Fecundity and population viability in female zoo elephants: problems and possible solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We previously reported that African(Loxodonta africana)and Asian(Elephas maximus)female elephants in European zoos have shorter adult lifespans than protected conspecifics in range countries. This effect was the cause of greatest concern in Asian elephants, and risk factors within this species included being zoo-born, transferred between zoos, and possibly removed early from the mother. Here, we investigate these risk factors further; assess fecundity and sustainability in European zoos; and propose testable hypotheses as to the causes of these animals’ problems. Although imported wild-born Asian elephants live longer than zoo-born conspecifics, being imported when juvenile or adult appears no more protective than being imported in infancy, suggesting that the benefits of being wild- rather than zoo-born are conferred early in life. Zoo-born Asian neonates are significantly heavier than those born to working animals in range countries, with a possible tendency to be fatter. In zoos, African elephants have tended to be removed from their mothers at older ages than young Asians, and were also transferred between zoos significantly less often: factors that could possibly underlie this species’ lower calf losses and improving adult survivorship in Europe. Both species have low fecundity in European zoos compared toin situpopulations, and are not self-sustaining, declining at approximately 10% per annum if reliant on captive-bred females under historically prevailing conditions. Data from other species suggest that stress and/or obesity are parsimonious explanations for the suite of problems seen. We recommend specific screens for testing these hypotheses, and for potentially identifying vulnerable individuals within the extant zoo populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".