Table 1.
Survey Question: Please indicate the frequency with which you utilize each of the following training techniques when the elephant complies with a training request.
Table 2.
Survey Question: Please indicate the frequency with which you utilize each of the following training technique when the elephant does not comply with a training request.
Table 3.
Variables created from the Management Survey.
Table 4.
Variables created from the Training Techniques Survey.
Table 5.
Operant conditioning theory as it applies to the training methods surveyed.
Table 6.
Management Schedule variables for population and by species and sex.
Comparisons between species and between sexes were made using the Mann-Whitney U (Wilcoxon Rank Sum) test.
Table 7.
Demographic variables tested for association with Percent Time Managed and statistics associated with the univariate linear regression models.
Table 8.
Linear regression model for demographic variables associated with Percent Time Managed (N = 219, QIC = 221.4).
Fig 1.
The number of zoos that provided each of the 30 enrichment types.
Fig 2.
Median-enrichment and exhibit-feature use scores of the 63 zoos.
Each categorical scale score shows ranges in 10% increments (e.g., 1 = 1–9%, 2 = 10–19%, etc.). Scores of 0 represent no use and scores of 11 represent use 100% of the time.
Fig 3.
Median-enrichment and exhibit-feature use scores from zoos that used these methods.
Each categorical scale score shows ranges in 10% increments (e.g., 1 = 1–9%, 2 = 10–19%, etc.). Scores of 0 represent no use and scores of 11 represent use 100% of the time.
Table 9.
Enrichment variables for the full population and by species.
Comparisons between species and between sexes were made using the Mann-Whitney U (Wilcoxon Rank Sum) test.
Table 10.
Feeding variables for population and by species.
Comparisons between species and between sexes were made using the Mann-Whitney U (Wilcoxon Rank Sum) test.
Table 11.
Feeding Predictability frequencies of scores.
Fig 4.
Median scores for feed presentation methods from 64 zoos.
Each categorical scale score represents use ranges in 10% increments (e.g., 1 = 1–9%, 2 = 10–19%). Scores of 0 represent no use and scores of 11 represent use 100% of the time. Categories included clumped [food placed in piles composed of multiple flakes of hay, browse items, or pellet], spread [food distributed through the exhibit], suspended [food suspended by rope, in a bag, open sided barrel, etc.], foraging [food provisioned in a feeding apparatus], hidden [food hidden around the exhibit], trough [food place in an open trough].
Fig 5.
Median scores for feed presentation methods from zoos that used each method.
Each categorical scale score represents use ranges in 10% increments (e.g., 1 = 1–9%, 2 = 10–19%). Scores of 0 represent no use and scores of 11 represent use 100% of the time. Categories included clumped [food placed in piles composed of multiple flakes of hay, browse items, or pellet] (66 zoos used this method), spread [food distributed through the exhibit] (66 zoos used this method), suspended [food suspended by rope, in a bag, open sided barrel, etc.] (63 zoos used this method), foraging [food provisioned in a feeding apparatus], hidden [food hidden around the exhibit] (59 zoos used this method), trough [food placed in an open trough] (29 zoos used this method).
Fig 6.
Median scores for exercise methods used for African and Asian elephants.
Each categorical scale score represents use ranges in 10% increments (e.g., 1 = 1–9%, 2 = 10–19%, etc.). Scores of 0 represent no use and scores of 11 represent use 100% of the time. Categories included: stretching, calisthenics (e.g., climbing up and down blocks or lifting objects), A to Bs (directed walking from point A to point B, repeated as needed), intervals (directed walking at different rates), slow walking, strength building (e.g., lifting or pulling heavy objects), swimming, and water walking (directed walking in shallow water).
Table 12.
Exercise variables for population and by species and sex.
Comparisons between species and between sexes were made using the Mann-Whitney U (Wilcoxon Rank Sum) test.
Table 13.
Exercise Week and Walk Week frequencies of scores by species.
Table 14.
Training variables for population and by species and sex.
Comparisons between species and between sexes were made using the Mann-Whitney U (Wilcoxon Rank Sum) test.
Table 15.
Rewarding Stimuli Training Technique Score frequencies by sex.
Fig 7.
Median Training Item scores at the level of the full population (A-B) for elephants with Guide Exposure scores equal to zero (C-D), and for elephants with Guide Exposure scores equal to one (E-F). Training Item scores were sorted according to whether an elephant complied with a request. Scores range in half integer values between 1 (never) and 5 (very frequently) and bars represent score ranges. Significant differences in Training Item scores by guide exposure and response type are lettered (p<0.05). Matching case-sensitive letters indicate a significant difference for specific median training item scores between guide exposure groups. Training techniques experienced by elephants when compliant (those designed to increase the frequency of desired behavior) are left unshaded. Training techniques experienced by elephants when non-compliant (those designed to decrease the frequency of undesired behavior) are shaded to help distinguish between the different stimuli involved when addressing non-compliant behavior. Neutral items are shaded in light grey. Rewarding items are shaded with hash marks. Verbally-aversive items are shaded in medium grey. Visually-aversive items are shaded with a wave pattern. Physically-aversive items are shaded in dark grey.
Fig 8.
The frequency with which elephants experience each of the various aversive training techniques when non-compliant.
Frequency scores range between 1 (never) and 5 (very frequently). Verbal and visual stimuli are patterned, and physical stimuli are shaded in grey tones.
Table 16.
The number of elephants experiencing each Percent Time Guide Interaction score interval.