Social interactions in zoo-housed elephants: factors affecting social relationships
Open accessAbstract
Elephants have complex social systems that are predominantly driven by ecological factors in situ. Within zoos, elephants are held in relatively static social groups and the factors observed driving social relationships in the wild are largely absent. Little research has investigated the effect of social group factors in zoos on elephant social interactions. The aim of this research was to establish whether there is a relationship between social group factors and social behaviour, in order to identify factors that make elephant herds more or less likely to be compatible. Results will facilitate recommendations for optimum social groupings for zoo elephants. Behavioural data quantifying social interactions were collected between January 2016 and February 2017 at seven UK and Irish zoos and safari parks from 10 African and 22 Asian elephants. Social interactions were split into four categories: positive physical, positive non-physical, negative physical and negative non-physical. Social interactions were related to age (positive physical higher and negative non-physical lower in calves than adults), personality (elephants with higher sociability scores engaged in more positive interactions and less negative interactions), presence of calves in the herd (herds with calves had more positive non-physical), relatedness to other elephants in the herd (positive non-physical were higher when relatives were in the group and negative non-physical were higher between unrelated elephants) and species (Asian elephants engaged in more positive non-physical than African elephants). A greater understanding of factors that may contribute to the success of zoo-elephant social groups is important for individual and herd welfare as it will enable evidence-based decisions which have minimal impact on social structures to be executed. This knowledge will enable proactive management approaches to be undertaken and will thus be paramount in ensuring optimal welfare for elephant herds moving forwards.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Captive elephants should be held in related, multi-generational groups for optimal welfare.
“Current research suggests that captive elephants should be held in related, multi-generational groups for optimal welfare”
From Continuing challenges of elephant captivity: the captive environment, health issues, and welfare implications (2024) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2019b
The Introduction (no page given) says current research and guidelines recommend related, multigenerational herds, and the Simple Summary says the study's findings support that recommendation. Both qualify it with “wherever possible”; the Simple Summary also notes that unrelated elephants can form compatible groups. The claim omits those qualifications and presents this arrangement as the route to optimal welfare. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe transfer of group members can affect social stability and limit long-term success in zoo social groups.
“The transfer of group members can affect social stability and limit long-term success in zoo social groups”
From Continuing challenges of elephant captivity: the captive environment, health issues, and welfare implications (2024) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2019b
The Discussion (§4.5; page unavailable) links changes in elephant-group membership to long-term group success and recommends monitoring relationships when individuals are moved to new herds. It does not establish that transfers themselves reduce social stability or limit success, and its discussion concerns zoo-housed elephants rather than zoo social groups generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredElephants can be moved between facilities as a result of space limitations, sex of offspring, or exhibit closure.
“elephants can also be moved between facilities as a result of space limitations, sex of offspring”
From Continuing challenges of elephant captivity: the captive environment, health issues, and welfare implications (2024) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2019b
The Discussion (§4.2, page unavailable) says elephants are brought from other zoos or moved as part of European breeding programmes, supporting movement between facilities. It does not identify space limitations, the sex of offspring, or exhibit closure as reasons for those moves; searches for those terms found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe inability to replicate natural social structures is an area of concern for the welfare of elephants in zoos.
“making the inability to replicate natural social structures an area of concern for the welfare of elephants in zoos”
From Continuing challenges of elephant captivity: the captive environment, health issues, and welfare implications (2024) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2019b
An absence of calves in a group does not necessarily lead to poor welfare.
“an absence of calves in a group does not necessarily lead to poor welfare”
From Continuing challenges of elephant captivity: the captive environment, health issues, and welfare implications (2024) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2019b
Williams et al. (2019b) did not find a statistically significant link between group size and prosocial behavior.
“did not find a statistically significant link between group size and prosocial behavior”
From Continuing challenges of elephant captivity: the captive environment, health issues, and welfare implications (2024) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2019b
The largest social group with the greatest number of calves was the most socially interconnected.
“the largest social group with the greatest number of calves was the most socially interconnected”
From Continuing challenges of elephant captivity: the captive environment, health issues, and welfare implications (2024) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2019b
The ethogram was developed using descriptions of social behaviors drawn from prior studies.
“An ethogram was developed using descriptions of social behaviors drawn from prior studies (Table 3) [3,23,40–42].”
From Socializing a group of male Asian elephants in a semi-captive facility in Lao PDR (2025) · cites this paper as [3]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 65 · Cited by 36
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [2]Moss C.J. Poole J.H. Relationships and social structure in african elephants Primate Social Relationships: An Integrated Approach Hinde R.A. Blackwell Scientific Publications Oxford, UK 1983
- [26]Clubb R. Mason G.M. A Review of the Welfare of Zoo Elephants in Europe A report commisioned by the RSPCA University of Oxford Oxford, UK 2002
- [36]Zoos Forum Elephants in UK Zoos: Zoos Forum Review of Issues in Elephant Husbandry in UK Zoos in the Light of the Report by Harris et al. (2008) Defra London, UK 2010
- [76]Lee P.C. Moss C.J. The social context for learning and behavioural development among wild African elephants Mammalian Social Learning: Comparative and Ecological Perspective Box H.O. Gibson K.R. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK 1999
- [77]Williams E. An Investigation into Social Relationships and Social Structure in UK ad Irish Zoo Elephant Herds Ph.D. Thesis Nottingham Trent University Nottingham, UK 2019
- Authors
- Williams, E., Carter, A., Hall, C., & Bremner-Harrison, S.
- Affiliations
- Nottingham Trent University (GB)
- School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Brackenhurst Campus, Southwell, Nottinghamshire NG25 0QF, UK
- Corresponding author
- Williams, Ellen
- Venue
- Animals
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2019-09-29
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 747
- ISSN
- 2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6826554
- OpenAlex
- W2976421727
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 6.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Fundación Banco Santander (NA)
- Nottingham Trent University (NA)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
- Keywords
- zoo elephants, social group composition, social compatibility, animal welfare, Loxodonta africana, Asian elephant, sociability, relatedness, calves, age effects, species differences, safari parks
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
