Effects of browse, human visitors and noise on the behaviour of captive orang-utans
Open accessAbstract
This paper reports a study of the behaviour of captive orang utans(Pongo pygmaeus)at Chester Zoo, UK. The study addressed two questions: what is the effect of the presence of fresh browse on the animals’ behaviour; and what is the effect of the presence of visitors? The first part of the study analysed the animals’ time budgets. The results indicated that the provision of fresh browse led to a decrease in the time spent sitting inactive by both adults and infants; it also led to an increase in the time spent by adults foraging for small food items in the woodchip floor-covering beneath the branches of browse. The time-budget data also showed differences in the animals’ behaviour between periods when large groups of visitors arrived and other periods on the same days when visitors were fewer. Specifically, adults used available paper sacks to cover their heads more during periods of high visitor density, and infants held onto adults more. The second part of the study comprised an experiment in which visitor behaviour was manipulated. Visitor groups of similar sizes were asked to behave either quietly or noisily (making vocal noise), in order to determine whether the observed effects of visitors were attributable to group size or to the fact that larger groups tend to be noisier. The experiment indicated that the animals responded particularly to noise: when confronted with noisy groups, all animals looked more at the visitors, and infants approached and held onto adults more. The findings suggest that zoo managers may need to take visitor behaviour into account in order to promote orang utan welfare.
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?
Increasing visitor numbers were associated with less time visible to the public in orangutans, jaguars and siamangs.
“increasing visitor numbers were associated with less time visible to the public in a range of species, including orangutans [77], jaguars [84] and siamangs [85].”
From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [77]
In “Effects of visitors on behaviour” (Table 3; page unavailable), adult orangutans used sacks more often during high- than low-visitor-density periods. The discussion says they sometimes put sacks over their heads when visitors arrived, but the paper does not report that they spent less time visible to the public. This citation is attached to orangutans; jaguars and siamangs have separate citations. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA male orangutan in Birke's study displayed increased aggressive behaviours in response to human stares.
“a male orangutan in Birke’s [77] study also displayed increased aggressive behaviours in response to human stares.”
From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [77]
In “Effects of visitors on behaviour,” Birke reports that an adult male stared and displayed in response to prolonged staring by humans. The general discussion describes Sibu banging and calling on several such occasions, but says the behaviour was too infrequent to quantify. The paper supports a response to human stares, not a measured increase in aggressive behaviour. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Chamove A S 1989 Environmental enrichment: a review. Animal Technology 40: 155-178
- Martin P and Bateson P 1993 Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK
- Mather L 1999 Response of captive orang utans to human audiences. MPhi1 thesis, University of Manchester (Bolton Institute), UK
- Oswald M and Kuyk K 1977 The behavior of three lorisoid primate species before and after the public opening of the nocturnal house. In: Crockett C and Hutchins M (eds) Applied Behavioral Science pp 81- 100. Pika Press: Seattle, USA
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sources of stress in captivity
Morgan, K. N., & Tromborg, C. T. (2007) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.032 · Cited by 1,085 · see citing works
Animal–visitor interactions in the modern zoo: Conflicts and interventions
Fernandez, E. J., Tamborski, M. A., Pickens, S. R., & Timberlake, W. (2009) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2009.06.002 · Cited by 311 · see citing works
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
“Others have manipulated visitor noise levels by asking groups to be quiet in the vicinity of target animal enclosures [14,77] or by exposing animals to crowd noise audio recordings and analysing behavioural responses [78].”
BackgroundA preliminary model of human-animal relationships in the zoo
Hosey, G. (2008) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.013 · Cited by 197 · see citing works
Evidence that zoo visitors influence HPA activity in spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyii rufiventris)
Davis, N., Schaffner, C. M., & Smith, T. E. (2005) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.020 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Blaney, E., & Wells, D. (2004) · Animal Welfare · doi:10.1017/s0962728600026841 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Bloomfield, R. C., Gillespie, G. R., Kerswell, K. J., Butler, K. L., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2015) · Zoo Biology · doi:10.1002/zoo.21207 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Sherwen, S. L., Magrath, M. J. L., Butler, K. L., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2015) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2015.04.007 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Visitor effects on zoo orangutans in two novel, naturalistic enclosures
Choo, Y., Todd, P. A., & Li, D. (2011) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2011.05.007 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Effects of visual contact with zoo visitors on Black-capped capuchin welfare
Sherwen, S. L., Harvey, T. J., Magrath, M. J. L., Butler, K. L., Fanson, K. V., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2015) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2015.03.004 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Hosey, G., & Melfi, V. (2015) · Zoo Biology · doi:10.1002/zoo.21182 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Queiroz, M. B., & Young, R. J. (2018) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani8080139 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Visitor-associated variation in captive Diana monkey (Cercopithecus diana diana) behaviour
Todd, P. A., Macdonald, C., & Coleman, D. (2007) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.09.010 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
The impact of visitors on non-primate species in zoos: a quantitative review
Williams, E., Hunton, V., Hosey, G., & Ward, S. J. (2023) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani13071178 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
- Authors
- Birke, L.
- Affiliations
- Chester Zoo (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Birke, L
- Venue
- Animal Welfare
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2002-05
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 189-202
- ISSN
- 0962-7286 (ISSN-L)
- 2054-1538
- OpenAlex
- W3002451978
- Cited by
- 151
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 5.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Animal Welfare (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Manchester Metropolitan University
- Chester Zoo
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Keywords
- orangutans, Bornean orangutan, captive primates, zoo animal welfare, time budget, visitor behavior, group size, infant attachment
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