From Ethogram to Flow: Behavioral Time Budgets and Transition Networks in Female Harbor Seals Under Human Care

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study describes the behavior of four seals in a zoo and provides insight into individual differences in behavior and the effect of visitors on their behavior and well-being. Although the number of individuals is limited, which seems normal in this type of study, the authors have skillfully exploited their observations. It may even serve as an inspiring method for studying animal behavior in small groups of individuals for future studies.

However, I think that the introduction and discussion could be enriched with more references and links to studies on animal welfare and the effect of human disturbance on animals (in zoos or in the wild), and could also, in the discussion in particular, make the link with the concept of personality in animals.

Nevertheless, I believe that this study, with the suggested improvements, clearly deserves to be published.

 

 

Introduction

 

• I suggest no separation between the first sentence (until line 37 ) and the second one, because it is the same idea about conservation and importance of zoological park for this.
• The introduction could be improved with more detail on animal welfare and the different types of enrichment (occupational, environmental, for example see Aquatic Mammals 2018, 44(2), 221-230, DOI 10.1578/AM.44.2.2018.221, Environmental Enrichment, Marine Mammals, and Animal Welfare: A Brief Review). There are also several studies on the effects of anthropogenic activities on animals, which, depending on the species, may be disturbed by visitors, their presence, the noise they make, or the noise caused by other activities. Developing and providing some examples could help to better justify certain questions and enrich the introduction. Some ref: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.04.002, https://doi.org/10.19227/jzar.v8i4.523 , https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9080504 (and others…).

The goals of the study are clearly exposed and interesting.

 

Material and method

 

The description of the individuals and their space is accurate and well done. If this data are available, it may be interesting to know where the individuals come from: they born in captivity, but in this same zoo, or do they come from other zoos? Are they related?

 

The behavioral observations are well explained, and the analyses appear to be correct. The number of individuals limits statistical analysis, but the authors have sought to describe behavioral situations as accurately as possible. It is interesting for researchers to work on behavior with few individuals as occurred frequently in zoo.

 

Results

 

It is interesting to see that some individuals have more pronounced or specific behaviors (such as Schizzo, for example, with Shaking the Fin or more ventral resting than the others), also for her preference for the most secluded and deeper areas and avoid exposure and noise (shier individual?). It could be explain by their individual story before they arrive in the zoo, because of personality effect (see work on personality/temperament in animals)? Hope some explanation in the discussion to explain those differences. Another example Zoe, is more active and using space in more exposed manner, interacting with people (like bold individuals, in personality concept).

Transition networks are very interesting.

 

Discussion

 

The discussion is very detailed in the sense it provides an accurate description of the results, but I would have expected more comparisons and references to other studies. For example, in terms of well-being, in terms of animal personality, a concept closely linked to the well-being of individuals in zoos (for example: Assessing and influencing personality for improvement of animal welfare: a review of equine studies https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20138006). I suggest enriching the discussion with more comparisons and references.

 

I think the English is correct, but it is not my native language.

Author Response

Comment 1: The study describes the behavior of four seals in a zoo and provides insight into individual differences in behavior and the effect of visitors on their behavior and well-being. Although the number of individuals is limited, which seems normal in this type of study, the authors have skillfully exploited their observations. It may even serve as an inspiring method for studying animal behavior in small groups of individuals for future studies.

However, I think that the introduction and discussion could be enriched with more references and links to studies on animal welfare and the effect of human disturbance on animals (in zoos or in the wild), and could also, in the discussion in particular, make the link with the concept of personality in animals.

Nevertheless, I believe that this study, with the suggested improvements, clearly deserves to be published.

Introduction

• I suggest no separation between the first sentence (until line 37 ) and the second one, because it is the same idea about conservation and importance of zoological park for this.
• The introduction could be improved with more detail on animal welfare and the different types of enrichment (occupational, environmental, for example see Aquatic Mammals 2018, 44(2), 221-230, DOI 10.1578/AM.44.2.2018.221, Environmental Enrichment, Marine Mammals, and Animal Welfare: A Brief Review). There are also several studies on the effects of anthropogenic activities on animals, which, depending on the species, may be disturbed by visitors, their presence, the noise they make, or the noise caused by other activities. Developing and providing some examples could help to better justify certain questions and enrich the introduction. Some ref: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.04.002, https://doi.org/10.19227/jzar.v8i4.523 , https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9080504 (and others…).

The goals of the study are clearly exposed and interesting.

Answer 1: We thank the Reviewer for the positive and encouraging assessment of our work.
In line with the suggestions, we have revised the Introduction as follows:

• We expanded the section on animal welfare and enrichment, adding a concise overview of structural/environmental, occupational/feeding, sensory and cognitive enrichment for marine mammals, and explicitly citing Makecha & Highfill (2018) together with general enrichment literature.
• We strengthened the part on anthropogenic disturbance and visitor effects, adding examples and references on visitor number, noise and other human activities affecting zoo animals and we use these to better justify our focus on visitors and space use.
• We removed the paragraph break between the first and second sentence, so that conservation and the role of zoological parks are now presented as a single coherent block.
• We simplified and clarified the aims, reducing them from four to three and rephrasing them to avoid overlap

Comment 2: Material and method

The description of the individuals and their space is accurate and well done. If this data are available, it may be interesting to know where the individuals come from: they born in captivity, but in this same zoo, or do they come from other zoos? Are they related?

The behavioral observations are well explained, and the analyses appear to be correct. The number of individuals limits statistical analysis, but the authors have sought to describe behavioral situations as accurately as possible. It is interesting for researchers to work on behavior with few individuals as occurred frequently in zoo.

Answer 2: We agree that this information is important. In Section 2.1 (Study group) we now specify the origin and relatedness of the four seals. This information has also been added to Table 1, where we introduced a new “Origin” column.

Comment 3: Results

It is interesting to see that some individuals have more pronounced or specific behaviors (such as Schizzo, for example, with Shaking the Fin or more ventral resting than the others), also for her preference for the most secluded and deeper areas and avoid exposure and noise (shier individual?). It could be explain by their individual story before they arrive in the zoo, because of personality effect (see work on personality/temperament in animals)? Hope some explanation in the discussion to explain those differences. Another example Zoe, is more active and using space in more exposed manner, interacting with people (like bold individuals, in personality concept).

Transition networks are very interesting.

Answer 3: We thank the Reviewer for highlighting the relevance of individual differences.

• The numerical Results (Sections 3.2–3.3) have not been altered. We only added a brief linking sentence at the beginning of Section 3.2, noting that the individual profiles were stable over the observation period and are compatible with personality-like differences (e.g. more “shy/anthropo-sensitive” vs. more “bold/visitor-oriented” individuals).
• We deliberately kept the interpretative part in the Discussion, as requested, and there we now explicitly return to the examples mentioned by the Reviewer (e.g. Schizzo vs. Zoe) and interpret them in terms of temperament/personality and welfare.

Comment 4: Discussion

The discussion is very detailed in the sense it provides an accurate description of the results, but I would have expected more comparisons and references to other studies. For example, in terms of well-being, in terms of animal personality, a concept closely linked to the well-being of individuals in zoos (for example: Assessing and influencing personality for improvement of animal welfare: a review of equine studies https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20138006). I suggest enriching the discussion with more comparisons and references.

 

I think the English is correct, but it is not my native language.

Answer 4: We thank the Reviewer for this clear indication and have substantially enriched the Discussion while keeping its original structure.

• In Section 4.2 (Time budget) we added more explicit comparisons with previous work on enrichment and stereotypic/pattern swimming in harbor and grey seals and other pinnipeds.
• At the end of Section 4.3 (Spatial use) we now explicitly interpret the consistent individual differences in space use, resting sites and visitor-directed behavior as personality-like variation (e.g. shy–bold, proactive–reactive axes), and we relate this to welfare. We cite the equine personality review suggested by the Reviewer [32], plus work on personality ratings in zoo mammals [33] and on personality in pinnipeds [34]. We also emphasize that different temperaments imply different ways of experiencing visitors, exhibit exposure and enrichment, which should be considered in management.

Minor language issues (typos, punctuation and a few sentences) have been corrected throughout the Discussion and the rest of the manuscript.

We hope these modifications address the Reviewer’s concerns and make clearer how our results fit within the broader literature on welfare, enrichment, visitor effects and animal personality.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A well presnted and written paper on behaviour profile of seals. It address inmportant issues on behaviour and welafre of animals under human care.

Minor suggestions and proposed changes follow:

Lines 38 and 39: italics in situ and ex situ

Lines 72 to 78: some of the objetives are activities rather tha objetives. Suggested changes for these are: 

• Evaluate the effect of envirionmental and social enrichmnet on individual and group behaviour of harbor seals.
• Decribe harbor seal daily patterns using time budget methdology.
• Third objetive is not really an objetvie, it is an activity within the objetive.
• the four is it is included in the first.

Line 101: suggested change: ..., always accessible to the seals.}

Line 103: visitors opening hours should be included.

Line 126 to 131: Not sure if this shpuld be here. It seems a repetition and not really data collection. Eliminate or consider include it in previous paragraphs

Line 154 and 155: change: Scan Sample to scan sample, and; Focal Sampling to focal sampling.

Line 198: Put a refernce to the Rhionoceros software.

Line 299: not sure "stimulating" should be used. You onlyu measure space permanece or space use, this is not directly with stimlation. You should change it to what really measured.

Line 384, 393, 401 and 409: delete the . and leave a space on the number.

 

   

Author Response

Comment 1: A well presnted and written paper on behaviour profile of seals. It address inmportant issues on behaviour and welafre of animals under human care.

Minor suggestions and proposed changes follow:

Lines 38 and 39: italics in situ and ex situ

Answer 1: We thank the Reviewer for the positive assessment. In the Introduction we have now formatted in situ and ex situ in italics, as suggested.

Comment 2: Lines 72 to 78: some of the objetives are activities rather tha objetives. Suggested changes for these are: 

• Evaluate the effect of envirionmental and social enrichmnet on individual and group behaviour of harbor seals.
• Decribe harbor seal daily patterns using time budget methdology.
• Third objetive is not really an objetvie, it is an activity within the objetive.
• the four is it is included in the first.

Answer 2: We agree and have revised the aims section accordingly. The objectives are now phrased as:

1. Evaluate the effect of environmental and social enrichment on individual and group behavior of harbor seals;
2. Describe harbor seal daily patterns using time-budget methodology;
3. Characterize the spatial distribution patterns of individuals within the exhibit.

The previous “fourth” objective (influence of external factors such as visitors and staff) is now treated as part of the context and interpretation of the first two objectives rather than as a stand-alone aim.

Comment 3: Line 101: suggested change: ..., always accessible to the seals.}

Answer 3: The sentence in Section 2.2 now reads “…always accessible to the seals.”

Comment 4: Line 103: visitors opening hours should be included.

Answer 4: We have added the specific opening hours in spring. The sentence now specifies that the gate “remains open during park opening hours (9:00–17:00 in spring)”.

Comment 5: Line 126 to 131: Not sure if this shpuld be here. It seems a repetition and not really data collection. Eliminate or consider include it in previous paragraphs

Answer 5: We agree that this paragraph was largely redundant. In the revised manuscript we removed the general descriptive paragraph on study aims from Section 2.3. The key conceptual elements are already covered in the Introduction and in the statement of objectives, while Section 2.3 now begins directly with the description of spatial mapping and data-collection procedures.

Comment 6: Line 154 and 155: change: Scan Sample to scan sample, and; Focal Sampling to focal sampling.

Answer 6: We have standardized the terminology throughout the Methods. The text now uses “scan sampling” and “focal sampling” (lower case) when referring to the methods, in line with common usage.

Comment 7: Line 198: Put a refernce to the Rhionoceros software.

Answer 7: We have added the appropriate reference after the mention of Rhinoceros in Section 2.4 (“Rhinoceros software [21]”) and included the full citation in the References list as: “Robert McNeel & Associates. Rhinoceros 3D, 2020.”

Comment 8: Line 299: not sure "stimulating" should be used. You onlyu measure space permanece or space use, this is not directly with stimlation. You should change it to what really measured.

Answer 8: We agree and have modified the wording to reflect what was measured. In Section 3.3 we now refer to “peripheral and less structured subareas” rather than “less stimulating zones”, emphasizing structural characteristics and low use, without implying direct measurement of “stimulation”.

Comment 9: Line 384, 393, 401 and 409: delete the . and leave a space on the number.

Answer 9: We have corrected all four numbers to follow the requested format:

• 4.043 → 4 043
• 10.009 → 10 009
• 8.557 → 8 557
• 7.443 → 7 443

These changes have been implemented in Section 3.3 (Transition Matrices) to match the journal’s numerical style.