CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal Behavior and ReproductionAnimal and Plant Science Education

Evaluating the Behavior and Temperament of African Penguins in a Non-Contact Animal Encounter Program

Open access
Saiyed, Sana T., Hopper, Lydia M., Cronin, Katherine A.·2019·Animals
DOI 10.3390/ani9060326PMC PMC6617178
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Animal ambassador programs are increasingly prevalent in zoos, yet few studies have investigated their impact on animal welfare. We assessed the effects of an ambassador program on the behavior of a colony (N = 15) of zoo-housed African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) and evaluated whether individual characteristics were predictive of participation. Behavioral data were collected for 16 weeks and included 43 “penguin encounters”, during which zoo visitors entered a designated portion of the penguins’ enclosure. When comparing colony behavior following encounters to behavior during a matched control period lacking an encounter, we found no significant difference between affiliative or aggressive behaviors, suggesting that the encounters did not disrupt interactions in the colony. The same was true when comparing behavior preceding the encounter to a matched control period, indicating that any anticipatory period was similarly non-disruptive. Space use during encounters suggested comfort near visitors. We also measured penguin temperament on the shy-bold continuum by recording the birds’ response to novel objects and found that penguins’ temperament, sex, and age were predictive of participation. We concluded that this program had a neutral or positive impact on penguin welfare and considered the findings in relation to aspects of the ambassador program that provided penguins with control over their involvement.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A 16-week study of 15 zoo-housed African penguins found no significant changes in colony affiliative, aggressive, or human-directed behavior on days with a non-contact, voluntary penguin encounter program compared with matched control periods. Individual participation varied, with bolder, younger, and male penguins tending to participate more, though results were sensitive to one frequent participant.

Key findings

  • Offering encounters did not significantly change colony behavior: rates of affiliative, aggressive, and human-directed behaviors did not differ between encounter and matched control periods (all p > 0.05).
  • During encounters, 9 of 15 penguins participated at least once, while 6 never participated; the most frequent participants were three 2-year-old males (Aje = 13, Erik = 36, Phil = 43 encounters).
  • While in the encounter area, participating penguins spent 23.5% (±6.6%) of visible time with enrichment, 2.6% (±1.3%) with keepers, 0.5% (±0.2%) with visitors, 5.9% (±3.2%) preening, and 67.2% (±8.5%) in “other” behavior; space-use maps suggested they did not avoid the visitor seating area.
  • Excluding the outlier Phil, boldness was positively correlated with voluntary participation (N = 14, rs = 0.436, p = 0.010); with Phil included, the correlation was not significant (N = 15, rs = 0.179, p = 0.117). Males participated more than females when Phil was excluded (U = 7.5, p = 0.038; including Phil, p = 0.054).

Methods

  • Subjects were 15 African penguins (10 males, 5 females; mean age 6.5 years, range 2–13) at Lincoln Park Zoo; behavioral data were collected over 16 weeks, including 74 h outside encounters on 57 observation days and 20 h during encounters on 43 days.
  • The study used a matched-control design: behavior within 1 h before or after encounters was compared with behavior at the same times of day on non-encounter days, using all-occurrence sampling and ZooMonitor; analyses used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Spearman correlations, and Mann–Whitney U-tests.
  • Temperament was assessed with novel object tests: two test trials with novel objects and three control trials, coding latency to approach within 1 m of a seated caretaker; participation was then related to latency-difference scores, age, and sex.

Limitations

  • The paper states the sample size was small and sufficiently powered only to detect large effects; more subtle behavioral differences could have been missed.
  • The paper states that temperament, age, and sex results were tentative because a single data point (Phil) strongly influenced the patterns, and the temperament test-retest correlation only trended toward significance (N = 15, R² = 0.217, p = 0.08).
  • The paper notes that welfare was assessed only behaviorally, without physiological or mental-state measures, and that keeper interactions were not differentiated into positive versus negative categories; evident from the text, the findings come from one colony at one institution, with a single observer and a male-biased sex ratio, limiting generalizability.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ani9060326

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

5 of 36 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Affiliative interactions in social species may be associated with physiological and affective states associated with good welfare.

    “Likewise, an increase in affiliative interactions could signal that the birds’ welfare is being improved by offering encounters, as affiliative interactions in social species may be associated with physiological and affective states associated with good welfare, e.g., [22,23,24].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [22] Boissy, 2007, Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare, Physiol. Behav. source
    • cites [23] Mellor, D.J. (2016). Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living”. Animals, 6. source

      Section 3.4 links bonding and other social interactions in social animals with positive affects, and section 6.2 treats such behaviours as indicators of positive experiences relevant to welfare enhancement. The cited passages do not establish an association between affiliative interactions and physiological states associated with good welfare. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [24] Pomerantz, 2009, Effects of positive reinforcement training techniques on the psychological welfare of zoo-housed chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), Am. J. Primatol. source
  • Premisecitation

    Rates of social interactions were typical for activity budgets previously reported for Spheniscus species.

    “Rates of social interactions were low, but typical for activity budgets previously reported for Spheniscus species [37].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [37] Marshall, 2016, Husbandry and enclosure influences on penguin behavior and conservation breeding, Zoo Biol. source
  • Findingown data

    There was marked variation across the 15 penguins' temperaments, as measured by novel object tests of shy-boldness.

    “There was marked variation across the 15 penguins’ temperaments, as measured by our novel object tests of shy-boldness (Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The three penguins who participated in more encounters than any others were all two-year-old males (Aje = 13, Erik = 36, Phil = 43).

    “The three penguins who participated in more encounters than any others were all two-year-old males (participation count for Aje = 13, Erik = 36, Phil = 43).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Rates of social interactions were low.

    “Rates of social interactions were low, but typical for activity budgets previously reported for Spheniscus species [37].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20
  • May combine two claims. 17

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

    Interpretationcitation

    The difference between our results and the previous study may be due to broad species differences in response, both physiologically and behaviorally, to human presence.

    “This difference may be due to broad species differences in response, both physiologically and behaviorally, to human presence, e.g., [38,39,40,41].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [38] Wilson, 1991, People in Antarctica—How much do Adélie Penguins Pygoscelis adeliae care?, Polar Biol. source
    • cites [39] Yorio, 1992, The effects of human disturbance on Magellanic penguin Spheniscus magellanicus behaviour and breeding success, Bird Conserv. Int. source

      The Discussion (page not provided) contrasts Magellanic Penguins’ behavioral tolerance of people with that of most seabirds and discusses heart-rate responses reported in other birds. It does not establish broad differences between species in physiological responses; its own measured differences concern Magellanic Penguins with different levels of human exposure. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [40] Ellenberg, 2006, Physiological and reproductive consequences of human disturbance in Humboldt penguins: The need for species-specific visitor management, Biol. Conserv. source
    • cites [41] Seddon, 1990, Effect of human disturbance on beach groups of jackass penguins, S. Afr. J. Wildl. Resour.

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Little penguins showed a reduction in fear-related behaviors when visitors were kept at a greater viewing distance.

    “Related, studies focused on zoo-housed little penguins have revealed that little penguins (Eudyptula minor) increased behaviors indicative of visitor avoidance when exhibits were open to the public rather than closed [44], and the same species showed a reduction in fear-related behaviors when visitors were kept at a greater viewing distance [45] (this Issue).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [45] Chiew, S.J., Butler, K.L., Sherwen, S.L., Coleman, G.J., Fanson, K.V., and Hemsorth, P.H. (2019). Effects of regulating visitor viewing proximity and the intensity of visitor behaviour on the little penguin (Eudyptula minor) behaviour and welfare. Animals, 9. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Penguins show individual variation in personality generally.

    “To build off recent work demonstrating that penguins show individual variation in personality generally [25,26], and in their response to ambassador programs specifically [13], we also considered what individual traits correlated with the birds’ participation in the encounters (if any).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [25] Hall, 2018, Curious creatures: A multi-taxa investigation of responses to novelty in a zoo environment, PeerJ source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) reports individual variation among little penguins in responses to novel objects. The paper treats curiosity as a personality trait, but its Conclusion says the observed differences may reflect personal experience or personality; it does not establish individual variation in penguin personality generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [26] Traisnel, 2019, Boldness at the nest predicts foraging and diving behaviour of female but not male African penguins, Anim. Behav. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a possible trend for younger penguins to participate more often than older penguins (N = 15, rs = 0.222, p = 0.076), weakened when excluding Phil (N = 14, rs = 0.168, p = 0.145).

    “We found that there was a possible trend for younger penguins to participate more often than older penguins, which was weakened when excluding Phil (N = 15, Spearman rs = 0.222, p = 0.076; excluding Phil, N = 14, Spearman rs = 0.168, p = 0.145).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Younger penguins and male penguins tended to participate more often.

    “We also found that younger penguins, and male penguins, tended to participate more often.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The most frequent participant was rated as a shyer individual, in contrast to the general pattern that shyer penguins participated less often than bolder penguins.

    “First, the most frequent participant was rated as a shyer individual, in contrast to the general pattern we found, indicating that shyer penguins participated less often than bolder penguins.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During encounters, the nine participating penguins spent on average 23.5% of time engaged with enrichment, 0.2% in affiliative or aggressive behaviors with conspecifics, 2.6% with keepers, 0.5% with visitors, and 5.9% with self (preening).

    “For the nine penguins who participated in the encounter at least once, the average (±SEM) percent of time they engaged with enrichment was 23.5% (±6.6%), in affiliative or aggressive behaviors with conspecifics was 0.2% (±0.1%), with keepers was 2.6% (±1.3%), with visitors was 0.5% (±0.2%), and with self (preening) was 5.9% (±3.2%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At least one penguin voluntarily left the encounter early in 15 of 53 encounters, with 41 individual exits in total (average 0.28 exits per encounter).

    “At least one penguin voluntarily left the encounter early in 15 of 53 encounters, and there were 41 individual penguin exits in total (average 0.28 exits per encounter).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In this study, behaviors directed toward keepers during the encounter were generally positive and often took the form of leaning against keepers while keepers gently petted them; nipping and biting at keepers were rare events.

    “In this study, we did not differentiate between positive and negative behaviors directed toward keepers during the encounter, but can report anecdotally that they were generally positive and often took the form of leaning against keepers while keepers gently petted them; nipping and biting at keepers were rare events.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Six of the 15 penguins never participated in any encounters, and nine participated in at least one encounter during the four-month study period.

    “While six of the 15 penguins never participated in any encounters, nine penguins participated in at least one encounter during the four-month study period.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Three of those nine penguins were much more regular participants, with one individual, Phil, joining 43 of the 53 encounters observed.

    “Furthermore, three of those nine penguins were much more regular participants, with one individual, Phil, joining 43 of the 53 encounters we observed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Rates of behavior directed toward humans, primarily zoo visitors, were higher than rates of behavior directed toward conspecifics, but did not differ based on whether encounters were offered.

    “Rates of behavior directed toward humans, and primarily zoo visitors, were higher than rates of behavior directed toward conspecifics, but did not differ based on whether encounters were offered.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Offering encounters did not appear to influence colony affiliation, aggression, or behavior directed toward zoo visitors.

    “Thus, offering encounters did not appear to influence colony affiliation, aggression, or behavior directed toward zoo visitors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The current study was sufficiently powered to detect large effect sizes, but more subtle effects could have been missed.

    “It would also be important for future work to include a larger sample size to detect smaller, but potentially meaningful differences in behavior between conditions; the current study was sufficiently powered to detect large effect sizes, but more subtle effects could have been missed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Not permitting zoo visitors to touch or interact with the encounter penguins may have increased penguin comfort and allowed them to maintain control over the situation.

    “Additionally, zoo visitors were not permitted to touch or interact with the encounter penguins at any point, which may have increased penguin comfort and allowed them to maintain control over the situation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationown data

    Males may have been more prone to participation because there were not enough potential pair bond partners available in the colony.

    “In our colony specifically, there was a male-biased sex ratio with twice as many males as females, so males may have been more prone to participation because there were not enough potential pair bond partners available in the colony.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study used a standardized ethogram designed to prioritize behaviors of interest to the evaluation of welfare and behaviors directed toward humans.

    “During each observation session, we recorded behavioral data on all visible penguins simultaneously via an all-occurrence basis [33], following a standardized ethogram (Table 1) that was designed to prioritize behaviors of interest to the evaluation of welfare and behaviors directed toward humans.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In a study investigating undesirable behaviors in the presence of visitors at a petting zoo, Anderson and colleagues found that animals exhibited fewer undesirable behaviors when allowed to retreat from visitors at will.

    “In a study investigating undesirable behaviors in the presence of visitors at a petting zoo, Anderson and colleagues [43] found that animals exhibited fewer undesirable behaviors when allowed to retreat from visitors at will.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [43] Anderson, 2002, Retreat space and human visitor density moderate undesirable behavior in petting zoo animals, J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Behavioral rates were calculated based on visible time for each individual.

    “Importantly, we calculated these behavioral rates based on visible time for each individual.”
    • Also stated in: § 2.3. Behavioral Data Collection · plain
      “We used this point sampling data to estimate the number of minutes each individual was visible and subsequently used them to standardize behavioral rates by visible time per individual.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    People were more committed to wildlife conservation after exposure to ambassador programs.

    “In a review of studies investigating the effects of zoo-wildlife encounters on visitors, Ballantyne and colleagues [1] found that people were more committed to wildlife conservation after exposure to ambassador programs, presumably mediated by an emotional response to close interaction with the program animals (not necessarily including physical contact).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] Ballantyne, 2007, Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums, Environ. Educ. Res. source

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

    Premisecitation

    Little penguins increased behaviors indicative of visitor avoidance when exhibits were open to the public rather than closed.

    “Related, studies focused on zoo-housed little penguins have revealed that little penguins (Eudyptula minor) increased behaviors indicative of visitor avoidance when exhibits were open to the public rather than closed [44], and the same species showed a reduction in fear-related behaviors when visitors were kept at a greater viewing distance [45] (this Issue).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44] Sherwen, 2015, Little penguins, Eudyptula minor, show increased avoidance, aggression and vigilance in response to zoo visitors, Appl. Animal Behaviour Sci. source

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

    Premisecitation

    Providing captive animals with increased choice and control has positive benefits.

    “This is important given the wealth of data that showed the positive benefits of providing captive animals with increased choice and control reviewed in [46].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [46] Whitham, 2013, New directions for zoo animal welfare science, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Behavior during encounters was not compared directly to any control because the encounter environment and the behavioral opportunities it provided were unique.

    “We did not compare this behavior directly to any control since the encounter environment and the behavioral opportunities it provided were unique.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The study found no evidence that offering the encounter program impacted behavioral interactions in the colony, with no significant difference between rates of affiliative or aggressive behaviors in relation to whether an encounter program took place on a given day.

    “From our observations, we found no evidence that offering the program impacted behavioral interactions in the colony, with no significant difference between rates of affiliative or aggressive behaviors in relation to whether an encounter program took place on a given day.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Boldness is positively associated with risk-taking.

    “Studies have shown that measures of boldness from novel object tests are consistent across situations [29] and that boldness is positively associated with risk-taking [30].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] Dammhahn, 2012, Is risk taking during foraging a personality trait? A field test for cross-context consistency in boldness, Anim. Behav. source

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

    Premisecitation

    Approximately 48 AZA-accredited institutions house African penguins.

    “An evaluation of the welfare of the African penguin colonies used for ambassador programs is essential and timely, as approximately 48 AZA-accredited institutions house African penguins [16] and penguins are a common ambassador species in zoos.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] Flossic, S. (2016). African Penguin North American Regional Studbook Spheniscus Demersus, Tulsa Zoo and Living Museum.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In a study of Magellanic penguins, two penguins exhibited increased fecal glucocorticoid metabolite levels on days with tours, while three did not.

    “Two penguins exhibited increased FGM levels on days with tours, while three did not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Hartell-DeNardo, J. (2014). Establishment and Application of A Fecal Glucocorticoid Metabolite Assay for 4.1 Magellanic Penguins (Spheniscus Magellanicus) for the Assessment of Adrenal Activity in Conjunction with Behavioral Observations to Understand the Potential Impact Associated with Variables of Behind the Scenes Tours at a Zoological Facility. [Ph.D. Thesis, George Mason University]. Available online: http://ebot.gmu.edu/bitstream/handle/1920/9202/HartellDeNardo_thesis_2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Additional factors may contribute to the different responses to ambassador programs reported here and by Hartell-DeNardo.

    “However, given that both Magellanic and African penguins have been shown to desensitize similarly to human presence in the wild [41,42], additional factors may contribute to the different responses to ambassador programs reported here and by Hartell-DeNardo [13].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Hartell-DeNardo, J. (2014). Establishment and Application of A Fecal Glucocorticoid Metabolite Assay for 4.1 Magellanic Penguins (Spheniscus Magellanicus) for the Assessment of Adrenal Activity in Conjunction with Behavioral Observations to Understand the Potential Impact Associated with Variables of Behind the Scenes Tours at a Zoological Facility. [Ph.D. Thesis, George Mason University]. Available online: http://ebot.gmu.edu/bitstream/handle/1920/9202/HartellDeNardo_thesis_2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Individual control over the level of participation may be a key component to the welfare response to ambassador programs.

    “This suggests that responses to ambassador programs may vary by individual and that individual control over the level of participation may be a key component to the welfare response.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Hartell-DeNardo, J. (2014). Establishment and Application of A Fecal Glucocorticoid Metabolite Assay for 4.1 Magellanic Penguins (Spheniscus Magellanicus) for the Assessment of Adrenal Activity in Conjunction with Behavioral Observations to Understand the Potential Impact Associated with Variables of Behind the Scenes Tours at a Zoological Facility. [Ph.D. Thesis, George Mason University]. Available online: http://ebot.gmu.edu/bitstream/handle/1920/9202/HartellDeNardo_thesis_2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Individual penguins differed in their voluntary participation in the ambassador program, and this difference was predicted to some degree by individual temperament, age, and sex, with a tendency for bolder, young males to participate more often.

    “We found that individual penguins differed in their voluntary participation in the ambassador program, and that this difference was predicted to some degree by individual temperament, age, and sex, with a tendency for bolder, young males to participate more often.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Some studies on ambassador programs with other species have reported negative behavioral responses to handling, including nipping and biting.

    “Some studies on ambassador programs with other species have reported negative behavioral responses to handling, including nipping and biting [3,43].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] Falk, J.H., Heimlich, J.E., and Foutz, S. (2009). Fostering empathy with wildlife: Factors affecting free-choice learning for conservation concern and behavior. Free-Choice Learning and the Environment, Altamira Press. source
    • cites [43] Anderson, 2002, Retreat space and human visitor density moderate undesirable behavior in petting zoo animals, J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The patterns of temperament, age, and sex predicting participation are tentative given the influence of a single data point (Phil) and likely reflect limited power related to the small sample size.

    “Again, we report these patterns as tentative given the influence of a single data point (Phil) on these patterns, which likely reflects limited power related to our small sample size.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Penguins show individual variation in their response to ambassador programs specifically.

    “To build off recent work demonstrating that penguins show individual variation in personality generally [25,26], and in their response to ambassador programs specifically [13], we also considered what individual traits correlated with the birds’ participation in the encounters (if any).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Hartell-DeNardo, J. (2014). Establishment and Application of A Fecal Glucocorticoid Metabolite Assay for 4.1 Magellanic Penguins (Spheniscus Magellanicus) for the Assessment of Adrenal Activity in Conjunction with Behavioral Observations to Understand the Potential Impact Associated with Variables of Behind the Scenes Tours at a Zoological Facility. [Ph.D. Thesis, George Mason University]. Available online: http://ebot.gmu.edu/bitstream/handle/1920/9202/HartellDeNardo_thesis_2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. source

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    While in the encounter, the penguins were visible to the observer 100% of the time due to the layout of the encounter space.

    “While in the encounter, the penguins were visible to the observer 100% of the time due to the layout of the encounter space.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    There was no evidence of increased fecal glucocorticoid metabolite levels or undesirable behaviors in program animals.

    “They found no evidence of increased FGM levels or undesirable behaviors in program animals, but did find a positive relationship between FGM levels and frequency of zoo-caretaker handling, suggesting that an ancillary aspect of ambassador programs (physical handling) may be associated with changes in animals’ physiological indicators of stress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Baird, 2016, Program animal welfare: Using behavioral and physiological measures to assess the well-being of animals used for education programs in zoos, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    These results should be considered as only reflective of the conditions under which the program was run, that is a non-contact, non-transport program that provided penguins with the choice of whether or not to participate.

    “We strongly recommend that these results be considered as only reflective of the conditions under which our program was run, that is a non-contact, non-transport program that provided penguins with the choice of whether or not to participate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
36 of 36

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Penguins are a common ambassador species in zoos.

    “An evaluation of the welfare of the African penguin colonies used for ambassador programs is essential and timely, as approximately 48 AZA-accredited institutions house African penguins [16] and penguins are a common ambassador species in zoos.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Behavioral indicators (affiliation, aggression, human-directed behavior, space use) are valid measures of penguin welfare/comfort.

    “The results suggest that the colony of 15 African penguins at Lincoln Park Zoo was not exhibiting signs of compromised welfare as measured through changes in behavior, and that temperament tests may be one useful way to predict which penguins are more comfortable in participating in ambassador programs.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Not avoiding the seating area where encounter participants were located indicates comfort in proximity to participants.

    “Finally, the space use densities showed that penguins did not avoid the seating area where encounter participants were located, suggesting they were comfortable in proximity to the participants.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The locations of penguins while in the encounter space can provide insight into their level of comfort.

    “The locations of penguins while in the encounter space can provide insight to their level of comfort; therefore, heat maps of penguin space use during encounters are shown in Figure 3.”
4 of 4

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.

  • Sex-effect significance is described in reverse

    Major

    The text says the sex difference was significant only when Phil was excluded, but its reported p-values show the opposite: 0.038 with Phil included and 0.054 with him excluded.

  • Encounter total is reported as both 43 and 53

    Minor

    The summary says 43 encounters occurred, but the results use 53 as the total number of encounters. The methods distinguish 43 days with encounters from 53 encounters, suggesting the summary substituted days for encounters.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Flossic, S. (2016). African Penguin North American Regional Studbook Spheniscus Demersus, Tulsa Zoo and Living Museum.
  2. Seddon, 1990, Effect of human disturbance on beach groups of jackass penguins, S. Afr. J. Wildl. Resour., 20, 89

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Saiyed, S. T., Hopper, L. M., & Cronin, K. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • Lincoln Park Zoo (US)
Corresponding author
Cronin, Katherine A.
ORCID
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-06-06
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
326
ISSN
2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ani9060326
PMC
PMC6617178
OpenAlex
W2948242234
Cited by
37
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3
FWCI
7.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Animal and Plant Science Education
Keywords
African penguin, Spheniscus demersus, zoo animal welfare, animal behavior, colony behavior, space use, temperament, novel object response, visitor participation, zoo visitors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

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

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

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review