Development of tool use in New Caledonian crows: inherited action patterns and social influences

Many species use tools, but the mechanisms underpinning the behaviour differ between species and even among individuals within species, depending on the variants performed. When considering tool use ‘as adaptation’, an important first step is to understand the contribution made by fixed phenotypes as compared to flexible mechanisms, for instance learning. Social learning of tool use is sometimes inferred based on variation between populations of the same species but this approach is questionable. Specifically, alternative explanations cannot be ruled out because population differences are also driven by genetic and/or environmental factors. To better understand the mechanisms underlying routine but non-universal (i.e. habitual) tool use, we suggest focusing on the ontogeny of tool use and individual variation within populations. For example, if tool-using competence emerges late during ontogeny and improves with practice or varies with exposure to social cues, then a role for learning can be inferred. Experimental studies help identify the cognitive and developmental mechanisms used when tools are used to solve problems. The mechanisms underlying the route to tool-use acquisition have important consequences for our understanding of the accumulation in technological skill complexity over the life course of an individual, across generations and over evolutionary time.

Section: Developmental Evidence For the Role Of Social Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Developmental Evidence For the Role Of Social Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

If at first you don't succeed… Studies of ontogeny shed light on the cognitive demands of habitual tool use

Meulman

Seed

Mann

2013

“…In the case of tool use, the individuals with whom captive animals are coming into contact may in fact be tool-using humans, which is of particular importance for those species that are able to view humans as behavioural role models [50]. Not all species may be able to view humans in this manner, although studies of fairness in non-human primates and object manipulation in crows demonstrate its plausibility as a mechanism [51,52]. In some primate cases, the positive effect of human interaction on animal tool use has been directly observed, for example in human-raised capuchin monkeys [53], and in wild vervet monkeys that were in regular contact with humans and human facilities [54].…”

Section: (B) Factors Promoting Captivity Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Captivity bias’ in animal tool use and its implications for the evolution of hominin technology

Haslam

2013

Animals in captive or laboratory settings may outperform wild animals of the same species in both frequency and diversity of tool use, a phenomenon here termed ‘captivity bias’. Although speculative at this stage, a logical conclusion from this concept is that animals whose tool-use behaviour is observed solely under natural conditions may be judged cognitively or physically inferior than if they had also been tested or observed under controlled captive conditions. In turn, this situation creates a potential problem for studies of the behaviour of extinct members of the human family tree—the hominins—as hominin cognitive abilities are often judged on material evidence of tool-use behaviour left in the archaeological record. In this review, potential factors contributing to captivity bias in primates (including increased contact between individuals engaged in tool use, guidance or shaping of tool-use behaviour by other tool-users and increased free time and energy) are identified and assessed for their possible effects on the behaviour of the Late Pleistocene hominin Homo floresiensis . The captivity bias concept provides one way to uncouple hominin tool use from cognition, by considering hominins as subject to the same adaptive influences as other tool-using animals.

“…New Caledonian crows, Corvus moneduloides, are the most sophisticated tool manufacturers other than humans. The behaviour is primarily based on trial-and-error learning but offspring also seem to learn from observing their parents [44,52]. Apparently, the social learning is sufficient to cause consistent differences in tool designs between separate geographical sites in the wild without any obvious ecological correlates [53].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social learning in birds and its role in shaping a foraging niche

Slagsvold

Wiebe

2011

141

We briefly review the literature on social learning in birds, concluding that strong evidence exists mainly for predator recognition, song, mate choice and foraging. The mechanism of local enhancement may be more important than imitation for birds learning to forage, but the former mechanism may be sufficient for faithful transmission depending on the ecological circumstances. To date, most insights have been gained from birds in captivity. We present a study of social learning of foraging in two passerine birds in the wild, where we cross-fostered eggs between nests of blue tits, Cyanistes caeruleus and great tits, Parus major. Early learning causes a shift in the foraging sites used by the tits in the direction of the foster species. The shift in foraging niches was consistent across seasons, as showed by an analysis of prey items, and the effect lasted for life. The fact that young birds learn from their foster parents, and use this experience later when subsequently feeding their own offspring, suggests that foraging behaviour can be culturally transmitted over generations in the wild. It may therefore have both ecological and evolutionary consequences, some of which are discussed.