Cited by 16Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAmphibian and Reptile BiologyConservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education

Environmental enrichment for reptiles in European zoos: Current status and perspectives

Open access
Bartolomé, Alicia, Carazo, Pau, Font, Enrique·2023·Animal Welfare

Abstract

Zoos and aquaria are paying increasing attention to environmental enrichment, which has proven an effective tool for the improvement of animal welfare. However, several ongoing issues have hampered progress in environmental enrichment research. Foremost among these is the taxonomic bias, which hinders our understanding of the value of enrichment for neglected groups, such as reptiles. In this study, we evaluated the status of environmental enrichment for reptiles in European zoos using a survey approach. A total of 121 zoos (32% response rate) completed our main survey, focusing on the use of different enrichment types for reptiles. We found significant differences in the use and/or type of enrichment between reptile groups. Tortoises (family Testudinidae) and monitor lizards (genus Varanus ) were the most enriched taxa while venomous snakes were the least. The enrichment types most used across taxa were structural/habitat design and dietary. A second, more detailed, questionnaire followed, where participants were questioned about specific enrichment techniques. A total of 42 enrichment methods were reported, with two being represented across all taxa: increasing structural/thermal complexity and enrichment objects. Finally, we present information from participating zoos on enrichment goals, assessment methods, sources of information for enrichment ideas, and whether enrichment for reptiles is considered essential and/or implemented routinely. Results suggest that, although usage is widespread across European zoos, our understanding of enrichment for reptiles needs to be re-evaluated, since many of the techniques reported tread a fine line between basic husbandry and actual enrichment.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/awf.2023.43

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Bartolomé, A., Carazo, P., & Font, E.
Affiliations
Universitat de València (ES)
Corresponding author
Bartolomé, Alicia
Venue
Animal Welfare
Published
2023
Volume
32
Pages
e48-e48
ISSN
  • 0962-7286 (ISSN-L)
  • 2054-1538
OpenAlex
W4382994584
Cited by
16
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
FWCI
4.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Animal Welfare (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (PID2019-104721GB-IOO)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
Keywords
environmental enrichment, reptiles, zoo animal welfare, taxonomic bias, tortoises, monitor lizards, venomous snakes, husbandry

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