To promote collaboration across canine science, address replicability issues, and advance open science practices within animal cognition, we have launched the ManyDogs consortium, modeled on similar ManyX projects in other fields. We aimed to create a collaborative network that (a) uses large, diverse samples to investigate and replicate findings, (b) promotes open science practices of pre-registering hypotheses, methods, and analysis plans, (c) investigates the influence of differences across populations and breeds, and (d) examines how different research methods and testing environments influence the robustness of results. Our first study combines a phenomenon that appears to be highly reliable—dogs’ ability to follow human pointing—with a question that remains controversial: do dogs interpret pointing as a social communicative gesture or as a simple associative cue? We collected data (N = 455) from 20 research sites on two conditions of a 2-alternative object choice task: (1) Ostensive (pointing to a baited cup after making eye-contact and saying the dog’s name); (2) Non-ostensive (pointing without eye-contact, after a throat-clearing auditory control cue). Comparing performance between conditions, while both were significantly above chance, there was no significant difference in dogs’ responses. This result was consistent across sites. Further, we found that dogs followed contralateral, momentary pointing at lower rates than has been reported in prior research, suggesting that there are limits to the robustness of point-following behavior: not all pointing styles are equally likely to elicit a response. Together, these findings underscore the important role of procedural details in study design and the broader need for replication studies in canine science.

Enrichment has become a key aspect of captive husbandry practices as a means of improving animal welfare by increasing environmental stimuli. However, the enrichment methods that are most effective varies both between and within species, and thus evaluation underpins successful enrichment programs. Enrichment methods are typically based upon previously reported successes and those primarily with mammals, with one of the main goals of enrichment research being to facilitate predictions about which methods may be most effective for a particular species. Yet, despite growing evidence that enrichment is beneficial for reptiles, there is limited research on enrichment for Varanidae, a group of lizards known as monitor lizards. As a result, it can be difficult for keepers to implement effective enrichment programs as time is a large limiting factor. In order for appropriate and novel enrichment methods to be created, it is necessary to understand a species’ natural ecology, abilities, and how they perceive the world around them. This is more difficult for non-mammalian species as the human-centered lens can be a hinderance, and thus reptile enrichment research is slow and lagging behind that of higher vertebrates. This review discusses the physiological, cognitive, and behavioral abilities of Varanidae to suggest enrichment methods that may be most effective.

Zoo enclosure design, and housing and husbandry protocols, will always be a compromise between what a species has evolved to do and what is possible to offer in a human-created environment. For some species, behaviours that are commonly performed in the wild may be constrained by husbandry practices that are used for ease or aesthetics or are accepted conventions. As zoos place more emphasis on positive animal welfare states, zoo enclosures should be scrutinised to check that what is provided, in terms of useful space, appropriate replication of habitat features, and maximal potential for natural behaviour performance, is relevant to the species and individuals being housed. For some species, zoos need to grapple with tough questions where the answer may not seem immediately obvious to ensure they are continuously improving standards of care, opportunities for the performance of species-typical behaviours, and advancing the attainment of positive welfare states. Determining the importance of flight, for example, and what this behaviour adds to the quality of life of a zoo-housed bird, is an important question that needs addressing to truly advance aviculture and how we determine bird welfare. This paper provides questions that should be answered and poses measures of what flight means to a bird, to provide evidence for the development and evolution of zoo bird housing. If we can devise some way of asking the animals in our care what they need, we can more firmly support decisions made that surround enclosure design, and housing decisions. Ultimately, this means gathering evidence on whether birds like to fly (e.g., from birds in training or demonstration activities) by applying mixed methods approaches of behavioural analysis, data on wild ecology, qualitative behavioural assessment, and cognitive bias testing to develop a robust suite of tools to address avian welfare considerations. Avian welfare scientists should attempt to define what meaningful flight is (i.e., flight that truly suggests a bird is flying) in order to support guidelines on aviary dimensions, space allowance, and welfare outputs from birds in both flighted and flight-restricted populations, and to determine what is most appropriate for an individual species. Changing the term “best practice” husbandry guidelines to “better practice” husbandry guidelines would instil the importance of regular review and reassessment of housing and management suitability for a species to ensure such care regimes remain appropriate. With an increasingly welfare-savvy public visiting zoos, it is essential that we seek more evidence to support and justify how birds are kept and ultimately use such evidence to enact changes to practices that are shown to infringe on avian welfare.