In most zoos and animal parks, polar bears (ursus maritimus) attract such a disproportionate amount of attention that they are referred to in the industry as "charismatic megafauna," or in other words, "really cool animals." Perhaps it is because it is especially rare for the average zoo-goer to happen upon a polar bear in the wild, or because they live in such an inhospitable environment. Perhaps it's just because polar bears are so damn cute.
Maybe we should just blame Coca-Cola.
Whatever the reason, psychologists Michael J. Renner and and Aislinn L. Kelly of West Chester University in Pennsylvania write that because of their high level of regard they serve as "important ambassador[s] for species-survival plans and conservation efforts" and therefore have significant value in public education.
Perhaps owing to the scarcity of available resources in the wild, polar bears live most of their lives in isolation. Aside from brief encounters for mating purposes, they live and hunt alone. The longest that polar bears are known to live together is for three years while mother bears care for their cubs. Their solitary lifestyle makes social encounters between individual polar bears extremely uncommon. And yet in captivity, polar bears are housed socially, with several individuals sharing the same space. Given their size and strength, aggressive interactions between individuals could be dangerous and potentially deadly. For these reasons, it is important to understand the social behavior of polar bears, in order to best design their zoo enclosures to minimize conflict and maximize health and quality of life.
The polar bears at the Philadelphia Zoo spend their days outside sharing the same enclosure, from 9am to 4:30pm. Given that wild polar bears live in isolation, Renner and Kelly hypothesized that not only would social interactions between the bears be infrequent, but that they would actively display social avoidance behavior.
Two adult captive-born female polar bears, appropriately named Klondike and Coldilocks, were observed for a total of 106 hours, in 30-minute blocks, with an observation recorded every minute, over 10 months. Nothing was unique about these data collection periods in terms of the treatment or management of the bears; they maintained the same feeding schedule and enrichment programs throughout the study.
In order to record where each bear was within the enclosure at each time point, eight distinct zones were identified. In addition, any relevant zookeeper activity and the amount of visitors present was recorded for each time point as well.
A total of 592 zone transitions were recorded, meaning that the bears changed positions roughly once every ten minutes. 44.3% of those movements resulted in decreasing the distance between the individuals, and 55.6% resulted in increasing the distance. However, the mean change in distance between bears when they moved was 1.3 meters, which was statistically different from zero, suggesting that overall the bears moved away from each other more than they moved towards each other. Moreover, while there was only a 10% probability of one bear changing positions in any given observation, there was a 60% probability of the second bear changing positions in the subsequent minute, in order to increase the distance between the two individuals.
Overall, these data support the hypothesis that Klondike and Coldilocks engaged in social avoidance. In general, the bears moved farther away from each other instead of closer to each other. If one bear moved closer, the other responded by moving away to preserve the inter-individual distance.
More specifically, the bears spent only 7.2% of their time in the same zone. In slightly less than 10% of the observations in which the bears were in the same zone, aggressive behaviors were observed, which included vocalization, paw swipes, bared teeth, and biting attempts. Non-aggressive social interactions between the two bears was even less frequent. Physical contact was almost non-existent. These observations lend support to the hypothesis that the social avoidance employed by the two bears successfully helped them avoid aggressive social interactions.
How could it be that, within a relatively small enclosure, the mean change in distance between the two bears is positive? It turns out that this enclosure is particularly well-designed: at nearly every zone within the enclosure, a path is available for moving away from any other zone.
This is good news for zoos: if an enclosure of sufficiently complex topology is designed, polar bears can reasonably be kept in captivity with relatively low possibility of significant aggression. It should be noted that this is not a controlled experiment, but rather a case study of two bears in one zoo. It could easily be, for example, that these particular polar bears were relatively easy-going or non-aggressive. What this study does demonstrate, however, is that polar bears are capable of co-existing in the same space with low risk of aggression. As the researchers rightly conclude:
Because polar bears are capable of actively managing social distance, enclosure designs should consider including topographical complexity and multiple pathways through the enclosure to facilitate social avoidance behavior. Proper exhibit design and appropriate behavior management can make substantial contributions to enhancing the welfare of captive polar bears. This can facilitate their important role as an ambassador species, increasing public awareness of important conservation issues.
Renner, M., & Kelly, A. (2006). Behavioral Decisions for Managing Social Distance and Aggression in Captive Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 9 (3), 233-239 DOI: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0903_5
I've got to find a reason to use the term "charismatic megafauna" in my daily life.
Reminds me of strangers in an elevator. They tend to space out perfectly, and when someone gets off, everybody readjusts to a new spacing. I like standing right next to people when there's plenty of room in the other corner.
And you thought the only thing that exhibit designers do is make things look pretty. Interesting to know the science and logic behind museum and zoo enclosures, that take into account the habitat requirements and social behavior of the animals, not just catering to viewers and flow of human traffic through the exhibit. Another one of those 'behind the scenes' jobs that probably gets little recognition for its relative genius.
Really interesting post, thanks! Although the bears are managing their interactions well, I wonder if having to do so is causing them some chronic stress. 10% of interactions had some component of aggression -- that's actually a lot in my opinion. It would be really interesting to see a comparison of cortisol levels between bears living alone versus bears living with other bears. Hard to get a study like that to have sufficient sample size, of course, so it will probably never be done. Still, it is worth noting that just because they're managing not to engage in all-out fights doesn't mean that their welfare is great. OTOH, it is also worth noting that while this paper isn't advocating the best possible living conditions for the bears (solitary), it is advocating an improvement over the status quo, so that's something to be happy about.
Sorry if it wasn't clear - in less than 10% of the time that they were *in the same zone* were there aggressive interactions, which amounts to less than .7% across the entire set of observations.
"Although the bears are managing their interactions well, I wonder if having to do so is causing them some chronic stress."
Right. Although I bet being kept in a confined space, when in the wild they'd have hundreds of miles to roam around, is also pretty annoying...
Although I bet being kept in a confined space, when in the wild they'd have hundreds of miles to roam around, is also pretty annoying...
Probably so. Though they were born in captivity, at least.
To be clear, I'm not taking a statement on whether or not animals in general, or polar bears in particular, *should* be kept in captivity. I've got mixed thoughts on it.
But if we take their captivity as a given, I believe we ought to ensure that enclosures can be designed with their health and comfort in mind.
Females aren't aggressive unless they have cubs. Males are known aggressors in polar bear social interaction.
Unfortunately, there is nothing to suggest that these enclosures are designed with bear health and comfort in mind, if one looks at polar bear ecology, variations in range and movements, diet and social interaction data.
All that was shown by these results is that the animals are in a minimum space tolerated, as the animals were forced to constantly accommodate position relative to one another to avoid aggressive interaction. Forced social avoidance in solitary living species is additive to environmental stressors for animals kept in artificial environments located in regions far removed from typical climate conditions.
The burden for captive species living in highly atypical environment: excessive heat, abnormal diet (they eat seal meat almost exclusively); excessive boredom in a confined space below the bare minimum necessary to keep the animal in physical shape; elevated risk of pathogen exposure from keepers, urban feral wildlife, the public, and atypical food sources; inadequate aquatic resources; and excessive noise, peripheral movement (zoo patrons and keepers) distractions and air pollution in a hyperstimulating environment.
Pittsburgh Zoo has made the polar bear exhibits a special feature and has brought in bears from the Toledo zoo to form breeding couples (2008-09).
The zoo's goal of supporting Polar Bears International is laudable, but keeping and breeding these animals in hihgly atypical and generally unhealthy conditions isn't my idea of conservation education.
Perhaps this - at nearly every zone within the enclosure, a path is available for moving away from any other zone - prevents the bears from feeling cornered, which minimizes "fear aggression".
Females aren't aggressive unless they have cubs. Males are known aggressors in polar bear social interaction.
Males are known aggressors, but.... The Como Zoo in St Paul has had a pair of males together for many years. (They were named Neil and Buzz, after the Apollo 11 moonwalkers.) These two were born in captivity and are twin brothers, which are both probably factors -- they've never known life apart from one another, and so their captive behavior may be atypical.
Their habitat was recently redesigned, which came none too soon, as it was a mass of concrete plus a swimming pool previously. I haven't gotten down there to see what it looks like, but it's supposed to be a lot better now. Now, if only they can do something about the pitifully small spaces in which they keep great apes at that zoo....
Isn't it obvious?
There is oogles of literature that wild dominant bears displace subordinates. Which eg. in brown bears results in shift in diet and habitat.
I saw the same behavior in many zoos. Dominant bear does what he pleases (it is usually male) and the others avoid it. Actually, when you look closely, many other zoo animals show it.
Do you think we see the same effects when the bears are from the same litter? I'll be a little sad if the new bears at the Columbus Zoo are likely to grow out of their playful interactions with each other.