Pond Use by Captive African Penguins (Spheniscus demersus) in an Immersive Exhibit Adjacent to Human Bathers
Open accessAbstract
Nonhuman animals in zoos are exposed to a continuous human presence, which affects their behaviors and welfare. However, little is known about what role the "visitor effect" has on penguins in captivity. The African penguin (Spheniscus demersus) is an endangered species commonly housed in zoos worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the abundance of human bathers could reduce the average time spent in the water of a colony of African penguins housed in an exhibit where their pond habitat was adjacent to a swimming pool. Observations were carried out on 7 penguins in the summer of 2009. Data were collected during 3 time periods (Time 1 [T1] = opening of the swimming season, Time 2 [T2] = core of the season, Time 3 [T3] = late season) of 14 days each. The human disturbance caused by bathers strongly reduced the pond use by penguins at T1 and T2, especially when there were large numbers of visitors. However, at T3, we observed that the overall use of the pond by penguins increased, and the average duration of their diving was no longer dependent on the number of visitors.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In an immersive exhibit where the African Penguin pond was adjacent to a human swimming pool, bathers facing the glass panels reduced penguins’ pond use during the opening and core swimming seasons, especially at high visitor abundance. By the late season, pond use increased and was no longer dependent on visitor numbers, suggesting habituation.
Key findings
- Overall time spent in the pond significantly increased at T3 compared with T1 and T2 (Kruskal-Wallis χ² = 35.47, df = 2, P < 0.001).
- At T1 and T2, average time spent in the pond was strongly dependent on visitor abundance classes (T1: χ² = 17.28, df = 3, P < 0.001; T2: χ² = 14.89, df = 3, P < 0.01). Post-hoc comparisons showed penguins remained significantly less in the water when many bathers faced the glass panels: class 0 vs. 3 (T1: P < 0.001; T2: P < 0.01) and class 1 vs. 3 (T1: P < 0.001; T2: P < 0.01).
- At T3, time spent in the pool was not conditioned by the number of bathers facing the glass panels (χ² = 7.44, df = 3, P > 0.05).
- The authors did not observe any positive influence of human bathers on pond use by the African Penguins.
Methods
- Seven adult African Penguins (*Spheniscus demersus*; two males, five females) were studied at the “Bolder Beach” enclosure of biopark ZOOM Torino, Italy. The exhibit covered 1500 m², including a 120 m² pond (maximum depth 3 m; temperature maintained at 15 °C); the pond was physically but not visually separated from a swimming pool by two glass panels. The swimming pool received approximately 35,000 visitors per year from late May to early September.
- Data were collected in summer 2009 over three 14-day periods: T1 (May 30–June 14, opening of the swimming season), T2 (June 30–July 14, core of the season), and T3 (July 31–August 14, late season). Observations used focal animal sampling, lasted 14 hours per sampling period (one hour per day), and each penguin was observed for two hours per period. Time spent in the water was recorded with a stopwatch; bathers facing the glass panels were categorized as 0 (no visitors), 1 (1–15), 2 (16–30), or 3 (more than 30).
- Because data did not follow a normal distribution, non-parametric tests were used in R v. 3.0.1, including Kruskal-Wallis tests and Nemenyi-Damico-Wolfe-Dunn post-hoc comparisons.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: the study included only seven penguins, and the authors call for further studies with a larger number of penguins of both sexes and for comparisons of similar scenarios to better understand the behavior. They also recommend that zoos and aquaria not exhibiting penguins year-round pay particular attention to re-habituating birds to large audiences at the beginning of the opening season.
- Evident from the text: the study is observational, from a single colony and single season, so causation cannot be established. The penguins were naïve to human bathers and had just been transferred from another zoo when the novel immersive exhibit opened to the public for the first time, which may confound novelty, transfer, and visitor effects.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 10 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
The overall time spent by the seven captive African Penguins in the pond significantly increased at T3 (late season) compared to T1 (opening of the swimming season) and T2 (core of the season).
“Overall, the time spent by penguins in the pond significantly increased at T3 compared to T1 99 and T2 (Kruskal-Wallis χ² = 35.47,df = 2, P < 0.001; Figure 2).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“However, at T3, we observed that the 17 overall use of the pond by penguins increased, and the average duration of their diving was no 18 longer dependent on number of visitors.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
- Findingown data
At T1 and T2, the average time spent by the penguins in the pond was strongly dependent on the abundance classes of the viewing public.
“Moreover, at T1 and T2, the 100 average time spent by penguins in the pond was strongly dependent on the abundance classes of 101 the viewing public (T1: Kruskal-Wallis χ² = 17.28, df = 3, P < 0.001; T2: Kruskal-Wallis χ² = 102 14.89, df = 3, P < 0.01; Figure 3).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
“The human disturbance caused by bathers strongly reduced the pond use by penguins at T1 and 16 T2, especially when there were large numbers of visitors.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
- Findingown data
At T3, the time spent by the penguins in the pool was not conditioned by the number of bathers facing the glass panels.
“Conversely, at T3, the time spent by penguins in the pool was not conditioned by the 107 number of bathers facing the glass panels (T3: Kruskal-Wallis χ² = 7.44, df = 3, P > 0.05; Figure 108 3).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The increased use of the pond observed at T3 was a result of a gradual habituation to human visitors, which were no longer perceived by the birds as potential predators.
“We also suggest that the increased use of the pond, observed 151 at T3, was a result of a gradual habituation to human visitors that were no longer perceived by 152 the birds as potential predators.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The predators of the wild adult African Penguin are mostly aquatic animals such as the great white shark and the Cape fur seal.
“Since predators of the wild adult African 144 Penguin are mostly aquatic animals such as the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) 145 (Randall B.M., Randall R.M., & Compagno, 1988;Johnson, Venter, Bester, & Oosthuizen, 146 2006) and the Cape fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus) (du Toit, Barlett, Bester, & Roux, 147 2004;Johnson et al., 2006)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Randall B.M., Randall R.M., & Compagno, 1988 source
- cites Johnson, Venter, Bester, & Oosthuizen, 2006
- cites du Toit, Barlett, Bester, & Roux, 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- May combine two claims. 3
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn T1 and T2, the penguins remained significantly less in the water when there was an abundance of bathers facing the glass panels, with significant differences between abundance classes 0 and 3 and between 1 and 3.
“In particular, the NDWD (Nemenyi Damico Wolfe Dunn) 103 post-hoc comparison showed that, in these periods, the birds remained significantly less in the 104 water when there was an abundance of bathers facing the glass panels; comparison between 105 classes 0 and 3 (T1: P < 0.001; T2: P < 0.01) and between 1 and 3 (T1: P < 0.001; T2: P < 106 0.01).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationTolerance to human proximity by penguins varies according to many different factors, including their own previous experience.
“More recently, Seddon & Ellenberg (2008) also confirmed that tolerance to 124 human proximity, by penguins, varies according to many different factors, including their own 125 previous experience.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Seddon & Ellenberg (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).
PremisecitationWild African Penguins exposed to a regular disturbance exhibit a high level of tolerance to visitors.
“This is in line with the study by van Heezik & Seddon (1990), which 122 showed that wild African Penguins exposed to a regular disturbance exhibit a high level of 123 tolerance to visitors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites van Heezik & Seddon (1990)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationA study of the same two penguin species exposed to visitors found only a decrease in resting behavior in the African Penguins, without any reduction of enclosure space utilization.
“However, a study by Brooking & Price (2004), that investigated the behavior of 55 the same two species when exposed to visitors, only found a decrease in resting behavior in the 56 African Penguins, without any reduction of the enclosure space utilization”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Brooking & Price (2004)
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).
PremisecitationHuman presence can affect the behavior of Gentoo and African Penguins, with increased vigilance and activity associated with a persistently high number of people.
“Warren, Parry, Cuthill, & Barham (2003) provided evidence that human 48 presence can affect the behavior of Gentoo (Pygoscelis papua) and African (Spheniscus 49 demersus) Penguins, and they observed, in both species, increased vigilance and activity 50 associated with a persistently high number of people.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Warren, Parry, Cuthill, & Barham (2003)
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).
PremisecitationThe viewing public has a positive effect on the diving behavior of captive Humboldt penguins at Chester Zoo, with an increase of submerged swimming relative to the presence of visitors.
“Finally, a study by Condon et al. (2003), performed on ten captive 126 Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) housed at Chester Zoo (United Kingdom), showed 127 that the viewing public has a positive effect on the diving behavior”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Condon et al. (2003)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationSea birds perceive human disturbance as a potential predation risk.
“Beale & Monaghan (2004) suggested that sea birds perceive the 143 human disturbance as a potential predation risk.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Beale & Monaghan (2004) source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe penguins were naïve to human bathers, and the study was conducted when the novel immersive exhibit had opened to the public for the first time.
“The penguins were naïve to human bathers, and the study was 81 conducted when the novel immersive exhibit had opened to the public for the first time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductcitationObservations were carried out following the focal animal sampling method.
“Observations were carried out following the focal animal 84 sampling method (Altmann, 1974) and lasted 14 hours per sampling period (one hour per day).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Altmann, 1974 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataBecause the data did not follow a normal distribution, inferences were made using non-parametric statistical techniques.
“Since the data did not follow a 95 normal distribution, inferences were made using non-parametric statistical techniques.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
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?
Penguins are a common zoo-housed species, especially little penguins in Australian zoos.
“Limited research has been conducted to examine the effects of visitors on zoo-housed penguins despite penguins being a commonly housed zoo species, especially little penguins (Eudyptula minor) in Australian zoos [3,10,11,12,13,14,15].”
From Effect of Covering a Visitor Viewing Area Window on the Behaviour of Zoo-Housed Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor) (2020) · cites this paper as [11]
The Abstract says African penguins are commonly housed in zoos worldwide, supporting the general point that penguins are zoo-housed. The paper does not support the more specific claim that little penguins are especially common in Australian zoos; its study concerns African penguins in Italy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThere have been only four studies to date that have investigated the effects of visitor presence on zoo-housed penguins.
“To our knowledge, there have been only four studies to date that have investigated the effects of visitor presence on zoo-housed penguins.”
From Effects of Regulating Visitor Viewing Proximity and the Intensity of Visitor Behaviour on Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor) Behaviour and Welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
The Introduction (around lines 46–60) says very few studies have examined zoo-visitor effects on penguins and discusses three earlier studies; this paper investigates a fourth case. It does not state that these are the only four studies, so it does not establish the claim’s exact, exhaustive count. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAfrican penguins reduced their pond use in response to visitor presence.
“one study showed that African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) reduced their pond use [13]”
From Effects of Regulating Visitor Viewing Proximity and the Intensity of Visitor Behaviour on Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor) Behaviour and Welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
Three of the four studies on zoo-housed penguins examined correlations between visitor numbers and penguin behaviour, and only one was under experimental conditions.
“However, results from these four studies need to be interpreted with caution as three of the above-mentioned studies examined correlations between visitor numbers and penguin behaviour [13,15,16], and only one study was under experimental conditions [14].”
From Effects of Regulating Visitor Viewing Proximity and the Intensity of Visitor Behaviour on Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor) Behaviour and Welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
Some studies on zoo penguins have shown that the presence of visitors may be fear-provoking.
“Some studies on zoo penguins have shown that the presence of visitors may be fear-provoking.”
From Effects of Regulating Visitor Viewing Proximity and the Intensity of Visitor Behaviour on Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor) Behaviour and Welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
Two of the four studies on zoo-housed penguins found negative effects of visitors.
“Two of these studies found negative effects of visitors, where one study showed that African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) reduced their pond use [13], and another study found that little penguins displayed increased aggression, huddling and avoidance behaviours [14] in response to visitor presence.”
From Effects of Regulating Visitor Viewing Proximity and the Intensity of Visitor Behaviour on Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor) Behaviour and Welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
Higher visitor numbers have been associated with less time spent swimming in little penguins and African penguins.
“less time spent swimming in little penguins [53] and African penguins [99].”
From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [99]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Observation dates do not match the stated 14-day periods
MinorCounting both start and end dates, T1 spans 16 days, while T2 and T3 each span 15 days. None matches the stated 14 consecutive days per period.
“Data collection took place in 2009 over three time periods of 14 consecutive days each (T1, T2, 80 T3), described in Table 1.”
“| T1 | May 30 th -June 14 th | Opening of the swimming season | | T2 | June 30 th -July 14 th | Core of the season | | T3 | July 31 th -August 14 th | Late season |”
Cites
Observational study of behavior: sampling methods
Altmann, J. (1974) · Behaviour · doi:10.1163/156853974x00534 · Cited by 13,891 · see citing works
Broom, D. M., & Johnson, K. G. (2019) · Animal welfare · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32153-6 · Cited by 788 · see citing works
Broom, D. M., & Johnson, K. G. (1993) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-024-0980-2 · Cited by 768 · see citing works
Human disturbance: people as predation‐free predators?
Beale, C. M., & Monaghan, P. (2004) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00900.x · Cited by 449 · 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
Zoo animals and their human audiences: what is the visitor effect?
Hosey, G. R. (2000) · Animal Welfare · doi:10.1017/s0962728600022946 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
Visitors excite primates in zoos
Chamove, A. S., Hosey, G. R., & Schaetzel, P. (1988) · Zoo Biology · doi:10.1002/zoo.1430070407 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Visitors’ effects on the welfare of animals in the zoo: a review
Davey, G. (2007) · Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science · doi:10.1080/10888700701313595 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
A 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
Effect of felid activity on zoo visitor interest
Margulis, S. W., Hoyos, C., & Anderson, M. (2003) · Zoo Biology · doi:10.1002/zoo.10115 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Ellenberg, U., Mattern, T., & Seddon, P. J. (2009) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.09.021 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Blaney, E., & Wells, D. (2004) · Animal Welfare · doi:10.1017/s0962728600026841 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Retreat space and human visitor density moderate undesirable behavior in petting zoo animals
Anderson, U. S., Benne, M., Bloomsmith, M. A., & Maple, T. L. (2002) · Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science · doi:10.1207/s15327604jaws0502_03 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Influences on visitor behavior at a modern immersive zoo exhibit
Ross, S. R., & Gillespie, K. L. (2008) · Zoo Biology · doi:10.1002/zoo.20220 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Seabird predation by individual seals at Ichaboe Island, Namibia
Bartlett, P. (2004) · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Lukas, K. E., Barkauskas, R. T., Maher, S. A., Jacobs, B. A., Bauman, J. E., Henderson, A., & Calcagno, J. M. (2002) · Zoo Biology · doi:10.1002/zoo.10040 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Injuries to jackass penguins (<i>Spheniscus demersus</i>): evidence for shark involvement
Randall, B. M., Randall, R. M., & Compagno, L. J. V. (1988) · Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1988.tb03761.x · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Seddon, P. J., & Ellenberg, U. (2007) · CABI Publishing eBooks · doi:10.1079/9781845933456.0163 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Previous experiences with humans affect responses of Snares Penguins to experimental disturbance
Ellenberg, U., Mattern, T., Houston, D. M., Davis, L. S., & Seddon, P. J. (2011) · Journal für Ornithologie · doi:10.1007/s10336-011-0780-4 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
(2006) · African Journal of Wildlife Research · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Bortolini, T., & Bicca-Marques, J. (2011) · Animal Welfare · doi:10.1017/s0962728600003201 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
The Effects of Elevated Platforms and Concealment Screens on the Welfare of Blue Foxes
Mononen, J., Kasanen, S., Harri, M. N. E., et al. (2001) · Animal Welfare · doi:10.1017/s0962728600032644 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- BirdLife International, 2012, Spheniscus demersus. IUCN 2013: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Version 2013.1)
- Brooking, Z. A. & Price, D. J. (2004). The effect of human presence on the behavioural and distributional patterns of two species of captive penguins. In C. Macdonald (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research (pp. 170–179). London, England: British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
- Condon E., 2003, Zoo Federation Research Newsletter, 4, 3
- du Toit M., 2004, South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 34, 45
- Johnson R. L., 2006, South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 36, 23
- R Development Core Team, 2007, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Version 3.0.1)
- Simpson L., 2004, Zoo Federation Research Newsletter, 5, 6
- van Heezik Y., 1990, South African Journal for Wildlife Research, 20, 89
- Warren, I., Parry, L., Cuthill, I. & Barham, P. (2003). The effect of human disturbance on captive African (Spheniscus demersus) and gentoo (Pygoscelis papua) penguins. In S. Dow (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research (pp. 114–115). London, England: Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland.
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
Favaro, L., Gamba, M., Alfieri, C., Pessani, D., & McElligott, A. G. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep17255 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Self-citationChiew, S. J., Butler, K. L., Sherwen, S. L., Coleman, G. J., Fanson, K. V., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2019) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani9060285 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
“However, results from these four studies need to be interpreted with caution as three of the above-mentioned studies examined correlations between visitor numbers and penguin behaviour [13,15,16], and only one study was under experimental conditions [14].”
ResultWilliams, E., Carter, A. J., Rendle, J., & Ward, S. J. (2021) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105253 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
“African penguins habituate to human presence after prolonged exposure (Ozella, 2015).”
BackgroundChiew, S. J., Butler, K. L., Sherwen, S. L., Coleman, G. J., Melfi, V., Burns, A., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10071224 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Bird Welfare in Zoos and Aquariums: General Insights across Industries
Woods, J. M., Eyer, A., & Miller, L. J. (2022) · Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens · doi:10.3390/jzbg3020017 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Zoological education: Can it change behaviour?
Collins, C. K., Quirke, T., McKeown, S., Flannery, K., Kennedy, D., & O’Riordan, R. M. (2019) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104857 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“This confirms results of previous studies that captive penguins are unlikely to give a behavioural response to visitors or enrichment (Ozella et al., 2015; Collins et al., 2016).”
ResultFanning, L., Larsen, H., & Taylor, P. S. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10112035 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
“However, it is also possible that the penguins were seeking refuge in the water from ambient noise created by increased visitor numbers, a trend noted in other studies on captive aquatic species exposed to high visitor numbers [18,39].”
BackgroundKidd, P., Ford, S., & Rose, P. E. (2022) · Birds · doi:10.3390/birds3010009 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“African and Gentoo Penguins respond to visitors differently [10,11,55].”
BackgroundThe Effect of Regulating Zoo Visitor-Penguin Interactions on Zoo Visitor Attitudes
Chiew, S. J., Hemsworth, P. H., Sherwen, S. L., Melfi, V. A., & Coleman, G. J. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02351 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
“Considering there is evidence indicating penguins can be negatively affected by visitors (Ozella et al., 2014; Sherwen et al., 2015b; Chiew et al., 2019), this result may be a concern for zoos as it suggests that visitors exposed to standard zoo conditions have misconceptions that visitors do not…”
Bill Shape Variation in African Penguin (Spheniscus demersus) Held Captive in Two Zoos
Szara, T., Günay, E., Boz, İ., et al. (2023) · Diversity · doi:10.3390/d15080945 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Scheun, J., Gulson, J., & Ganswindt, A. (2020) · General and Comparative Endocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.ygcen.2020.113539 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
African penguins follow the gaze direction of conspecifics
Nawroth, C., Trincas, E., & Favaro, L. (2017) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.3459 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“All the tests were carried out in September and October 2016 (i.e. a period where the impact of the viewing public is minimal to the study group; Ozella et al., 2015).”
MethodSelf-citationZhang, J., Quirke, T., Wu, S., Li, S., & Butler, F. (2020) · Pakistan Journal of Zoology · doi:10.17582/journal.pjz/20191227111202 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“May molting season significantly changes the time penguins spend in the water (Ozella et al., 2014), or the increase in molting-related thyroid hormones may lead to a change in behavioral diversity.”
BackgroundEffects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> )
Chiew, S. J., Butler, K. L., Fanson, K. V., Eyre, S., Coleman, G. J., Sherwen, S. L., Melfi, V., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2022) · New Zealand Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1080/03014223.2021.1896560 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“penguin pool, especially in large numbers (Ozella et al. 2014).”
BackgroundRose, P., Chapman, J., Brereton, J., & Riley, L. (2022) · Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens · doi:10.3390/jzbg3040046 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“For example, two papers on penguin (Sphenisciformes) behaviour and pool use showed an increased use of the pool with increasing visitor number [39] in one article whereas the other highlights an opposite relationship [40].”
BackgroundFigel, T., Coyne, S. P., & Martin, K. H. (2021) · Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science · doi:10.1080/10888705.2021.1984916 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Baciadonna, L., Pasquaretta, C., Maraner, V., et al. (2024) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106232 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Within the Zoom Torino colony, we have observed (L.B. and V.M. personal observations) that penguins engage in both synchronised parades and diving even in the presence of visitors (see also Ozella et al., 2015).”
Self-citationLangan, J. N., & Chinnadurai, S. K. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-82852-9.00043-5 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
The ‘Visitor Effect’ in Non-primate Zoo Species: What Do We Know and Where Should We Go Next?
Williams, E., Hunton, V., Ward, S. J., & Hosey, G. (2024) · CABI eBooks · doi:10.1079/9781800622715.0010 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Assessing Visitor Effects on Zoo Animals
Learmonth, M. J., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2024) · CABI eBooks · doi:10.1079/9781800622715.0007
(2016) · The Journal of zoo and aquarium research · doi:10.19227/jzar.v4i2.158 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“However, Ozella et al. (2015) did investigate adrenocortical activity in captive African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) by measuring faecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGM) and found no association between visitor number and adrenocortical activity.”
Background
- Authors
- Ozella, L., Favaro, L., Carnovale, I., & Pessani, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Turin (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Favaro, Livio
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-11-17
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 303-309
- ISSN
- 1088-8705 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7604
- OpenAlex
- W2037613611
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 2.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
- Keywords
- African penguin, Spheniscus demersus, captive penguins, visitor effects, human disturbance, diving behavior, zoo animal welfare, swimming pools, threatened species
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Welfare, Animals, Zoo, Behavior, Animal, Humans, Italy, Swimming, Spheniscidae, Ponds
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.
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
