Intra‐and interpopulational differences in orangutan (<i>Pongo pygmaeus</i>) activity and diet: Implications for the invention of tool use

Fox, Elizabeth; Schaik, Carel P. van; Sitompul, Arnold F.; Wright, Donielle N.

doi:10.1002/ajpa.10386

Cited by 173 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2 also depicts the five largest nonhuman species in our sample, plotted according to their actual combinations of M BD and number of brain neurons (1)(2)(3)(4). Remarkably, these data points fall within the viability curves that match reported daily feeding times for these species: 5.5 h for the baboon (31), 6.8 h for the chimpanzee (32-34), and 7.2 h for the orangutan (35,36). This match suggests that the actual combinations of M BD and number of brain neurons in large nonhuman primates indeed impose a certain number of daily feeding hours.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 56%

“…For each of 11 nonhuman primate species varying by a factor of 335 in M BD , from Callithrix jacchus to Gorilla gorilla, we calculated the average E IN per hour spent feeding by dividing the average daily caloric need per species [estimated from the law of Kleiber (21,22) using body masses previously published (25) and not excluding M BR , given that it is relatively very small, of the order of 2% of M BD ] by the average number of hours per day spent feeding (24,(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40) (Table S1). We find that the average E IN per hour increases together with M BD such that E IN /h is equal to 25.352 × M BD 0.526 (P < 0.0001 for both constant and exponent; 95% CI for the exponent, 0.392-0.660) and varies from 8.9 kCal/h in the owl monkey and 10.3 kCal/h in the marmoset to 334.7 kCal/h in the gorilla (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of daily hours devoted by each primate to feeding were obtained from previous publications (25,(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40). These data sources were selected because they clearly provide numbers of feeding hours per day, and not just percentages of the day, daylight time, or active time that might complicate a direct correspondence across species and studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Metabolic constraint imposes tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons in human evolution

Fonseca-Azevedo

Herculano‐Houzel

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

153

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a general trend for larger mammals to have larger brains, humans are the primates with the largest brain and number of neurons, but not the largest body mass. Why are great apes, the largest primates, not also those endowed with the largest brains? Recently, we showed that the energetic cost of the brain is a linear function of its numbers of neurons. Here we show that metabolic limitations that result from the number of hours available for feeding and the low caloric yield of raw foods impose a tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons, which explains the small brain size of great apes compared with their large body size. This limitation was probably overcome in Homo erectus with the shift to a cooked diet. Absent the requirement to spend most available hours of the day feeding, the combination of newly freed time and a large number of brain neurons affordable on a cooked diet may thus have been a major positive driving force to the rapid increased in brain size in human evolution.encephalization | expensive tissue hypothesis | brain metabolism T he human brain is a linearly scaled-up primate brain in its relationship between brain size and number of neurons (1), having evolved while being subjected to the same cellular scaling rules that apply to primates as a whole (2, 3), including great apes (4). With the largest brain among primates, humans thus have the largest number of neurons among these and possibly all mammals (5), a number that we estimate to be close to three times larger than in gorillas and orangutans, owners of the next largest brains among extant primates (4). We are not outstanding primates, on the contrary, in body size: gorillas can grow to be three times larger than humans. This discrepancy between body and brain size led to the predominant view that encephalization (that is, a larger brain size than expected for body size) is the main characteristic that sets humans apart from other primates and mammals as a whole (6). Although a relatively large brain compared with body size is expected to bring cognitive advantages (6), and despite the well-documented evidence for an increase in brain size during human evolution (7), there is still no consensus on what mechanisms or reasons led to brain enlargement in the Homo lineage.Why are the largest primates not those endowed with the largest brains as well? Rather than evidence that humans are an exception among primates, we consider this disparity to be a clue that, in primate evolution, developing a very large body and a very large brain have been mutually excluding strategies, probably because of metabolic reasons (4, 8). The brain is the third most energy-expensive organ in the human body, ranking in total organ metabolic cost below only skeletal muscle and liver (9). Accordingly, several studies have suggested that the main constraints to increasing primate brain size in evolution are metabolic in nature (10-18). The human brain, in particular, has come to cost ∼20% of the total body resting metabolic rate, even though it ...

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Metabolic constraint imposes tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons in human evolution

Fonseca-Azevedo

Herculano‐Houzel

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

153

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…relatively small component of the diet of the nut cracking capuchins at Fazenda Boa Vista in Brazil [44] and insect harvesting orangutans at Suaq Balimbing in Sumatra [29]. Chimpanzees at both Gombe in Tanzania and Fongoli in Senegal allocated significant foraging time to harvesting Macrotermes during particular months [35].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological and social correlates of chimpanzee tool use

Sanz

Morgan

2013

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of technology has been suggested to coincide with scarcity of staple resources that led to innovations in the form of tool-assisted strategies to diversify or augment typical diets. We examined seasonal patterns of several types of tool use exhibited by a chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes ) population residing in central Africa, to determine whether their technical skills provided access to fallback resources when preferred food items were scarce. Chimpanzees in the Goualougo Triangle exhibit a diverse repertoire of tool behaviours, many of which are exhibited throughout the year. Further, they have developed specific tool sets to overcome the issues of accessibility to particular food items. Our conclusion is that these chimpanzees use a sophisticated tool technology to cope with seasonal changes in relative food abundance and gain access to high-quality foods. Subgroup sizes were smaller in tool using contexts than other foraging contexts, suggesting that the size of the social group may not be as important in promoting complex tool traditions as the frequency and type of social interactions. Further, reports from other populations and species showed that tool use may occur more often in response to ecological opportunities and relative profitability of foraging techniques than scarcity of resources.

show abstract

“…[47,48]. There is no evidence for this in orangutans [43,49], nor in chimpanzees and bearded capuchin monkeys [43], although others have suggested it is important among chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys [47,48]. In the case of orangutans, populations with more bark feeding (which happens in response to food scarcity) have smaller innovation repertoires [50].…”

Section: Innovation and Its Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reluctant innovator: orangutans and the phylogeny of creativity

Schaik¹,

Burkart²,

Damerius³

et al. 2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One contribution of 15 to a theme issue 'Innovation in animals and humans: understanding the origins and development of novel and creative behaviour'. Young orangutans are highly neophobic, avoid independent exploration and show a preference for social learning. Accordingly, they acquire virtually all their learned skills through exploration that is socially induced. Adult exploration rates are also low. Comparisons strongly suggest that major innovations, i.e. behaviours that have originally been brought into the population through individual invention, are made where ecological opportunities to do so are propitious. Most populations nonetheless have large innovation repertoires, because innovations, once made, are retained well through social transmission. Wild orangutans are therefore not innovative. In striking contrast, zoo-living orangutans actively seek novelty and are highly exploratory and innovative, probably because of positive reinforcement, active encouragement by human role models, increased sociality and an expectation of safety. The explanation for this contrast most relevant to hominin evolution is that captive apes generally have a highly reduced cognitive load, in particular owing to the absence of predation risk, which strongly reduces the costs of exploration. If the orangutan results generalize to other great apes, this suggests that our ancestors could have become more curious once they had achieved near-immunity to predation on the eve of the explosive increase in creativity characterizing the Upper Palaeolithic Revolution.

show abstract

Intra‐and interpopulational differences in orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) activity and diet: Implications for the invention of tool use

Cited by 173 publications

References 62 publications

Metabolic constraint imposes tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons in human evolution

Metabolic constraint imposes tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons in human evolution

Ecological and social correlates of chimpanzee tool use

The reluctant innovator: orangutans and the phylogeny of creativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About