Individual acquisition of “stick pounding” behavior by naïve chimpanzees

Cumulative Culture

Abstract: Although the spread of innovations through social learning is well documented in animals, resulting animal cultures have remained simple without an increase in complexity over time. Human culture, in contrast, evolves constantly and is unparalleled in terms of complexity and diversity. Why only human culture is cumulative is the subject of ongoing debates, but the most prevalent suggestions are that animals lack high-fidelity transmission and complex innovations. This article examines how the combination of two factors may have helped humans overcome these limitations: first, our having a big brain, inherited from our great-ape-like ancestors; second, our reliance on extensive allomaternal care that evolved convergently with other cooperatively breeding species. We provide support for this suggestion with recent evidence from cooperatively breeding common marmosets ( Callithrix jacchus), showing that motivation for cooperation can trump intelligence when it comes to solving problems and information transmission to the next generation.

The method of exclusion (still) cannot identify specific mechanisms of cultural inheritance

The method of exclusion identifies patterns of distributions of behaviours and/or artefact forms among different groups, where these patterns are deemed unlikely to arise from purely genetic and/or ecological factors. The presence of such patterns is often used to establish whether a species is cultural or not-i.e. whether a species uses social learning or not. Researchers using or describing this method have often pointed out that the method cannot pinpoint which specific type(s) of social learning resulted in the observed patterns. However, the literature continues to contain such inferences. In a new attempt to warn against these logically unwarranted conclusions, we illustrate this error using a novel approach. We use an individual-based model, focused on wild ape cultural patterns-as these patterns are the best-known cases of animal culture and as they also contain the most frequent usage of the unwarranted inference for specific social learning mechanisms. We built a model that contained agents unable to copy specifics of behavioural or artefact forms beyond their individual reach (which we define as "copying"). We did so, as some of the previous inference claims related to social learning mechanisms revolve around copying defined in this way. The results of our model however show that non-copying social learning can already reproduce the defining-even iconic-features of observed ape cultural patterns detected by the method of exclusion. This shows, using a novel model approach, that copying processes are not necessary to produce the cultural patterns that are sometimes still used in an attempt to identify copying processes. Additionally, our model could fully control for both environmental and genetic factors (impossible in real life) and thus offers a new validity check for the method of exclusion as related to general cultural claims-a check that the method passed. Our model also led to new and additional findings, which we likewise discuss.

Cost-Benefit Trade-Offs of Aquatic Resource Exploitation in the Context of Hominin Evolution

While the exploitation of aquatic fauna and flora has been documented in several primate species to date, the evolutionary contexts and mechanisms behind the emergence of this behavior in both human and non-human primates remain largely overlooked. Yet, this issue is particularly important for our understanding of human evolution, as hominins represent not only the primate group with the highest degree of adaptedness to aquatic environments, but also the only group in which true coastal and maritime adaptations have evolved. As such, in the present study we review the available literature on primate foraging strategies related to the exploitation of aquatic resources and their putative associated cognitive operations. We propose that aquatic resource consumption in extant primates can be interpreted as a highly site-specific behavioral expression of a generic adaptive foraging decision-making process, emerging in sites at which the local cost-benefit trade-offs contextually favor aquatic over terrestrial foods. Within this framework, we discuss the potential impacts that the unique intensification of this behavior in hominins may have had on the evolution of the human brain and spatial ecology.

Field experiments find no evidence that chimpanzee nut cracking can be independently innovated

Cumulative culture has been claimed a hallmark of human evolution. Yet, the uniqueness of human culture is heavily debated. The zone of latent solutions hypothesis states that only humans have cultural forms that require form-copying social learning and are culture-dependent. Non-human ape cultural behaviours are considered 'latent solutions', which can be independently (re-)innovated. Others claim that chimpanzees, like humans, have cumulative culture. Here, we use field experiments at Seringbara (Nimba Mountains, Guinea) to test whether chimpanzee nut cracking can be individually (re-)innovated. We provided: (1) palm nuts and stones, (2) palm fruit bunch, (3) cracked palm nuts and (4) Coula nuts and stones. Chimpanzee parties visited (n = 35) and explored (n = 11) the experiments but no nut cracking occurred. In these experiments, chimpanzees did not individually (re-)innovate nut cracking under ecologically valid conditions. Our null results are consistent with the hypothesis that chimpanzee nut cracking is a product of social learning.

Naïve orangutans (Pongo abelii and Pongo pygmaeus) individually acquire nut-cracking using hammer tools

Nut-cracking with hammer tools (henceforth: nut-cracking) has been argued to be one of the most complex tool-use behaviors observed in nonhuman animals. So far, only chimpanzees, capuchins, and macaques have been observed using tools to crack nuts in the wild (Boesch and Boesch, 1990; Gumert et al., 2009; Mannu and Ottoni, 2009). However, the learning mechanisms behind this behavior, and the extent of nut-cracking in other primate species are still unknown. The aim of this study was two-fold. First, we investigated whether another great ape species would develop nut-cracking when provided with all the tools and appropriate conditions to do so. Second, we examined the mechanisms behind the emergence of nut-cracking by testing a naïve sample. Orangutans (Pongo abelii and Pongo pygmaeus) have the second most extensive tool-use repertoire among the great apes (after chimpanzees) and show flexible problem-solving capacities. Orangutans have not been observed cracking nuts in the wild, however, perhaps because their arboreal habits provide limited opportunities for nut-cracking. Therefore, orangutans are a valid candidate species for the investigation of the development of this behavior. Four nut-cracking-naïve orangutans at Leipzig zoo (P. abelii; M_age  = 16; age range = 10-19; 4F; at the time of testing) were provided with nuts and hammers but were not demonstrated the nut-cracking behavioral form. Additionally, we report data from a previously unpublished study by one of the authors (Martina Funk) with eight orangutans housed at Zürich zoo (six P. abelii and two P. pygmaeus; M_age  = 14; age range = 2-30; 5F; at the time of testing) that followed a similar testing paradigm. Out of the twelve orangutans tested, at least four individuals, one from Leipzig (P. abelii) and three from Zürich (P. abelii and P. pygmaeus), spontaneously expressed nut-cracking using wooden hammers. These results demonstrate that nut-cracking can emerge in orangutans through individual learning and certain types of non-copying social learning.

Captive great apes tend to innovate simple tool behaviors quickly

Recent studies have highlighted the important role that individual learning mechanisms and different forms of enhancenment play in the acquisition of novel behaviors by naïve individuals. A considerable subset of these studies has focused on tool innovation by our closest living relatives, the great apes, to better undestand the evolution of technology in our own lineage. To be able to isolate the role that individual learning plays in great ape tool innovation, researchers usually employ what are known as baseline tests. Although these baselines are commonly used in behavioral studies in captivity, the length of these tests in terms of number of trials and duration remains unstandarized across studies. To address this methodological issue, we conducted a literature review of great ape tool innovation studies conducted in zoological institutions and compiled various methodological data including the timing of innovation. Our literature review revealed an early innovation tendency in great apes, which was particularly pronounced when simple forms of tool use were investigated. In the majority of experiments where tool innovation took place, this occurred within the first trial and/or the first hour of testing. We discuss different possible sources of variation in the latency to innovate such as testing setup, species and task. We hope that our literature review helps researchers design more data-informed, resource-efficient experiments on tool innovation in our closest living relatives.

The Method of Local Restriction: in search of potential great ape culture-dependent forms

Humans possess a perhaps unique type of culture among primates called cumulative culture. In this type of culture, behavioural forms cumulate changes over time, which increases their complexity and/or efficiency, eventually making these forms culture-dependent. As changes cumulate, culture-dependent forms become causally opaque, preventing the overall behavioural form from being acquired by individuals on their own; in other words, culture-dependent forms must be copied between individuals and across generations. Despite the importance of cumulative culture for understanding the evolutionary history of our species, how and when cumulative culture evolved is still debated. One of the challenges faced when addressing these questions is how to identify culture-dependent forms that result from cumulative cultural evolution. Here we propose a novel method to identify the most likely cases of culture-dependent forms. The 'Method of Local Restriction' is based on the premise that as culture-dependent forms are repeatedly transmitted via copying, these forms will unavoidably cumulate population-specific changes (due to copying error) and therefore must be expected to become locally restricted over time. When we applied this method to our closest living relatives, the great apes, we found that most known ape behavioural forms are not locally restricted (across domains and species) and thus are unlikely to be acquired via copying. Nevertheless, we found 25 locally restricted forms across species and domains, three of which appear to be locally unique (having been observed in a single population of a single species). Locally unique forms represent the best current candidates for culture-dependent forms in non-human great apes. Besides these rare exceptions, our results show that overall, ape cultures do not rely heavily on copying, as most ape behaviours appear across sites and/or species, rendering them unlikely to be culture-dependent forms resulting from cumulative cultural evolution. Yet, the locally restricted forms (and especially the three locally unique forms) identified by our method should be tested further for their potential reliance on copying social learning mechanisms (and in turn, for their potential culture-dependence). Future studies could use the Method of Local Restriction to investigate the existence of culture-dependent forms in other animal species and in the hominin archaeological record to estimate how widespread copying is in the animal kingdom and to postulate a timeline for the emergence of copying in our lineage.

Clarifying Misconceptions of the Zone of Latent Solutions Hypothesis: A Response to Haidle and Schlaudt: Miriam Noël Haidle and Oliver Schlaudt: Where Does Cumulative Culture Begin? A Plea for a Sociologically Informed Perspective (Biological Theory 15: 161-174, 2020)

The critical examination of current hypotheses is one of the key ways in which scientific fields develop and grow. Therefore, any critique, including Haidle and Schlaudt's article, "Where Does Cumulative Culture Begin? A Plea for a Sociologically Informed Perspective," represents a welcome addition to the literature. However, critiques must also be evaluated. In their article, Haidle and Schlaudt (Biol Theory 15:161-174, 2020. 10.1007/s13752-020-00351-w; henceforth H&S) review some approaches to culture and cumulative culture in both human and nonhuman primates. H&S discuss the "zone of latent solutions" (ZLS) hypothesis as applied to nonhuman primates and stone-toolmaking premodern hominins. Here, we will evaluate whether H&S's critique addresses its target.

Implementing long-term baselines into primate tool-use studies

Studies on primate tool-use often involve the use of baseline conditions, as they allow for the examination of any differences in the subjects' behavior before and after the introduction of a tool-use task. While these baseline conditions can be powerful for identifying the relative contributions of individual and social learning for the acquisition of tool-use behaviors in naïve (usually captive) subjects, many have criticized them for being too short, and not allowing enough time for the behavior to develop spontaneously. Furthermore, some wild tool-use behaviors such as chimpanzee nut-cracking require animals to manipulate and familiarize themselves with the materials of the behavior within a "sensitive learning period" before it develops later on in life. One solution to this problem is to implement long-term baselines, in which, with collaboration with zoological institutions, the materials of the behavior are left in the enclosure for an extended period. The keepers would then be asked not to demonstrate or train the animals in the target behavior, but to report back to the researchers if they observe the behavior emerge during this extended period. Alongside keeper reports, video cameras could be installed in the enclosure to minimize the chance of false negatives and to allow for coding and inter-rater reliability to be carried out on the videos. These long-term baselines therefore provide extended enrichment opportunities for the animals, alongside allowing the zoological institution to publicize their involvement with the study and guests to observe animals interacting with different testing apparatuses and tools. Finally, long-term baselines can provide invaluable insight on the individual and social learning abilities of primates as well as the potential development stages and sensitive learning periods required for specific behaviors.

Exploring the role of individual learning in animal tool-use

The notion that tool-use is unique to humans has long been refuted by the growing number of observations of animals using tools across various contexts. Yet, the mechanisms behind the emergence and sustenance of these tool-use repertoires are still heavily debated. We argue that the current animal behaviour literature is biased towards a social learning approach, in which animal, and in particular primate, tool-use repertoires are thought to require social learning mechanisms (copying variants of social learning are most often invoked). However, concrete evidence for a widespread dependency on social learning is still lacking. On the other hand, a growing body of observational and experimental data demonstrates that various animal species are capable of acquiring the forms of their tool-use behaviours via individual learning, with (non-copying) social learning regulating the frequencies of the behavioural forms within (and, indirectly, between) groups. As a first outline of the extent of the role of individual learning in animal tool-use, a literature review of reports of the spontaneous acquisition of animal tool-use behaviours was carried out across observational and experimental studies. The results of this review suggest that perhaps due to the pervasive focus on social learning in the literature, accounts of the individual learning of tool-use forms by naïve animals may have been largely overlooked, and their importance under-examined.

Examining the mechanisms underlying the acquisition of animal tool behaviour

Despite major advances in the study of animal tool behaviour, researchers continue to debate how exactly certain behaviours are acquired. While specific mechanisms, such as genetic predispositions or action copying, are sometimes suspected to play a major role in behavioural acquisition, controlled experiments are required to provide conclusive evidence. In this opinion piece, we refer to classic ethological methodologies to emphasize the need for studying the relative contributions of different factors to the emergence of specific tool behaviours. We describe a methodology, consisting of a carefully staged series of baseline and social-learning conditions, that enables us to tease apart the roles of different mechanisms in the development of behavioural repertoires. Experiments employing our proposed methodology will not only advance our understanding of animal learning and culture, but as a result, will also help inform hypotheses about human cognitive, cultural and technological evolution. More generally, our conceptual framework is suitable for guiding the detailed investigation of other seemingly complex animal behaviours.

A review of research in primate sanctuaries

While non-human primate studies have long been conducted in laboratories, and more recently at zoological parks, sanctuaries are increasingly considered a viable setting for research. Accredited sanctuaries in non-range countries house thousands of primates formerly used as subjects of medical research, trained performers or personal pets. In range countries, however, sanctuaries typically house orphaned primates confiscated from illegal poaching and the bushmeat and pet trafficking trades. Although the primary mission of these sanctuaries is to rescue and rehabilitate residents, many of these organizations are increasingly willing to participate in non-invasive research. Notably, from a scientific standpoint, most sanctuaries provide potential advantages over traditional settings, such as large, naturalistic physical and social environments which may result in more relevant models of primates' free-ranging wild counterparts than other captive settings. As a result, an impressive scope of research in the fields of primate behaviour, cognition, veterinary science, genetics and physiology have been studied in sanctuaries. In this review, we examine the range and form of research that has been conducted at accredited sanctuaries around the world. We also describe the potential challenges of sanctuary-based work and the considerations that external researchers may face when deciding to collaborate with primate sanctuaries on their research projects.

Testing the individual and social learning abilities of task-naïve captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes sp.) in a nut-cracking task

Nut-cracking is often cited as one of the most complex behaviours observed in wild chimpanzees. However, the cognitive mechanisms behind its acquisition are still debated. The current null hypothesis is that the form of nut-cracking behaviour relies on variants of social learning, with some researchers arguing, more precisely, that copying variants of social learning mechanisms are necessary. However, to date, very few experiments have directly investigated the potentially sufficient role of individual learning in explaining the behavioural form of nut-cracking. Despite this, the available data provides some evidence for the spontaneous acquisition of nut-cracking by chimpanzees; later group acquisition was then found to be at least facilitated by (unspecified) variants of social learning. The latter findings are in line with both suggested hypotheses, i.e., that copying social learning is required and that other (non-copying) social learning mechanisms are at play. Here we present the first study which focused (initially) on the role of individual learning for the acquisition of the nut-cracking behavioural form in chimpanzees. We tested task-naïve chimpanzees (N = 13) with an extended baseline condition to examine whether the behaviour would emerge spontaneously. After the baseline condition (which was unsuccessful), we tested for the role of social learning by providing social information in a step-wise fashion, culminating in a full action demonstration of nut-cracking by a human demonstrator (this last condition made it possible for the observers to copy all actions underlying the behaviour). Despite the opportunities to individually and/or socially learn nut-cracking, none of the chimpanzees tested here cracked nuts using tools in any of the conditions in our study; thus, providing no conclusive evidence for either competing hypothesis. We conclude that this failure was the product of an interplay of factors, including behavioural conservatism and the existence of a potential sensitive learning period for nut-cracking in chimpanzees. The possibility remains that nut-cracking is a behaviour that chimpanzees can individually learn. However, this behaviour might only be acquired when chimpanzees are still inside their sensitive learning period, and when ecological and developmental conditions allow for it. The possibility remains that nut-cracking is an example of a culture dependent trait in non-human great apes. Recommendations for future research projects to address this question are considered.

The zone of latent solutions and its relevance to understanding ape cultures

The zone of latent solutions (ZLS) hypothesis provides an alternative approach to explaining cultural patterns in primates and many other animals. According to the ZLS hypothesis, non-human great ape (henceforth: ape) cultures consist largely or solely of latent solutions. The current competing (and predominant) hypothesis for ape culture argues instead that at least some of their behavioural or artefact forms are copied through specific social learning mechanisms ("copying social learning hypothesis") and that their forms may depend on copying (copying-dependent forms). In contrast, the ape ZLS hypothesis does not require these forms to be copied. Instead, it suggests that several (non-form-copying) social learning mechanisms help determine the frequency (but typically not the form) of these behaviours and artefacts within connected individuals. The ZLS hypothesis thus suggests that increases and stabilisations of a particular behaviour's or artefact's frequency can derive from socially-mediated (cued) form reinnovations. Therefore, and while genes and ecology play important roles as well, according to the ape ZLS hypothesis, apes typically acquire the forms of their behaviours and artefacts individually, but are usually socially induced to do so (provided sufficient opportunity, necessity, motivation and timing). The ZLS approach is often criticized-perhaps also because it challenges the current null hypothesis, which instead assumes a requirement of form-copying social learning mechanisms to explain many ape behavioural (and/or artefact) forms. However, as the ZLS hypothesis is a new approach, with less accumulated literature compared to the current null hypothesis, some confusion is to be expected. Here, we clarify the ZLS approach-also in relation to other competing hypotheses-and address misconceptions and objections. We believe that these clarifications will provide researchers with a coherent theoretical approach and an experimental methodology to examine the necessity of form-copying variants of social learning in apes, humans and other species.