PCN Vol 18; No 1aviansag.org/Newsletters/Penguin_TAG/PCN Vol 18; No 1.pdf · hibit, Penguins Rock! This exhibit has the largest outdoor penguin pool in Europe and is home to over

Penguin Conservation

The Penguin TAG Newsletter Volume 18; Number 1 March 2014

In This Issue

From the Editors Page 1

The Crested Penguin Eye Study Page 2

IPC8 Review Page 6

Dr. Bernard Stonehouse Receives Lifetime Achievement Award Page 7

Fibrinogen in Birds Page 7

The Edinburgh Zoo: 100 Years of Penguins Page 8

Penguins Rock! Today Page 12

African Penguin Growth Data Page 15

The Activities of Penguin Fund Japan Page 17

Spreading the Penguin Love Page 18

The Demography is in the Details: Life tables for ten species of zoo penguins Page 20

African Penguin Chicks Admitted to SANCCOB Page 25

Penguin Listserv Summaries Page 26

News and Updates Page 30

Recommended References Page 32

Events and Announcements Page 33

Penguin Conservation is supported by the Penguin TAG and published electronically

bi-annually. For subscription, article submission, and all other inquires contact the editors.

Editors: Linda Henry, [email protected]

Jessica Jozwiak, [email protected]

Archived issues are available on the Penguin TAG website: www.zoopenguins.org

Visit us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/PenguinTAG

From the Editors

In this issue Detroit Zoo veterinarian, Dr. Sarah Woodhouse, describes her collaboration with veterinary oph-

thalmologists, Susette Aquino and Cassandra Bliss, to determine parameters for studying macaroni and rock-

hopper penguin eyes. The data from this provided methods and reference values for determining eye health

for these species.

In 100 Years of Penguins at the Edinburgh Zoo, Animal Registrar, Jo Elliot, provides the rich and interesting

history of Edinburgh Zoo’s penguins, which have delighted zoo patrons for 100 years. The zoo is well-known

for its Penguin Parade which it has been conducting since 1951.

Prior to attending IPC8, Linda visited the Edinburgh Zoo and provides a perspective of the zoo’s penguin ex-

hibit, Penguins Rock! This exhibit has the largest outdoor penguin pool in Europe and is home to over one-

hundred penguins of three species.

Chris Felts shares how he and his colleagues at Adventure Aquarium tracked the growth rate for sixteen of

their African penguin chicks. The analyzed data will be used to set-up their breeding program and maximize

future egg production for this species.

Colleen Lynch, along with fellow population biologists at AZA’s Population Management Center, has provided

demographic analyses for several penguin species over the years. This valuable information is used by AZA

Species Survival Plan (SSP) managers to make breeding recommendations for their particular species. In-

cluded in this issue are the life tables for ten species of zoo penguins which are reprinted here from a poster

Coleen presented at IPC8.

In Spreading the Penguin Love, two friends share their passion for penguins which began by viewing Sea-

World’s Penguin Cam. This in turn inspired them to start a Penguin Club and culminated with a special, be-

hind-the-scenes visit to SeaWorld San Diego’s Penguin Encounter. They exemplify the positive impact zoos

and aquariums can make by providing these unique experiences. Francois Louw describes SANCCOB’s Chick Bolstering Project efforts for 2013. This program continues to be a

successful conservation intervention that helps support the wild population of endangered African penguins.

We also include four penguin Listserv summaries. It is our hope that these will be a useful tool for penguin

managers. Look for more summaries in future issues.

We thank all those who have contributed to this issue including Dr. Sarah Woodhouse (Detroit Zoo), Jo Elliott

(Edinburgh Zoo), Colleen Lynch (Riverbanks Zoo), Chris Felts (Adventure Aquarium), Noriko Suzuki (Penguin

Fund Japan), Francois Louw (SANCCOB), Christine Fiorello (OWCN), Rachel Anderson and Rachel Johns. A spe-

cial thanks to Edinburgh Zoo staff for hosting a behind-the-scenes tour of their penguin exhibit. We congratu-

late the IPC8 steering committee for organizing another outstanding penguin conference. We sincerely

thank the PTAG steering committee for supporting our IPC8 registration costs.

And finally, don’t forget to LIKE us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/PenguinTAG.

Penguin Conservation Volume 18; Number 1 March 2014 Page 1

Penguin TAG Steering Committee

Chair: Tom Schneider (Detroit Zoo)

Vice Chair: Heather Urquhart (New England Aquarium)

Secretary: Gayle Sirpenski (Mystic Aquarium)

Members: Sherry Branch (SeaWorld of Orlando), Ed Diebold

(Riverbanks Zoo and Garden), Steve Sarro (Smithsonian National

Zoological Park), Ric Urban (Newport Aquarium), Susan Cardillo

(Central Park Zoo), Mary Jo Willis (Denver Zoo),

Stephanie Huettner (Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo), Diane Olsen

(Aquarium at Moody Gardens), Cheryl Dykstra (John Ball Zoo),

Mike Macek (St. Louis Zoo), Lauren DuBois (SeaWorld San Diego),

Alex Waier (Milwaukee County Zoo)

Penguin TAG Mission: To provide leadership for the management

of penguins ex situ in order to maintain healthy, sustainable populations

for the purpose of:

♦ Engendering appreciation for these charismatic species that are

indicators of the health of marine and coastal environments.

♦ Promoting conservation concern and conservation action through

education programs and internet resources.

♦ Furthering in situ conservation and research in support of ex situ

management.

Penguin TAG Website: www.zoopenguins.org

Penguin TAG on Facebook: www.facebook.com/PenguinTAG

The Crested Penguin Eye Study Sarah Woodhouse, DVM, Veterinarian, Detroit Zoological Society, 8450 W. 10 Mile Road, Royal Oak, MI 48067;

Cassandra D. Bliss, DVM, Dipl. ACVO, Michigan Veterinary Specialists, Blue Pearl Veterinary Partners Hospital, 1425

Michigan St NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49503; Susette Aquino, DVM, Dipl. ACVO, Michigan Veterinary Specialists, Blue Pearl

Veterinary Partners Hospital, 29080 Inkster Rd, Southfield, MI 48033.

WHY STUDY PENGUIN EYES?

With 67 penguins under our care at the Detroit Zoological Society, we frequently encounter the ‘squinting’

and ‘tearing’ penguin. Often, the penguin has simply been on the losing end of a nesting dispute and recov-

ers quickly after a few days of anti-inflammatory eye

drops. However, when our penguins don’t respond to ini-

tial treatments, we enlist the help of veterinary specialists.

Dr. Cassandra Bliss and Dr. Susette Aquino are veterinary

ophthalmology specialists, board certified by the American

College of Veterinary Ophthalmology (ACVO), who gra-

ciously donate their time and expertise to provide eye

care for our penguins. Their typical patients, however, are

not feathered, and while the subjective assessment of

eyes has many similarities across species, there are also

important differences. Like any medical specialty, veteri-

nary ophthalmology has its own set of diagnostic tests that

allow the veterinarian to determine the health of an eye

objectively. In common domestic animal species such as

dogs and horses, reference values for these tests are well

defined and easily referenced, allowing for an objective determination of ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’. But how

can this decision be made if there are no references? Two published articles have evaluated ophthalmologic

diagnostic tests in temperate penguins (Mercado et al. 2010, Swinger et al. 2009), but there are no reference

values for any of these tests in crested penguins, making it difficult for us and our ophthalmologists to thor-

oughly evaluate our penguins’ eyes. So, we embarked upon this study to gain a better understanding of our

own penguins’ eyes and by publishing our results, to help others who care for penguin eyes as well.

HOW THE STUDY WAS DONE

Each penguin received a complete eye exam, consisting of diffuse and slit-beam

biomicroscopy and indirect ophthalmoscopy (Figure 1), two tear production tests,

measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) with two different instruments, and ul-

trasound of each eye. Two stations were set up with one ophthalmologist and one

penguin staff person at each. At the first station, the eye exam, both tear tests, and

IOP measurement with one of the instruments were performed. Eye drops were

placed in the eyes to anesthetize the cornea, and the penguin was moved to the

next station, where the second IOP measurement and eye ultrasound were per-

formed. Penguins were restrained in ventral recumbency on the handler’s lap with

legs extended (Figure 2). It was important that each penguin was restrained in ex-

actly the same way because IOP is known to be affected by head position in many

species, including dogs, horses, and humans.

The examined population included 25 Macaroni penguins (Eudyptes chrysolophus),

15 Southern Rockhopper penguins (Eudyptes chrysocome), and 1 Eastern Rockhop-

per penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome filholi). The mean age of the Macaronis was

15.8 years, and the mean age of the Rockhoppers was 23.2 years. (Continued on Page 3)


Figure 1. Ophthalmologist Dr. Susette Aquino examines the eye

using a slit lamp. Sarah Woodhouse

Figure 2. DZS penguin keeper

Lindsay Ireland demonstrating

the restraint technique used

during the eye exams. Susette

Aquino


(Continued from Page 2)

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Cataracts, cataracts, cataracts

The most interesting and startling finding of our study was that 64% of our

Macaroni penguins and 68% of our Rockhopper penguins had cataracts (Figure

3). Most of the penguins had bilateral cataracts, but a few penguins had a cata-

ract in only one eye. Although there was a correlation between the presence of

cataracts and increasing age in both species, Macaroni penguins became af-

fected at a substantially younger age than Rockhopper penguins, with all Maca-

ronis over the age of 8.5 years having at least a unilateral cataract and all over

10.5 years having bilateral cataracts. In contrast, all Rockhoppers over the age

of 22.5 years showed at least one cataract, while all Rockhoppers were affected

bilaterally by 30 years of age.

Another important finding was that only those penguins that had cataracts

showed any evidence of ocular inflammation. Specifically, 63% of penguins with

cataracts showed evidence of active or previous eye inflammation. This is evi-

dence that penguins, like domestic animals, could be susceptible to lens-induced

uveitis, an inflammation in the eye that is a result of changes in the lens. Lens-

induced uveitis is a painful condition that can result in clinical signs of squinting

and tearing.

Intraocular pressure (IOP)

IOP was measured using two different instruments: the Tono-vet (Jorgensen Laboratories Inc., Loveland, CO,

USA) and the Tonopen XL (Reichert Technologies, Depew, NY, USA) (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The two instru-

ments measure eye pressure by completely different methods, and the

Tonopen requires that the corneal surface be anesthetized with an eye drop

prior to use. Because they work differently, it is not surprising that they gave

different results (Table 1). Our results were similar to those seen in the tem-

perate penguin studies (Mercado et al. 2010, Swinger et al. 2009) and cor-

roborate their findings that penguins generally have substantially higher IOP

than domestic animals.

In domestic animals with ocular inflammation, intraocular pressure is often

decreased. In our study, Macaroni penguins with cataracts showed a signifi-

cantly lower IOP than those unaffected by cataracts (Table 2), supporting the

hypothesis that penguins are subject to lens-induced uveitis. Although this

difference was not statistically significant in Rockhoppers, this was thought to

be related to the smaller sample size and substantially older average age of

the Rockhopper population, which underrepresented contrasting age groups

for statistical comparisons.

Tear production tests

Two tests that measure tear production were performed. The Schirmer tear test (STT) involves placing a

small test strip with ruler measurements on the cornea beneath the lower eyelid (Figure 6). The strip remains

in place for one minute, and the amount of wetting by tears is recorded as mm/min (Table 1). In the Phenol

red thread test (PTT), a yellow colored thread is placed in the tear film on the cornea (Figure 7). The thread

turns from yellow to red as it absorbs tears. After 15 seconds, the thread is removed and the length of the

red coloration is recorded as mm/15 sec (Table 1). There was no significant difference in tear production be-

tween penguins with and without cataracts. (Continued on Page 4)

Figure 3. The left eye of a Macaroni

penguin demonstrating a hyperma-

ture cataract and reddening of the

iris. Susette Aquino

Figure 4. Measurement of IOP with the

Tono-vet instrument. Sarah Woodhouse



Eye ultrasound

Ultrasound was performed after topical anesthesia of the cornea by placing the ultrasound probe on the cor-

nea parallel to the penguin’s beak. One image was saved from each eye that showed a transverse section of

the eye from the cornea to the retina. Standard measurements were taken from each segment of the eye.

Normal distances within the eyeball were established for both species. Our most interesting finding was that

males have bigger eyes than females in both species.

PRACTICAL LESSONS LEARNED

1) In our experience, the Tono-vet was easier to use with penguins for several reasons. First, no topical eye

anesthetic is necessary. Second, penguins seemed to tolerate it better, with most showing no actual reaction

to the measurement. Finally, it was more ‘forgiving’ for use with the moving target that is a penguin eye.

2) IOP measurements obtained with the Tono-vet should not be compared with those produced by the

Tonopen XL. For true comparisons of IOP between individual penguins and of serial IOP measurements in the

same penguin, the same instrument must be used.

3) Consider enlisting a veterinary ophthalmologist to perform annual or bienneial exams on your penguins:

while late-stage cataracts (called hypermature) are easy for anyone to see, earlier-stage, smaller cataracts are

often not visible without an ophthalmologist’s tools.

4) Tear testing in penguins is impractical. This was by far the most challenging part of the study for the re-

searchers and the most stressful test for the penguins. It is not recommended as a routine test in penguins

and should only be performed if lack of tear production is strongly suspected to be a problem in an individual.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Because of the unexpectedly high incidence of cataracts in our penguin population, we concluded that fur-

ther study of this issue in penguins is necessary. We are currently in the midst of a penguin cataract study

that involves Macaroni and Rockhopper populations at eight different zoos and aquaria across North Amer-

ica. Our goals are to determine the incidence of cataracts in penguin populations at other institutions, to fur-

ther examine the possible association between penguin cataracts, eye inflammation, and decreased IOP, and (Continued on Page 5)

Macaroni without cataracts Macaroni with cataracts

IOP with Tono-vet 31.6 ± 6.9 mmHg 27.5 ± 6.88 mmHg

IOP with Tonopen XL 24.1 ± 7.5 mmHg 20.4 ± 6.42 mmHg

Macaroni Penguin Rockhopper Penguin

Schirmer tear test (STT) 12.1 ± 5.43 mm/min 11.0 ± 3.96 mm/min

Phenol thread tear test (PTT) 24.7 ± 6.37 mm/15 sec 25.1 ± 7.07 mm/15 sec

IOP with Tono-vet 29.1 ± 7.16 mmHg 24.1 ± 5.09 mmHg

IOP with Tonopen XL 21.9 ± 7.05 mmHg 20.0 ± 5.77 mmHg

Table 1. Mean and standard deviation results for two tear production tests and intraocular pressure measured with two

different instruments in 25 Macaroni and 16 Rockhopper penguins.

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation results for intraocular pressure measured with two different instruments in Maca-

roni penguins with and without cataracts.



to increase our sample size for determination of an accurate reference range for IOP in normal penguin eyes.

Most importantly, we are investigating several possible risk factors for cataracts in penguins. Thus far, we

have examined 250 penguins across North America: Thank you immensely to all of you who are participating

in the study! Our data is currently undergoing statistical analysis. We will be drawing conclusions within the

next few months, and a publication will be forthcoming. The ultimate goal of our research is to provide rec-

ommendations for prevention of cataracts in penguins.

The article above includes information from a published article. Full citation is as follows:

Bliss CD, Aquino S, and S Woodhouse. 2013. Ocular findings and reference values for selected ophthalmic diagnostic

tests in the Macaroni penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus) and Southern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome). Vet-

erinary Ophthalmology. doi: 10.1111/vop.12123.

An electronic copy of the article can be obtained by contacting the primary author ([email protected]).

Mercado JA, Wirtu G, Beaufrère H, and D Lydick. 2010. Intraocular pressure in captive Black-footed penguins (Spheniscus

demersus) measured by rebound tonometry. Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 24(2):138-41.

Swinger RL, Langan JN, and R Hamor. 2009. Ocular bacterial flora, tear production, and intraocular pressure in a captive

flock of Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 40(3):430-6.

Figure 5. Ophthalmologist Dr. Cassandra Bliss measures IOP

using the Tonopen XL instrument. Sarah Woodhouse

Figure 6. Tear production measurement using the Schirmer tear

test. Cassandra Bliss

Figure 7. Tear production measure-

ment using the Phenol red thread

test. Cassandra Bliss

Figure 8. Ultrasound machine acts as penguin enrichment!

Sarah Woodhouse

IPC8 Review Jessica Jozwiak, Editor, PCN

The University of Bristol and Bristol Zoo Gardens co-hosted

the 8th International Penguin Conference (IPC8) in Bristol,

UK between 2 and 6 September 2013. This was the first

time the conference was held in Europe and the second

time in the Northern Hemisphere. This eighth meeting was

attended by over 200 scientists, conservationists, and zoo

and aquarium professionals from 30 countries who shared

their latest research and knowledge. The program in-

cluded over 60 oral presentations and over 100 posters on

topics ranging from conservation, foraging ecology, demo-

graphics, paleontology, husbandry, and the effects of

climate change. The program also included specialized

workshops on crested penguins, tools needed to identify

ecologically and biologically significant marine areas, pen-

guin conservation initiatives, and penguin bycatch.

The Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS) held an International

Penguin Careers Workshop prior to the conference. The 2-day workshop pro-

vided career development and network opportunities for those interested in

penguin science and education.

Two public events were also held: “Penguins on Film” included a panel of ex-

perts who discussed their experiences working with penguins; two films were

also screened and discussed. The second event provided an opportunity to

meet scientists and conservationists who work with African penguins in South

Africa and Namibia.

The Bristol Zoo Gardens hosted an evening dinner and social event. Attendees

were able to tour the grounds and view African penguins in the Seal and Pen-

guin Coast exhibit. This naturalistic exhibit allows close-up viewing of penguins

both above-water and underwater.

Among the wide range of topics there was a prevalent theme: With

the southern ocean changing, and a continued population decline for

several species of penguins, the need for conservation-based research

and effective biological data collection is more important than ever.

Zoos and aquariums can play an important role by providing funding

and field support, and by raising public awareness. They are uniquely

poised to foster passion for penguins and their ecosystem through

educational and close-contact programs. And they can also test equip-

ment, such as data loggers, identifiers, and nest boxes, in a controlled

environment, to ensure they are used effectively with wild

penguins.

Congratulations to Peter Barham, Organizing Committee Chair, the

International Organizing Committee, and Local Organizers for coordi-

nating a very successful IPC8. Locations have been selected for the next two penguin conferences: IPC9 will

be held in South Africa in 2016 and IPC10 will be held in New Zealand in 2019.


Dr. Dee Boersma (Univ. of Washington) speaks in the main lecture

hall. Linda Henry

Dr. Romain Pizzi (Edinburgh Zoo) presents

a poster on Minimally invasive endoscopy

in penguins. Linda Henry

AZA delegates (from left) Gayle Sirpenski (Mystic Aquar-

ium), Steve Sarro (Smithsonian National Zoological Park)

and Lauren DuBois (SeaWorld San Diego).

Linda Henry

Dr. Bernard Stonehouse Receives Lifetime Achievement Award

Dr. Bernard Stonehouse is generally credited as the true father of penguin biol-

ogy; so much so that he is commemorated in the names of Stonehouse Bay and

Mount Stonehouse in Antarctica. It is for this reason, and the breadth of his con-

tributions to penguin science, that Dr. Stonehouse was recognized by the Inter-

national Steering Committee of the International Penguin Conferences with a

Lifetime Achievement Award; the award was presented by Dr. Lloyd Davis

(University of Otago) during the International

Penguin Conference (IPC8) on 6 September

2013. Dr. Gerry Kooyman (Scripps Institute

of Oceanography) nominated Dr. Stonehouse

for the award to celebrate his achievements

in a lifetime of penguin research: Dr. Stone-

house was the first person to observe the full

breeding cycle of the emperor penguin,

spending an entire winter at an emperor pen-

guin colony. He was also the first person to fully document the breeding

cycle of the king penguin. The Penguin TAG congratulates Dr. Bernard

Stonehouse on his award and we sincerely thank him for his contributions

to penguin science. Photos courtesy of Linda Henry.

Fibrinogen in Birds Christine Fiorello, et al

The following is reprinted by permission from OWCN Annual Update 2013

Poster (preliminary results) presented at the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah,

September 2013

In 2013, the OWCN (http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/owcn) initiated a collaborative project at the Maryland

Zoo in Baltimore to study avian fibrinogen. We studied captive penguins to determine the most reliable

method of measuring fibrinogen, a protein in the blood that may indicate an underlying health problem. Our

interest in fibrinogen stems from a previous OWCN study on common murres that resulted in evidence that

elevated fibrinogen may correlate with post-release mortality. Knowing which birds are ready for release and

which birds require more care is perhaps the central question we face in rehabilitation. We learned from our

pilot study, partly supported by Abaxis, that we need special blood tubes and an experienced commercial

laboratory to accurately and reliably measure fibrinogen in birds. This work was presented as a poster at the

annual conference of the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians in September 2013, winning the best

poster award. [A electronic copy of this poster is available upon request from PCN.]

Now that we’ve determined how we are going to measure fibrinogen, we’re going to look at how useful it is

in indicating a problem. The penguins in Baltimore are managed in a unique way that facilitates the acquisi-

tion of natural immunity to avian malaria. Instead of daily prophylactic medication, they are monitored ex-

tremely closely and only given medication if they become ill. We will take advantage of this practice and

measure fibrinogen on all juvenile penguins weekly between April and October of 2014. As penguins become

ill – with any disease – we will continue to measure fibrinogen during their illness and recovery. This will pro-

vide us with a dataset that will hopefully explain the utility of fibrinogen measurements in identifying pen-

guins that are becoming sick, as well as indicating when the sick penguins have fully recovered.


Dr. Lloyd Davis presents lifetime achievement

award to Dr. Bernard Stonehouse at IPC8.

Dr. Bernard Stonehouse.

100 years of Penguins at the Edinburgh Zoo Jo Elliott, Animal Registrar, RZSS, EAZA Penguin TAG Vice-Chair

Last year, Edinburgh Zoo celebrated its 100th birthday. This January we join our kings, gentoos and northern

rockhoppers in celebrating 100 years of penguins at Edinburgh Zoo. We have a long-standing global reputa-

tion for our penguin collection, so just how did Edinburgh become ‘The Penguin Zoo’?

Lord Salvesen and the First Penguins at Edinburgh Zoo

Lord Edward Theodore Salvesen was the first president of the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland. In his

time he was a Queen’s Counsel, Sheriff, Solicitor General and Judge. He was also a son of Christian Salvesen,

who had founded the Christian Salvesen and Co. shipping line based in Leith, Scotland. Salvesen & Co. began

whaling in early 1900s, in northern waters, but in 1908 expanded to the Antarctic. The initial base on the

Falkland Islands was quickly abandoned in favour of South Georgia, at Leith Harbour (named after the Edin-

burgh docks where the Salvesen Company was based). The Salvesens whaled until the whaling boom waned

after WWII and they left the Antarctic after the 1963 season. The connection between our first RZSS Presi-

dent and his family business proved an invaluable asset to the fledgling Edinburgh Zoo.

In January 1914 the first of many penguins arrived courtesy of the Salvesen family. Six penguins, including

four king penguins, a gentoo and a macaroni (named as a ‘Rock-hopper’ at the time) disembarked at Leith

Docks, having travelled from South Georgia via Rotterdam on the Salvesen Whaling Corporation’s ship

Coronda. They were the first of their kind in the northern hemisphere. Their arrival was initially overshad-

owed by their shipmates, two elephant seals and a Weddell’s seal. The seals all died within 6 months or so,

as did the gentoo, macaroni and one of the kings. The remaining three kings, one adult and two juveniles still

in their brown coats, survived and thrived, forming the beginnings of the Edinburgh Zoo penguin colony.

They were initially known as A, B and C, in time becoming Andrew, Bertha and Caroline.

The first arrivals were initially housed in a duck pond but in 1915 a purpose built penguin enclosure was con-

structed at cost of £150. Edinburgh was then the only zoo in Europe, and maybe the world, to exhibit king

penguins .

A further five king penguins arrived on the Coronda in 1917. All five were young, in intermediate plumage.

Two were in poor health on arrival, but three proved to be in good condition. One of these was exchanged

with London Zoo. This first of many exchanges with other zoological institutions helped to establish the Edin-

burgh Zoo animal collection’s global reputation. The remaining two, Dora and Eric, joined the colony, making

five birds. No more kings arrived for a period of 10 years, but in the intervening period the adults began to

breed and history was made.

A World First

In 1915 the first evidence of courtship was seen, between Andrew and Caroline and in July

1918 the first egg was laid. About 2 weeks later it was seen to have cracked, and over the

following few days disintegrated. The rocky shelf the kings had chosen to incubate on was

covered in a thick layer of shingle for the following season, to help prevent breakages. An

egg was laid in July 1919, but remained unclaimed and quickly disappeared. By September

1919 the second egg of the season was seen in the care of Andrew and Caroline. The three

birds not associated with the egg were promptly removed from the enclosure to give the

pair the best possible chance but by the third morning Andrew started to become dis-

tressed, calling to the absent Bertha. Keepers returned the third bird and immediately

things settled down. Over the course of the incubation, the male was noted to be a very

steady parent, whilst the female was rather more cavalier in her care of the egg.

(Continued on Page 9)


First king penguin

hatches in 1919.


When the egg finally hatched on 24th October 1919, Bertha had to be removed again. We believe this hatch

represents the first ever hatch of a penguin of any species in captivity. As it turned out, presumptions about

king penguin parental responsibilities turned out to be incorrect, with the rather “frivolous, heartless and

careless” Andrew (TH Gillespie) turning out to be an ‘Ann’ and the solicitous Caroline a ‘Charles’. The chick

was known as ‘Baby’, a name which didn’t fall out of use even when more ‘babies’ arrived.

In 1924 two king chicks were reared, and a further chick was reared in 1927, how-

ever only one of these first four chicks survived beyond 6 years of age. Six new

kings arrived in 1927, and then in 1932 a much larger consignment of penguins

arrived: 16 kings, three gentoo and eight macaroni penguins, again all courtesy of

Messrs Salvesen and Co. In this year, a new penguin pool was constructed what is

still the current site for Edinburgh’s penguin enclosure.

In 1934 thirty-two chinstrap penguins were consigned; 30 arrived in excellent

health becoming the first ever to reach Britain alive. This is a remarkable achieve-

ment in itself given that voyages from South Georgia to Scotland took at least one

month, and the birds had to travel from sub-Antarctic climes through tropical waters and then return to our

temperate climate, and that the penguins required to be hand fed daily throughout the voyage. With their

arrival the zoo now housed 60 penguins of five species.

More World Firsts?

In 1935 the first macaroni penguin was hatched, we believe this to be a world first for the species. In 1937

the first gentoo was hatched and we believe this also to be a world first. This was followed some years later

by the hatching of a chinstrap penguin in 1952, again believed to be a world first.

Species Held

The Salvesens were extraordinary in their generosity and as well as the many king, gentoo, chinstrap and

macaroni penguins already described, they also in 1959 brought us nine Adelies. But we also brought in pen-

guins from other sources. We had a successful and separate African penguin colony for many years, and also

held Magellanic penguins. We have held both Southern and northern rockhoppers, and have held specimens

of Humboldt’s and little penguins. These days, we exhibit the kings and gentoos for which we are most fa-

mous, and the endangered Northern rockhopper.



Penguins arrive from Salvesens in 1959

Gentoo and twins.


Penguins at War

From a high of some 150 penguins, the outbreak of war had a disastrous impact on the penguin colony. Most

of the penguins died during World War II, largely as a result of difficulties in supplying a suitable diet during

war-time. Fresh fish immediately became difficult to obtain, eventually strips of horse-meat were used in

place of fish. The loss of their experienced keeper, and a succession of inexperienced staff was also a diffi-

culty. The last of the gentoos died from swallowing a school India-rubber early in 1946 and by spring that

year only a very small number of African penguins survived. The main penguin exhibit lay empty.

Again, the Salvesens came to the aid of Edinburgh Zoo when in May of 1947 they imported 81 birds of four

species. After landing at Liverpool, the birds were brought straight from the ship to the Zoo in a large furni-

ture van. Imports continued until 1963, and during that time, in total, the Salvesens donated over 800 pen-

guins to the Zoo. Gentoos arriving in this post-war era are the antecedents of a considerable proportion of

the global captive population today.

The World-famous Penguin Parade

In 1951 the world-famous penguin parade started. The story goes that the gate had

been inadvertently left open, and the penguins (led, of course, by the inquisitive gen-

toos) began to walk out. The keeper spotted this immediately, but rather than shepherd

them back in, decided to let them take a stroll. The penguins walked out of the gate,

down through the park, out of the front gate and along the pavement of the main road a

short way, before the keeper turned them around and took them back up to their enclo-

sure via a different route. The walk became an instant hit with penguins and visitors

alike. The penguin parade now is a rather more restricted affair, none of our penguins

make it out of the front gates, but they and our visitors continue to enjoy their daily

walk!

Home Improvements for our Penguins

From an inauspicious start in a shallow duck pond, the penguin exhibit has been steadily

improved and evolved to the penguins’ needs over the years. In 1932 the current site of the pool was first

developed for penguins and 4 years later a solid rock back wall was constructed, adjacent to the gentoo nest

site to give them some privacy. In 1956 the pool was resurfaced with concrete and guttering added to pre-

vent run off into the pool. A new water filter was also installed, provid-

ing considerably better hygiene, and three years later the kings nest site

was extended and the previously sandy gentoo nest site was concreted

over. In 1961 the Mabel Thompson

crèche was constructed alongside the

existing enclosure, making the wean-

ing of chicks onto hand-feeding con-

siderably more effective. At some

time during the 1960s the decision

was made to replace the turf nests of

the gentoos with moulded concrete rings filled with pebbles. These

changes, unsurprisingly perhaps, appear to mark the point in time where

gentoo breeding at Edinburgh really took off. In 1970 a large area of the

enclosure was resurfaced with granite, and the kings breeding area again

extended and levelled. In 1992 the exhibit underwent considerable remodelling, renovation and extension.

We believe the exhibit was the largest penguin facility in the world at the time, the



Penguins On Parade,

Empire Youth Annual

1951.

Gentoo penguin sand and turf nests.

Gentoo penguin concrete ring nests.


already extensive pool facilities were extended and deepened at this time, following the work the pool be-

came (and remains) 65m long and 3.5m at its deepest point. The filtration system was also completely re-

newed. In 2013 the enclosure was again renovated, to become Penguins Rock! Substantial investment were

made in the pool structure, state-of-the-art filtration systems and on the cosmetic appearance and public

interpretation of the exhibit.

Popular Penguins

HRH King George V and Queen Mary visited

the penguins in 1935. In 1955 the king pen-

guins paraded in Princes Street Gardens, in the

centre of Edinburgh and in 1960 twenty king

penguins visited the Royal Highland Show, just

up the road in Ingliston, to parade across the

main arena in the presence of HRH The Queen.

In 1983 the BBC filmed our penguins in the

Commonwealth Pool for their ‘World About

Us’ Series. The penguins also apparently

‘helped’ the Scottish Tourist Board open the

Sakura Club at the Royal Scots Hotel and ‘met’

the Birmingham Symphony orchestra at

Waverley. HRH The Princess Royal opened the

new exhibit in 1992.

Individual penguins have made their mark throughout their time at Edinburgh,

but we have two stand out superstars currently. Sir Nils Olav, the king penguin

repeatedly honoured by the Norwegian Royal Guard, culminating in his being

approved for an honourary knighthood by King Harald V of Norway in 2008.

Snowflake is a gentoo exhibiting an isabelline leucism mutation, giving him an

unmistakable silvery appearance. Snowflake was hatched at Edinburgh in

1996, and has a stand-out personality as well as a stand-out appearance.

Penguins for the Future

Edinburgh began flipper-tagging penguins in 1979, and we have good

records of individual birds and pedigrees from this time. In 1998

staff at Edinburgh Zoo started European studbooks for king and gen-

too penguins, and continue to manage them today. We have also

been active in the EAZA Penguin TAG since its inception. Today our

focus is on utilising our colony for conservation education, and on

continuing to improve captive management techniques to ensure

that many generations of visitors to come can continue to observe,

enjoy and fall in love with penguins, just as we have.

All photos courtesy of the Edinburgh Zoo. These and additional photos can

be viewed on the Penguin TAG Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/PenguinTAG.


King George V and Queen Mary watch the penguin parade in 1934.

Gentoo penguin “Snowflake”.

“King Nils” knighthood.

Penguins Rock! Today

Linda Henry, Editor, PCN

The Edinburgh Zoo (of the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, RZSS) has a rich history with penguins as de-

scribed by Jo Elliot in this issue.

Today, the Penguins Rock! exhibit is the largest exhibit at the zoo and has the largest outdoor penguin pool in

Europe. The exhibit is fronted by the Penguin Parade path that circles around a large grassy play area. The

Edinburgh Zoo is home to more than one-hundred penguins of three species: gentoo, Northern rockhopper

and king. The zoo is well known

for its Penguin Parade. The pa-

rade occurs daily at 2:15 PM

outside the Penguins Rock!

pool. Zoo visitors come from

every corner of the zoo well in

advance to line up for prime

viewing positions. An Educator

with the zoo narrates as the

penguins make their way

around the circle accompanied

by several penguin keepers.

Penguin participation in the pa-

rade is voluntary and penguins

will come to the door daily to take the walk. And only a few “Magic Moments” visitors are allowed to take the

walk with the penguins.

The Penguins Rock! exhibit is expansive covering a large foot-

print. A nice exhibit design feature is the Crèche which is an

area that is separate from the main exhibit but connected by a

gate. With the gate open any penguin can choose access to

the area but closing the gate allows temporary separation of

juvenile or geriatric birds while still maintaining visual and vo-

cal contact with colony. The visitor areas are large as well and

provide multiple vantage points from

which to observe the penguins as well

as an array of educational graphics and

interactive displays. Water filtration

statistics can be viewed on the glass

panels of the bridge, there are photo

opportunities with realistic penguin cut-

outs, and creative interpretive signs about nesting using sample nest rings as a frame.

A “Listen Up” interactive area allows visitors to understand the variety of penguin vo-

calizations. Interestingly, these vocals are within hearing distance of the penguins and

at first occasioned the king penguins to gather near the area whenever the chick

vocalizations were played.

The Edinburgh Zoo keepers and staff were very welcoming and freely shared the spectrum of their daily ac-

tivities from fish preparation to exhibit maintenance as well as molting and nesting information. Some of the

details can be found in the following table for easy reference. (Continued on Page 13)


View of exhibit from the Education balcony showing central bridge with exhibit areas to either side.

Stuart during the afternoon feeding.

“Listen Up” interactive.


Edinburgh Zoo Penguins Rock! details:


Feature Details Comments

Outdoor exhibit

Substrate Permeable concrete in nesting area. Has not worked out as well as they

had hoped. The concrete clogs eas-

ily with molted feathers, leaves and

fecal matter.

Aggregated rock in some in-shore

areas

Concrete

Pool Freshwater, 1.2 million liters

Depth 3.5 m At deepest point

65 m long

No skimmers

Waterfall feature

Sprinkler system Portable and used to cool the pen-

guins at the nesting area during

warmer days

There are also portable shade cov-

ers that can be attached to the nest

rings

Nesting area Permeable concrete with concrete

nesting rings that enclose provided

rocks.

No artificial incubation.

Chick/geriatric area Adjacent to the main penguin area;

separated by a tunnel and gate

The zoo uses this for juvenile birds

prior to re-introduction to the col-

ony or older birds

Perimeter fence To keep out predatory foxes Gates opened during zoo hours for

guest entry

Husbandry

Diet Hake (kings, gentoos) and sprat

(rockhoppers).

Herring is not fed due to its high fat

content.

Feeding Hand feed ad lib three times daily;

no fish is fed in the water due to the

fly-in gulls

Vitamins Thiamine No need for WNV vaccine or anti-

malaria; these are not yet recorded

in this part of the UK

ID bands/Molt Zip ties strung with colored Hama

beads for individualization of identi-

fication

All bands removed during molt; all

birds are chipped for long term

identification

Reproduction Gentoos are encouraged to raise

two chicks per nest

Keepers believe overall success im-

proved when birds started raising

two chicks per nest

Incubation Natural EZ does not currently artificially

incubate penguin eggs



Congratulations to the Edinburgh Zoo on 100 years of penguin care and conservation. I express my sincere

thanks to Jo Elliot and Lynda Burrill, King Penguin ESB, for sharing their penguins and rich zoo history with me.

Also to Stuart and Lauren who shared a full day of me tagging along as they fulfilled their keeper duties. Be

sure to make a virtual visit to the Penguins Rock! webcam at http://www.edinburghzoo.org.uk/

EZPenguinCam.html. See a video of the Edinburgh Zoo at its link http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/

p01c9xc5) or listen to Lynda Burrill tell the story at http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/life-style/

edinburgh-zoo-celebrates-100-years-of-penguins-1-3273214.

Photos courtesy of Linda Henry.


Nest rings graphic. Nest rings in use by gentoo penguins.

Hama beads set up. Rockhopper wearing Hama bead ID.

African Penguin Data Management at Adventure Aquarium Chris Felts, Biologist, Adventure Aquarium

Recently, the Bird and Mammal team at Adventure Aquarium (formerly known as the New Jersey State

Aquarium) decided to take a closer look at the growth of the African Penguin chicks (Spheniscus Demerus)

born under our care. After collecting and examining all the data, we found some interesting trends that

changed some of our expectations on chick husbandry and opened the door for further data collection and

management.

African Penguins arrived at the aquarium in 1998, with our first chick being hatched in 2001. Since then we’ve

successfully raised 17 more chicks in accordance with SSP breeding recommendations. While our chick-

rearing practices have changed with experience, in general the chicks in this study were parent reared for the

first 30 days of their lives or up until they reached 1 kilogram in weight. Afterwards they were pulled from

their parents and hand-reared by our team of biologists. In situations where the parents were not able to

properly nourish a young chick, usually the second chick of the clutch, our biologists supplemented the

chick’s diet with a chick formula based on the one described in Appendix III of the Penguin Husbandry Man-

ual, until it was deemed no longer necessary. The weight data used in this study was taken from a chick’s first

recorded weight of the day, after the first parent feed during the chick’s parent-rearing stage but before the

chick’s first feed during its hand-rearing stage.

While every chick was unique in its growth and feeding behavior, all of them followed the same basic pattern,

as shown in figure 1.

Each of the 16 chicks monitored for this study (our two newest chicks have just reached the hand-rearing

stage) displayed a period of rapid growth up to the fledging stage, then a period of decreased appetite and

associated weight loss, and finally a period of slower growth leading up to the 180-day mark. These trends

have been previously observed by Bocxstaele (Bocxstaele, 1978), including the potential for a loss in weight

of close to 1 kilogram, illustrated by two of our penguins in figures 2 and 3.



Chick Weight (kg) over Time (days)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Fig. 1. Growth of all 16 chicks in study.

(Continued from page 15)

It is that particular and consistent drop in weight amongst our penguins that might be the most interesting

aspect of this study. African Penguin chicks lose appetite and lose weight after their juvenile molt, sometimes

a great deal of weight. This common occurrence may therefore, by itself, not be a cause for concern, but in

our situation it ended up being something that was important to be reminded of.

Due to the process of establishing newly-recommended breeding pairs, there was a period of time that

Adventure Aquarium did not produce any chicks. When our chick production stepped up and we made the

decision to merge all our historic paper records into an electronic database, we also created an important

tool allowing staff to visualize data trends more easily. In fact, today we use this database to quickly answer



Fig. 2. Lil Ditty’s growth.

Fig. 3. Chick Pea’s growth.

Lil Ditty's Weight (kg) over Time (days)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Chick Pea's Weight (kg) over Time (days)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180



questions about the growth and overall health of our recent penguin chicks. Questions like “Should this chick

be this small?” or “How did penguins X and Y do the last time they had two chicks at once?” are now an-

swered in a matter of minutes, allowing us to make swift but more educated husbandry decisions.

This ability to quickly access what’s going on with our chicks got us thinking about other ways in which we

could manage the data on our penguins in order to benefit our colony and achieve the goals of our facility.

What we landed on was egg production. Our colony currently does not share molting or breeding seasons,

which makes for a slightly different breeding situation than other zoos and aquariums. Adventure Aquarium

is also focused on growing our colony for a new penguin exhibit set to debut in 2016, following recent SSP

recommendations. These factors necessitated that we do a little research to set up our breeding program for

success and to maximize our potential for egg production. After collecting all the egg records we had we were

able to determine some patterns for each individual penguin and from that we could establish their probable

laying seasons and therefore more accurately predict their upcoming eggs.

These predictions also became an important tool in identifying potential foster pairs. Currently our facility has

a highly genetically valuable, SSP-recommended pair that has had an unsuccessful history of incubating eggs

and rearing chicks. Because all of our potential foster pairs are also recommended to breed, we have utilized

our information database to determine the best potential fosters in relation to when a clutch will be laid, and

thanks to all our efforts we now have a game plan for the next time this highly valuable pairing lays an egg.

In conclusion, an increased focus on data management has allowed our facility to better understand its pen-

guin colony and has armed us with extra tools we can use to achieve the goals we have set out for ourselves.

References: Bocxstaele, 1978, Zoo Husbandry Yearbook

Penguin Husbandry Manual, Third Edition

The Activities of the Penguin Fund Japan

Penguin Fund Japan is a volunteer group of penguin lovers in Japan. Our motto is “Sharing our future with

Penguins”. Since 1986, we have done fund-raising by auctioning penguin-related goods every two months.

We have had lectures from penguin researchers, keepers of zoological gardens, and artists. Occasionally, we

publish books, translations, brochures and post cards, all of which are related to penguins. We have also co-

ordinated sending members to penguin habitats. In the last 28 years we have contributed a total of $87,400

to conservation and research of wild penguins all over the world. It is with great pleasure that we do such

kind of activities for this “admirable creature”, penguins! [Eds. Note: Penguin Fund Japan provided funding for

IPC8.]

“Spreading the Penguin Love” Rachel Anderson and Rachel Johns

We stood in front of the SeaWorld penguin exhibit, tongue-tied by excitement and utterly amazed. Hand-in-

hand, we watched as black and white balls of feathers dipped beneath the icy waters of the Penguin Encoun-

ter. As two small-town girls from Idaho, we had only imagined how the birds in tuxedos looked like in real life.

Between glances at the waddling creatures and at our own smiling reflections, we spent several hours with

our faces glued to the exhibit’s glass and several more hours in the penguin gift shop. With a bag of souvenirs

in one hand and a map of SeaWorld in the other, we wandered around the park for four days taking in and

being overwhelmed by the sights. We were like a pair of seven year-olds let loose in a candy store-- every

moment was one to remember.

But we were not always so enthralled with the little black-and-white birds. While Rachel Johns has always

been fascinated by ocean life and dreams of someday becoming a marine biologist, she had absolutely no

interest in marine birds until she met Rachel Anderson. Anderson, who is frankly “obsessed with the lovely

creatures,” was first introduced to penguins when two of her high school teachers showed her the SeaWorld

Penguin Cam.* It was love at first sight. Shortly after, Anderson strove to create and develop “the Penguin

Cam Club” at her high school, the Coeur d’Alene Charter Academy, with members just as passionate for pen-

guins as she.

After tearful goodbyes to Penguin Club members at our graduation ceremony, our parents surprised us with a

trip to SeaWorld to see the penguins. Soon afterwards, we found ourselves on a plane to San Diego, Califor-

nia. We traveled approximately 1,400 miles to see penguins. And we practically died of excitement before we

could get there.

It was incredible to see the penguins. But as incredible as it was, it was nothing compared to seeing them face

to face. We were fortunate enough to get a (very) private tour of the SeaWorld Penguin Encounter and its

facilities. The staff that we met truly rolled out the snow-covered carpet for us and we are very thankful that

that they took time to share their penguin passion; they are just as remarkable and adorable as the penguins

they introduced us to.

The first penguin we met was “King Tut,” the unof-

ficial King penguin ambassador with an extremely

friendly personality. He waddled over to us with a

squawking greeting, wiggling his tail, flapping his

wings, and fluffing his feathers. We learned so

much about penguins just by touching Tut. For ex-

ample, adult penguin wings are hard as boat pad-

dles but everywhere else the feathers are rather

soft.

We also learned that to the untrained eye, all kinds

of penguins seem to look alike: black-and-white.

But after a few moments of being inside the Pen-

guin Encounter, it became easy to discern the dif-

ferent species of penguins-- which ones have dis-

tinct tuxedo jacket markings (Adelies), which ones

have yellow macaroni on the sides of their (Continued on Page 19)


Rachel A. and Rachel J. pose with king penguin “King Tut” inside SeaWorld

San Diego’s Penguin Encounter.

(Continued from page 18)

heads (macaronis), which ones look like they are wearing white headphones (gentoos), etc. It is also notable

that every penguin has an individual personality as distinct as the markings of their species.

After meeting the penguins it became clear to us how important it is to protect penguin-kind. This goes hand-

in-hand with global conservation. Unfortunately, conservation is an issue that is not given the attention it de-

serves. Perhaps this is because people in general are uneducated about penguins and possibly many other

marine species as well. If more people understood the gravity of this issue-- the damage that carelessness of

our Earth’s resources can cause- they might take action. Zoos and Aquariums are doing their part to educate

people about conservation in the hope that it will inspire them to take action. SeaWorld has certainly inspired

us to do so.

While at SeaWorld, we both learned a lesson as incredible as the penguins themselves: You can make a differ-

ence and your actions really do matter. A passion that develops into action is by far the best kind-- whether it

is an interest in coral that leads you to pursue a career in marine biology, or a love of the ocean that makes

you recycle, or a passion for penguins that leads you to creating a club at your school. Never underestimate

the power you possess to change the world for the better.

For us, the Penguin Cam Club was just a start. We are not certain where we will go from here, but we have

big hearts for penguin-kind. We are intent on spreading the penguin love.

*The Penguin Cam is a 24-hour live feed of the SeaWorld Penguin Encounter that can be found on the SeaWorld web-

site. [Eds. Note: the penguin webcam is now a window on SeaWorld Orlando’s Antarctica: Empire of the Penguin.]


Rachel A. and Rachel J. pose with Magellanic penguin chicks at SeaWorld San Diego.

The Demography is in the Details: A review of life tables from ten species of zoo penguins. 8th

International Penguin Conference. 2-6 September 2013, Bristol, UK. Colleen Lynch, Curator of Birds, Riverbanks Zoo & Consulting Population Biologist, AZA, PMC



Species Adelie Males Females

Age (x) Qx Px lx Mx Ex Risk (Qx) Risk (Mx) Age (x) Qx Px lx Mx Ex Risk (Qx) Risk (Mx)

Current Date 5-Jul-11 0 0.08 0.92 1 0 15.393 165.8 155.8 0 0.08 0.92 1 0 15.832 150.4 141.1

N Individuals 482 1 0.06 0.94 0.92 0 15.483 154 151 1 0.04 0.96 0.92 0 15.793 138.5 135.9

N Institutions 5 2 0.06 0.94 0.865 0.01 15.408 145.4 140 2 0.05 0.95 0.883 0.01 15.489 133.9 129.4

Timeframe 1940-2011 3 0.07 0.93 0.813 0.02 15.407 166.8 160.3 3 0.07 0.93 0.839 0.02 15.409 156.7 150.7

Demographic Window 1980-2011 4 0.04 0.96 0.756 0.03 15.254 166.7 162.5 4 0.06 0.94 0.78 0.01 15.414 153.8 149.3

Studbook Keeper Lauren DuBois/SeaWorld San Diego 5 0.03 0.97 0.726 0.02 14.773 153 150.3 5 0.05 0.95 0.733 0.04 15.255 139.5 135.9

6 0.04 0.96 0.704 0.03 14.271 141.5 137.9 6 0.02 0.98 0.697 0.06 14.778 128.6 127.1

Maximum Longevity 32+ 7 0.04 0.96 0.676 0.02 13.824 132 128.4 7 0.03 0.97 0.683 0.04 14.131 122.2 119.7

Median Survivorship 14 8 0.02 0.98 0.649 0.07 13.223 122.6 121.3 8 0.05 0.95 0.662 0.04 13.676 113.3 109.1

Age at First Reproduction 2 9 0.04 0.96 0.636 0.04 12.6 113.8 111.4 9 0.02 0.98 0.629 0.08 13.141 103.9 102.7

Age at Last Reproduction 29 10 0.03 0.97 0.61 0.07 12.022 105.1 103.8 10 0.03 0.97 0.617 0.07 12.451 99.9 98.1

Clutch Size Range 1 to 3 11 0.02 0.98 0.592 0.1 11.306 95.4 95.1 11 0.01 0.99 0.598 0.08 11.687 92.9 92.5

Mean Clutch Size 1.365 12 0.01 0.99 0.58 0.15 10.463 88.4 87.6 12 0 1 0.592 0.18 10.741 87.5 87.5

1st Year Mortality 0.08 13 0.06 0.94 0.574 0.21 9.805 84.9 80.6 13 0.08 0.92 0.592 0.16 10.147 85.4 80.3

14 0.08 0.92 0.54 0.23 9.465 77.3 72.7 14 0.09 0.91 0.545 0.3 9.994 75.5 71.8

Clutch Size * Frequency Percentage 15 0.05 0.95 0.497 0.23 9.059 67.5 65.5 15 0.04 0.96 0.496 0.2 9.632 65.2 63.8

1 156 64.73 16 0.15 0.85 0.472 0.11 8.942 59.1 53.2 16 0.1 0.9 0.476 0.1 9.275 58.2 54.4

2 82 34.02 17 0.16 0.84 0.401 0.23 9.394 42.8 38.7 17 0.11 0.89 0.428 0.13 9.243 47.3 45.3

3 3 1.24 18 0.04 0.96 0.337 0.19 9.381 34.5 33.5 18 0.08 0.92 0.381 0.3 9.117 41.2 39.6

Total 241 99.99 19 0.03 0.97 0.323 0.17 8.686 32.2 31.4 19 0.03 0.97 0.351 0.14 8.599 36.3 35.5

Median = 1; Mean = 1.365 20 0.05 0.95 0.314 0.12 8.005 30.2 28.9 20 0.11 0.89 0.34 0.16 8.166 32.6 29.6

21 0.07 0.93 0.298 0.09 7.45 27.7 26.2 21 0.07 0.93 0.303 0.07 7.885 28.5 27.5

*chicks hatched, NOT eggs laid 22 0.08 0.92 0.277 0.17 6.972 24.7 24.3 22 0.04 0.96 0.282 0.07 7.29 25.7 24.7

23 0.05 0.95 0.255 0.08 6.391 21.7 21.3 23 0.04 0.96 0.27 0.03 6.552 23.7 23.3

24 0.13 0.87 0.242 0.16 5.918 19.8 18.4 24 0.11 0.89 0.26 0.14 5.997 22.5 21

25 0.12 0.88 0.211 0.07 5.622 17 15.7 25 0.1 0.9 0.231 0.1 5.585 20 18.7

26 0 1 0.185 0.12 4.938 15 15 26 0.11 0.89 0.208 0.07 5.122 18 17.3

27 0 1 0.185 0.04 3.938 15 15 27 0.06 0.94 0.185 0 4.512 16 15.5

28 0.2 0.8 0.185 0.04 3.264 15 13.8 28 0.2 0.8 0.174 0 4.027 15 14.5

29 0.08 0.92 0.148 0.05 2.653 12 11.3 29 0.17 0.83 0.139 0.06 3.721 12 10.8

30 0.51 0.49 0.137 0 2.315 5.9 3.8 30 0 1 0.115 0 3 4.8 4.8

31 0 1 0.067 0 2 0.2 0.2 31 0 1 0.115 0 2 0.7 0.7

32 0 1 0.067 0 1 0 0 32 0 1 0.115 0 1 0 0

r = 0.0107, lambda = 1.0107, T = 15.04, N = 63.50, N(at 20 yrs) = 78.58 r = 0.0116, lambda = 1.0117, T = 14.45, N = 58.50, N(at 20 yrs) = 73.76

Notes: This species still has a relatively small sample size. The animal holding the longevity species in both sexes is still living (no Qx = 1). First year

mortality is the lowest observed among the 10 species.

Species African Black-footed Males Females


Current Date 1-May-11 0 0.33 0.67 1 0 14.409 1370.9 995 1 0.32 0.68 1 0 13.427 1303.7 951.1

N Individuals 2961 1 0.06 0.94 0.67 0.01 17.228 881.1 842.7 2 0.08 0.92 0.68 0 15.991 849.5 810.2

N Institutions 11 2 0.07 0.93 0.63 0.05 17.353 780.7 750.1 3 0.08 0.92 0.626 0.06 16.295 744.2 712.8

Timeframe 1913-2011 3 0.05 0.95 0.586 0.13 17.403 675 652.2 4 0.06 0.94 0.576 0.18 16.453 647.2 624.2


Studbook Keeper Seana Flossic/Tulsa Zoo 5 0.04 0.96 0.534 0.23 16.853 565.7 553.9 6 0.04 0.96 0.514 0.25 16.081 530.8 519.1

6 0.04 0.96 0.513 0.26 16.513 527.1 517.3 7 0.05 0.95 0.493 0.27 15.79 491.9 478.6

Maximum Longevity 39 7 0.02 0.98 0.492 0.24 15.996 483.8 480.7 8 0.04 0.96 0.469 0.28 15.489 451.4 444





Mean Clutch Size 1.436 12 0.03 0.97 0.405 0.19 13.846 327.2 324 13 0.06 0.94 0.374 0.2 13.821 296.8 290


14 0.05 0.95 0.378 0.22 12.889 259.8 252.5 15 0.05 0.95 0.345 0.2 12.81 246.6 239.9


1 1108 56.2 16 0.06 0.94 0.348 0.13 11.922 214.5 209.5 17 0.06 0.94 0.305 0.11 12.367 191.5 185.6

2 845 43.18 17 0.04 0.96 0.327 0.16 11.5 187.4 181.9 18 0.05 0.95 0.286 0.12 12.03 166.2 162.6

3 4 0.2 18 0.07 0.93 0.314 0.11 11.108 163.2 156.9 19 0.04 0.96 0.272 0.13 11.551 144 141

Total 1957 100 19 0.07 0.93 0.292 0.13 10.869 137 130.4 20 0.05 0.95 0.261 0.07 11.047 124.2 121.2

Median = 1; Mean = 1.436 20 0.09 0.91 0.272 0.15 10.723 113.2 109.3 21 0.04 0.96 0.248 0.09 10.522 105.1 102.9

21 0.06 0.94 0.247 0.12 10.519 94.2 91.8 22 0.07 0.93 0.238 0.08 10.073 92 88.8

*chicks hatched, NOT eggs laid 22 0.06 0.94 0.232 0.16 10.127 78.8 76 23 0.01 0.99 0.221 0.09 9.462 78.3 78.1

23 0.03 0.97 0.218 0.09 9.561 69.5 68.5 24 0.08 0.92 0.219 0.06 8.859 72.1 70.1

24 0.05 0.95 0.212 0.14 8.917 58.2 56.8 25 0.03 0.97 0.202 0.03 8.326 58.1 57.4

25 0.06 0.94 0.201 0.15 8.376 51.7 50.5 26 0.1 0.9 0.196 0.05 7.83 50.3 47.5

26 0.07 0.93 0.189 0.2 7.888 44.4 42.7 27 0.12 0.88 0.176 0.11 7.67 40.7 38.2

27 0.05 0.95 0.176 0.14 7.33 37.3 36.4 28 0.1 0.9 0.155 0.03 7.5 30.6 29.5

28 0.17 0.83 0.167 0.08 7.1 30.1 27.2 29 0.08 0.92 0.139 0.02 7.147 24.2 22.8

29 0.1 0.9 0.139 0.05 7.079 21 19.9 30 0 1 0.128 0.03 6.414 18.2 18.2

30 0.14 0.86 0.125 0 6.9 14.2 12.7 31 0.08 0.92 0.128 0 5.64 12.7 12.2

31 0.3 0.7 0.107 0 7.506 9.9 8.3 32 0.13 0.87 0.118 0 5.178 7.5 7.4

32 0 1 0.075 0.09 7.9 6 6 33 0 1 0.103 0 4.49 5.7 5.7

33 0 1 0.075 0.09 6.9 5.7 5.7 34 0 1 0.103 0 3.49 4.2 4.2

34 0.2 0.8 0.075 0.11 6.556 5 4.7 35 0 1 0.103 0 2.49 3.1 3.1

35 0.5 0.5 0.06 0.41 8.333 4 2.5 36 0.67 0.33 0.103 0 2.241 3 1.8

36 0 1 0.03 0 11 1.2 1.2 37 0 1 0.034 0 2.5 1 1

37 0 1 0.03 0 10 1 1 38 0 1 0.034 0 1.5 0.6 0.6

38 0 1 0.03 0 9 1 1 39 1 0 0.034 0 1 0 0

39 0 1 0.03 0 8 1 1 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

40 0 1 0.03 0 7 1 1 41 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

41 0 1 0.03 0 6 1 1 42 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

42 0 1 0.03 0 5 1 1 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

43 0 1 0.03 0 4 1 1 44 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

44 0 1 0.03 0 3 1 1 45 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

45 0 1 0.03 0 2 0.2 0.2 46 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

46 1 0 0.03 0 1 0 0 47 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

r = 0.0507, lambda = 1.0520, T = 9.90, N = 448.50, N(at 20 yrs) = 1236.81 r = 0.0506, lambda = 1.0519, T = 8.61, N = 381.50, N(at 20 yrs) = 1049.38

Notes: There appears to be a disparity in male and female longevity, but this disparity is created by a single outlier. Median survivorship is low

relative to maximum longevity (skewed by high first year mortality). This species has the largest sample size of the 10 species examined.




Species Chinstrap Males Females


Current Date 2-Jul-12 0 0.21 0.79 1 0 1.117 110.8 88.5 0 0.22 0.78 1 0 1.124 99.2 79

N Individuals 442 1 0.01 0.99 0.79 0 1.267 148.3 148.2 1 0.02 0.98 0.78 0 1.296 137.7 136.4

N Institutions 13 2 0.02 0.98 0.782 0 1.281 134.7 132.8 2 0.02 0.98 0.764 0 1.322 129.8 128.2

Timeframe 1983-2012 3 0.03 0.97 0.766 0.01 1.309 123.2 120.8 3 0.03 0.97 0.749 0.01 1.357 119.4 117.1


Studbook Keeper Rob Yordi 5 0.03 0.97 0.729 0.01 1.346 128.3 126.4 5 0.04 0.96 0.719 0.01 1.39 125.4 122.5

6 0.07 0.93 0.707 0.05 1.4 118.6 114.7 6 0.06 0.94 0.691 0.04 1.453 116.4 112.4

Maximum Longevity 30 7 0.02 0.98 0.657 0.06 1.409 105.6 104.9 7 0.03 0.97 0.649 0.06 1.481 104.4 102.8





Mean Clutch Size 1.321 12 0.05 0.95 0.57 0.11 1.227 74.6 73.9 12 0.05 0.95 0.581 0.12 1.266 78.1 76.7


14 0.02 0.98 0.536 0.14 1.009 63 62.7 14 0 1 0.541 0.08 1.049 68.1 68.1

Clutch Size * Frequency Percentage 15 0.02 0.98 0.525 0.08 0.883 59 58.7 15 0.03 0.97 0.541 0.06 0.984 66.1 65

1 106 67.95 16 0.07 0.93 0.515 0.09 0.838 57.2 54.2 16 0 1 0.524 0.09 0.939 63.1 63.1

2 50 32.05 17 0.02 0.98 0.479 0.03 0.78 53 52.8 17 0.03 0.97 0.524 0.05 0.862 63 62.7

3 0 0 18 0.02 0.98 0.469 0.03 0.763 51.1 50.3 18 0.02 0.98 0.509 0.05 0.834 60.1 59.2

Total 156 100 19 0.02 0.98 0.46 0.01 0.745 47.4 47.3 19 0.06 0.94 0.499 0.01 0.816 49.5 48

Median = 1; Mean = 1.321 20 0.04 0.96 0.451 0.03 0.754 46 44.7 20 0.02 0.98 0.469 0.02 0.841 44 43.9

21 0 1 0.433 0.04 0.737 43.7 43.7 21 0.02 0.98 0.459 0 0.838 43 42.6


23 0 1 0.411 0.14 0.697 39 39 23 0 1 0.428 0.07 0.881 38 38

24 0.05 0.95 0.411 0.15 0.569 39 37.9 24 0 1 0.428 0.1 0.812 38 38

25 0.11 0.89 0.39 0.13 0.453 37 34.7 25 0.08 0.92 0.428 0.06 0.742 38 36.2

26 0 1 0.348 0.07 0.342 23.2 23.2 26 0 1 0.393 0.16 0.712 25.1 25.1

27 0.29 0.71 0.348 0.15 0.317 7 6.6 27 0 1 0.393 0.17 0.552 9 9

28 0 1 0.247 0.2 0.2 5 5 28 0 1 0.393 0.29 0.382 9 9

29 0 1 0.247 0 0 3.2 3.2 29 0.16 0.84 0.393 0.1 0.1 6.2 5.2

30 1 0 0.247 0 0 0 0 30 1 0 0.33 0 0 0 0

r = -0.0039, lambda = 0.9961, T = 16.89, N = 75, N(at 20 yrs) = 69.34 r =0.0004, lambda = 1.0004, T = 17.81, N = 67, N(at 20 yrs) = 67.53

Notes: This species still has a relatively small lifespan and a short history in captivity. Longevity observations may be artificially truncated. The

oldest living animal has been in the population since it was founded.

Species Gentoo Males Females


Current Date 15-Feb-12 0 0.22 0.78 1 0 20.685 449.8 364.1 0 0.19 0.81 1 0 22.435 494 412.6

N Individuals 1127 1 0.05 0.95 0.78 0.02 23.037 338.7 329.6 1 0.05 0.95 0.81 0.01 24.563 393 382.9

N Institutions 42 2 0.04 0.96 0.741 0.08 23.078 301.2 296.5 2 0.04 0.96 0.77 0.03 24.677 346.9 342

Timeframe 1940-2012 3 0.04 0.96 0.711 0.1 22.998 268.1 261.5 3 0.03 0.97 0.739 0.11 24.538 312.1 305


Studbook Keeper Sharon Jarvis, Sea World Orlando 5 0.04 0.96 0.662 0.21 22.587 198.1 194.9 5 0.02 0.98 0.702 0.14 23.616 254.5 253.1

6 0.01 0.99 0.636 0.24 22.148 172.1 171.1 6 0.01 0.99 0.688 0.17 22.961 234.7 233.5





Clutch Size Range 1 to 3 11 0.02 0.98 0.593 0.15 18.656 122.2 119.8 11 0 1 0.622 0.11 20.009 149.7 149.7

Mean Clutch Size 1.299 12 0 1 0.581 0.2 17.836 108.5 108.1 12 0.02 0.98 0.622 0.12 19.201 134.2 132.5

1st Year Mortality 0.19 13 0.02 0.98 0.581 0.16 17.006 107 105.4 13 0.02 0.98 0.609 0.17 18.573 122.8 121.3

14 0 1 0.569 0.18 16.169 99.7 99.7 14 0.01 0.99 0.597 0.14 17.841 115.2 114.2


1 381 70.69 16 0 1 0.535 0.16 15.106 88.3 88.3 16 0 1 0.585 0.16 16.092 104.5 104.5

2 155 28.76 17 0.02 0.98 0.535 0.13 14.248 83.6 83 17 0.02 0.98 0.585 0.16 15.245 99 97.9

3 3 0.56 18 0 1 0.524 0.1 13.383 74.9 74.9 18 0 1 0.574 0.13 14.39 90.2 90.2

Total 539 100.01 19 0.02 0.98 0.524 0.14 12.508 64.6 63.6 19 0 1 0.574 0.1 13.39 81.9 81.9

Median = 1; Mean = 1.299 20 0.03 0.97 0.514 0.19 11.803 54.2 53 20 0.01 0.99 0.574 0.22 12.452 72 71.5

21 0 1 0.498 0.12 10.97 47.1 47.1 21 0.03 0.97 0.568 0.18 11.685 68.2 67.8


23 0.02 0.98 0.488 0.17 9.256 42.9 42.3 23 0.05 0.95 0.54 0.13 10.32 60.4 59

24 0.02 0.98 0.479 0.06 8.424 40 39 24 0.02 0.98 0.513 0.04 9.662 56 55.1

25 0 1 0.469 0.07 7.5 32.6 32.6 25 0 1 0.503 0.02 8.75 46.9 46.9

26 0 1 0.469 0 6.5 13.3 13.3 26 0 1 0.503 0.04 7.75 20.3 20.3

27 0 1 0.469 0.19 5.5 4 4 27 0 1 0.503 0 6.75 5.7 5.7

28 0 1 0.469 0.39 4.5 2 2 28 0 1 0.503 0 5.75 3 3

29 0 1 0.469 0.48 3.5 1.6 1.6 29 0 1 0.503 0 4.75 2.6 2.6

30 0 1 0.469 0 2.5 1 1 30 0 1 0.503 0 3.75 2 2

31 0 1 0.469 0 1.5 1 1 31 0.5 0.5 0.503 0 3.667 2 1.6

32 1 0 0.469 0 1 1 0.6 32 0 1 0.251 0 4 1 1

33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1 0.251 0 3 1 1

34 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 1 0.251 0 2 0.2 0.2

35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 1 0 0.251 0 1 0 0

r = 0.0826, lambda = 1.0861, T = 10.03, N = 213, N(at 20 yrs) = 1110.99 r = 0.0600, lambda = 1.0618, T = 10.75, N = 245, N(at 20 yrs) = 813.05

Notes: This species has a substantial sample size over a long period of time. The population has a handful of age outliers in the

oldest age classes. This, combined with relatively low first year mortality, results in one of the highest median survivorships ob-

served among the ten species examined.




Species Humboldt Males Females


Current Date 26-Jul-11 0 0.32 0.68 1 0 14.575 323 231.4 0 0.33 0.67 1 0 14.09 286.9 199.3

N Individuals 1204 1 0.05 0.95 0.68 0.03 17.2 212 205.4 1 0.04 0.96 0.67 0.01 16.647 185 179.4

N Institutions 37 2 0.04 0.96 0.646 0.08 16.965 195.8 192 2 0.03 0.97 0.643 0.08 16.216 174.1 172.6

Timeframe 1901-2011 3 0.06 0.94 0.62 0.16 16.802 182.9 176.5 3 0.05 0.95 0.624 0.11 15.847 171.3 166.2

Demographic Window 1988-2011 4 0.02 0.98 0.583 0.11 16.471 160 157.6 4 0.07 0.93 0.593 0.1 15.791 160.5 153

Studbook Keeper Gail Brandt/Brookfield Zoo 5 0.04 0.96 0.571 0.11 15.948 152.7 148.7 5 0.06 0.94 0.551 0.14 15.822 147.3 143

Humboldt 6 0.04 0.96 0.548 0.13 15.57 146.1 142.3 6 0.03 0.97 0.518 0.18 15.528 143.2 139.9





Clutch Size Range 1 to 2 11 0.03 0.97 0.461 0.12 12.9 110.9 109.1 11 0.07 0.93 0.431 0.14 13.357 109 105.4

Mean Clutch Size 1.444 12 0.03 0.97 0.447 0.11 12.268 104 102.1 12 0.03 0.97 0.401 0.22 13.018 99.3 98

1st Year Mortality 0.33 13 0.07 0.93 0.434 0.08 11.858 99 95.7 13 0.04 0.96 0.389 0.14 12.453 94.6 93.4

14 0.05 0.95 0.404 0.08 11.555 84.8 83.5 14 0.06 0.94 0.373 0.12 12.053 84.6 81.5


1 372 55.61 16 0.03 0.97 0.357 0.11 10.772 66.8 65.7 16 0.1 0.9 0.337 0.18 11.432 68.7 65.6

2 297 44.39 17 0.03 0.97 0.346 0.08 10.074 67.5 67.1 17 0.05 0.95 0.303 0.18 11.294 60.8 59

3 0 0 18 0.06 0.94 0.336 0.2 9.5 72.7 71 18 0.03 0.97 0.288 0.26 10.725 63.6 63.1

Total 669 100 19 0.07 0.93 0.315 0.16 9.089 63.3 61.3 19 0.06 0.94 0.279 0.23 10.181 57 55

Median = 1; Mean = 1.444 20 0.07 0.93 0.293 0.25 8.698 42.7 40.9 20 0.04 0.96 0.263 0.17 9.667 45 43.5

21 0.2 0.8 0.273 0.27 8.875 29.4 26.4 21 0.03 0.97 0.252 0.12 8.983 37.2 37


23 0.06 0.94 0.207 0.06 8.556 16.2 15.5 23 0.04 0.96 0.23 0 7.747 28.2 27.7

24 0 1 0.195 0.03 7.797 14.5 14.5 24 0.04 0.96 0.221 0 7.028 25.1 24.3

25 0.2 0.8 0.195 0.33 7.552 15 13.7 25 0.21 0.79 0.212 0.12 6.875 23.5 20.8

26 0 1 0.156 0.04 7.372 11.5 11.5 26 0.05 0.95 0.167 0.08 6.827 18.7 18.2

27 0.16 0.84 0.156 0.17 6.926 12.9 12.1 27 0.06 0.94 0.159 0 6.165 18.1 18

28 0.15 0.85 0.131 0.08 7.016 13.5 12.4 28 0 1 0.149 0.03 5.33 15.1 15.1

29 0.22 0.78 0.111 0.1 7.356 11.5 10.3 29 0.2 0.8 0.149 0 4.811 12.3 11.5

30 0 1 0.087 0.06 7.253 9 9 30 0.11 0.89 0.12 0 4.537 9 8.3

31 0.22 0.78 0.087 0.25 7.025 9 8.1 31 0.12 0.88 0.106 0.07 3.995 8 7.1

32 0 1 0.068 0.14 6.875 7 7 32 0.29 0.71 0.094 0 3.742 7 5.9

33 0.14 0.86 0.068 0.3 6.317 7 6.8 33 0 1 0.067 0 3.302 5 5

34 0 1 0.058 0 5.75 6 6 34 0.2 0.8 0.067 0 2.558 5 4.9

35 0.5 0.5 0.058 0.1 6.333 6 5 35 0.25 0.75 0.053 0 2.003 4 3.4

36 0 1 0.029 0 8 3 3 36 0.33 0.67 0.04 0 1.401 3 2.8

37 0 1 0.029 0 7 3 3 37 1 0 0.027 0 1 2 1

38 0 1 0.029 0 6 3 3 38 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

39 0 1 0.029 0 5 3 3 39 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

40 0 1 0.029 0 4 2.7 2.7 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

41 0 1 0.029 0 3 1.7 1.7 41 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

42 0 1 0.029 0 2 0.7 0.7 42 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

43 1 0 0.029 0 1 0 0 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

r = 0.0307; lambda = 1.0312; T = 11.52; N = 172.50; N(at 20 yrs) = 318.97 r = 0.0236; lambda = 1.0239; T = 10.94; N = 147.50; N(at 20 yrs) = 236.47

Species King Penguin Males Females


Current Date 13-Mar-11 0 0.13 0.87 1 0 21.642 247.4 219.4 0 0.12 0.88 1 0 23.138 237.4 212

N Individuals 617 1 0.01 0.99 0.87 0 22.296 205.5 205.2 1 0.03 0.97 0.88 0 24.007 199.1 197.4

N Institutions 33 2 0.02 0.98 0.861 0.04 21.62 195.3 193.5 2 0.03 0.97 0.854 0.07 23.719 181.9 178.7

Timeframe 1929-2011 3 0.01 0.99 0.844 0.07 20.935 179.5 178.9 3 0.03 0.97 0.828 0.12 23.421 165.5 162.6

Demographic Window 1980-2011 4 0 1 0.836 0.13 20.036 169 168.7 4 0 1 0.803 0.19 22.768 152.6 152.3

Studbook Keeper Debbie Denton/SeaWorld San Diego 5 0.01 0.99 0.836 0.09 19.131 158.1 156.8 5 0.01 0.99 0.803 0.15 21.878 143.3 142.8

6 0.02 0.98 0.827 0.1 18.407 148.9 147.4 6 0.02 0.98 0.795 0.2 21.195 132.8 131.6


Median Survivorship 24 8 0.01 0.99 0.803 0.14 16.841 133.5 132 8 0.03 0.97 0.764 0.12 20.109 123.1 121.4

Age at First Reproduction 2 9 0 1 0.795 0.13 15.921 126.1 126.1 9 0.02 0.98 0.741 0.13 19.6 109.9 109.3


Clutch Size Range 1-Jan 11 0.03 0.97 0.771 0.08 14.586 110.6 108.4 11 0.03 0.97 0.704 0.1 18.635 96 94.5

Mean Clutch Size 1 12 0.01 0.99 0.748 0.1 13.866 103.3 103.1 12 0.01 0.99 0.683 0.17 17.998 88.8 88.2


14 0.06 0.94 0.733 0.19 12.429 72.2 69.8 14 0.05 0.95 0.636 0.18 17.582 62.3 60.4


1 349 100 16 0.05 0.95 0.675 0.07 11.307 61.6 59.6 16 0.02 0.98 0.574 0.05 17.058 52.8 52

2 0 0 17 0.04 0.96 0.641 0.09 10.794 56.9 55.9 17 0 1 0.562 0.02 16.222 52.8 52.8

3 0 0 18 0.02 0.98 0.616 0.14 10.099 51.6 51.4 18 0 1 0.562 0.04 15.222 50.2 50.2

Total 349 100 19 0 1 0.603 0.12 9.192 50 50 19 0 1 0.562 0.11 14.222 43.3 43.3

Median = 1; Mean = 1.444 20 0.04 0.96 0.603 0.24 8.359 48.6 47.3 20 0.05 0.95 0.562 0.14 13.561 39.2 38.2

21 0.07 0.93 0.579 0.19 7.785 44.6 42.8 21 0 1 0.534 0.15 12.892 36 36

*chicks hatched, NOT eggs laid 22 0 1 0.539 0.1 7.04 41 41 22 0 1 0.534 0.05 11.892 35.9 35.9

23 0.13 0.87 0.539 0 6.46 15.9 15 23 0.07 0.93 0.534 0 11.287 13.4 13.1

24 0.12 0.88 0.469 0.14 6.243 8.1 7.2 24 0.14 0.86 0.497 0.13 11.477 7 6.8

25 0 1 0.412 0 5.6 6.9 6.9 25 0 1 0.427 0.15 11.33 6 6

26 0 1 0.412 0.19 4.6 5.3 5.3 26 0 1 0.427 0 10.33 6 6

27 0 1 0.412 0.21 3.6 4.8 4.8 27 0 1 0.427 0.17 9.33 5.3 5.3

28 0.3 0.7 0.412 0 3.059 3.3 2.8 28 0 1 0.427 0.21 8.33 4.4 4.4

29 0 1 0.289 0 2.5 1.3 1.3 29 0 1 0.427 0.23 7.33 4 4

30 0 1 0.289 0 1.5 1 1 30 0 1 0.427 0 6.33 4 4

31 1 0 0.289 0 1 1 0.1 31 0.31 0.69 0.427 0 6.308 3.3 3.2

32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 1 0.295 0 6.5 2 2

33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1 0.295 0 5.5 2 2

34 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 1 0.295 0.46 4.5 2 2

35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 1 0.295 0 3.5 2 2

36 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 1 0.295 0 2.5 2 2

37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 1 0.295 0 1.5 2 2

38 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 1 0 0.295 0 1 2 0.9

39 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 1 0 0 0 0 0 0


Notes: There appears to be a disparity in male and female longevity, but this disparity is created by a small number of outliers;

these outliers result in the highest observed maximum longevity among the 10 species examined. Median survivorship is low rela-

tive to maximum longevity (skewed by high first year mortality).

Notes: This species has a substantial sample size over a long period of time. The population has a handful of age outliers in the

oldest age classes. This, combined with very low first year mortality, results in one of the highest median survivorships observed

among the ten species examined.




Species Little blue penguin Males Females

Age (x) Qx Px lx Mx Ex Risk (Qx)

Risk

(Mx) Age (x) Qx Px lx Mx Ex Risk (Qx)

Risk

(Mx)

Current Date 1-Mar-11 0 0.39 0.61 1 0 8.869 64.8 41.5 0 0.36 0.64 1 0 7.82 67.4 45.3

N Individuals 311 1 0.01 0.99 0.61 0.01 10.437 45.8 45.7 1 0.1 0.9 0.64 0.03 9.198 52.7 50.4

N Institutions 17 2 0.09 0.91 0.604 0.11 9.932 48.4 44.4 2 0.15 0.85 0.576 0.14 9.355 49.8 45

Timeframe 1950-2011 3 0.08 0.92 0.55 0.14 9.764 48.4 45.3 3 0.13 0.87 0.49 0.25 9.724 46.3 44

Demographic Window 1990-2011 4 0.07 0.93 0.506 0.21 9.477 48 46 4 0.1 0.9 0.426 0.2 9.869 44.4 42.4

Studbook Keeper Heather Urquhart 5 0.13 0.87 0.47 0.13 9.407 43.2 40 5 0.08 0.92 0.383 0.23 9.752 41.5 39.5

6 0 1 0.409 0.19 9.035 35.8 35.8 6 0.05 0.95 0.353 0.22 9.367 36.5 35.3



Age at First Reproduction 1 9 0.03 0.97 0.354 0.15 7.259 28.9 28.6 9 0.04 0.96 0.245 0 9.651 23.5 23.3

Age at Last Reproduction 17 10 0.08 0.92 0.343 0.25 6.62 26.5 25.5 10 0 1 0.235 0.21 8.831 21.6 21.6

Clutch Size Range 1-3 11 0.18 0.82 0.316 0.16 6.444 21.7 19.8 11 0.05 0.95 0.235 0.03 8.032 18.8 18.8

Mean Clutch Size 1.258 12 0.15 0.85 0.259 0 6.532 13 11.5 12 0.07 0.93 0.223 0.07 7.479 15.3 15.1

1st Year Mortality 0.38 13 0.31 0.69 0.22 0 7.124 9.6 8.7 13 0.24 0.76 0.207 0.14 7.639 12.6 10.6

14 0 1 0.152 0 7.5 6.5 6.5 14 0.11 0.89 0.158 0.06 8.135 8.9 8.3

Clutch Size * Frequency Percentage 15 0.2 0.8 0.152 0 7.222 5 4.2 15 0 1 0.14 0 7.576 6.3 6.3

1 116 74.84 16 0.35 0.65 0.121 0.42 8.485 2.9 2.5 16 0.17 0.83 0.14 0.09 7.186 5.8 5.5

2 38 24.52 17 0 1 0.079 0.35 9.5 1.5 1.5 17 0 1 0.116 0 6.82 3.8 3.8

3 1 0.65 18 0 1 0.079 0 8.5 1.2 1.2 18 0 1 0.116 0 5.82 3.4 3.4

Total 155 100.01 19 0 1 0.079 0 7.5 0.5 0.5 19 0 1 0.116 0 4.82 2.2 2.2

Median = 1; Mean = 1.258 20 0 1 0.079 0 6.5 0.5 0.5 20 0 1 0.116 0 3.82 1.5 1.5

21 0 1 0.079 0 5.5 0.5 0.5 21 0 1 0.116 0 2.82 1.5 1.5

*chicks hatched, NOT eggs laid 22 0 1 0.079 0 4.5 0.5 0.5 22 0.67 0.33 0.116 0 2.737 1.5 0.8

23 0 1 0.079 0 3.5 0.5 0.5 23 0 1 0.038 0 3.5 0.5 0.5

24 0 1 0.079 0 2.5 0.5 0.5 24 0 1 0.038 0 2.5 0.5 0.5

25 0 1 0.079 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 25 0 1 0.038 0 1.5 0.5 0.5

26 1 0 0.079 0 1 0.5 0.4 26 1 0 0.038 0 1 0.5 0.4

27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

r = -0.0333; lambda = 0.9673; T = 8.37; N = 29; N(at 20 yrs) = 14.91 r = -0.0713; lambda = 0.9311; T = 7.43; N = 25; N(at 20 yrs) = 6

Notes: This life table is based on the smallest sample size of the AZA penguin populations. Significant numbers have been held for fewer

than 15 years. Biological limits for maximum longevity and maximum age at reproduction for this species have likely not been observed in

captivity. This species exhibits the highest first year mortality among the ten species examined.

Species Macaroni Males Females

Age (x) Qx Px lx Mx Ex Risk (Qx)

Risk

(Mx) Age (x) Qx Px lx Mx Ex Risk (Qx)

Risk

(Mx)

Current Date 31-Dec-10 0 0.14 0.86 1 0 21.875 161.4 139 0 0.15 0.85 1 0 21.283 148.4 126.1

N Individuals 379 1 0 1 0.86 0 22.574 141.8 141.4 1 0 1 0.85 0 22.072 126.5 126.2

N Institutions 17 2 0.01 0.99 0.86 0 21.683 134.7 133.7 2 0.01 0.99 0.85 0.01 21.178 120.3 119.4

Timeframe 1947 - 2012 3 0.03 0.97 0.851 0 21.104 127.7 125.6 3 0.03 0.97 0.842 0.01 20.589 119.4 117.3


Studbook Keeper Jessica Jozwiak, Detroit Zoological Society 5 0.02 0.98 0.801 0.04 20.233 108.1 106 5 0.02 0.98 0.792 0.05 19.689 101.4 99.3

6 0.03 0.97 0.785 0.02 19.725 101.2 99.8 6 0.05 0.95 0.776 0.02 19.363 95.2 92.8

Maximum Longevity 36 7 0.04 0.96 0.762 0.08 19.403 94.7 93 7 0.04 0.96 0.737 0.09 19.231 88.7 87



Age at Last Reproduction 29 10 0 1 0.702 0.09 17.52 81.8 81.8 10 0 1 0.652 0.13 18.11 69.5 69.5

Clutch Size Range 1-2 11 0 1 0.702 0.09 16.52 79 79 11 0 1 0.652 0.11 17.11 65.6 65.6

Mean Clutch Size 1.136 12 0.02 0.98 0.702 0.08 15.676 74.3 73.4 12 0.01 0.99 0.652 0.11 16.191 60 59.8

1st Year Mortality 0.16 13 0.01 0.99 0.688 0.08 14.901 68.4 67.8 13 0 1 0.646 0.06 15.268 54.8 54.8

14 0.02 0.98 0.681 0.08 14.112 65 63.7 14 0.03 0.97 0.646 0.09 14.485 52.5 51.6

Clutch Size * Frequency Percentage 15 0 1 0.668 0.09 13.246 61.6 61.6 15 0 1 0.626 0.08 13.694 50.7 50.7

1 146 86.39 16 0.02 0.98 0.668 0.13 12.369 59.3 59.3 16 0.04 0.96 0.626 0.11 12.953 49.6 48.1

2 23 13.61 17 0 1 0.654 0.07 11.485 59.6 59.6 17 0.02 0.98 0.601 0.08 12.325 46.3 46.2

3 0 0 18 0.02 0.98 0.654 0.02 10.591 57.1 56.6 18 0.02 0.98 0.589 0.05 11.556 42 41.2

Total 169 100 19 0.05 0.95 0.641 0.03 9.938 55.5 53.5 19 0 1 0.577 0.06 10.664 39.8 39.8

Median = 1; Mean = 1.136 20 0.02 0.98 0.609 0.04 9.265 52.7 52.2 20 0.05 0.95 0.577 0.04 9.912 40.7 40.1

21 0.06 0.94 0.597 0.01 8.608 50 48 21 0.03 0.97 0.549 0 9.285 38 37.3

*chicks hatched, NOT eggs laid 22 0.11 0.89 0.561 0.05 8.308 47 44.3 22 0.05 0.95 0.532 0.06 8.629 36.8 36.3

23 0.05 0.95 0.499 0.05 7.958 42 41.4 23 0 1 0.505 0.01 7.83 34 34

24 0 1 0.474 0.06 7.141 39.6 39.6 24 0 1 0.505 0.08 6.83 33.2 33.2

25 0.13 0.87 0.474 0.07 6.568 39 36.3 25 0.13 0.87 0.505 0.08 6.235 31.2 30.4

26 0.18 0.82 0.413 0.11 6.576 34 31.2 26 0.11 0.89 0.44 0.06 5.954 27 25.5

27 0.07 0.93 0.338 0.09 6.413 28 27 27 0 1 0.391 0.02 5.26 24 24

28 0.1 0.9 0.315 0 5.912 20.3 19.4 28 0 1 0.391 0.03 4.26 19 19

29 0 1 0.283 0 5.185 3 3 29 0 1 0.391 0.25 3.26 6 6

30 0.33 0.67 0.283 0 5.012 3 2.8 30 0 1 0.391 0.08 2.26 6 6

31 0 1 0.19 0 5 2 2 31 0.24 0.76 0.391 0 1.432 4.1 3.8

32 0 1 0.19 0 4 2 2 32 1 0 0.297 0 1 0 0

33 0 1 0.19 0 3 2 2 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

34 0 1 0.19 0 2 2 2 34 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

35 0.5 0.5 0.19 0 1.333 2 1.5 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

36 1 0 0.095 0 1 1 0.4 36 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

r = -0.0037; lambda = 0.9363; T = 15.23; N = 82; N(at 20 yrs) = 76.18 r = 0.084; lambda = 1.0085; T = 15.47; N =86; N(at 20 yrs) = 101.8

Notes: This life table is based on a small sample but a long time span; this species has been consistently held in small numbers over

several decades. While samples are small full life spans have likely been observed. First year mortality is among the lowest observed

among the ten species; median survivorship is among the highest observed.



Species Magellanic Males Females


Current Date 3/14/2011 0 0.21 0.79 1 0 11.277 306.4 252.3 0 0.22 0.78 1 0 10.456 274.1 222.7

N Individuals 835 1 0.07 0.93 0.79 0 12.066 240.6 229.4 1 0.07 0.93 0.78 0 11.181 212.8 202.6

N Institutions 28 2 0.06 0.94 0.735 0 11.837 217.7 209.2 2 0.06 0.94 0.725 0.03 10.891 193.5 186.8

Timeframe 1912-2012 3 0.13 0.87 0.691 0.06 11.96 219.3 201.6 3 0.16 0.84 0.682 0.05 11.094 207.2 186.1

Demographic Window 1985-2011 4 0.13 0.87 0.601 0.12 12.598 245.4 225 4 0.16 0.84 0.573 0.17 12.017 215.3 193

Studbook Keeper Nancy Gonzales, WCS 5 0.07 0.93 0.523 0.17 12.917 202 195 5 0.09 0.91 0.481 0.19 12.635 171.7 164.3

6 0.06 0.94 0.486 0.14 12.748 179.6 172.6 6 0.09 0.91 0.438 0.18 12.785 152.8 147.4

Maximum Longevity 31 7 0.06 0.94 0.457 0.18 12.498 159 153.5 7 0.05 0.95 0.398 0.18 12.685 132.9 129.2





Mean Clutch Size 1467 12 0.06 0.94 0.331 0.08 11.232 89 85.7 12 0.01 0.99 0.288 0.14 11.327 78.5 77.9

1st Year Mortality 0.22 13 0.05 0.95 0.311 0.12 10.829 78.4 77.6 13 0.05 0.95 0.285 0.1 10.645 74 72.1

14 0.09 0.91 0.296 0.1 10.563 69.2 65.7 14 0.09 0.91 0.271 0.14 10.366 65.4 62


1 192 54.39 16 0.06 0.94 0.258 0.12 9.725 51.9 49.7 16 0.06 0.94 0.232 0.17 9.716 49.4 49

2 158 44.76 17 0.07 0.93 0.243 0.18 9.33 45.8 44.5 17 0.07 0.93 0.218 0.21 9.32 43.5 41.4

3 2 0.57 18 0.1 0.9 0.226 0.19 9.098 39 37.3 18 0.1 0.9 0.203 0.19 9.088 39.3 38.1

4 1 0.28 19 0.12 0.88 0.203 0.24 9.094 33.2 31.7 19 0.09 0.91 0.182 0.19 8.939 35 33.9

Total 353 100 20 0.07 0.93 0.179 0.18 8.959 27.5 27.2 20 0.07 0.93 0.166 0.17 8.634 30.5 28.8

Median = 1; Mean = 1.467 21 0 1 0.166 0.22 8.259 24.2 24.2 21 0.11 0.89 0.154 0.1 8.382 27.2 25.9

22 0.1 0.9 0.166 0.12 7.641 19.4 18.1 22 0.1 0.9 0.137 0.19 8.251 21 20.2

*chicks hatched, NOT eggs laid 23 0 1 0.15 0.18 7.01 14.5 14.5 23 0.12 0.88 0.124 0.13 8.142 17.2 16.2

24 0.24 0.76 0.15 0.1 6.83 12.5 10.3 24 0.14 0.86 0.109 0.17 8.204 14.2 12.7

25 0 1 0.114 0.07 6.75 7.2 7.2 25 0 1 0.094 0.13 7.79 8.7 8.7

26 0 1 0.114 0 5.75 4.5 4.5 26 0 1 0.094 0.17 6.79 6.3 6.3

27 0 1 0.114 0 4.75 4 4 27 0 1 0.094 0 5.79 5.2 5.2

28 0 1 0.114 0 3.75 3.5 3.5 28 0.22 0.78 0.094 0 5.382 4.5 3.8

29 0.5 0.5 0.114 0.75 3.667 2 1.4 29 0 1 0.073 0.54 5 2 2

30 0 1 0.057 0 4 1 1 30 0 1 0.073 0.27 4 2 2

31 0 1 0.057 0 3 1 1 31 0 1 0.073 0 3 2 2

32 0 1 0.057 0 2 0.6 0.6 32 0 1 0.073 0 2 1.2 1.2

33 1 0 0.057 0 1 0 0 33 1 0 0.073 0 1 0 0

r = 0.0047; lambda = 1.0047; T = 12.77; N = 129; N(at 20 yrs) = 141.65 r = 0.0048; lambda = 1.0048; T = 12.39; N = 102; N(at 20 yrs) = 112.29

Species Short-crested Rockhopper Males Females


Current Date 10/5/2011 0 0.24 0.76 1 0 18.255 351.5 277.5 0 0.21 0.79 1 0 20.093 353 289.3

N Individuals 958 1 0.05 0.95 0.76 0.01 20.492 311.6 299.3 1 0.06 0.94 0.79 0.01 22.3 314.1 302.1

N Institutions 37 2 0.04 0.96 0.722 0.02 20.413 320.9 313.4 2 0.03 0.97 0.743 0.02 22.314 305.8 298.5

Timeframe 1926-2012 3 0.04 0.96 0.693 0.02 20.222 308.9 300.7 3 0.04 0.96 0.72 0.01 22.085 288.3 281.7


Studbook Keeper Amanda Ista, Milwaukee Co. Zoo 5 0.04 0.96 0.645 0.03 19.606 256.8 251.5 5 0.03 0.97 0.657 0.05 21.961 236 232

6 0.02 0.98 0.62 0.08 19.185 232.1 229.2 6 0.02 0.98 0.637 0.1 21.5 212.5 210






Mean Clutch Size 1.222 12 0.01 0.99 0.521 0.15 16.078 158.2 157.9 12 0 1 0.542 0.18 18.477 138.9 138.8


14 0.01 0.99 0.501 0.19 14.681 140.5 140 14 0.01 0.99 0.531 0.22 16.908 118.8 118.6

Clutch Size * Frequency Percentage 15 0.02 0.98 0.496 0.13 13.889 132 130.9 15 0.02 0.98 0.526 0.15 16.15 112.4 112.2

1 289 78.11 16 0.03 0.97 0.486 0.13 13.218 121.9 120.9 16 0.03 0.97 0.515 0.09 15.537 108.9 108

2 81 21.62 17 0.04 0.96 0.471 0.07 12.66 111.1 109.5 17 0.03 0.97 0.5 0.12 14.987 104.3 102.4

3 1 0.27 18 0.02 0.98 0.452 0.08 12.024 105.1 103.6 18 0.02 0.98 0.485 0.08 14.347 96.7 95.9

Total 370 100 19 0.01 0.99 0.443 0.02 11.192 93.6 92.8 19 0.01 0.99 0.475 0.06 13.551 87 86.4

Median = 1; Mean = 1.222 20 0.04 0.96 0.439 0.1 10.453 79 77.2 20 0.02 0.98 0.47 0.1 12.742 79 77.6

21 0 1 0.421 0.15 9.65 73.8 73.8 21 0 1 0.461 0.07 11.861 76.9 76.9


23 0.06 0.94 0.388 0.07 8.617 66.5 65.2 23 0.01 0.99 0.442 0.05 10.345 71.5 70.6

24 0.06 0.94 0.364 0.08 8.103 62.5 61.5 24 0.01 0.99 0.438 0.07 9.439 69.7 69.7

25 0.06 0.94 0.342 0.05 7.556 51.4 49.8 25 0.02 0.98 0.434 0.03 8.567 59.9 59.2

26 0.09 0.91 0.322 0.05 7.084 33 31.6 26 0.05 0.95 0.425 0.04 7.841 40 38.8

27 0 1 0.293 0 6.385 25.1 25.1 27 0.03 0.97 0.404 0 7.128 34.4 33.4

28 0 1 0.293 0 5.385 14.7 14.7 28 0 1 0.392 0 6.222 24.2 24.2

29 0.17 0.83 0.293 0 4.793 12.1 11.2 29 0.12 0.88 0.392 0 5.556 16.3 15

30 0.14 0.86 0.243 0 4.496 7 6.3 30 0.12 0.88 0.345 0 5.177 8 7.2

31 0.17 0.83 0.209 0 4.131 6 5.9 31 0.29 0.71 0.303 0 5.218 7 6.6

32 0 1 0.174 0 3.452 5 5 32 0 1 0.215 0 5.08 5 5

33 0.2 0.8 0.174 0 2.724 5 4.1 33 0.2 0.8 0.215 0 4.533 5 4.3

34 0.28 0.72 0.139 0 2.256 3.6 3 34 0 1 0.172 0 3.975 3.6 3.6

35 0 1 0.1 0 1.5 0.7 0.7 35 0.67 0.33 0.172 0 4.474 3 2.4

36 1 0 0.1 0 1 0 0 36 0 1 0.057 0 7 1 1

37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 1 0.057 0 6 1 1

38 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 1 0.057 0 5 1 1

39 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 1 0.057 0 4 1 1

40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 1 0.057 0 3 1 1

41 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 1 0.057 0 2 0.1 0.1

42 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 1 0 0.057 0 1 0 0


Notes: Clutch size record of 4 should probably be investigated and may be an artifact of incorrectly reported studbook data. Clutches

are defined by individuals having the same parents and hatching within an overlapping window of 10 days. This species exhibits first

year mortality 1/3 lower than the other Spheniscus species.

Notes: There appears to be a disparity in male and female longevity, but this disparity is created by a single outlier.


African Penguin Chicks Admitted to SANCCOB Francois Louw, Development and Marketing Coordinator, SANCCOB, South Africa

African penguin chicks are admitted for hand-rearing for various reasons and the numbers fluctuate between

years. SANCCOB reared an above average number of chicks in 2013. Almost 800 chicks were admitted to the

Table View centre with approximately 300 admitted throughout the year (mostly removed from the Boulders

colony) and approximately 500 admitted in November and December due to being abandoned by moulting

parents. In addition, there were 90 chicks admitted to the Cape St. Francis centre throughout the year.

Conservation staff from SANParks, Overstrand Municipality and

CapeNature identifies underweight and ill chicks in the colonies

under these organisation’s protection and brought to SANCCOB

on a regular basis. These activities form part of the Chick Bolster-

ing Project, a collaboration between SANCCOB (project adminis-

trators), the Bristol Conservation and Science Foundation, the Ani-

mal Demography Unit (UCT), DEA (Oceans and Coasts), CapeNa-

ture, Robben Island Museum and SANParks. Chicks are collected

from colonies such as Boulders (TMNP), Robben Island and Stoney

Point in the Western Cape and Bird Island in the Eastern Cape (part

of the Addo Elephant National Park) and admitted to the Table

View and Cape St. Francis rehabilitation centers of SANCCOB. Most of the chicks sent through by the Boulders

(TMNP) colony are not abandoned but removed as a precautionary measure from areas where they are at

risk from speeding motor vehicles or residents’ pets.

Traditionally, numerous penguins are also abandoned at the end of

the breeding season, just before the adults start their moulting

cycle. During this three week process when they replace their

‘tuxedo’ with a brand new set of waterproof feathers, they are un-

able to hunt for fish and feed their young. The chicks that are yet

to fledge are abandoned and face starvation. “It is believed that

the number of chicks left in the colony at the end of the breeding

season is directly linked to the breeding success and availability of

food for the adults prior to, and throughout the breeding season,”

says Venessa Strauss, SANCCOB’s conservation director.

Once at the SANCCOB centres, the chicks are fed ‘fish smoothies’, allowed to swim and taken care of by the

dedicated staff and volunteers who work round the clock to ensure that they get released back into the wild.

Rehabilitation of these chicks can take anything from six weeks to three months depending on their size and

condition. Once they are at a fledging age, the correct weight, healthy and their feathers are waterproof, they

receive the final nod of approval from SANCCOB’s veterinary team and get released back into the wild.

Research has proven that hand-reared chicks fare as well as naturally-reared chicks in the wild. With less than

19 000 breeding pairs left in the wild in South Africa, African penguins are an endangered species and it re-

mains critical to save every individual possible to bolster the numbers in the wild. The hand-rearing of aban-

doned chicks is seen as a successful conservation intervention to help bolster the wild population.

African penguin chick admitted to SANCCOB for

hand-rearing. Francois Louw

African penguin chick. Francois Louw

Penguin Listserv Summaries

Original listserv question: I was wondering if anyone had any experience making African penguin dummy

eggs. How to fill the eggs, how to counterbalance the weight (how much does weight matter?), do we

keep the shell on? What products have people used to disinfect the eggs once they've been blown out?


FACILITY SPECIES COMMENTS

Dr. Dee

Boersma Magellanic

You could give them cardboard eggs and they will incubate them. Refer to Eric Wag-

ner's dissertation work. (Wagner EL, Lee EJ, Boersma PD (2012). PATTERNS OF AC-

CEPTANCE OF ARTIFICIAL EGGS AND CHICKS BY MAGELLANIC PENGUINS

(SPHENISCUS MAGELLANICUS). J Ornithol DOI 10.1007/s10336-012-0875-6.)

Aquarium of

the Americas

As Dr. Boersma explained, it's not actually necessary to be precise with exact-

appearance or exact-weight when making a dummy egg for Spheniscus. We use

plain plastic white-colored Easter eggs with both halves glued together. When they

get old or cracked, we just toss them and get new ones. We also use wooden eggs

you get at any craft store (about the size of a very large chicken egg and average Afri-

can penguin egg), dipped into white gloss latex paint to seal out moisture for ease of

cleaning. The actual weight and exact appearance is not critical; Spheniscus and

Eudyptes will both incubate anything even closely resembling an egg. One of our

southern rockhoppers even incubates white rocks as if eggs.

Aquarium of

the Pacific Magellanic

We used to blow out eggs to be used for dummies, fill them with sand and plaster

over the holes. They would last a while. We make a hole in the large end of the egg

about the size of a pencil eraser, and then use a catheter tip syringe with tap water

to flush out the contents. You can speed this up by scrambling the contents with a

needle or something and shaking the egg to empty it. If you want to you can bleach

it out, but use dilute bleach and rinse so the bleach won't weaken the egg shell.

Then make up your liquid plaster of paris and use the syringe to fill the egg. Gently

tap the egg to get all the air out. Leave a little space at the top, let plaster dry. After

dry, fill the rest of the way so it is completely full and comes out the top. When this

is dry, sand the extra off gently with fine sandpaper and green scrub pad. Yes, leave

the shell on. It is best to use fresh eggs so the contents come out easily. Goose eggs

or Ruddy Duck eggs are a good size for penguin dummies, too. The main thing is to

get the egg completely full of plaster so there are no air pockets since this will cause

the egg to break. My understanding is that plaster has similar weight and thermal

properties to real eggs, so it is the best material for filling. They don't last forever, so

just make extras.

National

Aviary

We make a small hole in one end and use a large syringe with a really large needle to

suck most of the contents out. Then we add water, and suck some more. If you are

careful, you can blow air or water into the hole, with the needle at an angle, and the

hole pointing down to blow out the contents too. After all the stuff is out, I rinse

with alcohol and then blow the alcohol out. Make the plaster about pancake batter

consistency. When filling the egg, I do it in stages over a couple of days. The plaster

shrinks as it dries, and if you try to do it all at one time the top of the egg doesn’t get

any. Weight does not seem to matter; you just don’t want any air pockets.



Michele Pagel , Adventure Aquarium, compiled the following responses to her request: We are interested in

everyone's thoughts on fresh water -vs.- salt water in penguin exhibits.



FACILITY FW SW PROS

FW

CONS

FW

PROS

SW

CONS

SW

COMMENTS

John Ball Zoo X Cost We use fresh water and have done so since 1984. Not to say it has

anything to do with salt verses fresh water, but we currently hold

the 2 oldest Magellanic penguins in the North American population

which came to us from the wild that same year. In my opinion, we

have not had any problems with use of fresh water. We have

raised young in it with no problems. It allows us to give live fish

(fresh water) for enrichment whenever we wish. When we rebuilt

the aquarium in 1996, we discussed changing to salt water, but

decided against it due to cost. We do, however have the option to

switch to saltwater at anytime as we plumbed the penguin tank to

the salt water reservoir. We also use the same filtration that we

have on our saltwater tanks as on our penguin.

Columbus Zoo X At the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium we have a 9,000 gallon fresh

water pool for our Humboldt colony. It was built in 1992 and we

have never had any issues with feather quality or otherwise. We

will be switching from a chlorine LSS to ozone within the next year.

Greensboro

Science Center

X Corrosion We just opened a new exhibit ourselves and opted to go with salt-

water. I can't say how it compares since this was our first ex-

hibit. But when we had asked around, we heard that birds swim

better in salt vs fresh. Not sure how true that is- our birds don't

seem any more or less active than other colonies I have seen. We

also went with salt just to be more natural and we had to make it

anyway for our large ocean tank. Cons would be that salt water is

obviously more corrosive on tools and things and expensive for us

since we have to make it. In hind-sight- I'm not sure there was any

great benefit to salt over fresh. I did not see any problems with

salt lines on the acrylic or build-up anywhere except with the initial

mix/adjustment of the tank. We have only been open for a few

months though so time will tell.

Milwaukee

County Zoo

X Savings We use fresh water here in Milwaukee Michele. I really don't think

it impacts the birds in any fashion. The money you will save in salt

alone will amaze you not to mention the mechanicals.

Kansas City Zoo X Both of our penguin exhibits are salt water.

Tautphaus Park

Zoo

X We have had our penguins in fresh water since we first opened

their exhibit in 1997. I’ve been here since 2009 and we’ve had no

issues.

Sea World X May help foot

issues?

Ours are salt but I don’t see a reason to change unless you have a

lot of foot issues – salt could benefit that.

Monterey Bay

Aquarium

X May help foot

issues?

We have Africans on salt and our feet are great- we also use soft

matting so I don’t think it is 100% due to our saltwater but I think it

may help. Also, we had Magellanics on freshwater for a few years

on a temporary show and a lot of them had slightly cloudy nictitat-

ing membranes. I have no idea if they were connected.

Oregon Zoo X Oregon Zoo has a fresh water exhibit with Humboldts and we have

not had any problems that I am aware of.

St. Louis Zoo X Savings Expensive Much easier and cheaper to operate.

West

Edmonton

Mall

X Improved foot

issues and

molt

We currently house African Penguins in a salt water system that

has sand, carbon, and ozone treating the system. For many years

this exhibit was a fresh water exhibit. When we transferred over to

salt water we saw nothing but positive responses to the change.

We have had dramatic improvement in foot issues and moulting

has improved.



Original listserv question (February 2012): What time(s) do other institutions feed their penguins? Does

anyone know of a reason to feed them with a greater time span between feedings?


FACILITY SPECIES FEED AM FEED mid FEED PM COMMENTS

Zoo Boise 11-11:30 3:30 - 4:30

Steinhart

Aquarium African 10:30 3:00

We feed our African penguin colony at 10:30

am (with vits) and then again at 3 pm. We used

to do the second feeding at 3:30 pm and I did-

n't notice any decline in appetite from moving

the feeds a bit closer together. Both of these

feeds are public programs.

Little Rock Zoo 8:30 1:15

3:45 winter

4:15

summer

We feed our penguins and give out meds

around 8:30am before the zoo opens to the

public. There is a public feeding at 1:15pm

where we do a keeper talk and we feed around

3:45 pm in the winter or 4:15 pm in the sum-

mer right before bringing the birds in for the

day. We used to do the last feeding inside so

that we could get the birds in at the end of the

day, but since we started feeding the birds on

exhibit and then bringing them in we haven't

had any problems getting them in on most

days.

Mystic Aquarium African

9:30 vita-

mins 1:30

3:30 vari-

able train-

ing feeding

The training feeding is a bit slow, but, they are

slowly learning to take at least a fish during

this feed. AP's tend to feed early in the day

and come back to islands/nest before dusk,

rushing onto the islands to spend the night.

Woodland Park Zoo 9:30 3:30

We think you see a better feeding response in

the PM if the feedings are spaced out a bit

more.

National Aviary

We feed our penguins their main vitamins and

meds in the morning before opening, and then

there are two public feedings spaced out later

in the day.

Moody Gardens 11-11:30 3:30 Our penguins seem fine with this timing.

Adventure

Aquarium

8:00 vits/

meds

11:15 pub-

lic 3:45 public

Monterey Bay

Aquarium

10:30 AM

vits/fish 3:00 PM

San Francisco Zoo 10:30 3:30

With our most recent feeding schedule (5hr

span), we haven't noticed any change in appe-

tite or feeding performance compared to

wider time-spans.*When parents are rearing

>2-week-old chicks, we'll incorporate a third

feeding for them (9am).


Penguin feeding times continued

Original listserv question: For those with penguin painting programs, what type of paint is used?

Audubon Aquarium

We use washable finger-paints from Michael's that come in 2-pint squeeze bottles. We found that if

you dilute one part paint with two parts water, the footprints are much clearer, and the paint ab-

sorbs better into the canvas sheets so the paintings dry quicker. For red or orange paint, one part

paint to three parts water helps avoid feather staining. We always have a 5-gallon tub of water in

our encounter room and let the birds step into it for a minute when they're done. A drop of Dawn in

the tub can help get stubborn red or orange out of feathers - washing those colors out right away

before it dries into the feathers and before the penguins return to salt water (which seems to "set"

the colors) is the key. I have also experimented with face-painting colors, which work well if you

want more of a water-color look. These also wash out of feathers readily, again with red taking

more time to come out.

National Aviary

We just use tempera poster paint. We get it from Dick Blick art supply, but you can buy it at any

craft store. Mostly washes off the bird when we put them back in the pool. But we do let all the

trainers know we have been painting - especially if we used red!

Ripley’s Aquarium

We use a water-based one from ACMoore. We use tempura only for background. Red still seems to

stay on the birds a bit.

Moody Gardens

We used Blickcrylic or chromcryl from Dick Blick Art Supplies. We have found that the acrylics make

a clearer print. We do the same as Teri and warn people when we use red.

Minnesota Zoo

We use plain tempura paint. Same as that used in most elementary schools for art and also used by

our zoo for camp classes on site.


John G Shedd

Aquarium 9:00 2:45

Currently we feed our penguins at 9 am and

2:45 pm. But that’s adjusted for seasonal

(winter) lighting. The evening feed is later in the

day when their light cycle is longer. We add in a

third mid-day feed for parents with chicks.

Denver Zoo African

10:15-

10:30 3:30

Feeding times are logistical. Pairs with chicks,

etc., increase feedings by adding 1 mid-day as

needed.

Denver Zoo Humboldt 9:30 4:00

Feeding times are logistical. Pairs with chicks,

etc increase feedings by adding 1 mid day as

needed.

Jacksonville

Zoo and

Gardens 9:00 11:00, 3 5:00

Our penguins shift on to exhibit and off exhibit

every day. We feed 2 times in holding and 2

times on exhibit. The reason for this is that

some of the birds prefer eating in holding and

some on exhibit. We have brought birds to-

gether from different locations and have a small

group of 11 penguins. Once they are more es-

tablished, we will most likely cut down the num-

ber of feedings.

Blank Park

Zoo Magellanic

8:30 vita-

min fish 10:30 public 3:00 public

Long Island

Aquarium

and

Exhibition

Center African 10:15 2:00

If penguins are caring for chicks we'll add sev-

eral more feeds/ day for the parents.

FACILITY SPECIES FEED AM FEED mid FEED PM COMMENTS


News and Updates

PTAG

♦ While many of the penguin programs within the Penguin TAG are Green SSPs the PTAG wants to assure

that the populations are demographically sustainable well into the future. Therefore the PTAG is working

with the PMC to conduct a Population Viability Assessment (PVA) of the North American penguin popu-

lations. Lincoln Park Zoo was awarded a grant to conduct studies of the sustainability of AZA Animal Pro-

grams. A request for studbooks from Population Managers and Studbook Keepers was issued in January.

♦ Tom Schneider, Chair of the Penguin TAG, reports that the Penguin Animal Care Manual (ACM) was sub-

mitted to AZA on 14 February. Tom expressed thanks to the authors for their hard work in compiling and

reviewing drafts during the rigorous development process.

CONFERENCES/MAGAZINES

♦ Several papers relative to penguins were presented at the recent Pacific Seabird Group 41st

Annual

Meeting in Juneau, Alaska (19-22 February 2014). See relevant titles below or read the abstracts at

http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org/2014mtg/PSG2014.Abstracts.pdf :

-Causes of seabird mortality in the immediate aftermath of the Rena Oil Spill, Bay of Plenty, New

Zealand

-Survival in macaroni penguins and the relative importance of different drivers; individual traits,

predation pressure and environmental variability

-Foraging habits of gentoo and chinstrap penguins revealed by stable isotope analysis on King George

Island, Antarctica

-Oiled wildlife response in New Zealand: the C/V Rena Incident

-What do little penguins do all day? We tracked them in Wellington Harbour, New Zealand to find

out

-Penguins clearly benefit from rehabilitation following exposure to oil

-Impacts of the 2001 Jessica Oil Spill on endemic and native Galapagos birds, reptile and mammals

-Magnetic cleansing of oiled seabirds: Where are we and where to next?

♦ The quarterly issue of Zooquaria is available for download online. It includes a program update of the

European King ESB by Linda Burrill. Go to https://interactivepdf.uniflip.com/2/48142/321332/pub for a

link to the pdf.

SANCCOB

♦ SANCCOB released the last hatchling of the 2013 Chick Bolstering Project at Boulders Beach on 21

February.

♦ Several AZA/SSP partners were able to send staff to SANCCOB last fall to help with rehabilitation efforts.

These organizations included the National Aviary, Minnesota Zoo, Georgia Aquarium, Audubon’s Aquar-

ium of the America’s and Discovery Cove. Anyone interested in attending next year can now obtain a set

of instructional materials and travel information to help them “hit the ground” running when they arrive

in South Africa to volunteer for SANCCOB. Read the African Penguin Chick Bolstering Project Update

December 2013 at the Penguin TAG website www.zoopenguins.org. (Continued on Page 31)


PENGUIN SENTINELS

♦ Dr. Dee Boersma is working to increase the Galapagos penguin population. Her organization and the Na-

tional Park of Ecuador have worked to build lava nests as shady sites for Galapagos penguins to breed. So

far 120 nests have been built and birds have bred in some of them though breeding conditions have been

poor for several years. Visit Penguin Sentinels to see a video and learn more at http://science.kqed.org/

quest/video/penguin-sentinels/.

♦ Dee also reports that it was an unusual breeding season for Magellanic penguins at Punta Tombo: egg

laying was very late, lots of eggs and young chicks were lost, many of them to starvation and predation

similar to past years. In a paper posted on 29 January to Plos ONE, Dee and colleague Dr. Ginger

Rebstock describe how climate change has reduced breeding success at Punta Tombo. Dr. Boersma

discussed her concerns with Ira Flatow on Science Friday. Listen to a podcast of her interview at

http://www.sciencefriday.com. Read the Magellanic Penguin Project Fall 2013 Field Research Update

at the updated Penguin Sentinels website at http://penguinstudies.org/.

OTHER NEWS

♦ Kansas City opened their new penguin exhibit last October 2013. The Helzberg Penguin Plaza is home to

four penguin species (Humboldt, gentoo, king and rockhopper) in two separate exhibits. The facility oc-

cupies 17,500 sq ft (1,626 sq m) with two pools: a 25,000 gal (95 m3) and a 100,000 gal (379 m3).

♦ The St. Louis Zoo announced the temporary closure of their Penguin and Puffin Coast exhibit. The clo-

sure will last through early 2015 to accommodate construction being conducted nearby. The penguins

and puffins can still be viewed via live webcam at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUORM6968a4.

♦ Six Humboldt penguins now call the Scovill Zoo home after construction of a new penguin exhibit was

completed last year. The zoo plans a ribbon cutting for the new exhibit in March.

♦ On 8 August 2013 a cargo ship, the Kiani Satu, ran aground along the Knysna Coastline, Southern Cape

coast, South Africa. The wreck spilled an estimated 10 tons of heavy fuel oil before it was freed from the

beach to sink in deep water on 21 August.

♦ The Plight of the Penguin, by Lloyd Spencer Davis, is now available in 51 countries in Apple’s iBookstore.



Recommended References

BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE AFRICAN PENGUIN SPHENISCUS DEMERSUS. No. 824. Govern-

ment Gazette, 31 October 2013, No. 36966. Department of Environmental Affairs, Republic of South Africa.

Boersma, PD (2008). PENGUINS AS MARINE SENTINELS. BioScience 58(7):597-607.

de Margerie E, Robin J-P, Verrier D, Cubo J, Groscolas R and Castanet J (2003). ASSESSING A RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN BONE MICROSTRUCTURE AND GROWTH RATE: A FLUORESCENT LABELLING STUDY IN THE KING

PENGUIN CHICK (APTENTODYTES PATAGONICUS). J Exp Biol 207: 869-879. DOI:10.1242/jeb.00841.

Dinhopl N, Mostegl MM, Richter B, Nedorost N, Maderner A, Fragner K and Weissenbock H (2011). APPLICA-

TION OF IN-SITU HYBRIDIZATION FOR THE DETECTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF AVIAN MALARIA PARA-

SITES IN PARAFFIN WAX-EMBEDDED TISSUES FROM CAPTIVE PENGUINS. Avian Pathol 40(3): 315-320.

Fretwell PT, Trathan PN, Wienecke B, Kooyman GL (2014). EMPEROR PENGUINS BREEDING ON ICESHELVES.

PLoS ONE 9(1):e85285. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0085285.

Mazzaro L, Dunn JL, Tuttle A, Goodman J, Wyatt J and Kadyszewski E (2003). PLASMA ELECTROLYTE CON-

CENTRATION FOR AFRICAN PENGUINS (SPHENISCUS DEMERSUS) AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO HABITAT

TYPE AND SALT SUPPLEMENTATION. In Ward A, Brooks M, Maslanka M, Eds. Proceedings of the Fifth Con-

ference on Zoo and Wildlife Nutrition, AZA Nutrition Advisory Group, Minneapolis, MN.

Nesterova A, Chiffard J, Couchoux C and Bonadonna F (2013). THE INVISIBLE CUES THAT GUIDE KING PEN-

GUIN CHICKS HOME: USE OF MAGNETIC AND ACOUSTIC CUES DURING ORIENTATION AND SHORT-RANGE

NAVIGATION. J Exp Biol 216, 1491-1500. DOI:10.1242/jeb.075564.

O’Brien JK and Robeck TR (2014). SEMEN CHARACTERIZATION, SEASONALITY OF PRODUCTION, AND IN VI-

TRO SPERM QUALITY AFTER CHILLED STORAGE AND CRYOPRESERVATION IN THE KING PENGUIN

(APTENODYTES PATAGONICUS). Zoo Biol 9999:1-11. DOI: 10.1002/zoo.21111.

Robin J-P, Boucontet L, Chillet P and Groscolas R (1998). BEHAVIORAL CHANGES IN FASTING EMPEROR PEN-

GUINS: EVIDENCE FOR A “REFEEDING SIGNAL” LINKED TO A METABOLIC SHIFT. Am J Physiol 274: R746-

R753.

Sherley RB, Ludynia K, Lamon T, Roux J-P, Crawford RJM, Underhill, LG (2013). THE INITIAL JOURNEY OF AN

ENDANGERED PENGUIN: IMPLICATIONS FOR SEABIRD CONSERVATION. Endang Species Res 21:89-95.

Ocean Health Index http://www.oceanhealthindex.org/; uses socio-ecological objectives to score the health

of oceans adjacent to 171 countries.

Antarctic Ocean Alliance http://www.antarcticocean.org; a coalition of environmental and conservation or-

ganizations (including Last Ocean, ASOC, IFAW, etc.) calling for the establishment of MPA in the Ross Sea.


Events and Announcements

23-28 March 2014: Avian Scientific Advisory Group (ASAG) AZA Mid-Year Meeting, Memphis Tennessee.

Among the variety of topics, presentations relative to penguins include Program Penguin Overview (Steve

Sarro) and Light Bulb Moments with Penguins and Alcids (Linda Henry). The Penguin TAG meeting is sched-

uled for 23 March, 4-5 PM. Consider a donation to ASAG to help continue to support Zoo and Aquarium

avian programs, conservation of bird species and to advance avicultural knowledge. Learn more at

www.aviansag.org.

29 March 2014: 8th Annual Earth Hour; lights out 8:30-9:30 PM in your local time zone. Visit

www.earthhour.org for details.

22 April 2014: Earth Day. Get involved! www.earthday.org.

25 April 2014: World Penguin Day. Find event ideas at http://www.ehow.com/how_2020195_penguin-

awareness-day.html

16 May 2014: Endangered Species Day: Another opportunity to increase awareness and promote conserva-

tion action. http://www.endangered.org/campaigns/endangered-species-day

8 June 2014: World Oceans Day: Make an ocean promise and see a list of event ideas at http://

worldoceansday.org.

10-14 November 2014: Avian egg incubation workshop 2014 at Durrell Conservation Academy, Durrell

Wildlife Conservation Trust, Les Augrès Manor, La Profonde Rue, Trinity, Jersey, JE3 5BP. Email: acad-

[email protected].

26-30 October 2015: 2nd World Seabird Conference, Cape Town, South Africa; Abstract submission and con-

ference registration will open in the fall of 2014. Please visit www.worldseabirdconference.com for more

information.

Documents

PCN Vol 18; No 1aviansag.org/Newsletters/Penguin_TAG/PCN Vol 18; No 1.pdf · hibit, Penguins Rock! This exhibit has the largest outdoor penguin pool in Europe and is home to over