Behavioural synchrony in two species of communally housed captive penguins

in Behaviour
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


Animals in aggregations such as herds, schools, flocks, or colonies tend to synchronize their behaviour with each other for food acquisition and predator detection. Different species of captive penguins, when housed communally, intermingle more than in their natural habitat. Wild penguins typically divide themselves into separate colonies by species. We predicted that penguins would synchronize their behaviour more with conspecifics rather than interspecifically in a mixed-species zoo exhibit. The subjects were 65 penguins of two different species, chinstrap (Pygoscelis antarctica) and gentoo (Pygoscelis papua) in the Central Park Zoo, New York, NY, USA. Using instantaneous scan sampling, 359 video scans were taken over 10 days. Scans were analysed for nine different categories of behaviour for both species. Intra-species synchrony scores were calculated using the Kappa coefficient of agreement, and inter-species synchrony was measured by computing cross-correlations. As predicted, overall synchrony was significantly greater within both species of penguins than for randomly aggregated data representing mixed groups. There was also significantly less synchrony between species than between randomly mixed data for six of the nine behaviour categories. The pattern of results indicates that the penguins had organized by behaviour into separate species-specific colonies within the enclosure. They maintained species separation through behavioural synchrony despite the restrictions imposed by captivity.

Behavioural synchrony in two species of communally housed captive penguins

in Behaviour



AckermanC. (1996). Nesting preferences of gentoo and chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Wildlife Center New York. — Draft copy Central Park Wildlife Center New York NY.

AckermanC. (1997). Nest-site preferences, pair-fidelity and site-fidelity in gentoo and chinstrap penguins. — Int. Zoo News 44: 327-333.

AsherL.CollinsL. (2012). Assessing synchrony in groups: are you measuring what you think you are measuring?Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 138: 162-169.

AZA (2005). Penguin taxon advisory group penguin husbandry manual3rd edn. — Available online at:

BostC.JouventinP. (1990). Evolutionary ecology of gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua). — In: Penguin biology ( DavisL.S.DarbyJ.T. eds). Academic PressNew York, NY p.  85-108.

BjørnstadO.ImsR.LambinX. (1999). Spatial population dynamics: analyzing patterns and processes of population synchrony. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 427-432.

ClaytonD.A. (1978). Socially facilitated behavior. — Q. Rev. Biol. 53: 373-392.

ClubbR.MasonG. (2003). Animal welfare: captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores. — Nature 425: 473-474 DOI:10.1038/425473a.

CockremJ.F. (1990). Circadian rhythms in Antarctic penguins. — In: Penguin biology ( DavisL.S.DarbyJ.T. eds). Academic PressNew York, NY. p.  319-339.

DanielT.A.ChiaradiaA.LoganM.QuinnG.P.ReinaR.D. (2007). Synchronized group association in little penguins (Eudyptula minor). — Anim. Behav. 74: 1241-1248.

Del HoyoJ.ElliottA.SargatalJ. (eds) (1997). Handbook of the birds of the worldVol. 1: ostrich to ducks. — Lynx EdicionsBarcelona.

DowS.EngelJ.MitchellH. (2006). Autocorrelation, temporal independence, and sampling regimen. — In: Zoo research guidelines: statistics for typical zoo datasets ( PlowmanA. ed.). BiazaLondon.

EdgingtonE.S.OnghenaP. (2007). Randomization tests4th edn.Chapman & HallLondon.

EngelJ.LamprechtJ. (1997). Doing what everybody else does? A procedure for investigating behavioural synchronization. — J. Theor. Biol. 185: 255-262.

FeldmanR.Magori-CohenR.GaliliG.SingerM.LouzounY. (2011). Mother and infant coordinate heart rhythms through episodes of interaction synchrony. — Inf. Behav. Dev. 34: 569-577.

FleissJ.L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. — Psychol. Bull. 76: 378-382.

ForcadaJ.TrathanP.N.ReidK.MurphyE.J.CroxallJ.P. (2006). Contrasting population changes in sympatric penguin species in association with climate warming. — Global Change Biol. 12: 411-423.

HamiltonW.D. (1971). Geometry for the selfish herd. — J. Theor. Biol. 31: 295-311.

HedigerH. (1950). Wild animals in captivity. — Butterworth PublicationsLondon.

KentJ.P.MurphyK.J. (2003). Synchronized egg laying in flocks of domestic geese (Anser anser). — Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 82: 219-228.

KokubunN.TakahashiA.MoriY.WatanabeS.ShinH. (2010). Comparison of diving behavior and foraging habitat use between chinstrap and gentoo penguins breeding in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica. — Mar. Biol. 157: 811-825.

Müller-SchwarzeD. (1984). The behavior of penguins: adapted to ice and tropics. — State University of New York PressAlbany, NY.

NuttallD.B. (2004). An animal-as-client (AAC) theory for zoo exhibit design. — Landscape Res. 29: 75-96.

RookA.J.PenningP.D. (1991). Synchronisation of eating, ruminating and idling activity by grazing sheep. — Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 32: 157-166.

RowellT.E. (1967). A quantitative comparison of the behaviour of a wild and caged baboon group. — Anim. Behav. 15: 499-509.

RuckstuhlK.E. (1999). To synchronise or not to synchronise: a dilemma for young bighorn males?Behaviour 136: 805-818.

ScottJ.P. (1948). Dominance and the frustration–aggression hypothesis. — Physiol. Zool. 21: 31-39.

SiegelS.CastellanN.J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. — McGraw-HillNew York, NY.

SiegfriedW.R.FrostP.G.H.KinahanJ.B.CooperJ. (1975). Social behavior of Jackass penguins at sea. — Zool. Afr. 10: 87-100.

StaddonJ.E.R.SimmelhagV.L. (1971). The “superstition” experiment: a reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior. — Psychol. Rev. 78: 3-43.

SzekelyT.SozouP.D.HoustonA.I. (1991). Flocking behavior of passerines: a dynamic model for the non-reproductive season. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28: 203-213.

TimberlakeW.LucasG.A. (1985). The basis of superstitious behavior: chance contingency, stimulus substitution, or appetitive behavior?J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 44: 279-299.

TrivelpieceW.Z.BengtsonJ.L.TrivelpieceS.G.VolkmanN.J. (1986). Foraging behavior of gentoo and chinstrap penguins as determined by new radiotelemetry techniques. — Auk 103: 777-781.

VolkmanN.J.TrivelpieceW. (1981). Nest-site selection among Adelie, Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins in mixed species rookeries. — Wilson Bull. 93: 243-248.

WagnerR.H.DanchinE. (2003). Conspecific copying: a general mechanism of social aggregation. — Anim. Behav. 65: 405-408.

WalkerD.CarmeliC.Perez-BarberiaF.SmallM.Perez-FernandezM. (2010). Inferring networks from multivariate symbolic time series to unravel behavioural interactions among animals. — Anim. Behav. 79: 351-359.

WebsterA.B.HurnikJ.F. (1994). Synchronization of behavior among laying hens in battery cages. — Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 40: 153-165.

WilliamsT.D. (1995). Bird families of the world: the penguins (Spheniscidae). — Oxford University PressOxford.

WilsonR.P.WilsonM.T.McQuaidL. (1986). Group size in foraging African penguins (Spheniscus demersus). — Ethology 72: 338-341.


  • View in gallery

    Average proportion of birds engaged in each behaviour for chinstrap (N=26.18), gentoo (N=17.50) and combined (N=43.68)+SE, 359 scans.


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 30 30 6
Full Text Views 47 47 16
PDF Downloads 5 5 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0