IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/3001391.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cooperating elephants mitigate competition until the stakes get too high

Author

Listed:
  • Li-Li Li
  • Joshua M Plotnik
  • Shang-Wen Xia
  • Estelle Meaux
  • Rui-Chang Quan

Abstract

Cooperation is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom as it aims to maximize benefits through joint action. Selection, however, may also favor competitive behaviors that could violate cooperation. How animals mitigate competition is hotly debated, with particular interest in primates and little attention paid thus far to nonprimates. Using a loose-string pulling apparatus, we explored cooperative and competitive behavior, as well as mitigation of the latter, in semi-wild Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). Our results showed that elephants first maintained a very high cooperation rate (average = 80.8% across 45 sessions). Elephants applied “block,” “fight back,” “leave,” “move side,” and “submission” as mitigation strategies and adjusted these strategies according to their affiliation and rank difference with competition initiators. They usually applied a “fight back” mitigation strategy as a sanction when competition initiators were low ranking or when they had a close affiliation, but were submissive if the initiators were high ranking or when they were not closely affiliated. However, when the food reward was limited, the costly competitive behaviors (“monopoly” and “fight”) increased significantly, leading to a rapid breakdown in cooperation. The instability of elephant cooperation as a result of benefit reduction mirrors that of human society, suggesting that similar fundamental principles may underlie the evolution of cooperation across species.This study shows that in a task requiring coordinated pulling, elephants compete for access to food but work to mitigate competition in order to maintain cooperation. If the cost of competition becomes too high, however, cooperation breaks down entirely. This behavior mirrors that seen in humans and other great apes, suggesting that certain cooperative mechanisms are not unique to primates.

Suggested Citation

  • Li-Li Li & Joshua M Plotnik & Shang-Wen Xia & Estelle Meaux & Rui-Chang Quan, 2021. "Cooperating elephants mitigate competition until the stakes get too high," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-23, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3001391
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001391
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001391&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001391?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tim Clutton-Brock, 2009. "Cooperation between non-kin in animal societies," Nature, Nature, vol. 462(7269), pages 51-57, November.
    2. repec:feb:natura:0059 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Simon N. Wood, 2011. "Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 73(1), pages 3-36, January.
    4. Jessica L. Barker & Pat Barclay & H. Kern Reeve, 2012. "Within-group competition reduces cooperation and payoffs in human groups," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(4), pages 735-741.
    5. Melissa Bateson & Daniel Nettle & Gilbert Roberts, 2006. "Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting," Natural Field Experiments 00214, The Field Experiments Website.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Damien Francey & Ralph Bergmüller, 2012. "Images of Eyes Enhance Investments in a Real-Life Public Good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-7, May.
    2. Gerhard Tutz & Moritz Berger, 2018. "Tree-structured modelling of categorical predictors in generalized additive regression," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 12(3), pages 737-758, September.
    3. Friedrich, T., 2009. "Wise exploitation – a game with a higher productivity than cooperation – transforms biological productivity into economic productivity," MPRA Paper 22862, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Tommaso Luzzati & Angela Parenti & Tommaso Rughi, 2017. "Spatial error regressions for testing the Cancer-EKC," Discussion Papers 2017/218, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    5. Lambsdorff, Johann Graf & Grubiak, Kevin & Werner, Katharina, 2023. "Intrinsic Motivation vs. Corruption? Experimental Evidence on the Performance of Officials," MPRA Paper 118153, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Davide Fiaschi & Andrea Mario Lavezzi & Angela Parenti, 2020. "Deep and Proximate Determinants of the World Income Distribution," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 66(3), pages 677-710, September.
    7. Som B Ale & Joel S Brown & Amy T Sullivan, 2013. "Evolution of Cooperation: Combining Kin Selection and Reciprocal Altruism into Matrix Games with Social Dilemmas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-8, May.
    8. Alain Cohn & Tobias Gesche & Michel André Maréchal, 2022. "Honesty in the Digital Age," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 827-845, February.
    9. Jenny C Su & Chi-Yue Chiu & Wei-Fang Lin & Shigehiro Oishi, 2016. "Social Monitoring Matters for Deterring Social Deviance in Stable but Not Mobile Socio-Ecological Contexts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-13, November.
    10. Helena Fornwagner & Oliver P. Hauser, 2022. "Climate Action for (My) Children," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(1), pages 95-130, January.
    11. Edna Ullmann‐Margalit, 2008. "The case of the camera in the kitchen: Surveillance, privacy, sanctions, and governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(4), pages 425-444, December.
    12. Longhi, Christian & Musolesi, Antonio & Baumont, Catherine, 2014. "Modeling structural change in the European metropolitan areas during the process of economic integration," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 395-407.
    13. Daniel Nettle & Kenneth Nott & Melissa Bateson, 2012. "‘Cycle Thieves, We Are Watching You’: Impact of a Simple Signage Intervention against Bicycle Theft," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-5, December.
    14. Carol L. Esmark & Stephanie M. Noble, 2018. "Retail space invaders: when employees’ invasion of customer space increases purchase intentions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 477-496, May.
    15. Sanjit Dhami & Emma Manifold & Ali al-Nowaihi, 2018. "Prosociality, Political Identity, and Redistribution of Earned Income: Theory and Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 7256, CESifo.
    16. Sihvonen, Markus, 2021. "Yield curve momentum," Research Discussion Papers 15/2021, Bank of Finland.
    17. Francesca Gino & Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "License to Cheat: Voluntary Regulation and Ethical Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2187-2203, October.
    18. Roberto Basile & Luigi Benfratello & Davide Castellani, 2012. "Geoadditive models for regional count data: an application to industrial location," ERSA conference papers ersa12p83, European Regional Science Association.
    19. Dillon T. Fogarty & Caleb P. Roberts & Daniel R. Uden & Victoria M. Donovan & Craig R. Allen & David E. Naugle & Matthew O. Jones & Brady W. Allred & Dirac Twidwell, 2020. "Woody Plant Encroachment and the Sustainability of Priority Conservation Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-15, October.
    20. Sanjit Dhami & Emma Manifold & Ali al‐Nowaihi, 2021. "Identity and Redistribution: Theory and Evidence," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(350), pages 499-531, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3001391. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.