What do population-level welfare indices suggest about the well-being of zoo elephants?
Open accessAbstract
To assess zoo elephants' welfare using objective population-level indices, we sought data from zoos and other protected populations (potential "benchmarks") on variables affected by poor well-being. Such data were available on fecundity, potential fertility, stillbirths, infant mortality, adult survivorship, and stereotypic behavior. Most of these can also be affected by factors unrelated to well-being; therefore, for each, we analyzed the potential role of these other factors. Population-level comparisons generally indicate poor reproduction, and poor infant and adult survivorship in zoos compared with benchmark populations (with some differences between zoo regions and over time). Stereotypic behavior also occurs in c. 60% of zoo elephants; as the population-level welfare index least open to alternative interpretations, this represents the strongest evidence that well-being is/has been widely compromised. Poor well-being is a parsimonious explanation for the diverse range of population-level effects seen, but to test this hypothesis properly, data are now needed on, for example, potential confounds that can affect these indices (to partition out effects of factors unrelated to well-being), and causes of the observed temporal effects, and differences between species and zoo regions. Regardless of whether such additional data implicate poor well-being, our findings suggest that elephant management has generally been sub-optimal. We also discuss the selection and utilization of benchmark data, as a useful future approach for evaluating such issues.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Tools are increasingly using behavioral indicators associated with comfort, play, affiliation, foraging, and sociality to evaluate mental and overall welfare states, in addition to commonly used and validated negative welfare indicators like stereotypies, poor health and reproduction, and high mortality and morbidity.
“Tools are increasingly using behavioral indicators associated with comfort, play, affiliation, foraging, and sociality to evaluate mental and overall welfare states, in addition to commonly used and validated negative welfare indicators like stereotypies, poor health and reproduction, and high mortality and morbidity (23, 44, 101, 102).”
From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [44]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 58
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Clubb R, Mason G. 2002. A review of the welfare of elephants in European zoos. Horsham, UK: RSPCA.
- Donaldson R. 2003. Experiences of older burglary victims. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Findings, Vol. 198. London: Home Office.
- Mar KU. 2007. The demography and life history strategy of timber elephants in Myanmar [Dissertation: Ph.D. Thesis]. University College London, London, England.
- Oerke A-K, Heistermann M, Hodges K. 2000. Evaluation of the current breeding status of African and Asian elephant cows in European zoos and circuses based on non-invasive hor- mone analysis. In: Rietkerk F, Hiddinga B, Brouwer K, Smits S, editors. EEP yearbook 1998/99 including proceeding of the 1999 EAZA conference, Basel. Amsterdam: EAZA Executive Office. p 484-487.
- Oerke A-K, Heistermann M, Hodges K. 2001. Reproductive characteristics of the European elephant population: long-term cycles and preg- nancy data based on non-invasive methodology. In: Schwammer H, Foose TJ, Fouraker M, Olson D, editors. Recent research on elephants and rhinos: abstracts of the international ele- phant and rhino symposium Vienna. Munster: Schuling Verlag. p
- Shaw DC, Gallagher RH. 1984. Group or singly- housed rats? In: Standards in laboratory management: proceedings of a LASA/UFAW Symposium. Potters Bar: UFAW. p 65-70.
- Authors
- Mason, G. J., & Veasey, J. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Guelph (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Mason, Georgia J.
- Venue
- Zoo Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-03
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 256-273
- ISSN
- 0733-3188 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2361
- OpenAlex
- W2167275789
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 3.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Zoo Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- The Atrium (University of Guelph) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Keywords
- zoo elephants, animal welfare, stereotypy, reproduction, fecundity, infant mortality, adult survivorship, captive management
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Welfare, Animals, Zoo, Elephants, Housing, Animal, Population Density, Reproduction, Social Behavior, Social Environment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review