Cited by 92Primate Behavior and EcologyAnimal Behavior and ReproductionWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Sneeze to leave: African wild dogs ( Lycaon pictus ) use variable quorum thresholds facilitated by sneezes in collective decisions

Open access
Walker, Reena H., King, Andrew J., McNutt, J. Weldon, Jordan, Neil R.·2017·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

In despotically driven animal societies, one or a few individuals tend to have a disproportionate influence on group decision-making and actions. However, global communication allows each group member to assess the relative strength of preferences for different options among their group-mates. Here, we investigate collective decisions by free-ranging African wild dog packs in Botswana. African wild dogs exhibit dominant-directed group living and take part in stereotyped social rallies: high energy greeting ceremonies that occur before collective movements. Not all rallies result in collective movements, for reasons that are not well understood. We show that the probability of rally success (i.e. group departure) is predicted by a minimum number of audible rapid nasal exhalations (sneezes), within the rally. Moreover, the number of sneezes needed for the group to depart (i.e. the quorum) was reduced whenever dominant individuals initiated rallies, suggesting that dominant participation increases the likelihood of a rally's success, but is not a prerequisite. As such, the ‘will of the group’ may override dominant preferences when the consensus of subordinates is sufficiently great. Our findings illustrate how specific behavioural mechanisms (here, sneezing) allow for negotiation (in effect, voting) that shapes decision-making in a wild, socially complex animal society.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2017.0347

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Walker, R. H., King, A. J., McNutt, J. W., & Jordan, N. R.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Swansea University (GB)
  • Botswana Predator Conservation Trust (BW)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Walker, Reena H.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2017-09-06
Volume
284
Issue
1862
Pages
20170347
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2753722893
Cited by
92
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2
FWCI
11.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Sunset Fund
  • Myhrvold Family Charitable Fund
  • Woodland Park Zoo
  • Paul G. Allen Family Foundation
  • Dallas Zoo
  • Brookfield Zoo
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
Lycaon pictus, group decision making, sneezing, vocal communication, dominance, despotism
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Wild, Behavior, Animal, Botswana, Decision Making, Movement, Sneezing, Social Behavior, Canidae

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