Zoo Research News BIAZA Research Newsletter Vol. 8 No. 3 Jul. 2007
News and Views from the BIAZA Research Group BIAZA 9th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research
The 2007 annual research symposium was very successfully hosted by ZSL Whipsnade on 23rd and 24th July. As in previous years delegates represented a good cross section of zoos and academic institutions and included keepers, zoo researchers and educators, students and academic staff. A great range of research topics and taxa were covered, with less bias towards behaviour and primates than in previous years, and the overall standard of oral and poster presentations was excellent. The prize for the best oral presentation by a student or keeper was awarded to Liam Shepheard (Drusillas Park) for his talk on the leaf preference of leaf cutter ants (Atta cephalotes). The best poster prize was awarded to Louise Lock (University of Edinburgh) and colleagues from Twycross Zoo for their research into foraging devices to increase species-typical behaviours in zoo-housed primates. We congratulate them on their excellent presentations and their abstracts are included in Research Snippets below. As usual the symposium included a methods workshop, this year the subject was on the opportunities and difficulties of multi-zoo research which will result in a new issue of the Zoo Research Guidelines series later in the year. Many thanks to Prof. Geoff Hosey and Dr Vicky Melfi for leading the workshop and to all participants for their contributions on the day, these will help considerably with the development of the guidelines. Congratulations and huge thanks to Andy Hartley and all the staff at ZSL Whipsnade for the considerable work they put into making the symposium such a success. Next year the research symposium will be hosted by The Deep (Hull, East Yorkshire) on 15th and 16th July 2008 and the workshop will be on aquarium-based research. As it is our 10th symposium we will be marking the anniversary with some special presentations and events, more details will be announced soon. BIAZA Research Group membership
Rob Thomas (RZSS Edinburgh) has resigned as a member and co-chair of the group due to changes in responsibilities at Edinburgh Zoo. We would like to thank Rob for his contributions to the group and wish him well. Andy Hartley (ZSL) agreed to become co-chair for an initial 12 month period. BIAZA Research Group Resources The BIAZA website (www.biaza.org.uk) contains a huge amount of information for zoo-based researchers. We encourage all prospective zoo researchers to look at the information before commencing research or contacting zoos and hope supervisors will recommend all their students do this. The following resources can be downloaded without charge from the site: x All issues of Zoo Research News x Zoo Research Guidelines: Project Planning and Behavioural Observations. Wehnelt, S., Hosie, C., Plowman, A. and Feistner, A. 2003. x Zoo Research Guidelines: Monitoring Stress in Zoo Animals. Smith, T.E. 2004. x Zoo Research Guidelines: Studies of the Effects of Human Visitors on Zoo Animal Behaviour. Mitchell, H. and Hosey, G. 2005. x Zoo Research Guidelines: Sampling Guidelines for Zoos. BIAZA. 2002. x Zoo Research Guidelines: Statistics for Typical Zoo Datasets. Plowman, A. (ed.) 2006. x Zoo Research Guidelines: Surveys and Questionnaires. Plowman, A, Hosey, G. and Stevenson, M. 2006 The following resources are also available from the BIAZA office (there may be a small charge). x Abstracts of the 1st Annual Symposium on Zoo Research. Plowman, AB (ed.) 1999 x Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium on Zoo Research. Plowman, AB (ed.) 2000 x Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Symposium on Zoo Research. Wehnelt, S and Hudson, C (eds.) 2001 x Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research. Dow, S (ed.) 2003 x Proceedings of the 5th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research. Gilbert, T (ed.) 2003 x Proceedings of the 6th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research. McDonald, C. (ed.) 2004 x Proceedings of the 7th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research. Nicklin, A. (ed.). 2005 x Proceedings or the 8th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research. Dow, S and Clark, F, (eds.) 2006 x A database of browse use in British and Irish Zoos and poisonous plants information (CD, 2001). Plowman, A.B. and Turner, I. x A Bibliography of References to Husbandry and Veterinary Guidelines for Animals in Zoological Collections. Macdonald, A.A. and Charlton, N. (eds.) 2000
Feature Article The measurement of visitor density and its effect on visitor behaviour in zoo exhibits Andrew Moss, David Francis and Maggie Esson, North of England Zoological Society, Chester Zoo
Introduction Bitgood (1992) raised the intriguing notion that visitor density could have a dual effect - ‘people tend to approach an area containing other people, unless it is too congested in which case a crowd may have a repelling effect’. In other words, at relatively low levels, visitor density at an exhibit element can attract other visitors. But at high levels density can actually repel visitors away from the exhibit element, even though the element may be extremely appealing. In the case of zoo exhibits, the most likely locations for overcrowding are viewing areas for animals especially those species that have a high popularity, such as big cats, primates and elephants (see Bitgood et al., 1988, Ward et al., 1998 or Balmford et al.,1996 for relative popularity of different animal taxa). Studies conducted at Chester Zoo suggest that this phenomenon does occur; the challenge for researchers is to quantify it. If visitor density is an important variable in defining visitor behaviour, it could have an impact on exhibit design as well as visitor satisfaction. Do visitors prefer larger or smaller, more discreet viewing areas? Is it possible that popular viewing areas can become so crowded that visitors are actively repelled? There have been numerous studies on how visitor density affects animal behaviour (see Hosey, 2000 for a review), but surprisingly little research has been undertaken into how visitor density affects visitor behaviour in zoos. Marcellini and Jenssen (1988) found that at the National Zoo’s Reptile House (Washington DC) time spent looking at exhibits was significantly negatively correlated with density. Derwin and Piper (1988) found that at the African Rock Kopje exhibit (San Diego Zoo) most people did not look into all six windows during the high-density times but viewed only two or three. When the crowds were less dense, people tended to look into all six windows. In contrast Phillpot (1996) found that time spent in the Gaherty Reptile Breeding Centre (Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Jersey) did not vary significantly with increasing visitor density. The methodology for measuring visitor density is itself a contested issue. Davey (2006) has shown that density can fluctuate significantly during the course of a single, relatively short visit, and that consequently, density is a difficult variable to measure accurately. Here, using the example of a Belanger’s tree shrew (Tupaia belangeri) viewing area, itself part of the larger ‘Elephants of the Asian Forest’ indoor exhibit at Chester Zoo, we try to show that methodologies can be developed to measure visitor density and its effects in a more precise manner, that could be useful to zoo planners. Methodology A random sample of 240 visitor groups were unobtrusively tracked around the large ‘Elephants of the Asian Forest’ exhibit at Chester Zoo. The first visitor in the group to make a definite movement towards an exhibit element was then selected as the sole target for tracking. As part of a larger study data on many variables were collected including visitor dwell time at various exhibit elements (animal viewing areas, interpretation etc), time of day and group composition. Of specific relevance to this article, visitor density was recorded at the viewing window for Belanger’s tree shrew (Tupaia belangeri) an integral species within the larger elephant exhibit. The Belanger’s tree shrew viewing window is situated on the main path around the exhibit and features a large, single glass window, approximately 2.5m wide and 1.1m tall (situated 80cm above the ground). The enclosure is attractively themed externally and is well planted and naturalistic inside. The pathway running past the window is approximately 3m wide, and consequently, every visitor has to pass this viewing area quite closely. During this study, this particular species was very active, and while small, could have been viewed easily by a stopping visitor. Visitors that merely glanced at the exhibit however, may not have been rewarded with a view. Density was recorded to test whether visitors would make an initial decision to stop or not based on the number of visitors already at the viewing area. A density reading was made only if the animal was visible and as the tracked visitor approached the viewing window. Whether the visitor then stopped at the window was recorded. Measurements were also made at the viewing window to determine how many visitors could fit comfortably within the defined space. This ‘comfortable viewing’ density (i.e. the number of visitors that are able to occupy the viewing area in a single row) was found to be a maximum of six adult visitors. After six visitors a second row would typically be formed. Chi-squared tests were used to statistically assess any differences in visitor behaviour depending on the density of visitors already at the window (0 visitors, 1-6 visitors, >6 visitors). Results Visitor behaviour showed a pattern similar to that suggested by Bitgood (1992) (fig.1). When visitor density was at zero, stopping rates made by visitors were lower than at any other time. At the ‘comfortable viewing’ density range
100
stopping rates were at their highest point. As density increased beyond single row viewing stopping rate decreased, although not to the level seen at zero density. The difference between the three categories was highly significant (F2[2] = 21.22, p < 0.001).
90 % groups stopped
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0
1-6
>6
Visitor density on arrival at view ing area
% groups stopped
Fig. 1 Proportion of visitors that stopped at the Belanger’s tree shrew exhibit in relation to visitor numbers already in situ (% stops at density 0 = 50.7 or 39 stops out of 77 groups; % stops at density 1-6 = 82 or 82 out of 100 groups; % stops at density >6 = 74.6 or 47 out of 63 groups).
To avoid any methodological assumptions that were made in the recording of single row or ‘comfortable viewing’ (i.e. variation in average number of visitors able to fit at a viewing area or whether single row viewing is an issue at all for visitors) the same data were analysed in two classes (fig.2). There was a highly significant difference between the stopping rates at zero density and any density above this (F2[1] = 3.96, p < 0.01).
Discussion The results suggest that the effect stated by Bitgood (1992) does occur at this particular viewing area. The tree shrew 100 viewing area shows the same pattern of attraction under low 90 densities but a slight repelling effect at high densities. Zero 80 density however seems to be the least successful in attracting 70 visitors. It is worth noting that zero density seems to have a 60 larger effect on visitors’ stopping choice than very high 50 densities. This is perhaps because if no-one is viewing, 40 others may believe that there is nothing worth stopping for. 30 It is possible that at very high densities, some visitors will be 20 10 repelled and will simply move on while others will wait their 0 turn. The threshold that density pressure takes effect can be 0 >0 very different. This is dependent on the individual and their Visitor density on arrival at viewing area relationship to others viewing; for example, members of the same visitor group. It was felt useful to include a more Fig.2 Proportion of visitors that stopped at the Belanger’s tree simplified version of these data (fig.2) without any shrew (Tupaia belangeri) exhibit in relation to visitor numbers already in situ (% stops at density 0 = 50.7 or 39 stops out of allowance for single row viewing. Again we find that 77 groups; % stops at density >0 = 79.8 or 130 stops out 163 visitors were significantly more likely to stop if another groups) visitor was already present at the viewing area. This is a clear further indication of the relationship between the attracting power of an exhibit and the visitors already in attendance. Other visitors clearly have a large influence on the behaviour patterns of others. For zoo professionals, particularly those involved in exhibit design, these patterns could have far-reaching effects. If visitors are attracted and repelled by the presence of other visitors, then clearly the exhibit planning process should factor in these needs by avoiding ‘pinch points’ in exhibits, as well as making viewing areas sufficiently large to allow visitors to view animals in a less-pressured environment. However, the provision of larger, more open viewing areas and the possibility of increased visitor pressure could create animal welfare issues for some species. From a visitor studies perspective this study emphasises the importance of recording visitor density since this variable significantly affects the attracting power of exhibits. It is acknowledged that there are limitations to this study. Only one viewing area was assessed and some assumptions have been made as to how visitors decide whether to stop or not at viewing areas. It is hoped that this study can act as a catalyst for further work, perhaps including a refinement of this methodology. References Balmford A, Mace GM, Leader-Williams N (1996) Conservation Biology, 10 (3): 719 – 727. Bitgood S, Patterson D, Benefield A (1988) Environment and Behaviour, 20 (4): 474-491. Bitgood S (1992) Visitor Behavior, 8 (3): 15–16. Davey G (2006) BIAZA Zoo Research News, 7 (1): 3-4. Derwin CW, Piper JB (1988) Environment and Behaviour, 20: 435-451. Hosey G (2000) Animal Welfare, 9: 343-357. Marcellini D, Jenssen T (1998) Zoo Biology, 7: 329-338. Phillpot P (1996) The Dodo: The Journal of the Wildlife Preservation Trusts, 32: 193-202. Ward PI, Mosberger N, Kistler C, Fischer O (1998) Conservation Biology, 12 (6): 1408-1411. Further info: Andrew Moss, Education Officer, North of England Zoological Society Chester Zoo (
[email protected]).
Research Snippets Winner of the best student/keeper oral presentation, BIAZA 9th Annual Research Symposium, ZSL Whipsnade
The leaf preference of a captive colony of leaf-cutter ants (Atta cephalotes) Liam Shepheard and Alexander Kent, Drusillas Park
Captive leaf-cutter ant (Atta cephalotes) colonies can be seen within many collections throughout the UK, despite this there has been very little ex situ research focusing on their behaviour. This study therefore aimed to expand our knowledge of the leaf preference of a captive colony of this species, with a view to enhancing their husbandry and management. The study focused on the provision of five plant species which were frequently utilised as leaf material for the colony with a view to discover which species is preferred. The results indicate a significant preference for spotted laurel (Aucuba japincia). Of the total leaf mass harvested 49.32% was from this species, double the quantity of the next most harvested species, Euonymus japonicus (25.05%). An unexpected result showed that there was a gradual increase in preference towards Elaeagnus ebbingei over the course of the study. This corresponds with the natural seasonal growth pattern of this species. A second aim of the study was to investigate whether there was any temporal variation in the ants’ harvesting behaviour. The results showed no difference in activity between the day and night time period, except when harvesting for Aucuba japincia where the colony were significantly more active during the day (F2[1] = 0.03, P
