Cited by 37Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Behavior and ReproductionPrimate Behavior and Ecology

The influence of forage, protected areas, and mating prospects on grouping patterns of male elephants

Chiyo, Patrick I., Wilson, John W., Archie, Elizabeth A., Lee, Phyllis C., Moss, Cynthia J., Alberts, Susan C.·2014·Behavioral Ecology

Abstract

Factors affecting social group size in mammals are relatively well studied for females, but less is known about determinants of group size for males, particularly in species that live in sexually segregated groups. Male grouping patterns are thought to be driven more by spatial and temporal dispersion of mating opportunities than by food resources or predation risk. We evaluated the influence of 3 factors on male group sizes and number of males in mixed-sex groups in African elephants; forage availability (using Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, a satellite-based indicator of primary productivity), anthropogenic mortality risk (using distance of elephants from a protected area center), and mating opportunities (using the number of males in mixed-sex groups with and without estrous females). Using zero-truncated negative binomial regressions and a model-selection approach, we found that male elephants occurred in larger groups where primary productivity was higher and where they were further from a protected area center. However, we found an interaction between primary productivity and anthropogenic mortality risk: at low primary productivity, elephants formed larger groups further away from a protected area center, but did less so at higher primary productivity. This pattern suggests that male elephants are sensitive to seasonal variation in potential anthropogenic mortality risk, by remaining in smaller groups when risk is low, but forming larger groups when risk is high. Mating opportunities also led to an increase in male numbers in mixed-sex groups, but its relative influence on male grouping was less important because mating opportunities were rare.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/beheco/aru152

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 117 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chiyo, P. I., Wilson, J. W., Archie, E. A., Lee, P. C., Moss, C. J., & Alberts, S. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • Duke University (US)
Venue
Behavioral Ecology
Published
2014
Volume
25
Issue
6
Pages
1494-1504
ISSN
  • 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7279
OpenAlex
W2162456164
Cited by
37
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
Loxodonta africana, social group size, forage availability, primary productivity, protected areas, mating opportunities, mixed-sex groups, sexual segregation, estrous females, seasonal variation

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