Ecology and Evolution (Apr 2024)

Effect of the habitat and tusks on trunk grasping techniques in African savannah elephants

  • Pauline Costes,
  • Julie Soppelsa,
  • Céline Houssin,
  • Grégoire Boulinguez‐Ambroise,
  • Camille Pacou,
  • Patrick Gouat,
  • Raphaël Cornette,
  • Emmanuelle Pouydebat

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.11317
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 4
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Among tetrapods, grasping is an essential function involved in many vital behaviours. The selective pressures that led to this function were widely investigated in species with prehensile hands and feet. Previous studies namely highlighted a strong effect of item properties but also of the species habitat on manual grasping behaviour. African savannah elephants (Loxodonta africana) are known to display various prehensile abilities and use their trunk in a large diversity of habitats. Composed of muscles and without a rigid structure, the trunk is a muscular hydrostat with great freedom of movement. This multitasking organ is particularly recruited for grasping food items while foraging. Yet, the diet of African savannah elephants varies widely between groups living in different habitats. Moreover, they have tusks alongside the trunk which can assist in grasping behaviours, and their tusk morphologies are known to vary considerably between groups. Therefore, in this study, we investigate the food grasping techniques used by the trunk of two elephant groups that live in different habitats: an arid study site in Etosha National Park in Namibia, and an area with consistent water presence in Kruger National Park in South Africa. We characterised the tusks profiles and compared the grasping techniques and their frequencies of use for different foods. Our results show differences in food‐grasping techniques between the two groups. These differences are related to the food item property and tusk profile discrepancies highlighted between the two groups. We suggest that habitat heterogeneity, particularly aridity gaps, may induce these differences. This may reveal an optimisation of grasping types depending on habitat, food size and accessibility, as well as tusk profiles.

Keywords