Why do wild bonobos not use tools like chimpanzees do?
Why do wild bonobos not use tools like chimpanzees do?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1163/1568539x-00003226
复制
发表时间：
2015-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Morgan, D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Furuichi, T.;Sanz, C.;Morgan, D.
类人猿之间最显著的行为差异之一是野生倭黑猩猩（Pan paniscus）与黑猩猩（Pan troglodytes）相比使用工具的数量很少，而黑猩猩是动物王国中最多产和最熟练的工具使用者之一。尽管倭黑猩猩使用工具的能力和圈养环境中的黑猩猩一样庞大和多样化，但这一点还是存在的。在这项研究中，我们比较了位于刚果民主共和国中部的Wamba倭黑猩猩种群与刚果共和国北方的Goualougo黑猩猩种群的工具使用行为和这些行为的潜在驱动因素。野生倭黑猩猩使用工具的行为只有13种，而黑猩猩有42种。然而，在每个研究地点观察到的工具行为的数量在倭黑猩猩和黑猩猩之间是相似的，许多类型的工具使用的社会，自我梳理/刺激，舒适/保护功能是两个物种常用的。一个显著的区别是，黑猩猩所表现出的42种工具行为中有25种是为了进食，而倭黑猩猩只有一种使用海绵叶喝水。我们研究了工具使用剧目的差异是否可以解释的必要性，机会，相对盈利能力，或发明的假设。我们发现，在这两个网站的栖息地组成和水果产量的波动是相似的，特别是当与每个物种的网站之间观察到的变化相比。因此，这是不可能的必要性假说解释缺乏工具使用的倭黑猩猩喂养。虽然需要在Wamba进行进一步研究，但我们没有发现猎物可用性的任何明显差异，这表明不同地点之间使用工具的机会存在差异。这项研究无法检验相对盈利假设，需要进一步研究工具使用是否是野生猿类摄入热量或蛋白质的最有效手段。万巴的倭黑猩猩比古阿鲁戈的黑猩猩形成了更大更稳定的群体，这与发明假说的预测相反。另一种解释是，倭黑猩猩和黑猩猩使用工具行为的差异可能不是由当前的生态或社会条件解释的，而是由更新世时期的环境解释的。观察到的物种差异也可能反映了不同的行为倾向，而不是认知能力的实际差异。
One of the most conspicuous behavioural differences among great apes is the paucity of tool use among wild bonobos (Pan paniscus) in comparison to chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) who are one of the most prolific and skilled tool users in the animal kingdom. This is in spite of the fact that bonobo tool use repertories are as large and diverse as chimpanzees' in captive settings. In this study, we compared tool using behaviours and potential drivers of these behaviours in the Wamba bonobo population located in central Democratic Republic of Congo with the Goualougo chimpanzee population of northern Republic of Congo. The tool use repertoire of wild bonobos was comprised of only 13 behaviours, compared to 42 for chimpanzees. However, the number of tool behaviours observed in each study site was similar between bonobos and chimpanzees, and many types of tool use for social, self-grooming/stimulation, and comfort/protection functions were commonly used by both species. A marked difference is that 25 of 42 tool behaviours exhibited by chimpanzees are performed for feeding, in contrast to a single report of bonobos using a leaf sponge to drink water. We examined whether the differences in tool use repertoires can be explained by the necessity, opportunity, relative profitability, or invention hypotheses. We found that habitat composition and fluctuation of fruit production at these two sites were similar, particularly when compared with variation observed between sites within each species. Thus it was unlikely that the necessity hypothesis explains the lack of tool use for feeding in bonobos. Though further study at Wamba is needed, we did not identify any obvious differences in prey availability that would indicate differences in tool using opportunities between the sites. This study could not test the relative profitability hypothesis, and further research is needed on whether tool use is the most efficient means of calorie or protein intake for wild apes. Bonobos at Wamba formed much larger and stable parties than chimpanzees at Goualougo, which was contrary to the prediction by the invention hypothesis. Another explanation is that differences in tool use behaviour between bonobos and chimpanzees might not be explained by the current ecological or social conditions, but rather by circumstances during the Pleistocene Epoch. The observed species differences might also reflect divergent behavioural predispositions, rather than actual differences in cognitive abilities.