North American African Elephant Population 2024
- Thread starter E Maximus
- Start date
So three straight female calves from Mabu and Litsemba at Reid Park. Certainly not the least bit disappointing - the future of Reid Park's herd is bright.
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
Amazing news for sure!
Pure luck. Boys and girls are usually 50/50.
Although, some scientists/reproduction specialists believe weight has a play in it. I’d have to find it again but there was one or two studies that showed heavier cows tended to throw more bulls and skinnier cows threw more cows. Which would make sense because males on average eat more so times with plentiful resources in the wild would be perfect for raising bulls. I personally don’t believe it as if I’m not mistaken males decide the gender by whatever sperm makes it all the way but still an interesting theory.
Spike
Well-Known Member
I have also heard that AI has a significantly higher chance to have a male calf
Skewed birth sex ratio and premature mortality in elephants - PubMed
While I am not an expert in elephants, it is generally understood that there can, in some species, be factors other than XX/XY which determine the sex of offspring. While at the core level, you are absolutely correct that whichever sperm makes it all the way will determine the sex of the offspring, environmental conditions inside the female can sometimes favor XX sperm or XY sperm, making it more likely that is the sperm to succeed. Generally, it would be something like hormonal levels to determine this (and not strictly reproductive hormones- stress hormones play a role too), as hormones can adjust the pH and other internal conditions. While I'm not sure if weight could play a role in changing the internal conditions to favor XY sperm, it is certainly a plausible hypothesis.
It has long been hypothesized in baboons whether or not additional factors, such as dominance rank or resource availability, play an indirect role in sex determination through the female's stress hormone levels, and while the data for this is inconsistent and still heavily debated (over 40 years after it was first proposed!), the general idea that there could be other factors which favor whether XX sperm or XY sperm is successful is certainly not a new one, and one that has been proposed in a wide range of mammal species. This article on reindeer might be of interest: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2005.3330, or this one on mice: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2019.2909#d36365360e1
I’ll look for the study today but if anyone would like to beat me to it I know Janine Brown is one of the people who wrote it, however she’s written or been a part of hundreds of elephant repro papers so it’ll be tough lol. But yes their cortisol levels were one of the things tracked and it’s believe that the higher cortisol levels that come with having less resources played an impact in the sex of calves. Fascinating research all together though, and tbh I wish we could advance AI to the same level as with cows and humans where we can basically chose the sex and implant that embryo. Would be a GAME CHANGER imo.
Let's leave at least the sex determination of elephants to nature. And not to the people who already influence their lives too much...
With all due respect, if this is something we could influence with reliable results, it would be like finding the Ark of the Covenant as far as elephant management goes.
It has been successful in other species, bottlenose dolphins have been sex selected via AI.
I'm a little puzzled by the line you are drawing here. From a welfare perspective, I think artificial insemination is something that can legitimately be questioned. I'm not taking a position on it here, but an argument could easily be made as to how AI unnecessarily infringes on an animal's sense of choice and control or in how it is wrong to force a pregnancy in an "unnatural" manner. Not saying I agree with these arguments, just that it's a relatively easy argument to make. For better or for worse, AI is undeniably a valuable management tool in zoo populations where it has been successful, however, and if AI is to occur, I don't see how selectively inseminating with male versus female sperm is any different than inseminating indiscriminately, at least on the elephant's side of things. It isn't like the elephant is consciously choosing to have a male or female calf. If you have a non-welfare based argument against sex determination, but for artificial insemination, I'd love to hear it, but I definitely think it is an odd place to draw the line.
Frankie_number_1_fan
Well-Known Member
The zoo's statement about their potential future with elephants now says that any future exhibit would be build to house a multigenerational herd AND a bull group!
(As seen at the bottom of this page)
Follow Our Elephant’s Journey
Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
I've become skeptical of the idea of elephants returning to Louisville after Mikki & Punch go. I consulted the updated master plan for the zoo: https://louisvillezoo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MASTER-PLAN-FINAL.pdf
And well... The areas dedicated to the elephants are still really small.
Elephant Exhibit A is: 27,290 square feet. That converts to only 0.6 of an acre.
Elephant Exhibit B is: 20,933 square feet. That converts to... 0.4 of an acre.
If you crunch the numbers exactly, you get... 1.1 acres. Or rather, just a little over one acre of exhibit reserved for the exclusive use for the elephant at Louisville Zoo.
Now, the master plan does stress that a big part of Louisville's future involves flexible habitats. IE: Exhibits that connect to one another, so the animals can be rotated through various areas. So any future elephants wouldn't "just" have 1.1 acres to play around in.
Assuming that they would have access to Mixed Species Savanna A like the master plan shows, that's an additional 78,365 square feet available to them. Or 1.7 acres if you round the numbers down a bit.
If they also have access to Mixed Species Savanna B [The map of the African section is a bit... unclear with regards to whether or not the elephants would be able to access that exhibit], than that's another 36,193 square feet. Or 0.8 of an acre if you round the numbers down for simplification, again.
Totaled up, those additional areas would add 114,558 square feet. Or 2.6 acres in simpler terms. That's certainly better, but nothing spectacular IMHO.
Altogether? Both elephant exhibits and both savanna exhibits are 162,781 square feet. Or 3.7 acres in all. (This isn't counting holding areas or the elephant barn. Mostly because the master plan doesn't make clear which holding areas/barn are specifically for the elephants!)
Presumably any future elephants wouldn't have access to all of that space, all of the time. Since zoos in North America seem to be rather... risk-averse when it comes to putting elephants in mixed-species enclosures, even if things started off good [IE: Equal time on the savanna exhibits for both elephants and the other species], I'd worry that the Louisville would eventually shift to only allowing the elephants minimal time on the savannas. Simply because mixed species exhibits are complicated to manage as is, and adding elephants to the mix would only pile on more potential complications.
Frankly, unless Louisville completely redoes it's master plan again, I just can't see them being able to house both a multigenerational herd and bulls in such a small area.
Even just doing bachelor holding might be a stretch, IMHO.
Frankie_number_1_fan
Well-Known Member
It definitely didn't sound like their master plan was final in their responses about a potential elephant exhibit. They wouldn't be the first zoo to re-do their master plan several times, and its likely we'll see several popping up before a final one is decided.
I would imagine that the zoo believes it's possible to have a large exhibit in some version of a masterplan, since a 3ish acre exhibit isn't nearly up to par with the standards of new exhibits nowadays. I'm still pretty skeptical myself, but elephants are a huge draw and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they pulled a Smithsonian and went all in on elephants over other species.
Tbh, I think 3-ish acres is fine if the space is interesting enough (if we're talking 3 acres of just yard space).
In the first place, why should man influence everything, even the sex of wild animals? The last thing that should be left to nature. If elephants should have more female offspring than male, their sex ratio would not be 50/50 today. But millions of years of evolution have caused the sex ratio to be 50/50, which increases the genetic variability of the entire population.
I think that if we want to breed wild animals and try to preserve their wildness, we have to respect their natural characteristics. And if one of them is that half of the offspring will be male, we have to count on that.
If zoos want to keep any kind of animal and try to create a sustainable population, they must first of all create a good infrastructure. A single zoo will not save the species. Nor several zoos operating as separate units. They must cooperate, and one of the conditions for this cooperation is the creation of breeding groups and groups of bachelors in species that require it.
I know that with elephants it would seem most ideal to just have lots of females and breeding groups. But on the other hand, having bachelor groups gives us a lot of males to choose from. Because we can already see their behavior and dominance from the interactions between them and we can choose the best one for the given breeding group.
Artificial insemination is a great thing, but I think in the case of elephants it should only be used when necessary and not as a standard method of reproduction. Elephants have such complex interactions with each other that they have to learn from each other throughout their lives. The elephant population in North America has already collapsed due to the fact that males created from artificial insemination cannot mate. For such social animals, a natural way of reproduction is necessary.
We should rather learn from elephant's natural life than invent new ways to influence it. Because as we can see from the past, these methods will never be as effective as natural reproduction.
Just having seen the blog post and the master plan, I don’t think elephants would be in Louisville’s future
Yes master plans change all the time and sometimes they have animals from their current collection on the plans, assuming they will have some still at their facility when they made plans. But seeing how they will repurpose it for rhinos, I don’t feel too strongly they will be returning. They mention how if they’re to hold them, they would require to have space for both multigenerational herd and bulls. That’s quite a tall order and just reading their statements so far, I’m inclined to believe they may not unfortunately.
Frankie_number_1_fan
Well-Known Member
If the zoo didn't think they had the ability to house elephants again, then they wouldn't have stated that it's a possibility.Just having seen the blog post and the master plan, I don’t think elephants would be in Louisville’s future
Of course, there is tons of evidence that points to Louisville not bringing back elephants. But when the zoo hasn't made any recent indication of where this new exhibit would be, or even what species they may hold, I don't think its totally fair to write off a potential.