Environmental and genetic determinants of innovativeness in a natural population of birds

Abstract

One contribution of 15 to a theme issue 'Innovation in animals and humans: understanding the origins and development of novel and creative behaviour'. Much of the evidence for the idea that individuals differ in their propensity to innovate and solve new problems has come from studies on captive primates. Increasingly, behavioural ecologists are studying innovativeness in wild populations, and uncovering links with functional behaviour and fitnessrelated traits. The relative importance of genetic and environmental factors in driving this variation, however, remains unknown. Here, we present the results of the first large-scale study to examine a range of causal factors underlying innovative problem-solving performance (PSP) among 831 great tits (Parus major) temporarily taken into captivity. Analyses show that PSP in this population: (i) was linked to a variety of individual factors, including age, personality and natal origin (immigrant or local-born); (ii) was influenced by natal environment, because individuals had a lower PSP when born in poor-quality habitat, or where local population density was high, leading to cohort effects. Links with many of the individual and environmental factors were present only in some years. In addition, PSP (iii) had little or no measurable heritability, as estimated by a Bayesian animal model; and (iv) was not influenced by maternal effects. Despite previous reports of links between PSP and a range of functional traits in this population, the analyses here suggest that innovativeness had weak if any evolutionary potential. Instead most individual variation was caused by phenotypic plasticity driven by links with other behavioural traits and by environmentally mediated developmental stress. Heritability estimates are population, time and context specific, however, and more studies are needed to determine the generality of these effects. Our results shed light on the causes of innovativeness within populations, and add to the debate on the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors in driving phenotypic variation within populations.

Innovativeness as an emergent property: a new alignment of comparative and experimental research on animal innovation

“…It also fits well with Quinn et al's [57] conclusion that innovativeness has a weak if any evolutionary potential. Together, these studies herald a new working paradigm, one in which innovativeness is not a direct target of selection.…”

“…In the same way, can we expect that one experimental measure of innovation can provide a meaningful measure of individual variation in innovativeness? Quinn et al's [57] contribution to this themed issue makes clear that innovative problem-solving is affected by a large number of environmental influences. As pointed out by the authors, task-and situation-specific factors likely also come into play.…”

“…The hypothesis has received some support in studies comparing species, populations or cohorts tested at different time points that vary in their levels of need [55][56][57], but mixed support that individuals with the greatest need are the most innovative [40]. For example, manipulating food deprivation elicits a marked increase in the likelihood of innovative problem-solving [58], but classes of individuals assumed to have less access to resources do not always show higher innovativeness [57]. On the other hand, van Schaik et al [59] describe wild orangutans as neophobic, reluctant innovators, but when innovations do arise, they do so accidentally or opportunistically, not by necessity and not by curiosity.…”

“…It also reconciles comparative research at high taxonomic levels with individual-level experimental research, which has consistently viewed innovativeness as part of a larger array of traits (i.e. as one component of a behavioural syndrome), such as boldness and risk-taking ( [23,98,99], and [57]). The transition towards viewing innovation as one of a suite of traits also provides support for a recent proximate model of innovation in birds [42].…”

Innovation: an emerging focus from cells to societies

“…Cultural innovations in humans and in other animals include the ability to use (tools) or modify the environment [56], specific (social or asocial) behaviours [57] and adornment that influences mating success [58]. Moreover, several studies have investigated the tendency to innovate itself as a trait (with little supporting evidence, [59,60]), or as a correlate of either life-history traits such as maximum lifespan in birds [61], or cognitive traits such as brain size in birds and primates [62,63]. These and other general phenomena hint at an important feature of innovations: they usually involve multiple levels of organization [16,30,64,65].…”