Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar 12;10(1):4597.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61558-2.

Innovation in wild Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus)

Affiliations

Innovation in wild Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus)

Federica Amici et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Innovation is the ability to solve novel problems or find novel solutions to familiar problems, and it is known to affect fitness in both human and non-human animals. In primates, innovation has been mostly studied in captivity, although differences in living conditions may affect individuals' ability to innovate. Here, we tested innovation in a wild group of Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). In four different conditions, we presented the group with several identical foraging boxes containing food. To understand which individual characteristics and behavioural strategies best predicted innovation rate, we measured the identity of the individuals manipulating the boxes and retrieving the food, and their behaviour during the task. Our results showed that success in the novel task was mainly affected by the experimental contingencies and the behavioural strategies used during the task. Individuals were more successful in the 1-step conditions, if they participated in more trials, showed little latency to approach the boxes and mainly manipulated functional parts of the box. In contrast, we found no effect of inhibition, social facilitation and individual characteristics like sex, age, rank, centrality, neophobia and reaction to humans, on the individuals' ability to innovate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors declares any competing financial and non-financial interests. The authors have no competing interests as defined by Nature Research, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Social network of the group of wild Barbary macaques located in Gibraltar and participating in this study. Weighted edges and nodes are proportional to the individual strength in the network (i.e. the sum of all edge weights connected to the node). Communities are shown with different colours (see Farine & Whitehead). Social network analyses (and the resulting Fig. 1) were run in R, using the vegan (version 2.5-3), asnipe (version 1.1.10) and igraph (version 1.2.1) packages (Oksanen et al.; Farine; Csardi & Nepusz).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Set-up of the neophobia task administered to the wild group of Barbary macaques tested in Gibraltar. The full ovals represent stones. On the left, set-up for the first and second conditions of the neophobia task. The light/yellow empty ovals represent banana slices, and the dark/blue empty circles represent blue- (in the first condition) or red-dyed (in the second condition) banana slices. On the right, set-up for the third and fourth conditions of the neophobia task. The dark/green rhombs represent local leaves, and the light/silver rhombs represent silver (in the third condition) or yellow (in the fourth condition) pieces of salt-dough.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Set-up of the innovation task administered to the wild group of Barbary macaques in Gibraltar, for (a) Condition 1, (b) Condition 2, (c) Condition 3 and (d) Condition 4. The light grey/yellow full oval represents food. Dark grey/green parts represent the functional parts of the boxes. Grey arrows represent the movements needed to access the food in the four conditions.
Figure 4
Figure 4
For each individual in the group of wild Barbary macaques tested in Gibraltar, number of trials in which the subject participated and obtained the food, in each of the four conditions.
Figure 5
Figure 5
For each set of models, estimates of the best models: (a) M1.8, (b) M1.5 and (c) M1.3; (d) M2.0 and (e) M2.1; and (f) M3.0 and (g) M3.2 (see Table 3 for more details).

References

    1. Ramsey G, Bastian ML, van Schaik C. Animal innovation defined and operationalized. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2007;30:393–437. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X07002373. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Reader SM, Laland KN. Animal innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003.
    1. van der Leeuw, S. & Torrence, R. What’s new? London, U.K.: Unwin Hyman (1989).
    1. O’Brien, M. J. & Shennan, S. J. Innovation in cultural systems. MIT Press (2010).
    1. Berger J, Swenson JE, Persson IL. Recolonizing carnivores and naïve prey: Conservation lessons from pleistocene extinctions. Science. 2001;291:1036–1039. doi: 10.1126/science.1056466. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Supplementary concepts