CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAvian ecology and behaviorAnimal and Plant Science Education

Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( Eudyptula minor )

Open access
Chiew, Samantha J., Butler, Kym L., Fanson, Kerry V., Eyre, Simon, Coleman, Grahame J., Sherwen, Sally L., Melfi, Vicky, Hemsworth, Paul H.·2022·New Zealand Journal of Zoology
DOI 10.1080/03014223.2021.1896560
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Little penguins ( Eudyptula minor ), or Kororā in Māori, show variation in their behavioural responses towards zoo visitors in Australian zoos. We experimentally examined the effects of visitor presence on the behaviour and stress physiology of little penguins at Wellington Zoo, New Zealand. The two treatments were: (1) Visitor presence – the exhibit was open to visitors; and (2) Visitor absence – the exhibit was closed to visitors. We found that when the exhibit was closed to visitors, the percentage of penguins observed close to the visitor viewing pier increased from about 1% to 9%, but there was little effect on other behaviours and faecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations. This result of increased avoidance of the visitor viewing pier when the exhibit was open to visitors suggests close visitor contact, particularly from above, may be fear‐provoking for these penguins. We conclude that designing enclosures to allow close viewing proximity of visitors, such as visitors looming over the pool, may be futile in improving visitor experience, since this species of penguins is likely to avoid these types of viewing areas when visitors are present. Visitors positioned close to and above penguins may be particularly problematic since visitors in this position may be perceived as threatening.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Closing the little penguin exhibit at Wellington Zoo to visitors increased the percentage of penguins observed close to the visitor viewing pier from about 1% to 9%, but had little effect on other behaviours or faecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations. The authors conclude that close visitor viewing proximity, especially from above, may be fear-provoking for this species and that such viewing features may be ineffective for visitor experience.

Key findings

  • When the exhibit was closed to visitors, the percentage of penguins in Zone 1 (0–4 m from the visitor viewing pier) increased from about 1% to 9% (F = 13.83, d.f. = 1,5, P = 0.014); Zone 2 showed some indication of an increase from 1% to 3% (F = 5.35, d.f. = 1,5, P = 0.069).
  • Closure had no effect on faecal glucocorticoid metabolite (FGM) concentrations (F = 2.41, d.f. = 1,6, P > 0.05; visitor presence 3246 ng/g vs visitor absence 3635 ng/g, P = 0.19).
  • No effect of closing the exhibit was found on other penguin behaviours (P > 0.05); overall percentage of penguins visible was 17% with visitors present and 15% with visitors absent (P = 0.88).
  • When open, an average of 200 visitors were observed per day; the visitor viewing pier averaged about 76 visitors/day, Path 1 averaged 71, Path 2 averaged 13, and Path 3 averaged 40. The most frequently observed visitor behaviours were walking, looming, loud vocalisations, and sudden movements.

Methods

  • A two-treatment fully randomised design was used at Wellington Zoo’s 225 m² little penguin enclosure with six wild-born rescued little penguins (three males, three females). Treatments were visitor presence (exhibit open) and visitor absence (exhibit closed), each imposed for 2-day periods, two periods per week, with five replicates per treatment (20 study days) over five weeks in May–June 2018.
  • Behaviour was recorded from three GoPro cameras in 3 × 1 h observation blocks using instantaneous point sampling at 3 min intervals and one-zero sampling in 30 s periods; enclosure zones were defined by distance from the visitor viewing pier. Visitor observations were conducted in seven 30 min blocks per day, and ambient noise was recorded continuously.
  • Faecal samples were collected at the end of each treatment day, stored at −20°C, and assayed for FGM using a double-antibody cortisone enzyme-immunoassay; 219 samples were collected, with two excluded for being too small. Statistical analysis used 2-day summary values as the unit of analysis, with ANOVA and non-parametric permutation tests where appropriate.

Limitations

  • The paper states that a treatment period longer than two days may be required to detect measurable changes in FGM, and that weather strongly affected penguin behaviour and physiology, requiring further research. It also notes that differences among zoos—including enclosure design, prior experience, genetics, behavioural sampling methods, and visitor interaction intensity—may have influenced comparisons.
  • The paper states that camera footage could not clearly distinguish individual penguins, so behaviour was recorded at the group level, and that two 2-day imposition periods with no penguins visible were excluded from behavioural analyses.
  • Evident from the text: the study used a small sample of six penguins at one zoo, with four or five replicate 2-day periods depending on the measure, limiting generalisability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03014223.2021.1896560

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

36 of 81 cited sources checked · 22 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Little penguins found at different locations may respond to visitors in a similar manner if the nature of visitor contact is the same.

    “Also, this research adds to the growing evidence that little penguins, found at different locations, may respond to visitors in a similar manner if the nature of visitor contact is the same (Klomp et al. 1991;Weerheim et al. 2003;Giling et al. 2008;Carroll et al. 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Klomp et al. 1991 source
    • cites Weerheim et al. 2003 source

      The available indexed passages identify a study of little penguin population size, breeding habitat, and nest sites on Montague Island, but do not address responses to visitors. Searches for visitor contact, tourism, and disturbance found no passage about comparable responses across locations. (LLM, conf=0.70)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Giling et al. 2008 source
  • Premisenone given

    Little penguins show variation in their behavioural responses towards zoo visitors in Australian zoos.

    “Little penguins (Eudyptula minor), or Kororā in Māori, show variation in their behavioural responses towards zoo visitors in Australian zoos.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sherwen et al. 2015 source
    • cites Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019 source
    • cites Chiew et al. 2020 source
  • Premisecitation

    Studies in the wild have found humans standing over nesting penguins presented more of a threat, similar to an aerial predator, compared to people that kept low or crouched when observing penguins.

    “Studies in the wild have also found humans standing over nesting penguins presented more of a threat, similar to an aerial predator, compared to people that kept low or crouched when observing penguins i.e. positioned at penguins' eye level or lower (Nimon 1997;Giese 1998;Holmes et al. 2005;Schuster 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Nimon 1997

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Giese 1998 source
    • cites Holmes et al. 2005 source

      Section 4.2 (page not provided) reports that Royal penguins perceived a person approaching to 5 m as a greater threat than a skua overflight. But the paper does not establish that standing observers pose more of a threat than crouching observers; Section 3.3 says heart rate and vigilance increased even during the movement of crouching. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Research on the effect of visitors on zoo-housed little penguins has focused thus far only on Australian zoo-housed little penguins.

    “This is beginning to be observed in research on the effect of visitors on zoo-housed little penguins which has also focused, thus far, only on Australian zoo-housed little penguins (Sherwen et al. 2015;Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019;Chiew et al. 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sherwen et al. 2015 source
    • cites Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019 source

      The Materials and Methods section identifies this study as research on zoo-housed little penguins at Melbourne Zoo, Australia. The Introduction lists just one earlier visitor-effect study involving zoo-housed little penguins, but our copy does not establish where that earlier study took place. It therefore supports the Australian setting of this study, not the claim that all such research had focused only on Australian zoo-housed little penguins. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Chiew et al. 2020 source
  • Premisecitation

    In the Melbourne Zoo experiment, closing the exhibit to visitors increased the percentage of visible penguins within 1 m of the main visitor viewing area by 28-fold (from 1% when the exhibit was open to 28% when closed).

    “In the former, closing the exhibit to visitors increased the percentage of visible penguins within 1 m of the main visitor viewing area by 28-fold (from 1% when the exhibit was open to 28% when closed).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019 source
  • May combine two claims. 24
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 37

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Visitors are more likely to be perceived as threatening and thus increase little penguins' fear responses.

    “As a result, visitors are more likely to be perceived as threatening and thus, increase little penguins' fear responses (Sherwen et al. 2015;Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019;Chiew et al. 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sherwen et al. 2015 source
    • cites Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019 source
    • cites Chiew et al. 2020 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The response by the little penguins at Taronga Zoo was suggested to be less pronounced than that at Melbourne Zoo because of the different enclosure designs that altered the nature of visitor contact, particularly in regard to the intensity of visitors.

    “The response by the little penguins at Taronga Zoo was suggested to be less pronounced than that at Melbourne Zoo because of the different enclosure designs that altered the nature of visitor contact, particularly in regard to the intensity of visitors (Chiew et al. 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chiew et al. 2020 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Practical measures (increased separation, positioning visitors below penguins, visually hidden areas, one-way viewing windows) can improve penguin welfare and have no detrimental effect on visitor viewing experience.

    “These practical measures can ultimately result in the improvement in the welfare of penguins as well as have no detrimental effect on visitor viewing experience (Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019;Chiew, Hemsworth, et al. 2019;Chiew et al. 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019 source

      The Results and Discussion report that a 2 m barrier reduced fear-related behaviours in little penguins, supporting the welfare benefit of increased separation. The paper did not test positioning visitors below penguins, visually hidden areas, or one-way viewing windows as penguin-welfare measures. Its Discussion also says increased distance may have reduced the visitor viewing experience, rather than establishing no detrimental effect. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Chiew, Hemsworth, et al. 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Chiew et al. 2020 source

      The Conclusions say that little penguins may benefit from one-way viewing glass, barriers to close visitor contact, and retreat areas. The Discussion suggests positioning visitors below penguins may have reduced fear-provoking contact. It does not establish that these measures leave the visitor viewing experience unaffected: the Discussion calls that a possible explanation for unchanged overall visitor numbers and says it requires further investigation (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Wellington (New Zealand), little penguins have been identified to be genetically different from Australian little penguins (i.e. Eudyptula minor lineage), with some degree of hybrid ancestry in this population.

    “In Wellington (New Zealand), little penguins have been identified to be genetically different from Australian little penguins (i.e.Eudyptula minor lineage), with some degree of hybrid ancestry in this population (Grosser et al. 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Grosser et al. 2015 source

      The Results sections report significant genetic differentiation between the NZ and Australian lineages and identify birds from Wellington among those with mixed ancestry. However, the Taxonomic recommendations section assigns Eudyptula minor to the NZ lineage, not the Australian lineage; it recommends Eudyptula novaehollandiae for the Australian little penguin. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Little penguins at Taronga Zoo showed some avoidance of visitors, indicated by the aversion of the area near the main visitor viewing window when visual contact with visitors was not obstructed, and the preference for an area not visible to visitors.

    “Also, little penguins at Taronga Zoo (New South Wales, Australia) showed some avoidance of visitors, indicated by the aversion of the area near the main visitor viewing window when visual contact with visitors was not obstructed, and the preference for an area not visible to visitors (Chiew et al. 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chiew et al. 2020 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    There are two congeneric taxa of little penguins; Eudyptula novaehollandiae occurring in Australia and south east New Zealand (Otago) and Eudyptula minor occurring in all other parts of New Zealand.

    “Research has suggested that there are two congeneric taxa of little penguins; Eudyptula novaehollandiae being little penguins occurring in Australia and south east New Zealand (Otago) and Eudyptula minor being little penguins occurring in all other parts of New Zealand (Peucker et al. 2009;Grosser et al. 2015Grosser et al. , 2016Grosser et al. , 2017)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Peucker et al. 2009 source

      The Results (Auk, vol. 126; page unavailable) identify two deeply divergent clades: one containing all sampled Australian penguins and some from southeast New Zealand, and another found only in New Zealand. The paper calls them ASENZ and NZO clades within Eudyptula minor, not the two named taxa in the claim. It also reports both clades at Oamaru, so the geographic division is not absolute. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Grosser et al. 2015 source
    • cites Grosser et al. 2016 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Close visitor contact may be mitigated by positioning visitors further away from the enclosure boundary or by reducing the perceived close proximity of visitors in little penguins.

    “Close visitor contact may be mitigated by positioning visitors further away from the enclosure boundary or by reducing the perceived close proximity of visitors in little penguins (Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019;Chiew et al. 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019 source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that a barrier keeping visitors 2 m from the enclosure reduced fear-related responses in little penguins, supporting the recommendation to position visitors farther away. The paper also suggests penguins perceived nearby visitors as threatening, but it does not test a separate way to reduce perceived proximity without increasing the visitors’ actual distance. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Chiew et al. 2020 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Increased separation between visitors and little penguins reduces penguin fear responses towards visitors and has no detrimental effect on visitor experience.

    “As previously mentioned, research in Australian zoos has shown that increased separation between visitors and little penguins reduces penguin fear responses towards visitors and has no detrimental effect on visitor experience (Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019;Chiew, Hemsworth, et al. 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019 source

      The Conclusions report that increasing visitor viewing distance reduced little-penguin behaviours indicative of fear. But the Discussion says the barrier was associated with fewer visitors and possibly a reduced visitor viewing experience; it does not establish that visitor experience was unaffected. (LLM, conf=0.89)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Chiew, Hemsworth, et al. 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Visitors displayed a variety of behaviours when the penguin exhibit was open and the most frequently observed behaviours were walking, looming, loud vocalisations, and sudden movements.

    “Visitors also displayed a variety of behaviours when the penguin exhibit was open and the most frequently observed behaviours were walking, looming, loud vocalisations, and sudden movements (Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Path 1 had an average of 71 visitors observed each day and varied from about 30 to 120 visitors.

    “The adjacent area to the viewing pier, Path 1, had an average of 71 visitors observed each day and varied from about 30 to 120 visitors, making it the next section most used by visitors to view penguins (Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    When the penguin exhibit was open to visitors, an average of 200 visitors were observed at the exhibit per day.

    “When the penguin exhibit was open to visitors, an average of 200 visitors were observed at the exhibit per day (Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The average percentage of penguins visible in Zone 1 varied from 0% to about 54% and varied from 0% to about 35% in Zone 3.

    “Depending on the day, the average percentage of penguins visible in Zone 1 varied from 0% to about 54% and varied from 0% to about 35% in Zone 3 (Figure 5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Visitors primarily viewed penguins from the visitor viewing pier which had an average of about 76 visitors observed in this area per day and depending on the day, varied from about 10 to 130 visitors.

    “Visitors primarily viewed penguins from the visitor viewing pier which had an average of about 76 visitors observed in this area per day and depending on the day, varied from about 10 to 130 visitors (Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Path 2 and 3 had an average of 13 and 40 visitors each day, respectively.

    “Path 2 and 3 had an average of 13 and 40 visitors each day, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most visitors did not spend much time in Paths 2 and 3, as indicated by the lower visitor numbers observed compared to the Pier and Path 1.

    “However, most visitors did not spend much time in these sections of the visitor viewing area, as indicated by the lower visitor numbers observed compared to the Pier and Path 1.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The overall average percentage of penguins visible was 17% and 15% when the exhibit was open and closed, respectively.

    “The overall average percentage of penguins visible was 17% and 15% when the exhibit was open and closed, respectively (Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The variation in reported literature on the effects of human disturbances on little penguins shows the need for further research to understand how penguins perceive human presence.

    “This variation in the reported literature on the effects of human disturbances on little penguins shows the need for further research to understand how penguins perceive human presence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Most research to date on the effects of human disturbances on wild little penguins has been on colonies in Australia.
    • Rests on an assumption: Only one study, to our knowledge, has been conducted on wild little penguins in New Zealand.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Designing enclosures to allow close viewing proximity of visitors, such as visitors looming over the pool, may be futile in improving visitor experience, since this species of penguins is likely to avoid these types of viewing areas when visitors are present.

    “We conclude that designing enclosures to allow close viewing proximity of visitors, such as visitors looming over the pool, may be futile in improving visitor experience, since this species of penguins is likely to avoid these types of viewing areas when visitors are present.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    There is growing concern of negative effects associated with increased human presence from wildlife tourism and other human disturbances on little penguin behaviour, reproductive success and population size.

    “In particular, there is growing concern of the negative effects associated with increased human presence from wildlife tourism and other human disturbances on little penguin behaviour, reproductive success and population size”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Carney and Sydeman 1999 source
    • cites Shaughnessy and Briggs 2009
    • cites Higham and Shelton 2011 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Further research is still required to fully comprehend the similarities or variation in little penguin fear responses towards visitors and the factors that influence the interactions between visitors and penguins across zoos.

    “However, further research is still required to fully comprehend the similarities or variation in little penguin fear responses towards visitors and the factors that influence the interactions between visitors and penguins across zoos.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Weekends, public holidays and school holidays were avoided to circumvent the normal variation in visitor numbers that occurs on weekends and school/public holiday periods.

    “Weekends, public holidays and school holidays were avoided to circumvent the normal variation in visitor numbers that occurs on weekends and school/ public holiday periods.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    This research was approved by the Victoria University of Wellington Animal Ethics Committee (approval number 25504).

    “This research was approved by the Victoria University of Wellington Animal Ethics Committee (approval number 25504) and was conducted at Wellington Zoo's Meet the Locals -He Tuku Aroha little penguin enclosure (Wellington, New Zealand).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Behaviours such as huddling, vigilance and in particular avoidance are indicators of fear of humans in animals and linked with physiological correlates of fear such as increased blood glucocorticoid and glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations.

    “Behaviours such as huddling, vigilance and in particular avoidance, have been widely documented as indicators of fear of humans in animals and linked with physiological correlates of fear such as increased blood glucocorticoid and glucocorticoid metabolite (GM) concentrations (Gray 1987;Hemsworth and Coleman 2011;Hemsworth et al. 2018;Sherwen and Hemsworth 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Gray 1987

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hemsworth and Coleman 2011
    • cites Hemsworth et al. 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Visitor observations were made from Path 1 in a position that allowed full view of the visitor viewing area to record visitors in a manner that reduced the effect of the researcher's presence on the penguins.

    “These observations were made from Path 1 of the visitor viewing area in a position that allowed full view of the visitor viewing area to record visitors in a manner that reduced the effect of the researcher's presence on the penguins (i.e.stationary or slow movement positioned 4.5 m from the enclosure; Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Severe rainfall can reduce breeding success and survivability in wild penguin species.

    “Research on various wild penguin species have shown that colder temperatures can increase sleeping and huddling behaviour; severe rainfall can reduce breeding success and survivability; and increased wind speeds, particularly during storms that cause rough seas with high waves, can decrease activity, foraging success and time spent diving and foraging”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Culik et al. 1989 source
    • cites Dewasmes et al. 2001 source
    • cites Gilbert et al. 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    A two treatment fully randomised design was used to examine the effects of visitor presence on little penguins.

    “A two treatment fully randomised design was used to examine the effects of visitor presence on little penguins.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Prior to statistical analysis, the summary values for animal behaviour (state and events) were angularly transformed to ensure that the residual variation was similar in all treatments, and the distribution of residuals had minimal skewness.

    “Prior to statistical analysis, the summary values for animal behaviour (state and events), were angularly transformed.This ensured that the residual variation was similar in all treatments, and the distribution of residuals had minimal skewness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This avoidance of visitors may be exacerbated by visitors being perceived as a predator while on viewing features that position visitors close to and above the penguins.

    “This avoidance of visitors may be exacerbated by visitors being perceived as a predator while on viewing features that position visitors close to and above the penguins.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Increased wind speeds, particularly during storms that cause rough seas with high waves, can decrease activity, foraging success and time spent diving and foraging in wild penguin species.

    “Research on various wild penguin species have shown that colder temperatures can increase sleeping and huddling behaviour; severe rainfall can reduce breeding success and survivability; and increased wind speeds, particularly during storms that cause rough seas with high waves, can decrease activity, foraging success and time spent diving and foraging”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Culik et al. 1989 source
    • cites Dewasmes et al. 2001 source
    • cites Gilbert et al. 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The intra-assay CV was less than 15% and inter-assay CV's were 5.62% and 10.04% for low and high controls, respectively.

    “The intra-assay CV was less than 15% and inter-assay CV's were 5.62% and 10.04% for low and high controls, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    This ensured that samples were not biased by particular individuals or pairs.

    “This ensured that samples were not biased by particular individuals or pairs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Penguin responses may vary as a result of characteristics of the environment differing at each location which may influence the nature of visitor contact.

    “However, penguin responses may vary as a result of characteristics of the environment differing at each location which may influence the nature of visitor contact.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Weather variables and/or temporal variables were included as covariates whenever the covariates provided an appreciable improvement to the precision of the statistical analysis.

    “So, weather variables and/or temporal variables were included as covariates whenever the covariates provided an appreciable improvement to the precision of the statistical analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The visitor viewing pier was identified during preliminary observations to be the main viewing area for visitors, based on visitor numbers.

    “The visitor viewing pier was identified during preliminary observations to be the main viewing area for visitors, based on visitor numbers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Visitors positioned above penguins in the enclosure when on the pier and the opportunities to lean on or over the enclosure barriers may have been perceived as threatening and thus, potentially fear-provoking for the penguins when in Zone 1.

    “Therefore, visitors positioned above penguins in the enclosure when on the pier and the opportunities to lean on or over the enclosure barriers, may have been perceived as threatening and thus, potentially fear-provoking for the penguins when in Zone 1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Husbandry followed normal routines and remained consistent throughout the course of the study.

    “Husbandry followed normal routines and remained consistent throughout the course of the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Sherwen et al. (2015) found increases in huddling, vigilance, aggression and avoidance and reductions in swimming by little penguins when visitors were present at Melbourne Zoo.

    “Sherwen et al. (2015) found increases in huddling, vigilance, aggression and avoidance and reductions in swimming by little penguins when visitors were present at Melbourne Zoo (Victoria, Australia).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sherwen et al. 2015 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Wellington experienced very unsettled weather patterns during the Autumn and Winter of 2018.

    “However, weather reports also showed that Wellington experienced very unsettled weather patterns during the Autumn and Winter of 2018 (Pezza et al. 2018a(Pezza et al. , 2018b)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pezza et al. 2018a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Pezza et al. 2018b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Penguin behaviour was recorded at the group level because observation of camera footage was not able to clearly discern individual physical differences.

    “Despite the penguins being distinguishable by their physical features, observation of the camera footage was not able to clearly discern these physical differences and so, penguin behaviour was recorded at the group level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The opportunity for choice and control over their interactions with visitors, as a result of the design of the enclosure, may have ameliorated the need for the activation of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis in little penguins arising from uncontrolled visitor contact.

    “Secondly, the opportunity for choice and control over their interactions with visitors, as a result of the design of the enclosure, may have ameliorated the need for the activation of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis in little penguins arising from uncontrolled visitor contact.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Two '2-day treatment imposition periods' that had no penguins visible were removed before any analyses were performed on the animal behavioural state and event data.

    “Furthermore, there were two '2day treatment imposition periods' that had no penguins visible and as a result were removed before any analyses were performed on the animal behavioural state and event data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Further examination to determine the extent in which the effects of visitors on Eudyptula novaehollandiae are reflected in Eudyptula minor, both in the wild and in captive settings like zoos is needed.

    “Hence, further examination to determine the extent in which the effects of visitors on Eudyptula novaehollandiae are reflected in Eudyptula minor, both in the wild and in captive settings like zoos is needed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Other differences between the three experiments may have also influenced the apparent difference in fear responses in little penguins to the uncontrolled presence of visitors at Melbourne Zoo, Wellington Zoo and Taronga Zoo.

    “However, it should be recognised that there are other differences between these three experiments that may have also influenced the apparent difference in fear responses in little penguins to the uncontrolled presence of visitors at Melbourne Zoo, Wellington Zoo and Taronga Zoo.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Samples were assayed in duplicates.

    “Samples were assayed in duplicates and data are expressed as ng/g dried faeces for final concentrations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Colder temperatures can increase sleeping and huddling behaviour in wild penguin species.

    “Research on various wild penguin species have shown that colder temperatures can increase sleeping and huddling behaviour; severe rainfall can reduce breeding success and survivability; and increased wind speeds, particularly during storms that cause rough seas with high waves, can decrease activity, foraging success and time spent diving and foraging”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Culik et al. 1989 source
    • cites Dewasmes et al. 2001 source
    • cites Gilbert et al. 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Having viewing features in the exhibit that allow visitors to view penguins in close proximity may be futile since penguins would move away and thus likely reduce visitor viewing experience.

    “It also suggests that having viewing features in the exhibit that allow visitors to view penguins in close proximity, may be futile since penguins would move away and thus, likely reduce visitor viewing experience.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Zoo-housed African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) have also been shown to avoid and decrease time spent in their pool when visitors were present in a pool adjacent to the penguin pool, especially in large numbers.

    “decrease time spent in their pool when visitors were present in a pool adjacent to the penguin pool, especially in large numbers (Ozella et al. 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ozella et al. 2014

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Each treatment was randomly imposed for 2-day periods, two imposition periods per week, with five replicates of each treatment (total of 20 study days).

    “Each treatment was randomly imposed for 2-day periods, two imposition periods per week (Monday and Tuesday; Thursday and Friday), with five replicates of each treatment (total of 20 study days).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Most samples were collected from the penguins' nest boxes which were known by keepers to be used by the same individual or pair of individuals each day.

    “Most samples were collected from the penguins' nest boxes which were known by keepers to be used by the same individual or pair of individuals each day.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
49 of 49

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most research to date on the effects of human disturbances on wild little penguins has been on colonies in Australia.

    “Most research to date on the effects of human disturbances on wild little penguins has been on colonies in Australia, despite little penguins also being a highly valued and a protected native species in New Zealand.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Only one study, to our knowledge, has been conducted on wild little penguins in New Zealand.

    “Only one study, to our knowledge, has been conducted on wild little penguins in New Zealand.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Adrenal activity increases fairly quickly in response to stressors.

    “It is well established that adrenal activity increases fairly quickly in response to stressors.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is less information about how long it takes for adrenal activity to decrease after a long-term stressor is removed like visitors.

    “However, there is less information about how long it takes for adrenal activity to decrease after a long-term stressor is removed like visitors.”
4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. GanendranLB.2011. The effects of wind on the survival of little penguins unpublished thesis [master of philosophy]. University of New South Wales Australian Defence Force Academy.
  2. SchusterKC.2010. Impact of human and other disturbance on behaviour and heart rate of incubating Adélie penguins unpublished thesis [doctoral degree of the natural sciences]. Philipps‐Universität Marburg.
  3. Sherwen SL, 2015, Validation of a faecal glucocorticoid assay in little penguins (Eudyptula minor), Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 3, 134
  4. Stahel C, 1987, Little penguin: fairy penguins in Australia
  5. VSN International, 2015, The guide to the Genstat command language (Release 18), part 2 statistics
  6. Wienecke BC, 1995, The penguins, 440

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chiew, S. J., Butler, K. L., Fanson, K. V., Eyre, S., Coleman, G. J., Sherwen, S. L., Melfi, V., & Hemsworth, P. H.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • Department of Animal Science and Care Wellington Zoo Newtown, Wellington New Zealand
  • Zoos Victoria (AU)
  • Hartpury University (GB)
Corresponding author
Chiew, Samantha J.
ORCID
Venue
New Zealand Journal of Zoology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-19
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
1-22
ISSN
  • 0301-4223 (ISSN-L)
  • 1175-8821
DOI
10.1080/03014223.2021.1896560
OpenAlex
W3136511105
Semantic Scholar
51395d72949c4454b87f52ed3c9293335e0c0c37
Cited by
9
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • New Zealand Journal of Zoology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • La Trobe University
Funders
  • Australian Research Council (LP140100373)
  • University of Melbourne
  • Australian Government Research Training Program
  • Wellington Zoo
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Animal and Plant Science Education
Keywords
little penguin, Eudyptula minor, zoo visitors, animal behavior, stress physiology, fecal glucocorticoid metabolites, avoidance behavior, enclosure design, visitor experience, zoo animal welfare

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-27.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-27.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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