CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesWildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal and Plant Science Education

Effect of Covering a Visitor Viewing Area Window on the Behaviour of Zoo-Housed Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor)

Open access
Chiew, Samantha J., Butler, Kym L., Sherwen, Sally L., Coleman, Grahame J., Melfi, Vicky, Burns, Alicia, Hemsworth, Paul H.·2020·Animals
DOI 10.3390/ani10071224PMC PMC7401515
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Studies on the effects of visitors on zoo animals have shown mixed findings and as a result, the manner in which visitors affect zoo animals remains unclear for many species, including a rarely studied taxa such as penguins. Penguins are a common zoo-housed species and have been shown to display huddling, vigilance and avoidance towards zoo visitors which can be indicative of fear. Here, we examined the effects of covering one visitor viewing area window, out of four, on little penguin (Eudyptula minor) behaviours that may be indicative of fear. Two treatments were randomly imposed on different days: (1) The main visitor viewing area window, where most visitor-penguin interactions occurred, was uncovered (‘Main window uncovered’) and (2) The main visitor viewing area window was covered (‘Main window covered’). Penguin numbers and behaviour were recorded near the main visitor viewing area window and the three other visitor viewing area windows, as well as one area not visible to visitors (‘Corner’ area). Furthermore, visitor numbers and visitor behaviour were recorded at all four visitor viewing area windows. Covering the main visitor viewing area window reduced the proportion of visitors present at this window by about 85% (p < 0.001) and reduced potentially threatening visitor behaviours at this window such as tactile contact with the window, loud vocalisations and sudden movement (p < 0.05). When the main visitor viewing area window was covered, the proportion of penguins present increased by about 25% (p < 0.05), the proportion of visible penguins preening in the water increased by about 180% (p < 0.05) and the proportion of visible penguins vigilant decreased by about 70% (p < 0.05) in the area near this main window. A preference for the Corner area was also found whereby 59% and 49% of penguins were present in this area when the main window was uncovered and covered, respectively. These results provide limited evidence that the little penguins in this exhibit showed an aversion to the area near the main visitor viewing area window when it was uncovered based on the increased avoidance and vigilance and decreased preening in the water in this area. This suggests visitors may be fear-provoking for these little penguins. However, it is unclear whether visual contact with visitors per se or other aspects of visitor contact, such as visitor-induced sounds and vibrations, were responsible for this apparent aversion when this window was uncovered.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Covering the main visitor viewing window at Taronga Zoo reduced visitor presence and potentially threatening visitor behaviours at that window and was associated with increased penguin presence and water preening and reduced vigilance near the window, suggesting visitors may be fear-provoking for little penguins. However, the study found limited effects and could not determine whether visual contact or other visitor cues such as sounds and vibrations drove the apparent aversion.

Key findings

Covering the main visitor viewing area window reduced the proportion of visitors at this window by about 85% (p < 0.001), mostly balanced by an increase at Viewing window 2 (p < 0.001), and reduced tactile contact with the window, loud vocalisations and sudden movement at this window (p < 0.05); there was no corresponding effect on ambient noise level, total visitor number, or visitor proportions at Viewing windows 3 and 4.

  • When the main window was covered, the proportion of penguins present in the area near this window increased by about 25% in the abstract (about 20% in the results; p < 0.05), the proportion of visible penguins preening in the water increased by about 180% (p < 0.05), and the proportion of visible penguins vigilant decreased by about 70% (p < 0.05).
  • The Corner area, not visible to visitors, was preferred: 59% and 49% of penguins were present there when the main window was uncovered and covered, respectively. Surface swimming in the Corner area decreased by about 20% when the main window was covered (p < 0.05), which the authors note is anomalous relative to previous findings.
  • There were no treatment effects (p > 0.05) on other penguin behavioural states or events or in the areas near the other visitor viewing area windows.

Methods

A fully randomised design was used at Taronga Zoo’s Great Southern Oceans penguin exhibit in March 2017, with two treatments randomly imposed on 1-day periods, 5 replicates each (10 study days): the main visitor viewing area window was either uncovered or covered with a corflute visual barrier.

  • The focus was the encounter section, which contained 13 little penguins (nine females and four males; juveniles and adults aged 1 to 5 years); between 10–15 March there were 14 penguins after a new male was introduced, but he was removed on 16 March. Penguin behaviour was recorded 09:30–15:15 via five GoPro cameras covering five areas (Corner, Main visitor viewing area window, Viewing windows 2–4), using instantaneous point sampling every 3 min for behavioural states and one-zero sampling for behavioural events; visitor number, visitor behaviour and ambient noise were also recorded.
  • Daily summary values were analysed as a two-treatment ANOVA for a fully randomised design (equivalent to an unpaired two-sided t-test), with angular and square-root transformations and non-parametric permutation tests for some measures, using GenStat 18.

Limitations

The paper states that it is unclear whether the apparent aversion when the main window was uncovered was due to visual contact with visitors per se or other aspects of visitor contact such as visitor-induced sounds and vibrations; it also notes that novelty of the barrier, changes in illumination, and increased reflective properties may have stimulated inspection, and that the evidence is limited with relatively moderate effects.

  • The paper states that individual penguin identity was not recorded because individuals were not easily identifiable, observations were only conducted on penguins visible in the camera field of view, only one of four visitor viewing area windows was covered, and treatments were imposed for 1-day periods; the authors suggest future work with longer than one- or two-day periods and physiological measures.
  • Evident from the text: the study was conducted at a single zoo/site in one exhibit with a small number of replicate days (5 per treatment), and it did not measure physiological stress in this experiment, so welfare implications are inferred from behaviour.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ani10071224

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

30 of 91 cited sources checked · 13 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Good vision is important for all penguin species as they are visual predators that rely on vision to find and catch prey underwater and avoid predators.

    “Good vision is important for all penguin species as they are visual predators that rely on their vision to find and catch prey underwater and avoid predators [16,17,18,19,20,21].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [16] Dann, 1992, Distribution, population trends and factors influencing the population size of little penguins Eudyptula minor on Phillip Island, Victoria, Emu source
    • cites [17] Wiebkin, A.S. (2011). Conservation Management Priorities for Little Penguin Populations in Gulf St Vincent. Report to Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences).

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18] Stahel, C., and Gales, R. (1987). Little Penguin: Fairy Penguins in Australia, New South Wales University Press.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19] Bool, N., Page, B., and Goldsworthy, S.D. (2007). What is Causing the Decline of Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor) on Granite Island, South. Australia?, South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences).

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] Rodriguez, 2016, Waddling on the dark side: Ambient light affects attendance behavior of little penguins, J. Biol. Rhythm. source

      The only passage available from our copy is a repository listing for the paper, with no section or page number; it does not include the paper’s substantive text. Searches for vision, underwater prey capture, and predator avoidance found no relevant passage, so the claim cannot be assessed from this copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [21] Preston, 2008, Water rats as predators of little penguins, Vic. Nat. source

      The Introduction (pp. 165–166) describes a Little Penguin chick’s defensive behaviour, and the conclusion (p. 166) attributes its death to a Water Rat. Neither passage addresses penguin vision, underwater prey capture, or visual predator avoidance; searches for vision and eyesight found no passage that does. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Previous studies on little penguins found reductions in visitor numbers when barriers were used to regulate visitor-animal interactions.

    “This contrasts with previous studies on little penguins that had reductions in visitor numbers when barriers were used to regulate visitor-animal interactions [3,23].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] Chiew, S.J., Butler, K.L., Sherwen, S.L., Coleman, G.J., Fanson, K.V., and Hemsworth, P.H. (2019). Effects of regulating visitor viewing proximity and the intensity of visitor behaviour on little penguin (Eudyptula minor) behaviour and welfare. Animals, 9. source
    • cites [23] Sherwen, 2015, Effects of visual contact with zoo visitors on Black-capped capuchin welfare, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source
  • Premisecitation

    Having good vision is important for little penguins.

    “Also, being the smallest and only penguin species whose activity on land is strictly nocturnal, having good vision is important for this species [18,20].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [18] Stahel, C., and Gales, R. (1987). Little Penguin: Fairy Penguins in Australia, New South Wales University Press.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] Rodriguez, 2016, Waddling on the dark side: Ambient light affects attendance behavior of little penguins, J. Biol. Rhythm. source

      The supplied passage is an unpaginated repository listing, not a passage about penguin vision. Searches of our copy for vision, eyesight, and visual adaptation found no passage establishing that good vision is important for little penguins. (LLM, conf=0.70)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationreasoning

    The novelty of covering the main window and associated changes such as illumination may have stimulated inspection by the penguins.

    “However, it is important to note that vigilance is not always an indicator of fear and may indicate curiosity and since the main window was randomly covered for five 1-day periods over 2 weeks, the novelty of covering the window and the associated changes such as illumination in the area, may have stimulated inspection [1,51].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] Sherwen, S.L., and Hemsworth, P.H. (2019). The visitor effect on zoo animals: Implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare. Animals, 9. source

      Section 2.1 (Metrics Studied; page unavailable) says increased vigilance can reflect interest rather than fear, supporting the citing sentence’s general caution. Section 2.2 describes blocking visitor access to little penguins, but our copy does not say that the novelty of covering a window or changes in illumination stimulated their inspection. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [51] Beauchamp, 2017, What can vigilance tell us about fear?, Anim. Sentience source

      Section 2, “What is vigilance?” explains that an animal can appear vigilant while attending to something other than a threat, supporting the caution against treating vigilance as an unambiguous sign of fear. It does not address a covered window, changes in illumination, or inspection by penguins, so it does not support the sentence’s specific proposed explanation. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    Some types of visitor contact may be fear-provoking for little penguins.

    “The findings from the present experiment at Taronga Zoo support those from the two previous experiments at Melbourne Zoo by the authors that some types of visitor contact may be fear-provoking [3,10].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] Chiew, S.J., Butler, K.L., Sherwen, S.L., Coleman, G.J., Fanson, K.V., and Hemsworth, P.H. (2019). Effects of regulating visitor viewing proximity and the intensity of visitor behaviour on little penguin (Eudyptula minor) behaviour and welfare. Animals, 9. source
    • cites [10] Sherwen, 2015, Little penguins, Eudyptula minor, show increased avoidance, aggression and vigilance in response to zoo visitors, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 34
  • May combine two claims. 36

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

    Premisecitation

    Little penguins are the smallest and only penguin species whose activity on land is strictly nocturnal.

    “Also, being the smallest and only penguin species whose activity on land is strictly nocturnal, having good vision is important for this species [18,20].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [18] Stahel, C., and Gales, R. (1987). Little Penguin: Fairy Penguins in Australia, New South Wales University Press.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] Rodriguez, 2016, Waddling on the dark side: Ambient light affects attendance behavior of little penguins, J. Biol. Rhythm. source

      The supplied passage is a file record for the paper, not a passage about penguin size or nocturnal activity. Searches for the claim’s wording and for nocturnal activity on land found no relevant passage in our indexed copy, so the attribution cannot be verified. (LLM, conf=0.68)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

    Premisecitation

    Wild little penguins increase their avoidance of areas with high human traffic and footpaths when nesting.

    “with Klomp and colleagues [37] and Weerheim and colleagues [34] who found wild little penguins increased their avoidance of areas with high human traffic and footpaths when nesting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [37] Klomp, 1991, Surface nesting by little penguins on Penguin Island, Western Australia, Emu source
    • cites [34] Weerheim, 2003, Population size, breeding habitat and nest site distribution of little penguins (Eudyptula minor) on Montague Island, New South Wales, Wildl. Res. source

      The Abstract reports that little penguin nest-site density on Montague Island increased with distance from footpaths, consistent with nesting farther from paths. It does not establish that penguins increasingly avoided those areas over time or measure high human traffic; disturbance is offered only as a possible explanation. (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

    Zoo-housed little penguins show curiosity to novelty, particularly to mirrors, likely due to reflective properties.

    “Zoo-housed little penguins have been found to show curiosity to novelty, particularly to mirrors likely due to the reflective properties appealing to them [52].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [52] Hall, 2018, Curious creatures: A multi-taxa investigation of responses to novelty in a zoo environment, PeerJ source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The results are supported by two experiments on zoo-housed little penguins where the presence and close viewing proximity of visitors increased vigilance and avoidance behaviours and reduced preening in the water in little penguins at Melbourne Zoo.

    “The results in the present study are supported by two experiments on zoo-housed little penguins where the presence and close viewing proximity of visitors increased vigilance and avoidance behaviours and reduced preening in the water in little penguins at Melbourne Zoo [3,10].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] Chiew, S.J., Butler, K.L., Sherwen, S.L., Coleman, G.J., Fanson, K.V., and Hemsworth, P.H. (2019). Effects of regulating visitor viewing proximity and the intensity of visitor behaviour on little penguin (Eudyptula minor) behaviour and welfare. Animals, 9. source
    • cites [10] Sherwen, 2015, Little penguins, Eudyptula minor, show increased avoidance, aggression and vigilance in response to zoo visitors, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Reducing visual contact with visitors by using camouflage netting or one-way vision screens has been found to reduce intragroup aggression and stereotypic behaviours in Western lowland gorilla and Black-capped capuchins.

    “For example, reducing visual contact with visitors by using camouflage netting or one-way vision screens has been found to reduced intragroup aggression and stereotypic behaviours such as repetitive teeth clenching, body rocking, pacing and self-scratching in Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and Black-capped capuchins (Sapajus apella) [22,23,24].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [22] Blaney, 2004, The influence of a camouflage net barrier on the behaviour, welfare and public perceptions of zoo-housed gorillas, Anim. Welf. source
    • cites [23] Sherwen, 2015, Effects of visual contact with zoo visitors on Black-capped capuchin welfare, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source
    • cites [24] Clark, 2012, Relationship between behavior, adrenal activity, and environment in zoo-housed Western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), Zoo Biol. source

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Visual contact may be a key component of little penguin fear of visitors.

    “Although the effects of visual contact were not specifically examined in these studies, it can be surmised that visual contact may be a key component to little penguin fear of visitors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [37] Klomp, 1991, Surface nesting by little penguins on Penguin Island, Western Australia, Emu source
    • cites [34] Weerheim, 2003, Population size, breeding habitat and nest site distribution of little penguins (Eudyptula minor) on Montague Island, New South Wales, Wildl. Res. source

      The available indexed passages contain the paper’s title and citation metadata, but no discussion of visual contact, visitors, or fear. Searches for those terms and for tourist disturbance found no relevant passage, so this copy cannot verify the attributed suggestion. (LLM, conf=0.68)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Vigilance is not always an indicator of fear and may indicate curiosity.

    “However, it is important to note that vigilance is not always an indicator of fear and may indicate curiosity and since the main window was randomly covered for five 1-day periods over 2 weeks, the novelty of covering the window and the associated changes such as illumination in the area, may have stimulated inspection [1,51].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] Sherwen, S.L., and Hemsworth, P.H. (2019). The visitor effect on zoo animals: Implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare. Animals, 9. source
    • cites [51] Beauchamp, 2017, What can vigilance tell us about fear?, Anim. Sentience source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Little penguins have very good vision as they are visual predators that rely on vision to find and catch prey underwater.

    “Little penguins, like all penguin species, have very good vision as they are visual predators that rely on their vision to find and catch prey underwater [18,53].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [18] Stahel, C., and Gales, R. (1987). Little Penguin: Fairy Penguins in Australia, New South Wales University Press.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [53] Preston, 2008, Foraging behaviour of little penguins Eudyptula minor in an artificially modified environment, Endanger. Species Res. source

      The Discussion (page not provided) says penguins locate prey by its silhouette and suggests that little penguins at St Kilda do likewise, supporting a role for vision in underwater foraging. It does not assess little penguins’ visual ability or establish that they have “very good vision.” (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Close viewing proximity of visitors increased vigilance, huddling and avoidance of the visitor viewing area and decreased surface swimming in little penguins.

    “More recently, Chiew and colleagues [3] identified that it is the close viewing proximity of visitors that increased vigilance, huddling and avoidance of the visitor viewing area and decreased surface swimming in little penguins.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Chiew, S.J., Butler, K.L., Sherwen, S.L., Coleman, G.J., Fanson, K.V., and Hemsworth, P.H. (2019). Effects of regulating visitor viewing proximity and the intensity of visitor behaviour on little penguin (Eudyptula minor) behaviour and welfare. Animals, 9. source

      The Results (§3.2.1) report more vigilance and huddling, fewer penguins near the viewing area, and less surface swimming under closer-viewing conditions. But the Abstract says it is unclear whether these changes resulted from reduced separation itself, visitor behaviours associated with close viewing, or both. The citing sentence presents proximity as the identified cause without that qualification. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

    Premisecitation

    Camouflage netting and one-way vision screens improved gorilla and black-capped capuchin welfare through reduction of visual contact with visitors and likely by reducing potentially threatening visitor behaviours.

    “This is to some extent supported by previous studies that, while not measuring visitor behaviour specifically, found camouflage netting and one-way vision screens improved gorilla and black-capped capuchin welfare through the reduction of visual contact with visitors but also likely by reducing potentially threatening visitor behaviours as a result of the visual barriers being in place [22,23,24].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [22] Blaney, 2004, The influence of a camouflage net barrier on the behaviour, welfare and public perceptions of zoo-housed gorillas, Anim. Welf. source
    • cites [23] Sherwen, 2015, Effects of visual contact with zoo visitors on Black-capped capuchin welfare, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source
    • cites [24] Clark, 2012, Relationship between behavior, adrenal activity, and environment in zoo-housed Western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), Zoo Biol. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adélie penguins, African penguins, and little penguins have consistently shown at various breeding sites that human disturbances such as human approach and unregulated tourism increase heart rates and avoidance of nesting near visitor footpaths and reduce breeding success.

    “For example, Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) [26,27,28,29,30]; African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) [31,32,33], and little penguins [34,35,36,37] have consistently shown, at various breeding sites, that human disturbances such as human approach and unregulated tourism (i.e., visitor numbers, noise, behaviour and interactions with penguins were uncontrolled) increase heart rates and avoid”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 10 sources checked
    • cites [26] Kerry, K.R., and Hempel, G. (1990). The effect of disturbance on the heart rate and behaviour of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) during the breeding season. Antarctic Ecosystems, Springer. source
    • cites [27] Culik, 1995, Penguins disturbed by tourists, Nature source
    • cites [28] Wilson, 1991, People in Antarctica—How much do Adélie penguins Pygoscelis adeliae care?, Polar Biol. source
    • cites [29] Woehler, 1994, Impacts of human visitors on breeding success and long-term population trends in Adélie penguins at Casey, Antarctica, Polar Biol. source
    • cites [30] Giese, 1996, Effects of human activity on Adelie penguin Pygoscelis adeliae breeding success, Biol. Conserv. source
    • cites [31] Hockey, 1981, Effect of human disturbance on the breeding behaviour of Jackass penguins Spheniscus demersus, South Afr. J. Wildl. Res.
    • cites [32] Seddon, 1990, Effect of human disturbance on beach groups of Jackass penguins, Afr. J. Wildl. Res.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [33] Nimon, 1996, Artificial eggs: Measuring heart rate and effects of disturbance in nesting penguins, Physiol. Behav. source
    • cites [34] Weerheim, 2003, Population size, breeding habitat and nest site distribution of little penguins (Eudyptula minor) on Montague Island, New South Wales, Wildl. Res. source

      The available passages contain bibliographic metadata (title and citation listing), not findings about disturbance. Searches for visitor footpaths, tourism, heart rates, and breeding success returned no substantive passage, so this copy does not establish the attributed effects. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [35] Giling, 2008, Anthropogenic influence on an urban colony of the little penguin Eudyptula minor, Mar. Freshw. Res. source

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

    Premisecitation

    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].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim4 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [3] Chiew, S.J., Butler, K.L., Sherwen, S.L., Coleman, G.J., Fanson, K.V., and Hemsworth, P.H. (2019). Effects of regulating visitor viewing proximity and the intensity of visitor behaviour on little penguin (Eudyptula minor) behaviour and welfare. Animals, 9. source

      The Introduction states that research on visitor effects in zoo-housed penguins is limited. Materials and Methods documents little penguins at Melbourne Zoo, but the paper does not establish that penguins are commonly housed in zoos or that little penguins are especially common in Australian zoos. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [10] Sherwen, 2015, Little penguins, Eudyptula minor, show increased avoidance, aggression and vigilance in response to zoo visitors, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source
    • cites [11] Ozella, 2014, Pond use by captive African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) in an immersive exhibit adjacent to human bathers, J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. source

      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 measured
    • cites [12] Collins, 2016, The effect of the zoo setting on the behavioural diversity of captive Gentoo penguins and the implications for their educational potential, J. Zoo Aquar. Res. source
    • cites [13] Hosey, 2008, A preliminary model of human-animal relationships in the zoo, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source

      Section 4.5 (Spheniscids; page unavailable) discusses studies of visitor effects on zoo-housed penguins and says the data are sparse, supporting the limited-research portion of the citing sentence. It does not say penguins are commonly housed in zoos or that little penguins are especially common in Australian zoos. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [14] Condon, 2003, The effect of visitors on the behavior of Humboldt’s penguins at Chester zoo, Fed. Res. Newsl.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [15] Ozella, 2017, Effect of weather conditions and presence of visitors on adrenocortical activity in captive African penguins (Spheniscus demersus), Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. source

      The Introduction says African penguins are exhibited in zoos and aquaria worldwide, supporting the general point that penguins are zoo-housed. It does not establish that penguins are commonly housed overall or that little penguins are especially common in Australian zoos; the study concerns African penguins at an Italian zoo (Study site and animals). (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    The sampling techniques were chosen as they have been effectively used in a previous study.

    “These sampling techniques were chosen as they have been effectively used in a previous study [3,43].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] Chiew, S.J., Butler, K.L., Sherwen, S.L., Coleman, G.J., Fanson, K.V., and Hemsworth, P.H. (2019). Effects of regulating visitor viewing proximity and the intensity of visitor behaviour on little penguin (Eudyptula minor) behaviour and welfare. Animals, 9. source
    • cites [43] Martin, P., and Bateson, P. (2007). Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, Cambridge University Press. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Contact with visitors may be threatening for little penguins, as reduced preening in the water suggests, since preening is a comfort behaviour more likely to occur when animals are not threatened.

    “The reduced preening in the water also suggests that contact with visitors may be threatening for little penguins since preening behaviour is a comfort behaviour that is more likely to occur when animals are not threatened [47,48,49,50].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [47] Zimmerman, 2011, Behaviour of domestic fowl in anticipation of positive and negative stimuli, Anim. Behav. source

      The Abstract identifies preening as a comfort behaviour associated with relaxation and anticipation of a positive event in domestic fowl. It does not examine little penguins, visitors, or preening in water, so it does not establish that reduced preening indicates visitors are threatening to penguins. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [48] Ainley, 1974, The comfort behaviour of adélie and other penguins, Behaviour source
    • cites [49] Delius, 1988, Preening and associated comfort behavior in birds, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. source
    • cites [50] Boissy, 2007, Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare, Physiol. Behav. source

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

    Premisecitation

    Increased separation between visitors and penguins increased surface swimming in little penguins.

    “Sherwen and colleagues [10] found that closing the exhibit to visitors increased surface swimming and Chiew and colleagues [3] found that increased separation between visitors and penguins increased surface swimming in little penguins.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Chiew, S.J., Butler, K.L., Sherwen, S.L., Coleman, G.J., Fanson, K.V., and Hemsworth, P.H. (2019). Effects of regulating visitor viewing proximity and the intensity of visitor behaviour on little penguin (Eudyptula minor) behaviour and welfare. Animals, 9. source

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

    Premisecitation

    Installation of a physical barrier or closing the exhibit to visitors strongly reduced little penguin behaviours indicative of fear, but did not affect faecal glucocorticoid metabolites.

    “Chiew and colleagues [3] found that either the installation of a physical barrier or by closing the exhibit to visitors strongly reduced little penguin behaviours indicative of fear, but did not affect faecal glucocorticoid metabolites.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Chiew, S.J., Butler, K.L., Sherwen, S.L., Coleman, G.J., Fanson, K.V., and Hemsworth, P.H. (2019). Effects of regulating visitor viewing proximity and the intensity of visitor behaviour on little penguin (Eudyptula minor) behaviour and welfare. Animals, 9. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The average proportion of penguins visible in the Corner area varied from 30 to 60%, and the proportions visible in the area near the main window varied from 10 to 20%.

    “The average proportion of penguins visible in the Corner area, depending on the day, varied from 30 to 60% and the proportions of penguins visible in the area near the main window varied from 10 to 20% (Figure 6).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    The main visitor viewing area window was adjacent to the deep corner area of the pool where penguins spent most of their time.

    “This window was adjacent to the area in which penguins spent most of their time, the deep corner area of the pool (i.e., ‘Corner’; Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When the main window was covered, the overall number of visitors at the enclosure did not change, but the proportion of visitors present at the main window was reduced.

    “Our present experiment also found that when the main window was covered, the overall number of visitors at the enclosure did not change but did reduce the proportion of visitors present at the main window.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were no treatment effects on the other penguin behavioural states or events or in the areas near the other visitor viewing area windows (p > 0.05).

    “There were no treatment effects (p > 0.05) on the other penguin behavioural states or events or in the areas near the other visitor viewing area windows (Table 6).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Covering the main visitor viewing area window had no effect on the overall proportion of penguins visible except for the proportion of penguins visibly present in the area near the main visitor viewing area window.

    “Covering the main visitor viewing area window was found to have no effect on the overall proportion of penguins visible except for the proportion of penguins visibly present in the area near the main visitor viewing area window.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Covering the main visitor viewing area window eliminated visitors from interacting with penguins, being on the enclosure ledge and passively standing at this window.

    “As expected, covering the main visitor viewing area window eliminated visitors from interacting with penguins, being on the enclosure ledge and passively standing at this window (Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was no effect of covering the main window on ambient noise level in the visitor viewing area, the number of visitors at the enclosure, the proportion of visitors at Viewing window 3 and Viewing window 4, or any visitor behaviours at Viewing windows 2, 3 and 4 (p > 0.05).

    “However, there was no corresponding effect (p > 0.05) on ambient noise level in the visitor viewing area, the number of visitors at the enclosure, the proportion of visitors at Viewing window 3 and Viewing window 4 (Table 3) or any visitor behaviours at Viewing windows 2, 3 and 4.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Visitor observations were made from the top of the visitor viewing area (past Viewing window 4) to reduce the effect of researcher presence on the penguins.

    “These observations were made from the top of the visitor viewing area (pass Viewing window 4), to reduce the effect of researcher presence on the penguins.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These results suggest that visual contact with visitors and/or other types of visitor contact, such as visitor-induced sounds and vibrations, may be fear-provoking for zoo-housed little penguins.

    “These results suggest that visual contact with visitors and/or other types of visitor contact, such as visitor-induced sounds and vibrations, may be fear-provoking for zoo-housed little penguins.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Covering the main visitor viewing area window with the barrier may have increased the reflective properties of the window.

    “This may be true in the present experiment where covering the main visitor viewing area window using the barrier may have increased the reflective properties of this window.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    At other Yellow-eyed penguin colony sites, no effects on breeding success, heart rate and avoidance behaviour were found.

    “For example, at some colony sites unregulated tourism reduced reproductive rates, increased corticosterone concentrations and delayed landing times [38,39,40], while no effects on breeding success, heart rate and avoidance behaviour were found at other colony sties [41,42].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [41] Ratz, 1999, Who is watching whom? Checks for impacts of tourism on Yellow-eyed penguins Megadyptes antipodes, Mar. Ornithol.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [42] Ellenberg, 2009, Habituation potential of Yellow-eyed penguins depends on sex, character and previous experience with humans, Anim. Behav. source

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

    Premisereasoning

    The Corner area was not visible to visitors whether the visual barrier was in place or not.

    “Also, the Corner area which was on the opposite end to Viewing window 4, was located at the deep end of the pool beyond the main visitor viewing area window, and was not visible to visitors (all other areas were visible to visitors) whether the visual barrier was in place or not (Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    These results suggest that penguins in zoos may benefit from modifications to the enclosure that may ameliorate penguin fear responses to visitors such as one-way viewing glass, barriers reducing close visitor contact and areas for penguins to retreat.

    “Therefore, these results suggest that penguins in zoos may benefit from modifications to the enclosure that may ameliorate penguin fear responses to visitors such as one-way viewing glass, barriers reducing close visitor contact and areas for penguins to retreat.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    At some Yellow-eyed penguin colony sites, unregulated tourism reduced reproductive rates, increased corticosterone concentrations and delayed landing times.

    “For example, at some colony sites unregulated tourism reduced reproductive rates, increased corticosterone concentrations and delayed landing times [38,39,40], while no effects on breeding success, heart rate and avoidance behaviour were found at other colony sties [41,42].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [38] Wright, M. (1998). Ecotourism on Otago Peninsula: Preliminary Studies of Hoihos (Megadyptes antipodes) and Hookers Sealion (Photcartos hookerii).

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [39] McClung, 2004, Nature-based tourism impacts on Yellow-eyed penguins Megadyptes antipodes: Does unregulated visitor access affect fledging weight and juvenile survival?, Biol. Conserv. source
    • cites [40] Ellenberg, 2007, Elevated hormonal stress response and reduced reproductive output in Yellow-eyed penguins exposed to unregulated tourism, Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. source

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

    Premisecitation

    Water is an effective medium for sound propagation due to low absorption and attenuation, allowing sound to travel five times faster in water than in air.

    “Water is also an effective medium for sound propagation as a result of its low absorption rates and low attenuation which allows sound to travel five times faster in water compared to air [57].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [57] Roberts, L. (2015). Behavioural Responses by Marine Fishes and Macroinvertebrates to Underwater Noise, University of Hull.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is unclear whether visual contact with visitors per se or other aspects of visitor contact, such as visitor-induced sounds and vibrations, were responsible for this apparent aversion when this window was uncovered.

    “However, it is unclear whether visual contact with visitors per se or other aspects of visitor contact, such as visitor-induced sounds and vibrations, were responsible for this apparent aversion when this window was uncovered.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationnone given

    Vibrations and noise caused by mechanical equipment may be perceived differently by little penguins compared to vibrations and noise caused by humans directly.

    “However, vibrations and noise cause by mechanical equipment may be perceived differently by little penguins compared to vibrations and noise caused by humans directly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Both the breeding group and the encounter penguins were not breeding during the study period, and moulting was completed prior to the study period.

    “Both the breeding group of adult penguins and the encounter penguins were not breeding during the study period, and moulting was completed prior to the study period.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Observations were only conducted on penguins visible in the field of view of the cameras, and individual penguin identity was not recorded because individuals were not easily identifiable.

    “Observations were only conducted on penguins visible in the field of view of the cameras and individual penguin identity was not recorded because individuals were not easily identifiable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Husbandry, including monitoring, cleaning and feeding of penguins, followed normal routines and remained consistent throughout the experiment.

    “Husbandry, including monitoring, cleaning and feeding of penguins followed normal routines and remained consistent throughout the course of the experiment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationcitation

    Other forms of visitor contact may have been altered by visual barriers, such as visitor behaviour.

    “These studies indicate the effects of visual contact with visitors can vary between species of nonhuman primates but also show that other forms of visitor contact may have been altered by the visual barriers such as visitor behaviour.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The experiment was conducted on school-working days to avoid the normal systematic variation in visitor numbers that occurs on weekends and school holidays.

    “The experiment was conducted from the 6 to 20 March 2017 (Autumn) on school-working days, to avoid the normal systematic variation in visitor numbers that occurs on weekends and school holidays.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Corner area allowed penguins to be visually hidden from visitors by the solid wall of the pool, and may have provided an opportunity to avoid visitors and reduce perceived close proximity.

    “The Corner area allowed the penguins to be visually hidden from visitors by the solid wall of the pool and therefore this area may have provided the penguins with an opportunity to avoid visitors and reduce the perceived close proximity of visitors which may be something zoos should consider for their animals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Visual contact with visitors affected avoidance, vigilance, and preening behaviour in little penguins in the present experiment.

    “Consequently, it would not be surprising that visual contact with visitors affected avoidance, vigilance and preening behaviour in little penguins in our present experiment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In addition to visual contact, visitor-induced sounds and vibrations may have been fear-provoking for the study penguins, resulting in increased avoidance and vigilance and reduced preening in the water near the main window when the visual barrier was not in place.

    “Thus, in addition to visual contact with visitors, visitor-induced sounds and vibrations may have been fear-provoking behaviours for the study penguins resulting in both increased avoidance and vigilance and reduced preening in the water in the area near the main window when the visual barrier was not in place.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Visitor-induced sounds and vibrations in the water may be fear-provoking for little penguins.

    “These visitor-induced sounds and vibrations in the water may be fear-provoking for little penguins.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Wild little penguins have an intrinsic tolerance to boat engine vibration and noise, suggesting they can habituate to human presence.

    “Interestingly, Higham and Shelton [58] found wild little penguins have an intrinsic tolerance to boat engine vibration and noise where the authors suggested that this shows little penguins can habituate to human presence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [58] Higham, 2011, Tourism and wildlife habituation: Reduced population fitness or cessation of impact?, Tour. Manag. source

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

    Interpretationcitation

    The effects of visual contact with visitors can vary between species of nonhuman primates.

    “These studies indicate the effects of visual contact with visitors can vary between species of nonhuman primates but also show that other forms of visitor contact may have been altered by the visual barriers such as visitor behaviour.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    When half of the visitor viewing window was covered with a visual barrier and the other half left open, orangutans showed a preference to position themselves in front of the open visitor viewing window, suggesting orangutans are visually stimulated by visitors.

    “In contrast, Bloomfield, et al. [25] found that when half of the visitor viewing window was covered with a visual barrier and the other half was left open, orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus abelii) showed a preference to position themselves in front of the open visitor viewing window which suggests orangutans are visually stimulated by visitors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [25] Bloomfield, 2015, Effect of partial covering of the visitor viewing area window on positioning and orientation of zoo oranguatans: A preference test, Zoo Biol. source

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Each treatment was randomly imposed for 1-day periods, with 5 replicates of each treatment (total 10 study days) over 2 weeks.

    “Each treatment was randomly imposed for 1-day periods, with 5-replicates of each treatment (total of 10 study days) over 2 weeks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    The overall average dwell time for visitors was 30 s when animals were inactive and 60 s when animals were active.

    “This was chosen for practical reasons and previous studies that have investigated the dwell time of visitors at various zoo animal exhibits, found that while there were differences between species, the overall average dwell time for visitors was 30 s when animals were inactive and 60 s when animals were active [44,45].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [44] Bitgood, 1988, Exhibit design and visitor behavior: Empirical relationships, Environ. Behav. source
    • cites [45] Johnston, 1998, Exogenous factors and visitor behavior: A regression analysis of exhibit viewing time, Environ. Behav. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The little penguins in this exhibit showed an aversion to the area near the main window when it was uncovered, with reduced presence and increased vigilance reflecting increased avoidance of and alertness towards visitors.

    “This provides some evidence that the little penguins in this exhibit showed an aversion to the area near the main window when it was uncovered, with the reduced presence of the penguins and increased vigilance reflecting increased avoidance of and alertness towards visitors respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Closing the exhibit to visitors increased surface swimming in little penguins.

    “Sherwen and colleagues [10] found that closing the exhibit to visitors increased surface swimming and Chiew and colleagues [3] found that increased separation between visitors and penguins increased surface swimming in little penguins.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] Sherwen, 2015, Little penguins, Eudyptula minor, show increased avoidance, aggression and vigilance in response to zoo visitors, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Avoidance of the area near the main window and preference for the Corner area may have been successful in reducing the penguins' welfare risks from visitor contact at the main window.

    “Therefore, avoidance of the area near the main window by the penguins in the present study, as well as preference for the Corner area of the pool, which was hidden from visitors, may have been successful in reducing the penguins’ welfare risks from visitor contact at the main window.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Behavioural responses of penguins during closeup encounters with controlled visitor-penguin interactions may differ from responses to visitors normally viewing them on exhibit, where interactions are uncontrolled.

    “However, considering the behavioural changes in the present study, it is possible that the behavioural response towards visitors by penguins during a closeup encounter, involving controlled visitor-penguin interactions, may differ from their responses to visitors normally viewing them on exhibit from the visitor viewing area where visitors can be unpredictable and intense and thus, are uncontroll”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Little penguins are a highly social species and live in colonies in the wild like all penguin species.

    “Little penguins are a highly social species and in the wild live in colonies like all penguin species and thus, it is not surprising that social contact with the adult penguins may have attracted the penguins to the Corner area [65].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [65] Reilly, 1982, The little penguin Eudyptula minor in Victoria iii. Dispersal of chicks and survival after banding, Emu Austral Ornithol. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The little penguins in the present study may have had more opportunity to habituate to visitors because they had daily visitor encounters, unlike penguins at Melbourne Zoo.

    “The little penguins in the present study also may have had more opportunity to habituate to visitors because unlike the penguins at Melbourne Zoo, these penguins had daily visitor encounters [41,42,66,67].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [41] Ratz, 1999, Who is watching whom? Checks for impacts of tourism on Yellow-eyed penguins Megadyptes antipodes, Mar. Ornithol.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [42] Ellenberg, 2009, Habituation potential of Yellow-eyed penguins depends on sex, character and previous experience with humans, Anim. Behav. source
    • cites [66] Fowler, 1999, Behavioral and hormonal responses of Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) to tourism and nest site visitation, Biol. Conserv. source

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The enclosure design may have helped ameliorate fear-provoking aspects of visitors.

    “This enclosure design may have helped ameliorate any fear-provoking aspects of visitors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Corner area may have been attractive to the penguins because it was the deepest part of the pool and located next to the breeding group of adult penguins, with visual contact between groups.

    “However, this Corner area may have been also attractive to the penguins because it was the deepest part of the pool and was located next to the breeding group of adult penguins, where the two groups had visual contact with each other.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    When penguins were in the Corner area, they could not see visitors at the main window, so lack of visual contact would be expected to increase surface swimming.

    “In the present experiment when penguins were in the Corner area, they could not see visitors at the main visitor viewing area window so this would have expected to result in an increase in surface swimming from the lack of visual contact with visitors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
56 of 56

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?

  • In the Taronga Zoo experiment, covering the main visitor viewing area window resulted in a slight increase in the percentage of penguins in the area near this main window, by about 25% (from 12% when the window was uncovered to 15% when covered).

    “In the experiment by Chiew et al. (2020) at Taronga Zoo, covering the main visitor viewing area window resulted in a slight increase in the percentage of penguins in the area near this main window, by about 25% (from 12% when the window was uncovered to 15% when covered).”

    From Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> ) (2022) · cites this paper as Chiew et al. 2020

    The Introduction identifies the experiment as taking place at Taronga Zoo, and the Abstract reports about a 25% increase in penguins near the main window when it was covered. Results §3.2 describes the increase as about 20% and gives a 10–20% range for penguins near that window, but the passages in our copy do not establish the claimed 12% uncovered and 15% covered figures. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 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).”

    From Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> ) (2022) · cites this paper as Chiew et al. 2020

    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

  • 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.”

    From Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> ) (2022) · cites this paper as Chiew et al. 2020

  • 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).”

    From Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> ) (2022) · cites this paper as Chiew et al. 2020

  • 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).”

    From Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> ) (2022) · cites this paper as Chiew et al. 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Condon, 2003, The effect of visitors on the behavior of Humboldt’s penguins at Chester zoo, Fed. Res. Newsl., 4, 3
  2. Wiebkin, A.S. (2011). Conservation Management Priorities for Little Penguin Populations in Gulf St Vincent. Report to Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences).
  3. Stahel, C., and Gales, R. (1987). Little Penguin: Fairy Penguins in Australia, New South Wales University Press.
  4. Seddon, 1990, Effect of human disturbance on beach groups of Jackass penguins, Afr. J. Wildl. Res., 20, 89

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chiew, S. J., Butler, K. L., Sherwen, S. L., Coleman, G. J., Melfi, V., Burns, A., & Hemsworth, P. H.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Zoos Victoria (AU)
  • Hartpury University (GB)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Chiew, Samantha J.
ORCID
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-07-18
Volume
10
Issue
7
Pages
1224
ISSN
2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ani10071224
PMC
PMC7401515
OpenAlex
W3042521552
Semantic Scholar
b3c44b0248f78a996b1932cf9a15da46255ba3c5
Cited by
28
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10
FWCI
4.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Australian Research Council (LP140100373)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Animal and Plant Science Education
Keywords
little penguin, Eudyptula minor, zoo animals, visitor effects, window coverings, sustained attention, avoidance behavior, preening, visitor behavior, 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 2026-10-26.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-26.

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