Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

The species that were observed during the study are shown below, along with the number of focal observations for that species.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

An example of associations between oryx and wildebeest from the San Diego Zoo Safari Park’s “African Plains” exhibit.

Screenshot of webcam footage.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 2.

Ethogram displaying how behaviours were defined, coded, and grouped for analyses.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Time that each species spent in a mixed-species group in the wild compared to the zoo, assessed using Chi-squared tests of independence.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Number of associations between two species, i.e., the number of times these two species were observed within the same ’group’ (within 6 body lengths of each other) during one of their focal observations.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 2.

Mean rate of vigilance (number of scans per minute) across different species diversities (number of different species present in the environment).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 5.

Coefficients and p-values for the negative binomial GLMM investigating the influence of habitat type, feeding ecology, body size, time of day, total animals present, and species diversity on rates of vigilance in the wild.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Coefficients and p-values for the negative binomial GLMM investigating the influence of habitat type, feeding ecology, body size, time of day, total animals present, and species diversity on rates of vigilance in the zoo.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Coefficients and P values for the negative binomial GLMM investigating the influence of habitat type, feeding ecology, and body size on the amount of time spent vigilant in the wild.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Coefficients and P values for the negative binomial GLMM investigating the influence of habitat type, feeding ecology, and body size on the amount of time spent vigilant in the zoo.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Fig 3.

Rate of vigilance of (a) Impala (b) Giraffe (c) Defassa waterbuck (d) Wildebeest (e) Zebra (f) White rhinoceros and (g) Nyala, when in single and mixed species groups, or in the presence of another particular species.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The rate of vigilance when animal groups of different sex compositions were observed across single and mixed species groups.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Number of times animal groups of different sex compositions were observed in single and mixed species groups.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 9.

Coefficients and P values for the final analysis on social factors influencing the formation of mixed-species groups (N = 126).

More »

Table 9 Expand

Fig 6.

(a) Number of times animals were observed in single and mixed species groups within each habitat type, and (b) rates of vigilance displayed across these different environments.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 10.

Coefficients and P values for the final analysis on how habitat type influenced the formation of mixed-species groups in the wild (N = 237).

More »

Table 10 Expand