What’s new from the zoo? An analysis of ten years of zoo-themed research output

Abstract

The modern zoo's roles command empirical enquiry to determine the effectiveness of zoos locally and globally. Ten years ago, published work identified the need for empirical research on a diverse range of species beyond charismatic zoo megafauna. We review zoo-based research published in the decade since this original recommendation. We collectively evaluate zoo-themed research papers from those working in zoos and those external to zoos but studying zoo-housed animals. By systematically searching Web of Science © for zoo-based research and performing inductive content analysis to code year, journal, study animal's taxonomic classification, and research aims and outputs we evaluate trends in zoo-themed research, contrasted with trends in species holding. Significantly more birds and fish are kept compared to mammals, reptiles and amphibians, but mammals are consistently the primary research focus. Whilst output generally rises, only for birds is a steady increase in publications apparent. Husbandry evaluation is a major aim/output, but papers on pure biology, cognition and health also feature. Most publications lead to "specific advancement of knowledge" including validation of methodologies. We show that: (1) trends in species holdings are unrelated to trends in publication; (2) zoo-themed research makes meaningful contributions to science; (3) zoo researchers should diversify their aim/output categories and chosen study species to close the persisting research gaps that we have identified. Finally, we discuss our findings in the context of evident species biases within research outputs across the broader fields of zoology, conservation and ecology.

Using Zoo Welfare Assessments to Identify Common Issues in Developing Country Zoos

“…Primary care is considered to be the activities that underpin the provision of the physical needs of an animal and are encapsulated within operational management duties [ 37 ], such as provision for appropriate animal behaviour and, further on from this, the provision for positive mental states within the animals housed. Scientific advances on captive animal behaviour and the provision of positive experiences for zoo animals are increasing [ 38 ]. However, it may be that this knowledge is not accessible in developing countries or possibly not fully understood.…”

“…Although species-specific welfare assessments can be beneficial in assessing the behavioural and physical needs of a species, there is scope for the use of more broad, generic approaches suitable for zoos, such as the Wild Welfare Audit or others developed for more advanced and well-supported zoos [ 31 ]. The use of generic welfare assessments can avoid the common taxon bias seen in many areas of zoo science [ 38 , 53 , 54 ]. This whole-collection approach can also address general management practices and current and future planning, which can have an impact on a large number of individual animals, but is not always considered under species-specific welfare measures.…”

Factors influencing taxonomic unevenness in scientific research: a mixed-methods case study of non-human primate genomic sequence data generation

“…Of the 103 (19.8%) species that are represented, the majority of the sequence data (133.2 Tb; 74.2%) come from only five different species (figure 1): rhesus macaques (M. mulatta), olive baboons (Papio anubis), green monkeys (Chlorocebus sabaeus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and crab-eating macaques (Macaca fascicularis). For each non-human primate species, we also recorded the following information based on a combination of our own hypotheses and variables considered in previous species disparity studies in other taxonomic groups [20][21][22][23][24]: current conservation status (least concern, near threatened, vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered) and geographical species range (km 2 ) from IUCN, the number of both medical and non-medical scholarly publications featuring each species from the Web of Science database, the estimated evolutionary distance to humans (millions of years ago for most recent common ancestor) from a recent phylogenetic analysis [19], the number of individuals currently housed in more than 1000 worldwide zoos and other conservation facilities who are Species 360 members, and activity pattern (nocturnal, diurnal, cathemeral) [25] (electronic supplementary material, dataset 1). These variables were compared to the amount of genomic data (Mb) available in the SRA database for each species, both on an individual variable basis (e.g.…”

Factors influencing taxonomic unevenness in scientific research: A mixed-methods case study of non-human primate genomic sequence data generation

“…For each non-human primate species, we also recorded the following information based a combination of our own hypotheses and variables considered in previous species disparity studies in other taxonomic groups (19)(20)(21)(22)(23): current conservation status (Least Concern, Near Threatened, Vulnerable, Endangered, and Critically Endangered) and geographic species range (km 2 ) from IUCN, the number of both medical and non-medical scholarly publications featuring each species from the Web of Science database, the estimated evolutionary distance to humans (millions of years ago for most recent common ancestor) from a recent phylogenetic analysis (24), the number of individuals currently housed in >1,000 worldwide zoos and other conservation facilities who are Species 360 members, and activity pattern (nocturnal, diurnal, cathemeral) (25) (Supplementary Dataset 1). These variables were compared to the amount of genomic data (Mb) available in the SRA database for each species, both on an individual variable basis (e.g.…”