Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Experimental Biology
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Journal of Experimental Biology

  • Log in
Advanced search

RSS  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
Research Article
Minimum cost of transport in Asian elephants: do we really need a bigger elephant?
Vaughan A. Langman, Michael F. Rowe, Thomas J. Roberts, Nathanial V. Langman, Charles R. Taylor
Journal of Experimental Biology 2012 215: 1509-1514; doi: 10.1242/jeb.063032
Vaughan A. Langman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: vaughan.a.langman@aphis.usda.gov
Michael F. Rowe
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas J. Roberts
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nathanial V. Langman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charles R. Taylor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading

SUMMARY

Body mass is the primary determinant of an animal’s energy requirements. At their optimum walking speed, large animals have lower mass-specific energy requirements for locomotion than small ones. In animals ranging in size from 0.8 g (roach) to 260 kg (zebu steer), the minimum cost of transport (COTmin) decreases with increasing body size roughly as COTmin∝body mass (Mb)–0.316±0.023 (95% CI). Typically, the variation of COTmin with body mass is weaker at the intraspecific level as a result of physiological and geometric similarity within closely related species. The interspecific relationship estimates that an adult elephant, with twice the body mass of a mid-sized elephant, should be able to move its body approximately 23% cheaper than the smaller elephant. We sought to determine whether adult Asian and sub-adult African elephants follow a single quasi-intraspecific relationship, and extend the interspecific relationship between COTmin and body mass to 12-fold larger animals. Physiological and possibly geometric similarity between adult Asian elephants and sub-adult African elephants caused body mass to have a no effect on COTmin (COTmin∝Mb0.007±0.455). The COTmin in elephants occurred at walking speeds between 1.3 and ∼1.5 m s–1, and at Froude numbers between 0.10 and 0.24. The addition of adult Asian elephants to the interspecific relationship resulted in COTmin∝M –0.277±0.046b. The quasi-intraspecific relationship between body mass and COTmin among elephants caused the interspecific relationship to underestimate COTmin in larger elephants.

INTRODUCTION

Body mass is the primary determining factor of an animal’s total energy requirements (Calder, 1984; Schmidt-Nielsen, 1984; West and Brown, 2005; McNab, 2008). Large animals use less energy per kilogram body mass for locomotion than small animals. African (Loxodonta africana) and Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) represent the upper limit of body mass in extant terrestrial mammals, and large bulls can weigh up to 7500 kg (Nowak, 1999). Although physiological measurements on elephants are technically challenging, experiments using well-trained captive elephants allow modeling of the biomechanical and energetic characteristics of locomotion in the largest terrestrial mammals (Alexander et al., 1979; Langman et al., 1995; Hutchinson et al., 2003; Hutchinson et al., 2006; Ren and Hutchinson, 2008; Ren et al., 2010; Genin et al., 2010).

The mass-specific total cost of transport (COTtot; J kg–1 m–1) is the amount of energy required to move 1 kg of body mass over 1 m. Animals, including elephants, prefer to walk at a speed near the mid-range within a walking gait, where COTtot is minimized (Pennycuik, 1975; Hoyt and Taylor, 1981; Taylor et al., 1982; Alexander, 1989; Full and Tu, 1991; Griffin et al., 2004; Rubenson et al., 2007; Maloiy et al., 2009). Because the minimum total cost of transport (COTmin) provides a biologically meaningful parameter for comparison, Taylor et al. (Taylor et al., 1982) used data from approximately 90 species of mammals ranging in size from 7 g (pygmy mouse) to 260 kg (zebu steer) to develop an interspecific allometric equation that describes the decrease in COTmin with increased body mass: Embedded Image where Mb is body mass (kg) [values shown are presented ±95% confidence intervals (CIs)]. To extend the range of data towards the lower limits of body mass, Full and Tu (Full and Tu, 1991) added reptiles, crustaceans, myriapods and insects with body mass as low as 0.8 g and obtained approximately the same equation as that reported by Taylor et al. (Taylor et al., 1982), COTmin=10.8M –0.32b. To extend the range of data towards the upper limits of body mass, Langman et al. (Langman et al., 1995) added sub-adult African elephants, with an average body mass six times that of the largest animal used in Taylor et al. (Taylor et al., 1982). The COTmin of young African elephants were within the 95% CIs of Eqn 1. The application of Eqn 1 to adult Asian elephants, twice the size of the elephants reported by Langman et al. (Langman et al., 1995), estimates that COTmin in larger elephants should be reduced by approximately 23% when compared with COTmin in sub-adult African elephants.

An analysis of intraspecific variability is complementary to interspecific analyses (Bennett, 1987). Because of geometric and physiological similarity, body mass does not have the same effect on COTmin at the intraspecific level, or between closely related species, as it does at the interspecific level. In geometrically similar species, juveniles have the same relative dimensions as adults, just on a smaller scale. As a result, muscle and skeletal morphology of small and large individuals are similar. Both equines and camels show intraspecific geometric similarity. The slope of the intraspecific relationship between COTmin and body mass is nearly flat (≈M 0b) in both horses from 90 to 720 kg (Griffin et al., 2004) and camels from 240 to 580 kg (Yousef et al., 1989; Maloiy et al., 2009) compared with the interspecific relationship M –0.316b (Eqn 1). African and Asian elephants, along with extinct mammoths (Mammuthus), comprise the family Elephantidae and share common ancestry (Haynes, 1991; Krause et al., 2006). All elephants are graviportal species, i.e. species with column-like limbs and a bone structure that distributes their enormous body mass across a sizeable foot surface (Gray, 1968; Coombs, 1978; Yates and Kitching, 2003). However, subtle differences in limb geometry exist between African and Asian elephants (Kokshenev and Christiansen, 2010). Sub-adult African and adult Asian elephants might be geometrically similar enough that they follow a quasi-intraspecific relationship, where the decrease in COTmin with increasing body mass is less than M –0.316b.

In this study, we first test the hypothesis that adult Asian elephants and sub-adult African elephants are physiologically similar and geometrically similar enough, as reported in horses and camels, that larger body mass will not bring about a reduction in COTmin. If elephants within a 2.5-fold range of body mass are physiologically and geometrically similar, then the slope of COTmin versus body mass will approach M 0b. Second, we discuss the effect that the addition of elephants, with 12 times the body mass of the largest animal used by Taylor et al. (Taylor et al., 1982), has on the interspecific relationship between COTmin and body mass. If the intraspecific relationship applies to elephants, then COTmin measured in increasingly larger elephants will show sequentially greater deviation away from COTmin estimated using the interspecific relationship of M –0.316b. Therefore, we have measured the COTmin in adult Asian elephants and combined these results with those for smaller African elephants reported by Langman et al. (Langman et al., 1995).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Elephants

Two adult female Asian elephants Elephas maximus Linnaeus 1758 (Panya and Jean; Table 1) housed at the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans, LA, USA, were used for all of the metabolic measurements. Both elephants were very tractable and well trained by their keepers. Their feeding schedule was unaltered and water was available ad libitum except during the exercise trials. All methods were approved by the Audubon Zoo Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Experimental procedure

Oxygen consumption was measured using the techniques reported by Langman et al. (Langman et al., 1995) to quantify metabolic rates at rest and during exercise from African elephants. The elephants were trained, for 1 week prior to measurements, to wear a loose-fitting mask that enclosed both the trunk and mouth for open-system oxygen consumption measurements. The elephants were fitted with the mask, and metabolic measurements then made while the elephants stood quietly or walked up to three laps around the level 0.5 km oval track in the interior of the zoo (Fig. 1). The mask was connected to a 1 hp industrial blower (Dayton, Niles, IL, USA) mounted on a motorized golf cart that was fitted with a bicycle wheel equipped with a calibrated electronic speedometer to record speed. The blower was previously calibrated in laboratory conditions to meter air flow through the mask at a rate of 108 l s–1, a flow rate that ensured the elephants’ exhaled air was drawn through the mask. The elephants walked the first lap at a slow pace and sequentially increased speed on the following laps. A small sample of the air flow exiting the mask was collected in a 200 l Douglas bag (Harvard Apparatus, Holliston, MA, USA) over a 5 min period in the later stages of walks. The sample was analyzed for oxygen concentration with a paramagnetic oxygen analyzer (Taylor Servomex OA272, Woburn, MA, USA). The entire system was calibrated by metering nitrogen into the mask (Fedak et al., 1981) and the accuracy was better than ±2%.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Characteristics and mean (±s.d.) resting mass-specific energy expenditure in two Asian elephants

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Open-system measurement of resting oxygen consumption in a female Asian elephant prior to exercise at Audubon Zoo, New Orleans, LA, USA.

Data analyses

Mass-specific total energy expenditure (EEtot; W kg–1) is the amount of energy expended per kilogram body mass for both the postural cost of standing, i.e. standing metabolic rate, and the energy expended to move the body’s center of mass both horizontally and vertically during locomotion (Schmidt-Nielsen, 1972). The EEtot in the elephants was calculated from the rate of oxygen consumption recorded during exercise and applying an energetic equivalent of 20.1 J to 1 ml O2 consumed.

Mass-specific net energy expenditure (EEnet) is the amount of energy required for locomotion above that required for the postural cost of standing (Schmidt-Nielsen, 1972). The EEnet was calculated by subtracting resting energy expenditure (Table 1) from EEtot recorded during exercise. It was not always possible to make resting measurements prior to each exercise trial or make an equal number of trials at each walking speed. Therefore, the mean resting energy expenditure recorded for individual elephants was used to calculate EEnet.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Minimum mass-specific total cost of transport (COTmin) recorded in elephants, the Froude number (Fr) at which COTmin occurred, second-order polynomial equations and estimated COTmin in three African and two Asian elephants

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3.

Range of Froude numbers (Fr), and mean (±s.d.) walking speed, mass-specific minimum cost of transport (COTmin), and whole-animal COTmin recorded in three African and two Asian elephants

Mass-specific COTtot was calculated by dividing the EEtot measured during exercise by the speed of locomotion (m s–1). The net cost of transport (COTnet) estimates the amount of energy required to move 1 kg of body mass over 1 m during locomotion above that required for standing quietly (Schmidt-Nielsen, 1972). COTnet was calculated by subtracting the average resting energy expenditure of individual elephants from EEtot prior to dividing by the speed of locomotion.

Energetic similarity between adult Asian and sub-adult African elephants was determined by plotting COTtot versus Froude number: Embedded Image a dimensionless measure of speed calculated by dividing the squared forward velocity of locomotion (vf; m s–1) by gravitational acceleration (g; 9.8 m s–2) and hip height (hhip; m) (Alexander and Jayes, 1983). The COTmin for individual elephants was estimated from second-order polynomial equations that describe the relationship between COTtot and Froude number. The estimated COTmin was compared with minimum recorded COTmin (Table 2). However, because there was no clearly distinguishable COTmin in adult Asian elephant, we calculated the mean (±s.d.) COTmin by averaging the COTtot measured over the range of Froude numbers that minimized cost in individual elephants (Table 3). The calculated mean COTmin was used to develop intraspecific and interspecific allometric relationships between COTmin and body mass.

Studies of animal energetics are usually conducted by subjecting animals to evenly spaced increases in treadmill speed (Hoyt and Taylor, 1981; Taylor et al., 1982; Full and Tu, 1991; Griffin et al., 2004; Rubenson et al., 2007; Maloiy et al., 2009). These conditions allow for equal sample sizes of repeated trials at each tread speed, i.e. treatment groups. However, treadmills suitable for elephants are rare, and so our data and those reported by Langman et al. (Langman et al., 1995) were obtained by walking zoo elephants on an outdoor track. The resulting small sample size and unpaired continuous data reduced the power of our statistical analyses (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995). KaleidaGraph 4.03 (Synergy Software, Reading, PA, USA) was used for graphing and statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Energy expenditure

The results of our measurements of resting energy expenditure in Asian elephants (Table 1) were similar to those reported by Benedict (Benedict, 1936). During locomotion at speeds ranging from 0.13 to 2.2 m s–1, the EEtot for the larger Asian elephant, Panya, generally was less than that measured for the smaller elephant, Jean (Fig. 2). At the fastest walking speed, EEtot increased approximately 4.5-fold over resting measurements. Over approximately the same range of walking speeds, from 0.4 to 2.5 m s–1, the EEtot in sub-adult African elephants reported by Langman et al. (Langman et al., 1995) was comparable to EEtot measured in Asian elephants (Fig. 2). Similarly, EEnet (Fig. 2) tended to be lower in the larger elephant. At the fastest walking speed of 2.2 m s–1, EEnet increased approximately 11-fold over the slowest walking speed of 0.13 m s–1. The EEnet in Asian elephants was comparable to EEnet in sub-adult African elephants reported by Langman et al. (Langman et al., 1995).

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Mass-specific total (solid symbols) and net energy expenditure (open symbols) (EEtot and EEnet; W kg–1) in two adult Asian elephants (Panya, red circles; Jean, blue squares) at walking speeds ranging from 0.13 to 2.2 m s–1. The equation describing the curvilinear increase in EEtot with walking speed is EEtot=0.35v 2f+0.42vf+0.75, where vf is walking speed (m s–1) (R2=0.88). The equation describing the curvilinear increase in EEnet with walking speed is EEnet=0.38v 2f+0.32vf+0.08 (R2=0.75). The mean EEtot and EEnet in three sub-adult African elephants (dashed lines) walking at speeds ranging from 0.44 to 2.5 m s–1 reported by Langman et al. (Langman et al., 1995) are presented for comparison.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Mass-specific total (solid symbols) and net cost of transport (open symbols) (COTtot and COTnet; J kg–1 m–1) in two Asian elephants (Panya, red circles; Jean, blue squares) at walking speeds from 0.13 to 2.2 m s–1. The equation describing the curvilinear relationship between COTtot and walking speed is COTtot=2.8v 2f–8.7vf+7.8, where vf is walking speed (m s–1) (R2=0.85). Note that the curve for Asian elephants is strongly affected by the high leverage of the data points at the exceptionally slow walking speed of 0.13 m s–1, and thus the walking speed for minimum COT (COTmin) is not clearly defined. The equation describing the curvilinear relationship between COTnet and body mass is COTnet=0.64v 2f–1.6vf+1.8 (R2=0.40). The mean COTtot and COTnet in three sub-adult African elephants (dashed lines) walking at speeds ranging from 0.44 to 2.5 m s–1 reported by Langman et al. (Langman et al., 1995) are presented for comparison.

Cost of transport

Over the range of walking speeds tested, the COTtot was generally lower in the larger Asian elephant, Panya (Fig. 3). COTmin values, calculated from the polynomial equation describing the relationship between COTtot and walking speed, in adult Asian elephants (Fig. 3) were less than recorded COTmin. Similarly, the larger elephant recorded lower COTnet. The COTnet recorded in Asian elephants in the present study was comparable to COTnet in African elephants reported by Langman et al. (Langman et al., 1995). The COTmin calculated from the polynomial equation describing the relationship between COTnet and walking speed of 0.80 J kg–1 m–1 recorded in Asian elephants (Fig. 3) was similar to the COTmin of 0.78 J kg–1 m–1 reported in African elephants (Langman et al., 1995).

DISCUSSION

Optimum walking speed in Asian elephants

Elephants in nature generally choose to walk at a slow pace and only use fast locomotion when disturbed (Moss, 1988; Douglas-Hamilton et al., 2005; Joshi, 2009). At slow walking speeds, kinematic and kinetic variables that define the walking gait in African and Asian elephants are quite similar (Hutchinson et al., 2006; Ren and Hutchinson, 2008; Genin et al., 2010). Analyses of COTtot and COTnet using polynomial equations (Fig. 3) could not characterize optimum walking speed in Asian elephants because of the similarity in COTmin measurements recorded at speeds between 0.5 and 2.2 m s–1. However, recorded and estimated minimum total cost of transport (Table 2, Fig. 4) occurred at speeds and Froude numbers similar to the biomechanical optimum walking speed of approximately 1.3 m s–1 and a Froude number of 0.09 reported by Ren and Hutchinson (Ren and Hutchinson, 2008) and Genin et al. (Genin et al., 2010).

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Second-order polynomial equations (Table 2) describing the quasi-intraspecific relationships between estimated total cost of transport (COTtot) and Froude number in two adult Asian elephants (Panya, red solid line; Jean, blue solid line) and three sub-adult African elephants (Kelly, dotted line; Tara, short dashed line; Dottie, long dashed line). The estimated minimum cost of transport occurred over a narrow range of Froude numbers, from 0.1 to 2.4.

The minimum walking speed reported here of 0.13 m s–1 was the result of the Asian elephants’ willingness to walk at an extremely slow pace, in comparison to the reluctance of young African elephants to walk slower than 0.44 m s–1 (Langman et al., 1995). Therefore, the large difference in COTtot between slow-walking Asian and African elephants (Fig. 3) is the result of different sampling intervals and not physiological differences between species. The maximum walking speed of Asian and African elephants, 2.2 and 2.5 m s–1, respectively, was limited by the maximum speed of the golf cart when heavily loaded with respirometry equipment (Fig. 1), not by the ability of the elephants to walk faster.

Indeed, elephants are capable of fast locomotion; they have a maximum recorded walking speed of 6.8 m s–1 (Hutchinson et al., 2003). However, fast locomotion comes with a high energetic cost (Fig. 2). At fast speeds of locomotion, nearly all animals switch from the pendulum-like mechanism characteristic of the walking gait to a more elastic mechanism characteristic of a running gait (Alexander, 1991). Elephants differ somewhat from this pattern. Elephants exhibit substantial limb compliance during the walking gait (Ren et al., 2010), which defies the characterization of elephants as stiff-legged graviportal species (Gray, 1968; Coombs, 1978; Yates and Kitching, 2003). In elephants, limb compliance increases with locomotion speed, which results in increased joint flexion and dampening of ground forces on the limbs (Ren et al., 2010). However, as joint flexion increases a greater muscle volume is required to support the great body mass of elephants (Ren et al., 2010). In response, elephants may experience a linear increase in energy expenditure at walking speeds greater than the maximum we report in the present study. Although we acknowledge the dangers of extrapolation, using the second-order polynomial equation relating EEtot to walking speed (R2=0.88; Fig. 2), we estimate that it would require a 26-fold increase EEtot above rest (Table 1) for the Asian elephants reported here to walk at 6.8 m s–1. The estimated increase in EEtot in fast-walking elephants is comparable to near-maximum increases in energy expenditure recorded in donkeys and camels of 22- and 32-fold, respectively (Evans et al., 1994; Mueller et al., 1994).

Fig. 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

Interspecific relationship between minimum cost of transport (COTmin;, J kg–1 m–1) and body mass (Mb; kg) in terrestrial animals ranging in size from 0.8 g to 3545 kg. The relationship between COTmin and body mass in reptiles, amphibians, crustaceans, myriapods and insects ranging in size from 0.8 g to approximately 1 kg is represented by the allometric equation COTmin=10.8M –0.32b (dotted line) (Full and Tu, 1991). The relationship between COTmin and body mass in mammals ranging in size from 7 g to 260 kg is represented by the allometric equation COTmin=10.7±0.663M –0.316±0.023b (95% CI) (solid line) (Taylor et al., 1982). The addition of adult Asian elephants and sub-adult African elephants (blue circles) to data from Taylor et al. (Taylor et al., 1982) produced the equation COTmin=11.9±3.30M –0.277±0.046b (long dashed line). The quasi-intraspecific relationship within elephants is described by the allometric equation COTmin=1.43±0.07M 0.007±0.455b (short dashed line). We estimate the COTmin in a large (7500 kg) elephant (red diamond) to be approximately 1.52 J kg–1 m–1.

Physiological similarity between adult Asian and sub-adult African elephants

African and Asian elephants ranging in body mass from 1435 to 3545 kg are physiologically similar and geometrically similar enough that mass-specific COTmin among individual elephants is similar (Table 3, Fig. 4). However, it should be noted that the whole-animal COTmin (J m–1), the ecologically relevant level of analyses, indicates that the two larger Asian elephants would require 1.6- to 2.4-fold more energy for locomotion than the three smaller African elephants (Table 3). Some populations of both African and Asian elephants engage in seasonal migrations (Guy, 1976; Sukumar, 1989; Tchamba, 1993; Thouless, 1995; Joshi, 2009). As a result of variations in whole-animal COTtot between adult and sub-adult elephants, migration might result in differential intraspecific energetic challenges, a topic worthy of further investigation.

The recorded mean (±s.d.) COTmin in all elephants occurred over a narrow range of Froude numbers (Table 3, Fig. 4). The equation describing the quasi-intraspecific relationship between COTmin and body mass within elephants is COTmin=1.44±0.07M 0.007±0.455b (R2=0.01; Fig. 5). Within elephants, the COTmin is not a function of M –0.316b, as is characteristic of the interspecific relationship (Eqn 1) reported by Taylor et al. (Taylor et al., 1982), but is a function of ≈M 0b, characteristic of the intraspecific relationship reported in horses and camels (Yousef et al., 1989; Griffin et al., 2004; Maloiy et al., 2009).

Do we really need a bigger elephant?

Adult Asian and sub-adult African elephants are physiologically similar and geometrically similar enough to influence the interspecific relationship between COTmin and body mass. The addition of Asian elephants, with a 12-fold increase in body mass over the largest animal used by Taylor et al. (Taylor et al., 1982), produced an allometric relationship for mammals ranging in size from 7 g to 3545 kg (COTmin=11.9±3.30M –0.277±0.046b; Fig. 5).

The mean COTmin in two adult Asian elephants (Table 3) was approximately the same as the mean COTmin in three sub-adult African elephants reported by Langman et al. (Langman et al., 1995), not 23% lower as estimated by Eqn 1. The difference between COTmin measured in elephants and that predicted by Eqn 1 was due to the influence of physiological similarity within elephants. The mean COTmin in individual elephants (Table 3) ranged from 27 to 88% above that predicted by Eqn 1. If the intraspecific relationship is extrapolated to even larger elephants, physiological similarity will cause greater divergence from the Taylor et al. (Taylor et al., 1982) equation. It is unlikely that the COTmin in a larger elephant (with a body mass of 7500 kg) would be significantly lower than the values we report here. Based on the slopes of the relationship between COTmin and body mass within elephants, i.e. M 0.007b, and that of the interspecific relationship, i.e. M –0.316b, the COTmin of large bull elephants will be approximately 138% above that predicted by Eqn 1.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This manuscript is dedicated in memoriam to C. R. ‘Dick’ Taylor, who continues to contribute to our increased understanding of animal physiology. The authors thank Roger Ilse, the curator of mammals, and Dan Maloney, the assistant curator of the Asian domain at Audubon Zoo. We greatly appreciate the help of the Audubon Zoo elephant staff – James Holsten, Eiler McGuin and Jimmy Pitts – who made this study possible. The authors thank George S. Bakken for his thoughtful suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript. We also thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and criticisms.

FOOTNOTES

  • FUNDING

    This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

LIST OF SYMBOLS

COTmin
Mass-specific minimum cost of transport (J kg–1 m–1)
COTnet
Mass-specific net cost of transport (J kg–1 m–1)
COTtot
Mass-specific total cost of transport (J kg–1 m–1)
EEnet
Mass-specific net energy expenditure (W kg–1)
EEtot
Mass-specific energy expenditure (W kg–1)
Fr
Froude number (dimensionless speed)
g
Gravitational acceleration (9.8 m s–2)
Mb
Body mass (kg)
vf
Walking speed (m s–1)
  • © 2012.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Alexander, R. McN.
    (1989). Optimization and gaits in the locomotion of vertebrates. Physiol. Rev. 69, 1199–1227.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Alexander, R. McN.
    (1991). Energy-saving mechanisms in walking and running. J. Exp. Biol. 160, 55–69.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Alexander, R. McN. and
    2. Jayes, A. S.
    (1983). A dynamic similarity hypothesis for the gaits of quadrupedal mammals. J. Zool. Lond. 201, 135–152.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Alexander, R. McN.,
    2. Maloiy, G. M. O.,
    3. Hunter, B.,
    4. Jayes, A. S. and
    5. Nturibi, J.
    (1979). Mechanical stress in fast locomotion of buffalo (Syncerus caffer) and elephant (Loxodonta africana). J. Zool. Lond. 189, 135–144.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Benedict, F. C.
    (1936). The Physiology of the Elephant, pp. 277–289. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
  6. ↵
    1. Bennett, A. F.
    (1987). Interindividual variability: an underutilized resource. In New Directions in Ecological Physiology (ed. Feder, M. E., Bennett, A. F., Buggren, W. W. and Huey, R. B.), pp. 147–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. ↵
    1. Calder, W.
    (1984). Size, Function, and Life History, pp. 163–197. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  8. ↵
    1. Coombs, W. P.
    (1978). Theoretical aspects of cursorial adaptations in dinosaurs. Quart. Rev. Biol. 53, 393–418.
    OpenUrlCrossRefGeoRef
  9. ↵
    1. Douglas-Hamilton, I.,
    2. Krink, T. and
    3. Vollrath, F.
    (2005). Movements and corridors of African elephants in relation to protected areas. Naturwissensschaften 92, 158–163.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Evans, D. L.,
    2. Rose, R. J.,
    3. Knight, P. K.,
    4. Cluer, D. and
    5. Saltin, B.
    (1994). Oxygen uptake in camels at rest and during treadmill exercise. Acta Physiol. Scand. 617, 40–48.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Fedak, M. A.,
    2. Rome, L. C. and
    3. Seeherman, H. J.
    (1981). One-step N2-dilution technique for calibrating open circuit VO2 measuring systems. J. Appl. Physiol. 51, 772–776.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Full, R. J. and
    2. Tu, M. S.
    (1991). Mechanisms of a rapid running insect: two-, four-, and six-legged locomotion. J. Exp. Biol. 156, 215–231.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Genin, J. J.,
    2. Williems, P. A.,
    3. Cavagna, G. A.,
    4. Lair, R. and
    5. Heglund, N. C.
    (2010). Biomechanics of locomotion in Asian elephants. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 694–706.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Gray, J.
    (1968). Animal Locomotion, pp. 245–255. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.
  15. ↵
    1. Griffin, T. M.,
    2. Kram, R.,
    3. Wickler, S. J. and
    4. Hoyt, D. F.
    (2004). Biomechanical and energetic determinants of the walk-trot transition in horses. J. Exp. Biol. 207, 4215–4223.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Guy, P. R.
    (1976). Diurnal activity patterns of elephants in the Sengwa Area, Rhodesia. E. Afr. Wildl. J. 14, 285–295.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Haynes, G.
    (1991). Mammoths, Mastodonts and Elephants: Biology, Behavior, and the Fossil Record, pp. 1–9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. ↵
    1. Hoyt, D. F. and
    2. Taylor, C. R.
    . (1981). Gait and the energetics of locomotion in horses. Nature 292, 239–240.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Hutchinson, J. R.,
    2. Famini, D.,
    3. Lair, R. and
    4. Kram, R.
    (2003). Are fast-moving elephants really running? Nature 422, 493–494.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Hutchinson, J. R.,
    2. Schwerda, D.,
    3. Famini, D.,
    4. Dale, R. H. I.,
    5. Fischer, M. S. and
    6. Kram, R.
    (2006). The locomotor kinematics of Asian and African elephants: changes with speed and size. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 3812–3827.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Joshi, R.
    (2009). Asian elephant’s (Elephas maximus) behaviour in the Rajaji National Park, north-west India: eight years with Asian elephants. Nat. Sci. 7, 49–77.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Kokshenev, V. B. and
    2. Christiansen, P.
    (2010). Salient features in the locomotion of proboscideans revealed via the differential scaling of limb long bones. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 100, 16–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Krause, J.,
    2. Dear, P. H.,
    3. Pollack, J. L.,
    4. Slatkin, M.,
    5. Spriggs, H.,
    6. Barns, I.,
    7. Lister, A. M.,
    8. Ebersberger, I.,
    9. Pääbo, S. and
    10. Hofrieter, M.
    (2006). Multiplex amplification of the mammoth mitochondrial genome and the evolution of Elephantidae. Nature 439, 724–727.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Langman, V. A.,
    2. Roberts, T.,
    3. Black, J.,
    4. Maloiy, G. M. O.,
    5. Heglund, N. C.,
    6. Weber, J. M.,
    7. Kram, R. and
    8. Taylor, C. R.
    (1995). Moving cheaply: energetics of walking in the African elephant. J. Exp. Biol. 198, 626–632.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Maloiy, G. M. O.,
    2. Rugangazi, B. M. and
    3. Rowe, M. F.
    (2009). Energy expenditure during level locomotion in large desert ungulates: the one-humped camel and domestic donkey. J. Zool. 277, 248–255.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. McNab, B. K.
    (2008). An analysis of the factors that influence the level and scaling of mammalian BMR. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 151A, 5–28.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Moss, C. J.
    (1988). Elephant Memories: Thirteen Years in the Life of an Elephant Family, pp. 45–46. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  28. ↵
    1. Mueller, P. J.,
    2. Jones, M. T.,
    3. Rawson, R. E.,
    4. van Soest, P. J. and
    5. Hintz, H. F.
    (1994). Effect of increased work rate on metabolic responses of the donkey (Equus asinus). J. Appl. Physiol. 77, 1431–1438.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Nowak, R. M.
    (ed.) (1999). Proboscidea: Elephantidae. Elephants. In Walker’s Mammals of the World, 6th edn, pp. 993–1004. Baltimore, MD: John’s Hopkins University Press.
    1. Pennycuick, C. J.
    (1975). On the running of the gnu (Connochaetes taurinus) and other animals. J. Exp. Biol. 63, 775–799.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Ren, L. and
    2. Hutchinson, J. R.
    (2008). The three-dimensional locomotor dynamics of African (Loxodonta africana) and Asian (Elephas maximus) elephants reveal a smooth gait transition at moderate speed. J. R. Soc. 5, 195–211.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Ren, L.,
    2. Miller, C. E.,
    3. Lair, R. and
    4. Hutchinson, J. R.
    (2010). Integration of biomechanical compliance, leverage, and power in elephant limbs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 7078–7082.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Rubenson, J.,
    2. Heliams, D. B.,
    3. Maloney, S. K.,
    4. Withers, P. C.,
    5. Lloyd, D. G. and
    6. Fournier, P. A.
    (2007). Reappraisal of the comparative cost of human locomotion using gait-specific allometric analyses. J. Exp. Biol. 210, 3513–3524.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Schmidt-Nielsen, K.
    (1972). Locomotion. energy cost of swimming, flying and running. Science 177, 222–228.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Schmidt-Nielsen, K.
    (ed.) (1984). Metabolic rate and body size. In Scaling: Why is Animal Size So Important? pp. 56–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  35. ↵
    1. Sokal, R. R. and
    2. Rohlf, F. J.
    (ed.) (1995). Single Classification Analysis of Variance. In Biometry, pp. 207–271. New York: Freeman and Co.
  36. ↵
    1. Sukumar, R.
    (1989). The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. ↵
    1. Taylor, C. R.,
    2. Heglund, N. C. and
    3. Maloiy, G. M. O.
    (1982). Energetics and mechanics of terrestrial locomotion: I. Metabolic energy consumption as a function of speed and body size in birds and mammals. J. Exp. Biol. 97, 1–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Tchamba, M. N.
    (1993). Number and migration patterns of savanna elephants (Loxodonta africana africana) in northern Cameroon. Pachyderm 16, 66–71.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Thouless, C. R.
    (1995). Long-distance movement of elephants in northern Kenya. Afr. J. Ecol. 33, 321–334.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    1. West, G. B. and
    2. Brown, J. H.
    (2005). The origin of allometric scaling laws in biology from genomes to ecosystems: towards a quantitative unifying theory of biological structure and organization. J. Exp. Biol. 208, 1575–1592.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Yates, A. M. and
    2. Kitching, J. W.
    (2003). The earliest known sauropod dinosaur and the first steps towards sauropod locomotion. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 1753–1758.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Yousef, M. K.,
    2. Webster, M. E. D. and
    3. Yousef, O. M.
    (1989). Energy costs of walking camels (Camelus dromedaries). Physiol. Zool. 62, 1080–1088.
    OpenUrl
View Abstract
Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Experimental Biology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Minimum cost of transport in Asian elephants: do we really need a bigger elephant?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Experimental Biology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Experimental Biology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Research Article
Minimum cost of transport in Asian elephants: do we really need a bigger elephant?
Vaughan A. Langman, Michael F. Rowe, Thomas J. Roberts, Nathanial V. Langman, Charles R. Taylor
Journal of Experimental Biology 2012 215: 1509-1514; doi: 10.1242/jeb.063032
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Research Article
Minimum cost of transport in Asian elephants: do we really need a bigger elephant?
Vaughan A. Langman, Michael F. Rowe, Thomas J. Roberts, Nathanial V. Langman, Charles R. Taylor
Journal of Experimental Biology 2012 215: 1509-1514; doi: 10.1242/jeb.063032

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • SUMMARY
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • LIST OF SYMBOLS
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Early developmental stages of native populations of Ciona intestinalis under increased temperature are affected by local habitat history
  • Three auditory brainstem response (ABR) methods tested and compared in two anuran species
  • Differing thermal sensitivities of physiological processes alter ATP allocation
Show more RESEARCH ARTICLES

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

Meet the Editors at SICB Virtual 2021

Reserve your place to join some of the journal editors, including Editor-in-Chief Craig Franklin, at our Meet the Editor session on 17 February at 2pm (EST). Don’t forget to view our SICB Subject Collection, featuring relevant JEB papers relating to some of the symposia sessions.


2020 at The Company of Biologists

Despite 2020's challenges, we were able to bring a number of long-term projects and new ventures to fruition. As we enter a new year, join us as we reflect on the triumphs of the last 12 months.


The Big Biology podcast

JEB author Christine Cooper talks to Big Biology about her research. In this fascinating JEB sponsored podcast she tells us how tough zebra finches adjust their physiology to cope with extreme climate events. 


Developmental and reproductive physiology of small mammals at high altitude

Cayleih Robertson and Kathryn Wilsterman focus on high-altitude populations of the North American deer mouse in their review of the challenges and evolutionary innovations of pregnant and nursing small mammals at high altitude.


Read & Publish participation extends worldwide

“Being able to publish Open Access articles free of charge means that my article gets maximum exposure and has maximum impact, and that all my peers can read it regardless of the agreements that their universities have with publishers.”

Professor Roi Holzman (Tel Aviv University) shares his experience of publishing Open Access as part of our growing Read & Publish initiative. We now have over 60 institutions in 12 countries taking part – find out more and view our full list of participating institutions.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Special issues
  • Subject collections
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About JEB
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists
  • Journal news

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Outstanding paper prize
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact JEB
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

 Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992