Does Geographical Theming Threaten Certain Species?

Something that's just cropped up in the chatroom is that there is only one North American collection that keeps Gelada, and it got me wondering a question: Is this down to availability of other Ethiopian species [or lack thereof]?

With many zoos, especially major zoos, now phasing out individual, standalone enclosures and taxonomic grouping in favour of displaying species under a geographical theme, does it become harder for zoos to find a place for certain species?

Likewise, zoos all tend to go for the same areas [Madagascar, African savannah, Amazon forest and Indonesia tend to be common ones]. Does this threaten how common a species is in captivity when they can't find any species to put with it?

Another example could be Galapagos tortoises. If zoos all went to geographical themeing and a standalone tortoise enclosure could not be justified, you are very limited to what you could put with them to make an interesting 'theme.'

Of course, there is the opposite way and it could make other species more common [eland, lemurs, zebra etc], but does this move towards geographical areas mark a [near] end to seeing any species at all from some of the under-represented areas in captivity. Kea, Gelada and Galapagos tortoise are three species I can see less zoos taking as they can't get any species from the same areas.

If you agree with the theory, what other species do you think are threatened in captivity by this?

 

A recent issue of the AZA's monthly magazine spoke about how these themed areas in zoos often take up a great deal of space. In addition to the animal exhibits themselves, there are often guest features and amenities designed into the themed area with the intention of immersing the guests in the look and feel of a particular area. Often these features take up more space than the actual animal exhibits themselves.

Although the design is often exciting and interesting to the guest, the zoo actually loses animal exhibit space.

The particular focus of the article is that zoos are exhibiting fewer hoofed stocked species. Gone from many zoos are the rows of hoofstock yards featuring various species of deer and antelopes.

This is a little off topic from the original post. But similar, in how some species are being neglected and losing space to themed exhibit areas.

The AZA was encouraging its member institutions to still set aside space for hoofed stock.

 

I know there is little chance of seeing it but with Gelada's interesting behaviors (its an ape that behaves like an ungulate) I would love to see them paired with mountain reedbuck and mountain nyala. I guess only in my mind seeing as we will never get mountain nyala ex situ.

 

Also to expand on Mike's point the theming is still very general for instance Birmingham themed its African section "Trails of Africa" and it includes a Bull Elephant herd, Roth-tic Hybrids Giraffes, Zebra, Grant's Gazelle, Kudu, Red River hog, White Rhino, Hippo, Lion, Wild Dog, Several large bird species including Vultures and Startlings, and Aldabra Tortoise under one banner so its very general. I mean that's High Veld, Bushveld, Rain-forest, and Dry Woodlands animals together.

The key like in the Boring animals thread is to try to do a realistic job as possible to create a model ecosystem. The truth is you build the exhibit centered on the Charismatic megafauna (like you do the parks int he wild) and then build around them.

 

I don't think that geographically themed exhibits exclude any animal from being displayed.

For example, a desert theme would cover 5 or 6 continents easy. A South American theme could cover the Caribbean and the Galapagos Islands. Madagascar is lumped with Africa, no dramas, and Australia is literally an outpost of New Zealand .

I suspect, however, that you are really discussing habitat-themed exhibits.

 

Wait a minute, you're saying that New Zealand is NOT in Australia? When did that happen?

 

I prefer geographic exhibits over taxonomic ones, (such an exhibit with an Asian theme exhibiting tigers, organutans, blackbucks, etc.) over a taxonomic exhibit (such as lions, next to leopards, next to tigers, next to jaguars) but I like the idea of the geographic themes being either generalized (African theme with Sahara, Congo, Serengeti, Madagascar, and Aldabra tortoise standalone) or if a zoo wants to specialize having just one or two geographic areas (like the North Carolina Zoo) and going into a great effort to expand those few sections. Getting too specific can really limit what you can have in the zoo.

 

I guess Elefante makes a point. Many zoos put their arrows on one or two geographic areas - in many cases Africa and Asia - in in such cases animals from other regions have no place. In some cases some none-African and none-Asiatic species, with which the zoo had a special bond, are still at the zoo in one or another corner but most of the species not belonging in the African/Asiatic ) or whatever theme, dissapear.
Also I´m the oppinion that most zoos have to little immagination to make something special, Africa mostly means a savannah with some hoofstock, ostrich and cranes, Asia means an elephant-house with outdoor enclosure or some kind of tropical house and if an South-American theme is realized it´s standard with a llama-relative, patagonian hare, capybara and rhea.
If zoos only would more use their fantasy, many new and intresting themes could be realized ) never seen a special Central American theme area ( with for example biard's tapir, amazon-parrots, macaws, tucans, anoles, ameives, several monkey-species, pure subspecies jaguar and ocelot, dart frogs and so on and so on ), the Philippines, Japan, the Caraibic, Central Europe, South Africa...............and so on - many of them would make real nice areas and if surtain species are not avaible, try it some harder because if we can see at surtain Czech-zoos, ( almost ) nothing is impossible !

 

David, if ever you visit Australia, you will see that New Zealand is definitely in Australia.... well most of their adult population anyway.

 

What rubbish. At least thats what I'd like to think. New Zealand is to Australia what Canada is to USA, Sweden is to Norway, and what Ireland would like to be to the UK: the poorer but better neighbouring country with higher living standards, more attractive inhabitants and less global embarrassment.

To be clear however, barely 10% of the NZ population lives in Australia, and most of those are just doing so for the money.

To be even clearer, I have been drinking...


To move back on topic, I agree that most zoos use "geographic theming" very loosely, with all African species being considered Savannah species, for example. There are some threats to certain species here though. In Australasia, the ZAA has decided that African Savannah and South-east Asian Rainforest species should be focused on, which has resulted in the loss of almost all South American species (except primates). as well as almost all North American, European, Middle Eastern and Indian species.

 

In his defence, he's in Melbourne, where all the ex-pat Kiwis go and they are starting to out-number the natives - one of the few examples in nature of an introduced species having a positive impact on local populations.

 

That made me laugh out loud!

 

Even if a zoo where to be more specific than themes based on continents, I don't think there should be much of an issue with having just a single species representing that area. The reason for this is because even with one species you can still do a lot with the information of the species exhibited and also of the area given. Also, all of the exhibits are part of a larger whole. A Galapagos exhibit of just tortoises for example, still forms along with an Amazonian exhibit, and exhibit with species from the Andes ect.. together still form one large area dedicated to South America.

What threatens species' exhibits is a lack of imagination.

 

Interesting thread. Another issue is that once an immersive themed exhibit is created, often for a great deal of money, it can become a fixed and immobile point.

I have only hazy ideas about what zoos will consider priorities in twenty or thirty years' time, but I am willing to bet that they may well feature species currently considered low priorities. It is to be hoped that many of the lavishly created facilities being opened at the moment will be up to adaptation.

 

Does Geographical theming...?

Back to Geladas for a moment. There are two Ethiopian waterfowl that are available, if not common, Blue-winged Goose and Abyssinnian Yellowbill. I believe the Bronx had Geladas, Blue-winged Geese & some sort of small geographically appropriate antelope sharing an encloisure, but can't for the life of me remember what sort of antelope -- I want to say duiker sp, but not sure it was.
Re keeping Geladas with waterfowl; just how herbivorous ARE they? Your average baboon would make short work of anything with feathers, never mond eggs or chicks.

 

Geladas are realy herbivores but strange enough mostly kept in ´rocky´ enclosures ! At Rheine Zoo ) Germany - EEP coordinator for the Gelada and one - if not the -largest groups - the species is kept on grass and they are doing well there as I´ve seen myself.
About Ethiopian region endemics kept in good numbers in captivity only the white-cheeked turaco spings in mind to me.

 

Nubian ibexes, rock hyraxes shared the exhibit with the geladas at the Bronx Zoo

 

Does geographical theming...?

There's your 'Ethiopian Section' then -- Geladas & Blue-winged Geese in a paddock, reached via walk-through aviary with White-cheeked Touracos & Yellowbills. Lions & Leopards would also fit the theme [but not in the Gelada Paddock or the walk-through].

 

Zurich has Gelada with Blue-winged Goose and Rock Hyrax (and maybe Nubian Ibex too?) in a really great exhibit, with quite a bit of grass among the rocky hillside.