Is preference a predictor of enrichment efficacy in Galapagos tortoises (Chelonoidis nigra)?
Abstract
It is widely acknowledged that environmental enrichment plays an important role in promoting the welfare of captive animals. However, a topic of debate is whether an animal's preference for an enrichment strategy is any indicator of its efficacy. In addition, relatively few studies have evaluated environmental enrichment strategies for non-mammalian species. In the present study, we compared the results of an observational evaluation of enrichment efficacy with the results of a paired-stimulus preference assessment for three Galapagos tortoises. In the observational study, object enrichment (boomer balls and a free-flowing sprinkler) and keeper interactions (shell scrubbing and neck rubbing) were evaluated systematically for their effects on locomotion, species-typical behavior, aggressive and non-aggressive conspecific interactions, and enclosure. Preference assessments were subsequently conducted in which subjects could choose the enrichment strategy to be implemented. All subjects preferred keeper interactions consistently over object enrichment. Our results suggest that enrichment preference was a variable predictor of efficacy across enrichment species-typical behavior, activity levels, enclosure use, and aggressive and non-aggressive conspecific interactions strategies. Preference predicted efficacy for promoting species-typical behavior (1/3 subjects), activity levels (2/3 subjects), and enclosure use (2/3 subjects), but not conspecific interactions (0/3 subjects). The…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
One study on Galapagos giant tortoises found all individuals showed a preference for keeper interaction over object enrichment.
“All individuals showed a preference for keeper interaction over object enrichment [112].”
From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [112]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare
Sherwen, S. L., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2019) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani9060366 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
“All individuals showed a preference for keeper interaction over object enrichment [112].”
BackgroundBashaw, M. J., Gibson, M. D., Schowe, D. M., & Kucher, A. S. (2016) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2016.08.003 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mehrkam, L. R., & Dorey, N. R.
- Affiliations
- Santa Fe College (US)
- University of Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mehrkam, Lindsay R.
- ORCID
- Dorey, Nicole R.
- Venue
- Zoo Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-07
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 275-284
- ISSN
- 0733-3188 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2361
- OpenAlex
- W1851357897
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 5.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Zoo Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Turtle Biology and Conservation
- Keywords
- environmental enrichment, animal preferences, Galápagos tortoise, Chelonoidis nigra, captive animal welfare, species-typical behavior, activity level, enclosure use, paired-stimulus preference assessment
- MeSH terms
- Aggression, Animals, Animal Husbandry, Animal Welfare, Animals, Zoo, Behavior, Animal, Choice Behavior, Female, Male, Social Behavior, Species Specificity, Turtles, Observation
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