CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 651Primate Behavior and EcologyMarine animal studies overviewAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Matriarchs As Repositories of Social Knowledge in African Elephants

McComb, Karen, Moss, Cynthia, Durant, Sarah M., Baker, Lucy, Sayialel, Soila·2001·Science
DOI 10.1126/science.1057895
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite widespread interest in the evolution of social intelligence, little is known about how wild animals acquire and store information about social companions or whether individuals possessing enhanced social knowledge derive biological fitness benefits. Using playback experiments on African elephants ( Loxodonta africana ), we demonstrated that the possession of enhanced discriminatory abilities by the oldest individual in a group can influence the social knowledge of the group as a whole. These superior abilities for social discrimination may result in higher per capita reproductive success for female groups led by older individuals. Our findings imply that the removal of older, more experienced individuals, which are often targets for hunters because of their large size, could have serious consequences for endangered populations of advanced social mammals such as elephants and whales.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.1057895

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. N. K. Humphrey in Growing Points in Ethology P. P. G. Bateson R. A. Hinde Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press Cambridge 1976) pp. 303–317.
  2. R. C. Connor in Cetacean Societies Field Studies of Dolphins and Whales J. Mann R. C. Connor P. L. Tyack H. Whitehead Eds. (Univ. of Chicago Press Chicago 2000) pp. 199–218.
  3. T. Nishida M. Hiraiwa-Hasegawa in Primate Societies B. B. Smuts D. L. Cheney R. M. Seyfarth R. W. Wrangham T. T. Struhsaker Eds. (Univ. of Chicago Press Chicago 1986) pp. 165–177.
  4. C. Moss in Studying Elephants K. Kangwana Ed. (African Wildlife Foundation Nairobi Kenya 1996) pp. 58–74.
  5. Contact calls recorded from a total of 20 adult females all known individuals in the study population were used as playback stimuli. All recordings were made on digital audio tape using equipment specialized for low-frequency recording: a Sennheiser MKH 110 microphone linked to a Sony TCD D10 DAT recorder (with DC modification) or a HHb PortaDAT PDR 1000 DAT recorder. The system for playback was composed of a custom-built 6th-order bass box loudspeaker (Aylestone Cambridge UK) with two sound ports linked to a power amplifier [a Kenwood KAC-PS400M or amplifiers described in (9)] which had a lower frequency limit of 10 Hz and a response that was flat ± 4 dB from ∼15 Hz on one sound port and ∼20 Hz on the other. Each of 21 families of subjects received playbacks of contact calls from a mean of 8 different callers (range: 4 to 11) none of which were members of their own family unit or bond group. Calls were only played if the subjects were within their home range and had no calves of less than 1 month. Playbacks to the same family unit were always separated by at least 7 days and playbacks of callers of different association indices with the subjects were given in random order. In each playback a single contact call was played at peak sound pressure levels of 105 dB at 1 m (corresponding to the natural volume of a medium loud contact call) from a Landrover vehicle that was located 100 m from the subjects. The vehicle was positioned at right angles to the direct line of sight to the elephants and vocalizations were played through the rear door. Responses to playbacks were observed through binoculars and recorded on videotape. Out of a range of behaviors monitored during playback experiments two key behaviors were used to classify subjects' reactions in this study: (i) Bunching: scored as occurring if subjects bunched together into defensive formation so that the diameter (estimated in terms of elephant body lengths) of the whole group or of constituent subgroups decreased. (ii) Smelling: scored as occurring when any of the subjects used the tip of their trunk to smell in lowered mid- or raised positions.
  6. All statistical analyses were carried out with Genstat [R. W. Payne et al. GENSTAT 5 Reference Manual (Oxford Univ. Press Oxford 1987)].
  7. We thank the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council for providing the major funding for this work (grant no. 85/S07659 to K.M.). Additional financial support or equipment came from the African Wildlife Foundation; the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour; Newnham College (Cambridge); the Natural Environment Research Council; the Nuffield Foundation; the Royal Society; the Tusk Trust; the University of Sussex; and the Institute of Zoology. We are grateful to the Kenyan Office of the President and to Kenya Wildlife Services for permission to conduct the work in Amboseli National Park; to the African Wildlife Foundation and P. B. Allen for logistical support; to K. Sayialel and N. Njiriana for assistance with fieldwork; and to P. Harvey G. Mace and D. Reby for comments on the manuscript.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 651

Related

Metadata

Authors
McComb, K., Moss, C., Durant, S. M., Baker, L., & Sayialel, S.
Affiliations
  • African Wildlife Foundation (KE)
  • Zoological Society of London (GB)
Corresponding author
McComb, Karen
ORCID
Venue
Science
Publisher
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Published
2001-04-20
Volume
292
Issue
5516
Pages
491-494
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
DOI
10.1126/science.1057895
OpenAlex
W1964169699
Cited by
651
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 19
FWCI
20.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
Loxodonta africana, matriarchs, social knowledge, social discrimination, social learning, reproductive success, age and experience, playback experiments, threatened species, social intelligence
MeSH terms
Aging, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Conservation of Natural Resources, Discrimination, Psychological, Elephants, Biological Evolution, Exploratory Behavior, Female, Kenya, Reproduction, Social Behavior, Vocalization, Animal

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