Cited by 70Primate Behavior and EcologyAnimal Behavior and ReproductionWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Fission–fusion processes weaken dominance networks of female Asian elephants in a productive habitat

de Silva, Shermin, Schmid, Volker, Wittemyer, George·2017·Behavioral Ecology

Abstract

Dominance hierarchies are expected to form in response to socioecological pressures and competitive regimes. We assess dominance relationships among free-ranging female Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) and compare them with those of African savannah elephants (Loxodonta africana), which are known to exhibit age-based dominance hierarchies. Both species are generalist herbivores, however, the Asian population occupies a more productive and climatically stable environment relative to that of the African savannah population. We expected this would lower competition relative to the African taxon, relaxing the need for hierarchy. We tested whether 1) observed dominance interactions among individuals were transitive, 2) outcomes were structured either by age or by social unit according to 4 independent ranking methods, and 3) hierarchy steepness among classes was significant using David’s score. Elephas maximus displayed less than a third the number of dominance interactions as observed in L. africana, with statistically insignificant transitivity among individuals. There was weak but significant order as well as steepness among age-classes but no clear order among social units. Loxodonta africana showed significant transitivity among individuals, with significant order and steepness among age-classes and social units. Elephas maximus had a greater proportion of age-reversed dominance outcomes than L. africana. When dominance hierarchies are weak and nonlinear, signals of dominanc…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/beheco/arw153

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Silva, S., Schmid, V., & Wittemyer, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Regensburg (DE)
  • Save the Elephants (KE)
Venue
Behavioral Ecology
Published
2016-10-07
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
243-252
ISSN
  • 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7279
OpenAlex
W2529789276
Cited by
70
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5
FWCI
8.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Smithsonian Digital Repository (Smithsonian Institution) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • National Science Foundation (1103468)
  • Institute for Advanced Study
  • Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
dominance hierarchy, fission-fusion societies, Asian elephant, African savannah elephant, Loxodonta africana, transitivity, ecological release, resource dynamics, habitat productivity, free-ranging elephants

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