Download large number of species. This "art gallery"

THE ROLE OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN
THE DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES 1
Michael H. Robinson
The National Zoological Park,
Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, DC 2 0 0 0 8
ABSTRACT
Despite great improvement, zoos basically have not been fully responsive to biological
imperatives. The reasons for this are suggested, and the potential and actual contributions
of biological research in improving facility design are assessed. Biological research has a
high potential for enhancing conditions for the animals and visitors alike. Zoos can
become important resources for advancing biological science.
(Key Words: Animals, Collections, Zoo Animals, Biological Techniques.)
J. Anita. Sci. 1989.67:2441-2451
were available. In addition, poor knowledge of
the social requirements of many species
Zoos have made tremendous progress in the reinforced the tendency toward unnatural
last several decades. Until recently, most zoos groupings that resulted from collectionism. In
were "collections" that consisted of a wide the middle period of zoo design, the appearrange of vertebrates. Because they were based ance of the enclosures, cages or exhibits also
on the principle of being synoptic, they suffered because of yet other factors. Knowlinvolved small numbers of individuals of a edge of the environmental needs of exotic
large number of species. This "art gallery" species lagged far behind even the inadequate
approach was one factor that resulted ulti- knowledge of their social requirements. It still
mately in assemblages of unnatural groups of does, as we shall see later.
animals in unnatural surroundings. But other
Today it is possible to eliminate the tiled,
factors contributed to making zoos look like sterile look, and most zoos do exhibit natural
penitentiaries, and later like public bathrooms. social groupings in surroundings that look
The final stage in this progression was for zoos natural to our eyes. This progress is partly due
to become "naturalistic" enclosures designed to advances in exotic-animal veterinary medito meet the visitors' conception of nature, cine, and also to the application of the results
rather than to reflect the animals' perceptual of biological studies of animal behavior.
world. These trends were not solely a reflec- However, it would be a mistake to assume that
tion of misguided directorial philosophies. these advances are, by and large, the driving
Because zoological medicine was in its infan- forces of change. Instead, they have largely
cy, indoor enclosures were tiled to permit enabled change to occur, but the motivation
cleaning and disinfecting. This "sterile" envi- came from architects and exhibit designers
ronment prolonged longevity of the animals who were concerned primarily with appearbefore antibiotics and worming medications ance, public tastes and the dictates of public
presentation. The time for a comprehensively
biological approach to zoo design has yet to
come. The reasons that it has not yet occurred
1presentedat a symposiumtitled"Strategiesfor Coping are complex, very important and worthy of
with the PhysicalEnvirronment"at the ASAS 80th Annu. analysis. They are historical, managerial (adMtg., New Brunswick,NJ.
ministrative) and sociological. Recent reviews
ReceivedOctober6, 1988.
of the history of zoo architecture (e.g.,
AcceptedJanuary20, 1989.
Introduction
2441
2442
ROBINSON
Polakowski, 1987) seem largely to miss the
point when they concentrate on the influence
of changing design concepts. The historical
origins of zoos provided an original predisposition against their either being, or becoming,
biologically inspired institutions. This state of
affairs has been maintained by their longstanding social function and the character of
their direction. In the last analysis, design
concepts have been determined by mission.
And the mission, for a very substantial part of
z o o history, has concerned itself with providing spectacle for the public.
I have stated elsewhere (Robinson, 1987a, b,
1988a) my views on the functional/philosophic
dichotomy between botanic gardens, on the
one hand, and zoos and aquariums, on the
other. In essence, the botanic collection started
as science, whereas the animal collection
started as spectacle. Historically, even the
ancient botanic gardens arose with a strong
connection to herbal medicine and agrieulturet
hordculmre. From the start, they had a
"scientific," or at the very least a "learned,"
function. Zoos, on the other hand, arose from
menageries, and their function almost certainly
was nonutilitarian. Zoos were symbols of
conspicuous consumption, collections of stares-enhancing "wonders," part of the wideranging appurtenances of imperial power. They
were not resources for scholarship. The spectacle of animals in the Roman arena is the
progenitor of the spectacle of lions, bears,
tigers, elephants and giraffes in present-day
zoos. People are attracted to certain animal
species for reasons that defy simple explanation (Robinson, 1988b). People still ask for
white tigers, black leopards and albino gorillas.
Kellert's studies (1980, 1987) are patiently
uncovering some of our feelings about these
issues. There is little doubt that the way people
are moved by large exotic animals, on the one
hand, differs from the way they respond to
plants, on the other. Whatever may be its basis,
it is a fact that a greater proportion of botanic
gardens have research departments than zoos
do. For the latter the function of public
spectacle remains a key factor. Spectacle does
not need the broad overview of biology to
sustain and maintain it. Rather than biology, it
was the support of husbandry-knowledge that
proved essential after animals no longer could
be collected easily from the wild. In a sense
the ecological crisis that ended the zoocollector, Frank Buck phenomenon helped start
us all toward a biological approach. None of
this is meant to detract from the pioneering
studies of zoo-based biologists like Hediger
(1955, 1964). Neither should it detract from
the biological impact of some classic animal
collectors. Stories of collecting from the wild,
as reported by highly literate naturalist/collectors such as Gerald Durrell (1960) and David
Attenborough (1956), probably inspired many
of us with our first major interest in wildlife.
The separation between the technical prowess of animal-keeping, on the one hand, and
biology, on the other, is still reflected in many
zoos. An informal survey of zoo directors in
the U.S. reveals that those with a training in
biological research are a small minority. (Of
course, most modern zoos are businesses and it
could be argued that biologists cannot become
efficient business administrators. It is interesting to contrast zoos with botanic gardens here).
However, this is not the place to consider why
we are where we are, but rather to look at how
and where biology has changed our approaches
and where it could affect the future evolution
of live animal exhibitry.
Avenues for Input
How can biological research affect the
development of exhibits? This simple question
has extensive and complex answers. They fall
into a number of overlapping categories. A
diagram helps to clarify some of this (Figure
1). The issue is complicated because there are
at least two subjects for analysis. First, one can
look at the outcome, or effector end, of the
research. This is classification by application.
Equally well, one can specify the subdisciplines of biology that can be used in facility
planning. This is classification by field of
enquiry. Because the threads of enquiry are so
complex and their interconnections are manifold, they are difficult to conceptualize. The
tabulation below reinforces and expands the
conceptualization shown in Figure 1; it is
given as a prototype to provoke discussion.
Only part of it is covered in this paper.
Some Research That Has Been Applied,
Some Research That Should Be Applied,
And Some Research That
Needs To Be Done
In a relatively short treatment of a large
subject, selectivity is essential. Accordingly, I
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND ZOO FACILITIES
Exhibit
Design
Promote Enjoyment and Education
1. Highlight beauty/activity and wonder
2. Promote reverence for life on earth
3. Promote biological viewpoint by combatting
i. anthropomorphism
ii. dorninionistic attitudes
Enhance
Improve
Conservation
Quality of Life
1. Reduce stress
2. Reduce aberrant behavior
3. Increase 'normal' activity
4. prolong life, promote health
5. Increase reproduction
1. Increase reproduction
2. Maintain genetic diversity
3. Maintain survival behaviors
4. Maximize economy
Ecological
Research
Genetic
Research
Behavioral and
Neurophysiologica
Research
Figure 1. Ways in which biological research can affect the development of zoological exhibits.
2443
2444
ROBINSON
have chosen not to review the literature but
simply to highlight some case-histories that
illustrate what I consider to be important
points. This makes the approach idiosyncratic
and personal. To define the scope of this
treatment I take the "development of facilities"
to include not merely (or even mainly) the
physical/structural aspects of zoo exhibits but
also the management of their biotic components. This means that I arbitrarily ignore such
matters as the height of enclosing fences, the
width of moats, the regulation of temperature
and humidity, and the placement of visitors'
visual access in relation to flight distances and
so on. These are the conventional stuff of
exhibit design. Many of these matters already
are well-regulated because they can be dealt
with by simple pragmatism, and wisdom about
them has accumulated and is even codified (for
instance, International Zoo Year Book 1959 to
present, Crandall, 1964; Collins, 1973; AAZK,
1985). Trial and error has played a major part
in this, and insights from field studies, though
potentially important, are much rarer than
might be expected. Although a considerable
literature does exist, it is noteworthy that a
case could be made for the paradox that most
zoos have learned more about biology from
designing exhibits than they have learned
about designing exhibits from biology. (It is
worth re-reading Hediger's [1955] classic
studies with this revisionist heterodoxy in
mind.)
Research That Has Been Applied
To choose case histories in this category, I
have concentrated on work carried out at the
National Zoo. I made this choice because the
familiar is easier to expound. Reviews of the
field by Crockett and Hutchins (1978) and
Markowitz (1982) and a host of papers in the
International Zoo Yearbook and the journal
Zoo Biology will correct my selectivity. As an
illustration, our National Zoo coati exhibit
forms an instructive example. In this case there
was a conjunction between exhibit-based research, a monographic field study and some
very simple innovations. The entire process
involving the improvement of an existing
exhibit, is detailed by Clevenger (1987). The
changes greatly enhanced the exhibit, both for
the animals and the visitors, without involving
any structural changes. The starting point was
simple. The important details are that the
enclosure is a roughly octagonal, suspended,
welded wire enclosure varying from 33' to 36"
in diameter, it is 8' high at the edges and rises
to 13' to 15' at the peaks. At the time we
instituted changes, the entire exhibit was
subject to direct sunlight and high temperatures in summer and had a floor of soil and
little interior furniture. Prior to the changes,
the enclosure had housed a variety of small
mammals, including kit foxes, skunks and
raccoons. All these animals are nocturnal, so
their activity periods peaked when visitor
presence was at its lowest. Thus it was an
entirely unsuccessful exhibit. Because it could
most successfully house small mammals, we
chose coatis because they are diurnally active
and social. All that was necessary was to
provide the right exhibit conditions to give the
animals an ambience conducive to activity,
naturalness and social harmony. Two factors
were key; these were the results of extensive
field studies of coati ecology and behavior
carried out at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute by Kaufman (1962) and
Russell (1981, 1983) and pragmatic adjustments as the exhibit progressed. From the
research, it was clear that the coati is an
omnivore that finds abundant quantities of
invertebrates by foraging on the forest floor
but also that it spends a considerable time in
trees (Kaufman, 1962; Russell, 198t, 1983).
Furthermore, it is clear from the same sources
that males are solitary, whereas females and
young may form very large social groupings
that live together in relative harmony. Bearing
these two factors in mind, we produced an
entirely valid and successful exhibit. We
grouped only females together and removed
the top layers of soil, replacing them with bark
mulch to a depth of 4" to 6". This simulated
the leaf-litter of the rainforest. In the center,
within a circle of about 12', we provided a
substrate of dried pine needles. In addition, we
provided extensive climbing surfaces above
the ground, particularly in the form of horizontal branches. When we first introduced the
animals to the newly changed exhibits, a clear
problem arose. This was quickly solved by
simple pragmatism, although it could have
been anticipated by a careful reading of the
biology. The animals needed shade and would
not remain active in the hot sun. The shortterm solution was to cover the cage top with
tennis netting cloth; later, grapevines were
encouraged to grow all over the sides anti roof.
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND ZOO FACILITIES
As a result of the vine's growth, the coatis
subsequently added grapes to their diet!
Foraging activity was encouraged by distributing food pans throughout the exhibit, and
burying it in the substrate. Additionally, during
peak visitor hours, supplemental feedings of
mealworms, crickets, raisins and grapes are
broadcast into the mulch and leaf-litter. The
effect of all this is striking: animals are visible
more than 95% of the visitor day and 65% of
the time are indulging in such active behaviors
as exploring, social interaction, walking and
climbing (Clevenger, 1987).
Another study of considerable interest that
dramatically affected the perceived quality of
exhibits is that conducted on regurgitation and
re-ingestion behavior (herein abbreviated as r/r
behavior) in gorillas (Gould and Bres,
1986a,b). This behavior is very common in
zoo exhibits: gorillas regurgitate their food
onto the floor, or into their hands and then lick
it up. This behavior looks highly aberrant and
certainly produces adverse visitor reactions.
Our study of the r/r phenomenon involved
direct observations on gorillas as well as an
extensive survey, by questionnaire, of gorilla
behavior at 17 other zoos, The biological
studies were illuminated by discussions with
investigators of the human rumination phenomenon, which appears in many ways equivalent to r/r behavior (Gould and Bres,
1986a,b). The studies eventually led to a
relatively simple solution that does not seem to
be directly relevant to the probable causation
of the aberrant behavior. R/r behavior is
considered to be correlated with the occurrence
of social deficits during early development. In
particular, wild-caught and hand-reared captive
born gorillas show a higher incidence of r/r
than mother-reared infants do. Feeding browse
reduced r/r behavior very considerably in three
adult gorillas at the National Zoological Park.
It is not clear why this should be the case,
except perhaps that eating browse substitutes
for the time that gorillas in the wild spend
daily foraging and feeding.
Missed Opportunities: Research
That Should Be Applied
One of the most distressing reactions of the
public to zoo conditions is anthropomorphism.
This leads to objections to zoo conditions that
are based on fallacious attitudes, including the
application of the philosophical concept of
2445
"freedom" to both the presumed wild state of
animals and their "captivity." I have dealt with
this "Rousseau Fallacy" elsewhere (Robinson,
1988c). Here is worth stressing that because
some visitors see many animals in human
terms, they fail to see them as living in their
own different world with their own imperafives. From this spectators conclude that
animals are "bored" if they sleep, "stressed
out" if they lie on their backs, and "imprisoned" if their enclosures look small from our
scale. This also goes with criticism of nonnaturalistic exhibits and an idyllic view of life
in the wild. We certainly have enough evidence from behavior studies to know that the
perceptual worlds of many animals are extraordinarily different from our own. Some of the
most relevant studies, still valid, are those of
Von Uexkull (1934), English translation in
Schiller (1957), and Tinbergen (1951). In
addition, we know that biological reality
means that predation, parasitism and competition (often mediated through territoriality and
dominance orders) may make life extremely
stressful for the great majority of animals. All
these aspects of anthropomorphism and biological misunderstanding in part are encouraged
by the fact that zoos present a human-eye view
of animals to their visitors. I have developed
this theme in considerable detail elsewhere
(Robinson, 1987c, 1986b), but here are some
reiterations that I think are important. First, a
number of facilities need to be built that show
that the conceptual worlds of animals are, in
reality, very different from our own. This
means building exhibits that are black and
white to show that some animals do not have
color vision, or exhibits that have a "color
balance" different from our own, showing that
animals can have a very different world (red/
green color blindness, for instance) even
though they can see color. A further step
would be to scale up an exhibit area so that it
is presented at a small-animal eye view, not
that of a large erect-standing human. (This is
the kind of thing that Hollywood has done for
sensation in films such as "The Incredible
Shrinking Man." This technique could be
reversed for perhaps more respectable scientific purposes.)
Another aspect of biology that needs to be
highlighted to present a valid view of animals
concerns predation, killing and death. We
cannot persist with the idyllic view of nature
that we present in zoos without this resulting
2446
ROBINSON
in further seriously distorted public attitudes.
Too many other sources of popular animal lore
already reflect nonbiological attitudes of a
benign world of nature. Present tastes may
prevent us from having anything resembling
prey capture occur in our vertebrate exhibits,
but we probably can design invertebrate
exhibits in which an octopus eats live shrimp,
anemones capture crabs, and micro-organisms
prey upon each other in a biologically valid
system. We have, in fact, just added to our
reptile house specimens of the species of frog
that recently figured in research on a whole
new family of antibiotics. Explanatory graphics point out that there is a constant "arms
race" between different organisms, and that
where this is the most intense and most
complex (i.e., in the tropics) is exactly where
we expect to find the most useful new
weapons in our fight against viruses, bacteria,
fungi and other pests.
Apart from such broad issues, there are
some results of pragmatic studies of animal
exhibits that need broader application. We
need to recognize that the presence of the
masses of zoo visitors is an important intrusion
into the animal's environment. In studies at
NZP, both Baldwin (unpublished data) and
Carlstead (unpublished data) have noted that
zoo animal activity is altered by visitor
disturbance, and even by janitorial noises. The
acoustic environment is important to the
exhibit ambience. Most nocturnal houses that
reverse the animals' subjective day/night regimen by lighting do not manipulate the acoustic
day/night regimen even though acoustic cycles
characteristically are as distinct as visual
cycles. Thus, nocturnal animals in "twilight
exhibits" may be receiving contradictory signals. Low light signals night, whereas high
noise levels signal day. To correct this, we can
synthesize appropriate sound regimens to
match the light regimens and mask external
noises (L. Gilbert, personal communication).
Furthermore, we need to recognize that
species of animals differ considerably in their
responses to environmental complexity and
variability. Some animals are capable of
coping with new environmental stimuli in an
opportunistic manner that almost certainly has
been subject to natural selection. Others find
novelty stressful; these animals can be described as neophobic. Greenberg (1983,
1984a,b) have done extensive studies on the
foraging behavior of birds. In these experi-
ments, differences between species in their
ability to explore new situations have been
tested extensively. The results provide us with
insights that are of great potential importance
in developing criteria for the choice of species
for zoo exhibits. In some cases, neophobic
species should be avoided, but in other
circumstances neophobia perhaps could be
utilized in confining certain kinds of animals
by creating a psychological barrier of unfamiliarity. If this does not provoke escape by
panic, it could be effective for that period
needed to break down the fear of the new and
different. Research on the golden lion tamarin
led to the creation of a new exhibit that has
been enormously successful. This species
essentially was rescued from near-extinction
by a zoo-based breeding program (Kleiman et
al., 1986). The results of reintroduction efforts
suggested that deficits in foraging, food recognition and feeding behaviors found in zoo-bred
specimens were considerable, so extensive
training regimes were used to prepare the
animals for the wild. Additionally, there were
deficits in the avoidance of harmful entities
(predators, dangerous animals and potentially
poisonous foods) and in locomotory behavior
(including apparent neophobia and reduced
exploration). All these factors, in conjunction
with the nest-site dependence of family groups,
suggested that if a socially harmonious grouping of tamarins were released into an area of
forest within our zoo, they would remain there
unbounded by physical barrier as long as they
had food and a nest-site (Beck actually made
this proposal). This idea was tested in 1987,
and again in 1988. Not only was it an
outstanding success as a "cageless" exhibit, but
it has proved to be an interesting and
inexpensive way to prepare tamarins for
eventual reintroduction to their homeland.
With time they learn the necessary survival
skills. The group has remained outdoors from
May to late September, and has maintained
excellent physical condition. The sight of these
gloriously colored small monkeys freely ranging within the trees has been extremely
satisfying to all concerned. (There is an
important caveat to make here. The fact that
zoo-bred tamarins have deficits in their survival behavior should not lead anyone to
assume that zoo conditions are inimical to
these animals. Nor should we conclude that the
tamarins in zoos are more stressed in their
enclosures than in the wiM. Zoo-raised tamar-
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND ZOO FACILITIES
ins live longer than those in the wild and they
probably raise more young more frequently. In
the wild they almost certainly die violently, or
from starvation or painful disease, in contrast
to the zoo situation.) The fact that their
survival behavior has become deficient in zoo
conditions is highly instructive. It supports the
inference that learning paradigms in tamarins
are adaptively tailored to allow them to be
flexible in a variable environment and that i~:
the course of evolution such flexibility has
been the subject of selection. Natural behavior
thus is learned in a manner that fits it to the
circumstances. This is an important area for
fundamental research that has not been exploited. Lorenz (1965) first drew attention to the
very real consequences of what he called "the
innate schoolteacher": evolutionarily based
proscriptions on learning. We now have an
exciting new technique that could yield insights in this field. Surrogate mothers of in
vitro fertilized young can be of a related, but
different, species. Young thus produced can be
studied to see what is hard-wired vs what is
acquired in utero.
Research That Needs To Be Done
Zoos are remarkable and greatly underutilized resources for biological research. Comparative studies frequently are high-yield tools
for the elucidation of evolutionary problems,
and zoos may offer unique opportunities for
broad-spectrum comparisons. In studies' of
social behavior, for instance, it seldom is
possible for a field researcher to make broad
comparisons within a wide range of species. It
would be impossible to directly compare
similar behavior units in the same place for all
four genera of apes. But in many zoos, this
would be possible, looking from gorilla, to
chimpanzee, to orang and to the gibbons and
siamangs, literally on the same day. It also is
possible to do such a zoo study and know the
precise genetic, medical and personal history
of each individual animal, another thing that
seldom is possible in the wild. Of course there
are drawbacks; large animals may not be in
sufficiently large enclosures to fully express
their behavioral repertory, nor may they be
entirely wild after being habituated to or born
under zoo conditions. Despite these caveats,
great research opportunities exist. One that is
relatively untapped is the chance to look at the
complexities of the reactions between animals
2447
and the biotic elements of their environment
other than their own species. We have little
knowledge of the environmental factors that
are relevant to the lives of most animals.
Social behavior has been widely studied and it
is a natural focus for ethological investigation.
In part, this is due to the fact that much of
social behavior is mediated through highly
evolved and often conspicuous and stereotyped
signals. Precisely because they are signals
(displays, etc.), they attract the attention not
only of their intended recipients, but our
attention, too. Because they evolved to communicate, they are more easily interpreted by
alien species (us) than are many aspects of
noncommunicative behavior. The bias for
intraspecific studies not only reflects these
factors, and our sensory biases (there are fewer
studies of olfactory communication than of
acoustic or visual communication), but a/so
other research-procedural factors. It is easier to
observe, experiment upon, and manipulate
social interactions than to do the same to many
subject/environment interactions. Such study is
vital to our understanding of behavior and
ecology to know what is relevant to survival in
each animal's surroundings. As Tinbergen
(1963) pointed out so forcefully, we have little
idea what most animals (young birds, for
example) need to learn about their environment as they mature. The golden lion tamarin
reintroductions discussed above show how
great are the behavioral survival deficits found
in zoo-born animals kept in static environments with predictable flushes of food and
absence of predators. The tamarins cannot
adequately cope with finding or processing
unaccustomed food, with locomotion among
unaccustomed substrates (real trees!), finding
shelter or avoiding predators. Studies of
survival behavior vis-a-vis environmental factors are technically extremely difficult in the
field, and the difficulty increases with increasing complexity of habitat. Most wild habitats
cannot be modified for experimentation without massive logistic problems, but zoo habitats
can. Thus there is an untapped potential for
direct investigations of what could be called
"environmental relevance." Some of the questions that have hardly been posed but that arise
inevitably out of our attempts to create
artificial habitats conducive to the well-being
of animals are crucial. They are raised in
simple form by the naive anthropomorphism of
zoo visitors, and in another context, more
2448
ROBINSON
obliquely, by animal welfare activists in
relation to the conditions of domestic animals
in the food industry. The same basic ignorance
of what really is the relationship between
animals and their environmental needs lie
behind questions such as, "How would you
like to be imprisoned in a concrete cage
without the sight of trees and the blue sky? and
How would you like to be shut up in an
overcrowded hen-house with no freedom?
These questions are naive and we tend to
answer them by pointing out that they reflect
aberrant conceptions, but they are part of a
sophisticated problem. As scientists we cannot
say with any degree of assurance whether
monkeys react to trees as trees with the
intertwined stimulus effects of leaves, bark,
branches, color, form, odor, movement, sound
and so on, or whether a tree is merely an
avenue from one food source to the next, a
mating platform or an arboreal minaret from
which to greet the dawn. From what we know
of stimulus filtering in social contexts, we
could feel justified in arguing that a tamarin
should be as happy in an aerial maze of plastic
tubes, with sliced food provided regularly in
dishes, as it is in the Brazilian jungle. It is
consistent with our knowledge of ethology to
consider that in the real jungle the tamarins do
not see the jungle, but just a mosaic of
challenges, stresses and opportunities. Dawkins (1980) has brilliantly analyzed the problems involved in assessing animal welfare
matters in fanning from this angle. In a
penetrating analysis, that otherwise represents
a new level of sophisticated discussion for this
subject, she largely misses or muffles the point
about our ignorance about the "natural" state
of animal/environment interaction and environmental relevance. Preference tests between
environments are advocated as a means of
study. This of course is an extraordinary
powerful tool in many instances. However, the
influence of early learning on the outcome of
such tests should not be underrated; clearly,
zoo-raised tamarins could be expected to prefer
enclosures to the terrifying state of the wild.
Incidental spin-offs from studies, often involving preference tests, with a direct animal
husbandry orientation also cast light on environmental relevance. Many examples are reviewed by Dawkins (1980). We need to apply
concepts derived from fundamental studies to
the assessment of animal husbandry conditions
in modem farming. We also need to use these
insights in designing further research in this
field. For instance, it is not enough to study
whether battery hens are more stressed than
free-range hens; we also should be looking to
which elements of the natural world are
attended to influence domestic animals. Do
hens find the world of the open air, sunshine,
blue skies, green fields and bucolic rural
scenes satisfying? This question is not a
reductio ad absurdum, there is a very real
issue at stake here. The issue is susceptible to
study. Studies of animal-environment interaction need expansion, both as part of the corpus
of ethology and throughout the zoo world.
They have an immediate relevance to animal
welfare issues. But it is essential that the
researchers who carry them out should be
aware of their broader, more theoretical and
academic implications. For example, we have
recently carded out studies at the National Zoo
on the effects of the presence of visitors on the
behavior of zoo animals. In one study, visitors
were barred from pathways giving access to
certain outdoor cages, and animal activity was
monitored in situations with vs without visitors. A simple loop trail that passed our
separate serval and leopard exhibits was closed
for this experiment (Baldwin, unpublished
data). Serval activity increased by up to 30%,
but activity of the male leopard actually went
down by more than 20%. Studies on leopard
cats and fennec foxes in the small mammal
house (Carlstead, unpublished data) showed a
marked effect of high visitor rates and noisy
janitorial activities on pacing behavior. These
studies immediately feed information into
exhibit design, but they also have extensive
implications for understanding what components of their environments animals may
attend to. The experimental studies of Greenberg (1983, 1984a,b) show that ingenious
experimentation is possible in this field. We
clearly need to expand it.
There probably are other areas for research
as potentially important to exhibit design as
the ones that I have stressed. Many will be
obvious from my tabulation (Table 1). One
may not seem important but in future will
become so. We can now collect urine from the
floor to exhibit enclosures and assay it for a
variety of biochemical factors. Urinary hormone analysis of zoo animals has become
relatively routine. With this has arisen the
possibility of detecting compounds associated
with stress and consequently of objectively
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND ZOO FACILITIES
o
O
23
=1
I=
Z
O
.=~
b
==
O
~"~
~
==N
9
m
..... o
o o
"~1
O ~ = . l
9
e
~
o
==
s
~ ~
8
~
o
ii
9G ._
9
<
i
~.~
~.~
~
~.~ E
"~
.-~ ~
.[
._~
.s~ . ~= 2
- ~.~
= 8.~ ~
<
.~..~.
=
=
<[...
.~..~
=1
,~
,.4
m
#
~-~
~~
d ' ~ ~;
=;z
.'-,
o ~-o ~
~
2449
2450
ROBINSON
measuring levels of stress in zoo animals. Up
to now we have been able to measure stress by
its behavioral indicators, and by inference
(Dawkins, 1980). Should a reliable new tool
emerge, this will allow us to refine exhibits
even further in the interests of our animals.
Conclusion
Design of facilities at zoos has been less
influenced by biological considerations than it
ought to have been. Desmond Morris, an
ardent proponent of zoos, has analyzed the
defects in exhibits and designs that have
persisted despite the reforms we have enacted.
His analysis (Morris, 1968) has been largely
ignored, but it is penetrating and important.
Every zoo director should read, or re-read it.
What is wrong with zoos according to Morris?
The answer is very simple. Having solved the
problems concerned with the social milieu of
our animals, we have failed to satisfy the
exploratory drives of many of them. According
to this judgment there are basically two kinds
of animal, the specialists and the opportunists.
The specialists need an outlet for their finelytuned adaptations, then they can relax; otherwise they exhibit frustration behaviors. In
contrast, the opportunists are "forever investigating, always on the move. It is because man,
the supreme opportunist, belongs to this
category that we find this group so fascinating." In zoos "the opportunists are precisely
the animals that find the sterile, restricting life
of the zoo so frustrating and so damagi n g . . . T h e nervous system of the opportunist
seems to abhor inactivity. And inactivity is just
what the zoo cage has to o f f e r . . . w e make it as
difficult as possible for him [the zoo animal]
by restricting his environment in almost every
conceiving way. We rigidify it, limit it,
standardize it and sterilize it. Then [we] laugh
at the improvisations of the frustrated, inquisitive animals it houses." Morris' old zoo
(London) has now, 20 yr later, employed
someone specifically to look into habitat
enrichment. Before we defensively assert that
these strictures are unjust, and we have
improved things since then, remember that
zoo-born tamarins are deficient in survival
behaviors because even the most innovative
enclosures are rigidified, standardized and
limited. When we put them into a more open
system, their behavior expands and flourishes,
as we have seen at NZP. We need to think
more about creating variety and exploratory
opportunities. Like the coatis, we need to nose
around for new experiences and new opportunities for our opportunists. It is not imprisonment, or lack of freedom that characterizes a
bad exhibit, but boredom, if we were free to
anthropomorphize.
If we return to the zoo-world's relative
inattention to biological research considerations, reasons for which could prove worth a
research effort and be of considerable historical interest, we have to say that the potential is
high. Zoos could be centers of exhibit-based
research on an expanded and expanding scale.
Such research would not only enrich our basic
biological knowledge but also could enrich the
zoo experience for visitors. In addition, it
should enhance the health and welfare of the
animals. Finally, the ultimate step in the
evolution of zoos is to create the biological
park to replace the zoological park. This, the
zoo-that-is-not, would integrate the plant and
animal kingdoms in a new forward step in
bioexhibitry. It would be a powerful new tool
for education, conservation and recreation.
Research would be enhanced by its existence
and be necessary for its flowering. To return to
Morris (1968) on the need for zoos, let me
finish with this account of his first zoo visit:
'q'hat visit did more for my later interest in
animals than a hundred films or a thousand
books. The animals were real and near. If zoos
disappear, I fear that our vast urban populations will become so physically remote from
animal life that they will eventually cease to
care about it." This is our responsibility, it is
enormous, it eventually means the custody of
life on earth. We must be worthy of it.
Literature Cited
AAZK. 1985. Biological Values for Selected Mammals.
American Associationof Zoo Keepers, Inc., Topeka,
KS.
Attenborough, D. 1956. Zoo Quest to Guiana. Scientific
Book Club, London.
Clevenger, S. 1987.Utilizingnatural history and behavior in
exhibit design: Coatis (Nasua nasua) at National
Zoological Park. In: Proc. AAZPA Regional Mtg.,
Syracuse, NY, March 1987. pp 82-89.
Collins, L. R. 1973. Monotremes and Marsupials. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Crandall, L. S. 1964. The Managementof Wild Mammalsin
Captivity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Crockett, C. and M. Hutchins. 1978. Applied Behavioral
Research at the Woodland Park Zoological Gardens
Seattle, Washington 1977. Pika Press, Seattle.
Dawkins, M. S. 1980. Animal Suffering. The Science of
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND ZOO FACILITIES
Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Dun'ell, G. 1960. A ZOO in my Luggage. Viking Press, Inc.,
New York.
Gould, E. and M. Bres. 1986a. Regurgitation in Gorillas:
possible model for human eating disorders (rumination/bulimia). J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 7:314.
Gould, E. and M. Bres. 1986b. Regurgitation and reingestion
in captive Gorillas: description and intervention. Zoo
Biol. 5:241.
Greenberg, R. 1983. The role of neophobia in determining
the degree of foraging specialization in some migrant
warblers. Am. Nat. 122:444.
Greenberg, R. 1984a. Differences in feeding neophobia in
the tropical migrant wood warblers Dendroica castanea and D. pensylvanica. J. Comp. Psychol. 98(2):
131.
Greenberg, R. 1984b. Neophobia in the foraging-site
selection of a neotropical migrant bird: An experimental study. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 81:3778.
Hediger, H. 1955. Studies of the Psychology and Behaviour
of Captive Animals in Zoos and Circuses. ((3. Sircom,
trans.). Butterworths, London.
Hediger, H. 1964. Wild Animals in Captivity. An Outline of
the Biology of Zoological Gardens (G. Sircom. trans.)
Cover Publications, New York.
International Zoo Yearbook. Published annually by the
Zoological Society of London.
Kaufman, J. 1962. Ecology and social behavior of the coati
Nasua narica on Barro Colorado Island, Panama.
Univ. of Calif. Publ. in Zool. 60(3):95.
Kellert, S. R. 1980. Public attitudes toward critical wildlife
and natural habitat issues. #024-101-00-623-4. U.S.
Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Kellert, S. R. and Berry, J. K. 1987. Attitudes, knowledge,
and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender.
Wild. Soc. Bull. 15:363.
Kleiman, D., B. Beck, J. Diem, L. Diem, J. Ballou and A.
Coimbra-Filho. 1986. Conversation program for the
Golden Lion Tamarin; Captive research and management, ecological studies, educational strategies, and
reintroduction. In: K. Benirschke (Ed.) Primates, the
2451
Road to Self-Sustaining Populations, Springer Verlag,
New York.
Lorenz, K. 1965. Evolution and the Modification of
Behavior. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Markowitz, H. 1982. Behavioral Enrichment in the Zoo.
Von Nnstrand Reinhold, New York.
Morris, D. 1968. Must we have zoos? Life, Nov. 8. p 78.
Polakowski, K. 1987. ZOO Design: The Reality of Wild
Illusions. Univ. of Michigan School of Natural
Resources, Arm Arbor.
Robinson, M. H. 1987a. Beyond the Zoo: the BioPark. Def.
of Wild. Mag. 62(6):10.
Robinson, M. H. 1987b. Towards the biopark: the zoo that is
not. In: Am. Assoc. of Zool. Parks and Aquariums
1987 Annu. Conf. Proc. pp 678-682.
Robinson, M. H. 1987c. The actual and potential role of
biological research in the development of exhibits
Am. Assoc. of Zool. Parks and Aquariums 1987
Regional Proc. 12.
Robinson, M. H. 1988a. Zoos today and tomorrow. People,
Animals, Environment 6(1):29.
Robinson, M. H. 1988b. Phenomena, comments and notes.
Smitkson. Mg. 19(1):26.
Robinson, M. H. 1988c. Animal Rights and Human Wrongs.
Zoogoer 17(1):31.
Russell, J. K. 1981. Exclusion of adult male coatis from
social groups: Protection from predation. J. of
Mammal. 62:206.
Russell, J. K. 1983. Altruism in Coati Bands; Nepotism or
Reciprocity. Social Behavior of Female Vertebrates.
Academic Press, New York.
Schiller, C. (Ed.). 1957. Instinctive Behavior, the Development of a Modem Concept. International Universities
Press, Inc., New York.
Tinbergen, N. 1951. The Study of Instinct. Clarendon Press,
Oxford.
Tinbergen, N. 1963. On aims and methods in Ethology. Z.
Tierpsychol. 20:410.
Uexkull, J. yon. 1934. Streifzllge durch die Umwelten von
Tieren und Menchen. Springer, Berlin.