to determine what it is about visitors that affects zoo penguins. Consequently, we investigated the effects of regulating both zoo visitor viewing proximity to the penguin enclosure and the intensity of visitor behaviour on the behaviour and stress physiology of little penguins. A physical barrier was used to increase visitor viewing distance, by 2 m away from the enclosure, and signage and uniformed personnel was used to attempt to regulate the intensity of visitor behaviour. Signage and uniformed personnel had no effect on visitor number, noise level or visitor behaviour. However, the physical barrier reduced the frequency of potentially threatening visitor behaviours such as banging on enclosure features, looming over the pool, physical contact with the pool’s water and sudden movement. When visitors were further away from the enclosure, fewer penguins were huddling, vigilant, and retreating, and more penguins were close to the visitor viewing area, surface swimming and preening in the water. There were no effects of visitor viewing proximity or signage and uniformed personnel on the stress physiology of the little penguins. While there was no effect of signage and uniformed personnel in moderating visitor behaviour, the viewing proximity of visitors to the enclosure affected both visitor and penguin behaviour, where potentially threatening visitor behaviours were decreased and little penguins showed less avoidance behaviour when visitors were further away.We examined the effects of regulating the viewing proximity of visitors and the intensity of visitor behaviour on behaviours indicative of fear and stress physiology of 15 zoo-housed little penguins (Eudyptula minor). A 2 × 2 factorial fully randomised design was used to examine the effects of regulating: (1) the viewing proximity of visitors to enclosure, ‘normal viewing distance’ and ’increased viewing distance’ (using a physical barrier set up 2 m away from the enclosure), and (2) the intensity of visitor behaviour, ‘unregulated visitor behaviour’ and ‘regulated visitor behaviour’ (using signage and uniformed personnel). In addition, a treatment consisting of closing the enclosure to visitors was included. Penguin behaviour, visitor numbers and visitor behaviour were recorded by CCTV video recordings and direct observations, respectively. Penguin faecal glucocorticoid metabolites were also analysed as a measure of stress physiology. We found that increased viewing distance reduced (p < 0.05) all visitor behaviours except for loud vocalisations and tactile contact with penguins. However, there were no direct effects of signage and uniformed personnel on visitor behaviour (p > 0.05). As the regulation of viewing proximity increased from a closed exhibit to an open exhibit with increased viewing distance, and then to an open exhibit with normal viewing distance, this increased the proportion of penguins huddling (p = 0.0011), vigilant (p = 0.0060) and retreating (p = 0.00013), and decreased the proportion of penguins within 1 m of the visitor viewing area (p = 0.00066), surface swimming (p = 0.00091) and preening in the water (p = 0.042). There were also limited effects of regulating visitor behaviour on penguin behaviour. No treatment effects were found on faecal glucocorticoid metabolites (p > 0.05). These results indicate that regulating visitor viewing proximity affects penguin behaviours indicative of fear and visitor behaviour. This suggests that close visitor contact can be fear-provoking for little penguins but increasing the distance between visitors and penguins can reduce fear responses of penguins by regulating both viewing proximity and visitor behaviour. However, it is unclear whether these changes in penguin behaviour are due to the increased separation between visitors and penguins and/or specific visitor behaviours associated with close viewing proximity to the enclosure, such as leaning over the enclosure or tactile contact with the pool, which are impeded when visitors are further away.

Highlights

  • Understanding human–animal relationships in zoos has been an area of growing importance because of the effects that humans, especially visitors, can have on different zoo species such as non-human primates, big cats and ungulates, varying from negative, positive and neutral effects [1].the manner in which visitors affect zoo animals remains unclear, especially for a rarely studied taxa such as penguins [1,2]

  • As a follow-up to Sherwen, Magrath, Butler and Hemsworth [14], we jointly examined the regulation of two aspects of visitor contact on little penguin behaviours indicative of fear and stress physiology: (1) visitor viewing proximity, by regulating how close visitors could approach the enclosure, using physical barriers, and (2) intensity of visitor behaviour, by including visual reminders to visitors for them to reduce noise, startling and interactive behaviours

  • This study provides evidence that regulating the viewing proximity of visitors, either by the installation of a physical barrier or by closing the exhibit to visitors, strongly reduces little penguin behaviours indicative of fear and strongly increases swimming, which is likely impeded by fear

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Understanding human–animal relationships in zoos has been an area of growing importance because of the effects that humans, especially visitors, can have on different zoo species such as non-human primates, big cats and ungulates, varying from negative, positive and neutral effects [1].the manner in which visitors affect zoo animals remains unclear, especially for a rarely studied taxa such as penguins [1,2]. Research on the human–penguin relationship has primarily been conducted on wild penguins, with growing evidence that human contact can negatively affect various wild penguin populations. Adelie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) have been found to have reduced breeding success as a result of repeated human approaches and nest checks [3]. Sites frequently visited by tourists dramatically increased heart rate and reduced reproductive success of Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) [6], and increased vigilance and agonistic behaviours in King (Aptenodytes patagonicus), Gentoo (Pygoscelis papua) and Royal penguins (Eudyptes schlegeli) in response to human approach [7,8]. When exposed to high levels of human visitation, wild little penguin (Eudyptula minor) populations in Australia increasingly avoid nesting areas [9]. Despite the range of research on wild penguins, there is limited research investigating the effects of visitors on zoo-housed penguins

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call