Cognitive bias testing measures how emotional states can affect cognitive processes, often described using the “glass half-full/half-empty” paradigm. Classical or operant conditioning is used to measure responses to ambiguous cues, and it has been reported across many species and contexts that an animal’s cognitive bias can be directly linked to welfare state, e.g., those in better welfare make more optimistic judgements. Cognitive bias testing has only recently been applied to animals and represents a key milestone in welfare science: it is currently one of the only accurate methods available to measure welfare. The tests have been conducted on many farm, laboratory, and companion animal species, but have only been carried out in zoo settings a handful of times. The aims of this review are to evaluate the feasibility of cognitive bias testing in zoos and its potential as a tool for studying zoo animal welfare. The few existing zoo cognitive bias studies are reviewed, as well as those conducted on similar, non-domesticated species. This work is then used to discuss how tests could be successfully designed and executed in zoo settings, which types of tests are most appropriate in different contexts, and how the data could be used to improve animal welfare. The review closely examines the many variables are present in the zoo which cannot be controlled as in other settings, termed here the Zoo Environment (ZE) Variables. It is recommended that tests are developed after consideration of each of the ZE Variables, and through strong collaboration between zookeepers, managers, and academic institutions. There is much unexplored potential of cognitive bias testing in the zoo setting, not least its use in investigating animal welfare in zoos. It is hoped that this review will stimulate increased interest in this topic from zoo managers, scientists, and industry regulators alike.

Welfare science has built its foundations on veterinary medicine and thus measures of health. Since bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) tend to mask symptoms of poor health, management in captivity would benefit from advanced understanding on the links between health and behavioural parameters, and few studies exist on the topic. In this study, four representative behavioural and health measures were chosen: health status (as qualified by veterinarians), percentage of daily food eaten, occurrences of new rake marks (proxy measure of social activity), and willingness to participate (WtP) in Positive Reinforcement Training sessions as qualitatively measured by their caretakers. These data were collected multiple times a day, every day over the course of a year from a multi-facility, large sample size (n_dolphins = 51), allowing powerful analyses of the relationships between measures. First, it was found that dolphins with a higher WtP score also had a significantly better health status, ate a higher percentage of their daily food, and a lower occurrence of new rake marks. In addition, the WtP score was significantly lower up to 3 days before the weekly veterinary diagnosis of a decrease in health state; the percentage of daily food eaten and new rake mark measures did not show any significant change before such a diagnosis. These results suggest that WtP in training sessions is a potential behavioural measure of dolphin welfare, and an indicator of early changes in the dolphins’ health state. We therefore suggest measurement of WtP as a more practical and non-invasive tool to support veterinary care and general management. More work needs to be conducted to elucidate the influence of social behaviour on health, and to identify other potential welfare indicators, but this long-term study has shown that qualitative measures can be both practical and valid when assessing dolphin welfare.

An intense public debate has fuelled governmental bans on marine mammals held in zoological institutions. The debate rests on the assumption that survival in zoological institutions has been and remains lower than in the wild, albeit the scientific evidence in support of this notion is equivocal. Here, we used statistical methods previously applied to assess historical improvements in human lifespan and data on 8864 individuals of four marine mammal species (harbour seal, Phoca vitulina ; California sea lion, Zalophus californianus ; polar bear, Ursus maritimus ; common bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus ) held in zoos from 1829 to 2020. We found that life expectancy increased up to 3.40 times, and first-year mortality declined up to 31%, during the last century in zoos. Moreover, the life expectancy of animals in zoos is currently 1.65–3.55 times longer than their wild counterparts. Like humans, these improvements have occurred concurrently with advances in management practices, crucial for population welfare. Science-based decisions will help effective legislative changes and ensure better implementation of animal care.

Ensuring high standards of animal welfare is not only an ethical duty for zoos and aquariums, but it is also essential to achieve their conservation, education, and research goals. While for some species, animal welfare assessment frameworks are already in place, little has been done for marine animals under human care. Responding to this demand, the welfare committee of the European Association for Aquatic Mammals (EAAM) set up a group of experts on welfare science, cetacean biology, and zoo animal medicine across Europe. Their objective was to develop a comprehensive tool to evaluate the welfare of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), named Dolphin-WET. The tool encompasses 49 indicators that were either validated through peer review or management-based expertise. The first of its kind, the Dolphin-WET is a species-specific welfare assessment tool that provides a holistic approach to evaluating dolphin welfare. Inspired by Mellor’s Five Domains Model and the Welfare Quality^®, its hierarchical structure allows for detailed assessments from overall welfare down to specific indicators. Through combining 37 animal-based and 12 resource-based indicators that are evaluated based on a two- or three-level scoring, the protocol offers a detailed evaluation of individual dolphins. This approach allows for regular internal monitoring and targeted welfare management, enabling caretakers to address specific welfare concerns effectively.

Bottlenose dolphins are the most common cetacean kept globally in zoos and aquaria (hereafter zoos), and are gregarious animals with a mostly opportunistic, generalist feeding strategy in the wild. In zoos, they have limited to no opportunities to express natural foraging behaviours as they receive their daily food ration of dead fish in a series of training sessions. Enrichment provision has increased in recent years, but items are still predominantly simple and floating in nature, and do not always target the animals’ problem-solving or food-acquisition behaviours. These discrepancies run concurrently with the intense debate about dolphin welfare in zoos and how to improve it. The current study used a within-subject design on 11 bottlenose dolphins at Kolmårdens Djurpark and measured how several welfare indicators differed between two treatments of “cognitive” and “non-cognitive” food-based enrichment. The treatments were provided on an alternating basis for eight consecutive weeks: during cognitive enrichment weeks, the animals received items which stimulated their problem-solving and foraging behaviours, and during non-cognitive enrichment weeks, they received simple items paired with fish (to eliminate bias due to food value). Data were taken related to several multidisciplinary welfare parameters during enrichment provision and training sessions, and to activity budget behaviours throughout the week. During the cognitive as opposed to non-cognitive enrichment weeks, the dolphins engaged more with the enrichment, were more motivated to participate in training sessions and performed less anticipatory and stereotypic behaviours, suggesting that cognitive enrichment improved several indicators of bottlenose dolphin welfare. Valuable lines of further investigation would be to understand how individual differences and different types of cognitive enrichment impact potential welfare benefits. Our results suggest that enrichment items promoting cognitive foraging behaviours may improve dolphin welfare, and therefore zoos might prioritise giving cognitive enrichment to this species as well as considering the same for other species with similar cognitive skills and foraging ecologies.