Cited by 67Wildlife Ecology and ConservationPlant and animal studiesPrimate Behavior and Ecology

African elephants use plant odours to make foraging decisions across multiple spatial scales

Open access
Schmitt, Melissa H., Shuttleworth, Adam, Ward, David, Shrader, Adrian M.·2018·Animal Behaviour

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.04.016

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • African savanna elephants can use olfactory cues to discriminate between preferred and nonpreferred plants, between fruits with different sugar levels, and between odors of closely related human family members, including sibling pairs.

    “African savanna elephants can use olfactory cues to discriminate between preferred and nonpreferred plants (Schmitt et al., 2018), between fruits with different sugar levels (Nevo et al., 2020), and between odors of closely related human family members, including sibling pairs (in a match-to-sample task; von Dürckheim et al., 2018).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Helle, T. (1984). Foraging behaviour of the semi-domestic reindeer (Rangifer tarandus L.) in relation to snow in Finnish Lapland Report from Kevo Subarctic Research Station (Vol. 19, pp. 35-47): Kevo Subarctic Research Station, Utsjoki, Finland.
  2. Krebs, J. R., & McCleery, R. H. (1984). Individual optimization in behavioural ecology. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (Vol. 91-12). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Scientific.
  3. Schmitt, M. H. (2017). The influences of plant secondary metabolites on the forgaging behaviour and carrying capacities for the African elephant, Loxodonta africana. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmitt, M. H., Shuttleworth, A., Ward, D., & Shrader, A. M.
Affiliations
  • University of KwaZulu-Natal (ZA)
  • University of Pretoria (ZA)
Corresponding author
Schmitt, Melissa H.
Venue
Animal Behaviour
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
141
Pages
17-27
ISSN
0003-3472 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2806700779
Cited by
67
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2
FWCI
6.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Animal Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation of South Africa (90448, 90691, 97262, 77582)
  • University of KwaZulu-Natal
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
Loxodonta africana, olfactory cues, plant odor, patch selection, plant selection, volatile organic compounds, odour profile, foraging efficiency, spatial scale

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review