New research reveals elephants have been trying to communicate with us for years
We spoke to lead author Vesta Eleuteri, a PhD candidate, to learn more about what this means and why it matters.
Why did you study how elephants use gestures to communicate?
Most of the research on elephant communication is on their calls and chemical signals, likely because of their extraordinary hearing and smell. How elephants communicate with gestures is comparatively less studied. But there are descriptions of elephants using many different body movements and displays in different contexts, which suggests a key role of gestures in elephant communication.
But whether elephants gesture intentionally to others to communicate goals in mind has not been systematically explored before. My colleagues and I study the cognition and communication of animals to understand how complex cognitive skills evolved, which is what this article is based on.
In our study, led by the University of Vienna and in collaboration with the University of St Andrews, the University of Portsmouth and City University of New York, we show that semi-captive elephants use many different gestures intentionally to ask a human to give them apples (their goal).
We found that the elephants used 38 different gesture types intentionally. The elephants kept gesturing when they only got half the apples (only partially reached their goal), while they changed gestures when they got no apples (did not reach their goal), both key behaviours to establish intentional use.
Why is it important to know whether their communication is intentional?
The ability to intentionally communicate goals in mind using a variety of gestures might help elephants navigate their complex social lives. By showing that semi-captive elephants gesture intentionally to humans using many different gesture types, our study builds on the evidence that this ability is not unique to primates, but that it has repeatedly emerged during evolution.
Here, we consider intentionality as 'goal-directed intentionality', which is the ability to communicate goals we have in mind to others. This was, in the past, considered to be a unique human skill. Today we know that all the other apes and even some other primates (although in a less flexible way) communicate intentionally using over 70 different gesture types to communicate many different goals in mind. Some examples include gesturing for things like 'come here'; 'give me that'; 'groom me'.
In non-primates, this intentionality was shown only in a few animals, from guppy fish to Arabian babblers. But typically, this was done with one or two gestures and for specific goals, like 'follow me'.
Elephants are distantly related to humans in evolution. We last shared a common ancestor with them over 100 million years ago. But, like apes, they are highly intelligent and live in complex societies where they have many different types of relationships (from kin to allies, friends and strangers). Also, there are descriptions of elephants using many different body movements and displays during many different contexts. These include when they greet, affiliate, play with each other or even when they travel together.
What gestures did the elephants use, and how do you know they were on purpose?
The elephants in semi-captivity often reached their trunks or swung them back and forth towards the human or the tray with apples. This made it clear they were communicating that they wanted the apples.
To know whether the elephants were using their gestures intentionally, we applied the behavioural criteria first created to study the development of intentional communication in human infants. These are: audience directedness, persistence and elaboration.
Signallers should use gestures when there is a recipient and appropriately according to whether he/she is looking or not (audience directedness). For example, if the recipient is not looking at them, they should use tactile gestures instead of visual gestures that the recipient would not see.
After gesturing, signallers should wait for the recipient to react and, if the recipient does not react as they wanted, they should keep gesturing (persistence) or change gestures (elaboration) to clarify what they wanted.
I can make an example. If I want to ask you to pass me the salt (my goal), I first should consider whether you are looking at me and, if you are, I may reach my hand towards the salt (audience directedness). If you don't react or pass me the wrong thing, like the pepper, I should keep gesturing (persistence) or should change gesture by, for example, pointing towards the salt to clarify I wanted the salt from you (elaboration).
You worked with semi-captive elephants; do wild elephants act the same?
We and many other elephant experts have observed wild elephants gesturing apparently intentionally to each other (and even to us!) many times in the field. Nonetheless, we cannot confirm their ability to gesture intentionally merely from our observations. Science is there to systematically test with data the intuitions or feelings we get from observations.
Whether wild elephants use the same gestures we observed in this semi-captive group is an interesting question that needs to be explored. The same goes for assessing if different elephant groups or populations use different gestures. Based on previous descriptions, wild elephants should use, intentionally, a few of the gestures we found (trunk reaches or swings) but maybe they don't use some of the 'more creative' ones like the 'blow leaf in the air' our elephant Pfumo had fun using.
What's next for your research?
We want to systematically test whether wild elephants gesture intentionally to each other, describe the repertoire of their intentional gestures and the goals (meanings) they use these gestures for (they may say to each other: 'travel with me', 'move away', 'stop that'). We have thousands of videos collected in two elephant populations in South Africa that I am video-coding for gestures and their intentional use.
It will take time to define the repertoire and meanings of elephant intentional gestures. But we hope to someday do this and to compare the gestures of different populations to understand if elephants may have different 'gestural languages'.
Studying animal communication offers 'a window' into our own language, into our minds, because it allows us to understand what, if anything, makes language unique. Showing that animals have so much in common with us makes people empathise more with them and care more about them, which is important for their conservation.
Most importantly, studying animal communication is crucial because we can understand animals better and, if we know them better, we can take better measures to safeguard them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The social link between female gorillas and humans
A 20-year study of wild mountain gorillas in Rwanda revealed that female gorillas do not disperse randomly when moving between social groups. Female gorillas actively avoid males they grew up with when relocating, likely to prevent inbreeding. Instead, they seek out other females they have previously known, especially those they have spent at least five years with or seen within the last two years. This preference for familiar females helps ease the transition into a new group by providing a social ally and potentially indicating positive aspects of the new group. The research suggests that gorillas, much like humans, maintain significant social relationships that extend beyond immediate group boundaries, highlighting the importance of extended social networks.
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
How will you die? Scientists reveal the odds of being killed by everything from an asteroid strike to an elephant attack
From asteroid impacts to elephant attacks, there are plenty of nasty ways to die that might keep you up at night. Now, scientists have revealed just how much you need to worry about each of these potential disasters. The bad news is that death by asteroid strike is much more likely than you might have thought. According to physicists from the Olin College of Engineering, the average person is significantly more likely to be killed by a space rock than to be struck by lightning. Using the latest NASA data, physicists from the Olin College of Engineering found that there are 22,800 near-earth objects (NEOs) measuring 140 metres or larger. Assuming that an impact will kill one in 1,000 people, your odds of being dying in a collision with a space rock are one in 156,000. By contrast, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike are just one in 163,000. However, if it is any comfort, scientists say you are far more likely to be killed in a car crash long before that ever happens. Scientists have worked out exactly how likely you are to die to everything from asteroid impacts to elephant attacks. This table shows how likely these events are to happen, and how likely you are to die as a result The bad news is that you are much more likely to be killed by an asteroid impact than by a lightning strike. Although car crashes are far more deadly on average According to the researchers, each year there is a 0.0091 per cent chance that a 140-metre or larger asteroid will slam into the Earth. That means there is a staggeringly high one in 156 chance of the Earth being struck by an asteroid within any given person's lifetime. If that were to happen, the blast could be thousands of times larger than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. In the worst-case scenario, a large enough asteroid could produce global events on a civilisation-ending scale. In their pre-print paper, soon to be published in the Planetary Science Journal, the researchers write: 'The dust lofting alone has the potential, in some cases, to obscure the sun to the point of stopping photosynthesis, which would then cause a mass extinction.' However, a 140-metre asteroid might land harmlessly in the ocean and cause no deaths, or slam into a populated city and kill up to one million people. To reflect this, the researchers say that the risk of death by asteroid ranges from essentially zero to near certainty based on a number of factors. To help put the odds of an asteroid death in perspective, the researchers also worked out how likely you are to die in a host of other ways. In their study, the researchers calculated both how likely it is that these events will happen to someone in their lifetime and how likely they are to die in that scenario. Their calculations suggest that the odds of being struck by lightning are just one in 16,300, which is only fatal in around one in 10 cases. Likewise, according to a study conducted in Nepal, the odds of being attacked by an elephant are about one in 14,000. Since those attacks are fatal around two-thirds of the time, your odds of being killed by an elephant are a surprisingly high one in 21,000. This analysis also reveals that, compared to the risk of an asteroid impact, many parts of our everyday lives are absurdly dangerous. The researchers found that the average person has a roughly one in 66 chance of suffering carbon monoxide poisoning, and a one in 714 chance of dying as a result. Likewise, the flu is much more likely to kill you than an asteroid impact, lightning strike, or elephant attack. Killing roughly one in 1,000 people, the flu is about as deadly as an impact from a 140-metre asteroid, but you are almost guaranteed to catch it at some point in your life. How likely is it that someone will be killed by space junk? Researchers calculated that the chance of a piece of rocket body hitting a plane was one in 430,000 each year. Given that there are around 200 people per plane, this gives a fatality risk of one in 2,200. Previous studies have estimated a higher risk due to debris breaking up and satellites falling to Earth. The Aerospace Corporation says the risk of someone being killed by space debris while on a plane is one in 1,000. Other studies estimate that the chances of one or more people being killed on the ground by falling space debris in the next ten years is one in 10. Yet it is driving that turns out to be one of the biggest risks to our lives, with a third of people being involved in an injury-causing crash at some point in their lives. Given that those crashes are deadly in around one in 100 cases, the odds of being killed in a car crash are roughly one in 273. You are, therefore, more than 500 times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than by a deadly asteroid. On the other hand, some seemingly terrifying risks turn out to be hardly a threat at all. Death by rabies, for example, is almost entirely preventable through a vaccine called post-exposure prophylaxis. Of the 800,000 Americans who sought treatment for rabies following an animal bite, only five died - four of whom did not seek rabies post-exposure prophylaxis treatment. Of course, these probabilities are dependent on where you live and what kind of life you lead. If you don't live near elephants or refuse to jump out of a plane, you are very unlikely to die in an elephant attack or skydiving accident. Likewise, the researchers point out that someone who regularly checks their carbon monoxide alarms has a much lower chance of being killed by carbon monoxide poisoning. The point of doing these morbid calculations is that asteroid impacts are, like rabies deaths, entirely avoidable in theory. The researchers write: 'The asteroid impact is the only natural disaster that is technologically preventable.' In 2022, NASA's DART mission showed that humanity can knock an approaching asteroid off course by hitting it with a fast-moving satellite. However, these missions require years of planning and huge amounts of investment. By comparing the risk posed by asteroids to threats we face every day, we can decide if it is worth investing millions in a new space defence program or whether we should be more worried about improving road safety. WHAT COULD WE DO TO STOP AN ASTEROID COLLIDING WITH EARTH? Currently, NASA would not be able to deflect an asteroid if it were heading for Earth but it could mitigate the impact and take measures that would protect lives and property. This would include evacuating the impact area and moving key infrastructure. Finding out about the orbit trajectory, size, shape, mass, composition and rotational dynamics would help experts determine the severity of a potential impact. However, the key to mitigating damage is to find any potential threat as early as possible. NASA and the European Space Agency completed a test which slammed a refrigerator-sized spacecraft into the asteroid Dimorphos. The test is to see whether small satellites are capable of preventing asteroids from colliding with Earth. The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) used what is known as a kinetic impactor technique—striking the asteroid to shift its orbit. The impact could change the speed of a threatening asteroid by a small fraction of its total velocity, but by doing so well before the predicted impact, this small nudge will add up over time to a big shift of the asteroid's path away from Earth. This was the first-ever mission to demonstrate an asteroid deflection technique for planetary defence. The results of the trial are expected to be confirmed by the Hera mission in December 2026.
The Independent
7 hours ago
- The Independent
Study shows genes contribute to chance of developing debilitating disease
A new study, DecodeME, has found significant DNA differences in people with ME / chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), offering the first robust evidence that genes contribute to developing the serious disease. Researchers identified eight distinct areas of genetic code in ME/CFS patients that are markedly different from those without the condition, primarily involving genes linked to the immune and nervous systems. At least two of the genetic signals relate to how the body responds to infection, aligning with long-standing patient reports that the onset of ME/CFS symptoms often follows an infectious illness. The findings are expected to boost credibility for ME/CFS patients, helping to rebuff the stigma and lack of belief often associated with the condition. The DecodeME study, described as the world's largest of its kind, analysed DNA samples from over 15,000 participants. The key genetic difference ME sufferers have from others – and what it means
