Re-Assessing the Importance of Evidence-Based Inputs for Positive Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Outputs
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Essential Elements of Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare
2. The Relevance of Input-Based Factors to Zoo Welfare Assessment
3. Considering What Animals Need from Their Care
3.1. Understanding How to Provide Correct Inputs
3.2. Ensuring That Care Is Species-Specific
What Do Caregivers Need to Do? (So Animals Can Do What They Need to Do)
- (1)
- Developing science-based environmental enrichment programs that are tailored to each species and individual needs will ultimately promote more opportunities for more individuals of more species to perform welfare-positive behaviour patterns. Environmental enrichment plays a critical role in animal welfare by enabling physical fitness, mental stimulation, and behavioural expression. Incorporating environmental complexity not only aids in maintaining physical health but also supports the psychological welfare of the animals. These enrichments should be tailored to each species’ needs and should also consider variability in temperament within the species. For instance, complex climbing structures or sensory stimuli that provoke the use of different sensory modalities may be provided for arboreal primates. Encouraging animals to express their natural behaviours within a zoo setting is a cornerstone of welfare strategy. This includes providing opportunities for behaviours related to feeding, social structure, and territory, which align with a species’ ecological roles. An overall goal must be to support animals in ways that allow them to engage authentically with their surroundings. In this way, the environment itself can become enriching.
- (2)
- Implementing evidence-based care practices. Building a sound baseline for welfare requires adopting evidence-based practices across all species. Research on species-specific needs and behaviours should guide welfare inputs, enabling a more reliable foundation for assessing welfare outputs. This approach ensures that animals are more likely to experience positive welfare states and, in turn, exhibit behaviours that reflect wellbeing.
- (3)
- Bridging the gap between proactive and reactive welfare. The zoo industry traditionally relies on reactive welfare measures, addressing issues as they arise rather than pre-emptively providing for welfare needs. We advocate for a shift towards proactive welfare management by establishing welfare inputs that inherently promote positive welfare states. Proactive approaches not only enhance welfare outcomes but also improve consistency in welfare standards across institutions.
4. Future Directions for Improving Evidence Used for Decisions on Zoo Welfare
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Melfi, V.A. There are big gaps in our knowledge, and thus approach, to zoo animal welfare: A case for evidence-based zoo animal management. Zoo Biol. 2009, 28, 574–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melfi, V.A.; Bowkett, A.E.; Plowman, A.B.; Pullen, K. Do zoo designers know enough about animals. In Innovation or Replication, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Zoo Design, Paignton, UK, 9–13 May 2004; Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust: Devon, UK, 2005; pp. 119–127. [Google Scholar]
- Hediger, H. Wild Animals in Captivity; Butterworths Scientific Publications: London, UK, 1950. [Google Scholar]
- Rose, P.E.; Brereton, J.E.; Rowden, L.J.; Lemos de Figueiredo, R.; Riley, L.M. What’s new from the zoo? An analysis of ten years of zoo-themed research output. Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binding, S.; Farmer, H.; Krusin, L.; Cronin, K. Status of animal welfare research in zoos and aquariums: Where are we, where to next? J. Zoo Aquar. Res. 2020, 8, 166–174. [Google Scholar]
- Bacon, H. Behaviour-based husbandry—A holistic approach to the management of abnormal repetitive behaviors. Animals 2018, 8, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Broom, D.M. Indicators of poor welfare. Br. Vet. J. 1986, 142, 524–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, P.E. Identifying essential elements of good giraffe welfare—Can we use knowledge of a species’ fundamental needs to develop welfare-focussed husbandry? J. Zool. Bot. Gard. 2023, 4, 549–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinillos, R.G.; Appleby, M.C.; Manteca, X.; Scott-Park, F.; Smith, C.; Velarde, A. One Welfare–a platform for improving human and animal welfare. Vet. Rec. 2016, 179, 412–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellor, D.J.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Littlewood, K.E.; McLean, A.N.; McGreevy, P.D.; Jones, B.; Wilkins, C. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, G.J.; Burn, C.C.; Dallaire, J.A.; Kroshko, J.; Kinkaid, H.M.; Jeschke, J.M. Plastic animals in cages: Behavioural flexibility and responses to captivity. Anim. Behav. 2013, 85, 1113–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christie, M.R.; Marine, M.L.; French, R.A.; Blouin, M.S. Genetic adaptation to captivity can occur in a single generation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 238–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stojanovic, D. Altered wing phenotypes of captive-bred migratory birds lower post-release fitness. Ecol. Lett. 2023, 26, 789–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kelley, J.L.; Magurran, A.E.; García, C.M. Captive breeding promotes aggression in an endangered Mexican fish. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 133, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Traylor-Holzer, K.; Leus, K.; Byers, O. Integrating ex situ management options as part of a One Plan Approach to species conservation. In The Ark and Beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation; Minteer, B.A., Maienschein, J., Collins, J.P., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2018; pp. 129–141. [Google Scholar]
- Traylor-Holzer, K.; Leus, K.; Bauman, K. Integrated collection assessment and planning (ICAP) workshop: Helping zoos move toward the One Plan Approach. Zoo Biol. 2019, 38, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meehan, C.L.; Mench, J.A. The challenge of challenge: Can problem solving opportunities enhance animal welfare? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 102, 246–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butterworth, A. Animal welfare indicators and their use in society. In Welfare of Production Animals: Assessment and Management of Risks; Smulders, F.J.M., Algers, B., Eds.; Wageningen Academic: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 371–389. [Google Scholar]
- Wemelsfelder, F. How animals communicate quality of life: The qualitative assessment of behaviour. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, N.; Sherwen, S.L.; Robbins, R.; McLelland, D.J.; Whittaker, A.L. Welfare assessment tools in zoos: From theory to practice. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Whitham, J.C.; Wielebnowski, N.C. New directions for zoo animal welfare science. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 147, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, G.J.; Veasey, J.S. How should the psychological well-being of zoo elephants be objectively investigated? Zoo Biol. 2010, 29, 237–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehrkam, L.R.; Dorey, N.R. Preference assessments in the zoo: Keeper and staff predictions of enrichment preferences across species. Zoo Biol. 2015, 34, 418–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Learmonth, M.J.; Sherwen, S.L.; Hemsworth, P.H. Assessing preferences of two zoo-housed Aldabran giant tortoises (Aldabrachelys gigantea) for three stimuli using a novel preference test. Zoo Biol. 2021, 40, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemos de Figueiredo, R.; Díez-León, M. Behavioural biology, applied zoo science, and research. In The Behavioural Biology of Zoo Animals; Rose, P.E., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022; pp. 29–36. [Google Scholar]
- Hill, S.P.; Broom, D.M. Measuring zoo animal welfare: Theory and practice. Zoo Biol. 2009, 28, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Manteca, X.; Amat, M.; Salas, M.; Temple, D. Animal-based indicators to assess welfare in zoo animals. CABI Rev. 2016, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, R.L.; Porter, S.K.; Hart, A.G.; Goodenough, A.E. The accuracy of behavioural data collected by visitors in a zoo environment: Can visitors collect meaningful data? Int. J. Zool. 2012, 2012, 724835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bateson, M.; Martin, P. Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, 4th ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Less, E.H.; Kuhar, C.W.; Dennis, P.M.; Lukas, K.E. Assessing inactivity in zoo gorillas using keeper ratings and behavioral data. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 137, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodenough, A.E.; Sewell, A.; McDonald, K. Behavioural patterns in zoo-housed Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) revealed using long-term keeper-collected data: Validation of approaches and improved husbandry. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2023, 258, 105811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diana, A.; Salas, M.; Pereboom, Z.; Mendl, M.; Norton, T. A systematic review of the use of technology to monitor welfare in zoo animals: Is there space for improvement? Animals 2021, 11, 3048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leighty, K.A.; Soltis, J.; Wesolek, C.M.; Savage, A.; Mellen, J.D.; Lehnhardt, J. GPS determination of walking rates in captive African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Zoo Biol. 2009, 28, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hacker, C.E.; Horback, K.M.; Miller, L.J. GPS technology as a proxy tool for determining relationships in social animals: An example with African elephants. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 163, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broom, D.M. Stereotypies as animal welfare indicators. In Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare. Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science; Smidt, D., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1983; Volume 23, pp. 81–87. [Google Scholar]
- Mason, G.J.; Latham, N. Can’t stop, won’t stop: Is stereotypy a reliable animal welfare indicator? Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, L.M.; D’Egidio Kotze, C.; Pillay, N. Long-term spatial restriction generates deferred limited space use in a zoo-housed chimpanzee group. Animals 2022, 12, 2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kennedy, J.S. Displacement activities and post-inhibitory rebound. Anim. Behav. 1985, 33, 1375–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawkins, M.S. From an animal’s point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behav. Brain Sci. 1990, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broom, D.M. Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. J. Anim. Sci. 1991, 69, 4167–4175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Broom, D.M.; Johnson, K.G. Assessing welfare: Long-term responses. In Stress and Animal Welfare, 2nd ed.; Broom, D.M., Johnson, K.G., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 131–172. [Google Scholar]
- Tarlow, E.M.; Blumstein, D.T. Evaluating methods to quantify anthropogenic stressors on wild animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 102, 429–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ralph, C.R.; Tilbrook, A.J. Invited review: The usefulness of measuring glucocorticoids for assessing animal welfare. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 457–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, P.E.; Lewton, J. Key concepts for enhancing zoo animal welfare: Coping, comfort, choice, control, challenge and compassion. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2025, 1–18, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamanashi, Y.; Nogami, E.; Teramoto, M.; Morimura, N.; Hirata, S. Adult-adult social play in captive chimpanzees: Is it indicative of positive animal welfare? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 199, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hughes, B.O.; Duncan, I.J.H.; Brown, M.F. The performance of nest building by domestic hens: Is it more important than the construction of a nest? Anim. Behav. 1989, 37, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franks, B.; Champagne, F.A.; Higgins, E.T. How enrichment affects exploration trade-offs in rats: Implications for welfare and well-being. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e83578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellor, D.J.; Hunt, S.; Gusset, M. Caring for Wildlife: The World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy; WAZA Executive Office: Gland, Switzerland, 2015; p. 87. [Google Scholar]
- Carlstead, K.; Shepherdson, D. Alleviating stress in zoo animals with environmental enrichment. In The Biology of Animal Stress: Basic Principles and Implications for Animal Welfare; Moberg, G.P., Mench, J.A., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2000; p. 337. [Google Scholar]
- Carlstead, K.C.; Paris, S.; Brown, J.L. Good keeper-elephant relationships in North American zoos are mutually beneficial to welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 211, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, J.S.; Novak, M.A. Minireview: Hair cortisol: A novel biomarker of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical activity. Endocrinology 2012, 153, 4120–4127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cole, J.; Fraser, D. Zoo animal welfare: The human dimension. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2018, 21, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rushen, J.; Mason, G. A decade-or-more’s progress in understanding stereotypic behaviour. In Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare; Mason, G., Rushen, J., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2006; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Clubb, R.; Mason, G.J. Natural behavioural biology as a risk factor in carnivore welfare: How analysing species differences could help zoos improve enclosures. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 102, 303–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, G.J. Stereotypies and suffering. Behav. Process. 1991, 25, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dawkins, M.S. Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, S3–S7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brambell, F.W.R. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems; Her Majesty’s Stationary Office: London, UK, 1965. [Google Scholar]
- Lawrence, A.B.; Vigors, B.; Sandøe, P. What is so positive about positive animal welfare?—A critical review of the literature. Animals 2019, 9, 783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bracke, M.B.M.; Hopster, H. Assessing the importance of natural behavior for animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006, 19, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, S.R. Issues of choice and control in the behaviour of a pair of captive polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Behav. Process. 2006, 73, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Englund, M.D.; Cronin, K.A. Choice, control, and animal welfare: Definitions and essential inquiries to advance animal welfare science. Front. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 1250251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobson, S.L.; Kwiatt, A.C.; Ross, S.R.; Cronin, K.A. The effects of cognitive testing on the welfare of zoo-housed Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 212, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatto, E.; Varracchio, C.; Bertolucci, C.; Lucon-Xiccato, T. Puzzle feeder as a cognitive enrichment strategy determines long-term welfare improvements in a teleost fish. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2024, 279, 106401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemp, C. Enrichment. In Nonhuman Primate Welfare: From History, Science, and Ethics to Practice; Robinson, L.M., Weiss, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 463–500. [Google Scholar]
- Costa, R.; Sousa, C.; Llorente, M. Assessment of environmental enrichment for different primate species under low budget: A case study. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2018, 21, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vicino, G.A.; Sheftel, J.J.; Radosevich, L.M. Enrichment Is simple, that’s the problem: Using outcome-based husbandry to shift from enrichment to experience. Animals 2022, 12, 1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veissier, I.; Lesimple, C.; Brunet, V.; Aubé, L.; Botreau, R. Review: Rethinking environmental enrichment as providing opportunities to acquire information. Animal 2024, 18, 101251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bechshoft, T.; Cutting, A.; Galeshchuk, M.; Kok, J.; Kolter, L.; Krouse, M.; Levitskaya, V.; Owen, M.; Richardson, D.M.; Schneider, M.; et al. Polar Bear Research Prospectus; European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA), Polar Bear Ex-situ Programme (EEP): Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Wark, J.D.; Cronin, K.A. The behavior patterns of giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) housed across 18 US zoos. PeerJ 2024, 12, e18164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramont, M.; Principe, N.; Prostko, R.; Watts, J.; Chinnadurai, S.K.; Miller, L.J. The provision of browse and its impacts on the health and welfare of animals at the zoo: A review. Zoo Biol. 2025, 44, 105–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Figueiredo, R.L.; Hartley, M.; Fletcher, A.W. Assessing the behaviour, welfare and husbandry of mouse deer (Tragulus spp.) in European zoos. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021, 237, 105283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meehan, C.L.; Mench, J.A.; Carlstead, K.C.; Hogan, J.N. Determining connections between the daily lives of zoo elephants and their welfare: An epidemiological approach. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0158124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mason, G.J. Species differences in responses to captivity: Stress, welfare and the comparative method. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, P.E.; Roper, A.; Banks, S.; Giorgio, C.; Timms, M.; Vaughan, P.; Hatch, S.; Halpin, S.; Thomas, J.; O’Brien, M. Evaluation of the time-activity budgets of captive ducks (Anatidae) compared to wild counterparts. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2022, 251, 105626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, K.D.; Parker, M.O.; Proops, L.; McBride, S.D. Risk factors for stereotypic behaviour in captive ungulates. Proc. R. Soc. 2022, 289, 20221311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mellor, E.L.; McDonald Kinkaid, H.K.; Mendl, M.T.; Cuthill, I.C.; van Zeeland, Y.R.A.; Mason, G.J. Nature calls: Intelligence and natural foraging style predict poor welfare in captive parrots. Proc. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. 2021, 288, 20211952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ward, S.J.; Hosey, G. The need for a convergence of agricultural/laboratory and zoo-based approaches to animal welfare. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2020, 23, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulte-Hostedde, A.I.; Mastromonaco, G.F. Integrating evolution in the management of captive zoo populations. Evol. Appl. 2015, 8, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maple, T.L.; Perdue, B.M. (Eds.) Zoo Animal Welfare; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Volume 14. [Google Scholar]
- Bukhari, S.S.U.H.; Parkes, R.S.V.; Sneddon, L.U.; McElligott, A.G. The behavior and welfare of neglected species: Some examples from fish and mammals. PeerJ 2024, 12, e17149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, P.E.; Croft, D.P.; Lee, R. A review of captive flamingo (Phoenicopteridae) welfare: A synthesis of current knowledge and future directions. Int. Zoo Yearb. 2014, 48, 139–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, S.J.; Melfi, V. Keeper-animal interactions: Differences between the behaviour of zoo animals affect stockmanship. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0140237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hampton, J.O.; Hemsworth, L.M.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Hyndman, T.H.; Sandøe, P. Rethinking the utility of the Five Domains model. Anim. Welf. 2023, 32, e62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beggs, D.S.; Jongman, E.C.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Fisher, A.D. The effects of herd size on the welfare of dairy cows in a pasture-based system using animal-and resource-based indicators. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 3406–3420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richmond, S.E.; Wemelsfelder, F.; De Heredia, I.B.; Ruiz, R.; Canali, E.; Dwyer, C.M. Evaluation of animal-based indicators to be used in a welfare assessment protocol for sheep. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Concept | Reasoning |
---|---|
Species-specific inputs | Welfare assessment templates should be species-specific and institutionally transferable, emphasising the needs and natural behaviours of each animal. |
Challenge and resilience | Incorporating environmental challenges helps build resilience and promotes behavioural diversity, aligning in-zoo scenarios more closely with the animal’s natural lifestyle. |
Ensuring valid welfare inferences | While emotional state assessment remains challenging in many taxa, prioritising environments that facilitate positive outcomes may offer more practical welfare inferences. |
Inclusive welfare frameworks | Expanding welfare assessments to include underrepresented taxa is essential to ensure all zoo animals benefit from review of their care to ensure its relevance. |
Combining input- and output-based measures | Both input- and output-based approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and a combination of both is likely to be most effective. Providing this starts from a solid foundation of species-relevant inputs being provided. |
Using knowledge obtained from non-zoo species, including farm and laboratory animals | Welfare assessment templates must be species-specific. However, work on farm and laboratory animals can provide help formulate hypotheses to be tested in the relevant species that are then applied to zoo/aquarium concepts. |
Using data from field studies | A sound knowledge of the habitat and natural history of a species is very valuable to understanding their biological needs [78,79]. Zoo/aquarium husbandry and housing can only move forwards when these are aligned fully with evolution and ecology. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rose, P.; Manteca, X. Re-Assessing the Importance of Evidence-Based Inputs for Positive Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Outputs. J. Zool. Bot. Gard. 2025, 6, 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg6020032
Rose P, Manteca X. Re-Assessing the Importance of Evidence-Based Inputs for Positive Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Outputs. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens. 2025; 6(2):32. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg6020032
Chicago/Turabian StyleRose, Paul, and Xavier Manteca. 2025. "Re-Assessing the Importance of Evidence-Based Inputs for Positive Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Outputs" Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens 6, no. 2: 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg6020032
APA StyleRose, P., & Manteca, X. (2025). Re-Assessing the Importance of Evidence-Based Inputs for Positive Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Outputs. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens, 6(2), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg6020032