Cited by 4Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAmphibian and Reptile BiologyAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

Hide-And-Seek: Examining Hide Preferences And Behavior Patterns Of Reptiles Through 24-Hour Monitoring

Open access
Wierzal, Natasha, Seiler, Serena, Boehm, Dan, Wark, Jason·2025·Animal Behavior and Cognition

Abstract

Providing animals in zoos with private, out-of-view areas is a basic need for many species but has been rarely studied systematically. Recent research on reptiles has highlighted the welfare benefits of complex environments but, as these studies typically include private hide areas alongside other environmental complexity changes, the specific effects of hides have often not been isolated and their importance remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated artificial hides (PVC tube) for four reptile species: African rock python (Python sebae (n=1)); Rio Fuerte beaded lizard (Heloderma exasperatum (n=4)); West African Gaboon viper (Bitis gabonica (n=1)); Aruba Island rattlesnake (Crotalus unicolor (n=2)) Observations were conducted once per hour, each hour, for four weeks using a camera system (672 observations per species) to determine overall hide usage and preferences in hide height (ground-level or elevated), hide humidity (humid or dry), and time of day (day or night). Preferences in hide type were analyzed with chi-squared tests. Hide usage varied between species, with the African rock python observed rarely leaving the hide, and the Aruba Island rattlesnakes only entering hides twice during the entire study. Of the species that used hides, dry hides were preferred over humid hides. Hide usage based on height and time of day appeared to align with the natural history of each species. These results suggest that reptiles have a basic need for private spaces, and attention should be paid to the species' natural history when designing and placing hides. Future studies could improve understanding of species-specific hide needs.

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 · 10.26451/abc.12.02.04.2025

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.

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 4

Authors
Wierzal, N., Seiler, S., Boehm, D., & Wark, J.
Affiliations
  • Lincoln Park Zoo (US)
  • Western Kentucky University (US)
Venue
Animal Behavior and Cognition
Published
2025-05-01
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
243-257
ISSN
2372-4323 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410080884
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1
FWCI
4.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
zoo animal welfare, private space, Bitis gabonica

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