Cited by 128Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Behavior and ReproductionPrimate Behavior and Ecology

Vigilance in African Mammals: Differences among Mothers, Other Females, and Males

Burger, Joanna, Gochfeld, Michael·1994·Behaviour

Abstract

Abstract The time devoted to eating, vigilance (or scanning), walking and aggression was studied in one-minute focal animal samples as a function of sex, age, and motherhood for several African animals including African elephant, Burchell's zebra, Cape buffalo, Defassa waterbuck, impala, and Uganda kob. Between 24 and 45 percent of the variation in vigilance behavior was accounted for by location (center or edge of herd), sex, age and whether a female had young. Time of day entered the linear multiple regression models for two species, and surprisingly group size did not enter any of the linear multiple regression models in 1993. In general, females with young were more vigilant than their young or females without young. There were few gender differences in vigilance among animals without young, except that male zebra, wildebeest and waterbuck were more vigilant than females. Animals on the edge of herds devoted more time to vigilance than intermediate or central animals (regardless of sex or age class). Although there was no relationship between group size and vigilance in 1993 when all herds were considered, there was a decrease in vigilance with increasing herd size for impala and kob for herds less than 50. Moveover, herd size and vigilance were negatively correlated in our 1984-1985 study, due partly to differences in group sizes. In 1984-1985 animals were not migrating, and were in relatively small, discrete groups, whereas in 1993 some species were migrating in large herds that stretched for several km. We suggest that in 1993 herd size was above a threshold where increases in group size can lead to further decreases in vigilance. Under these circumstances, location in the herd becomes paramount: Outside animals can be directly exposed to attack. Consequently animals on the edge devote more time to vigilance than central animals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1163/156853994x00415

Cites

21 of 21 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
Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Environmental and Community Medicine, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscata-way, NJ 08854, USA
Venue
Behaviour
Published
1994
Volume
131
Issue
3-4
Pages
153-169
ISSN
  • 0005-7959 (ISSN-L)
  • 1568-539X
OpenAlex
W1976623627
Cited by
128
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (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
vigilance behavior, scanning behavior, African mammals, sex differences, motherhood, herd size, Loxodonta africana, Burchell's zebra, Cape buffalo, impala

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