4.8 Article

Novelty Response of Wild African Apes to Camera Traps

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 7, 页码 1211-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.02.024

关键词

-

资金

  1. Max Planck Society
  2. Max Planck Society Innovation Fund
  3. Heinz L. Krekeler Foundation
  4. Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau (KfW Group)
  5. WWF Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Temperament and personality research in humans and nonhuman animals measures behavioral variation in individual, population, or species-specific traits with implications for survival and fitness, such as social status, foraging, and mating success [1-5]. Curiosity and risk-taking tendencies have been studied extensively across taxa by measuring boldness and exploration responses to experimental novelty exposure [3, 4, 6-15]. Here, we conduct a natural field experiment using wildlife monitoring technology to test variation in the reaction of wild great apes (43 groups of naive chimpanzees, bonobos, and western gorillas across 14 field sites in Africa) to a novel object, the camera trap. Bonobo and gorilla groups demonstrated a stronger looking impulse toward the camera trap device compared to chimpanzees, suggesting higher visual attention and curiosity. Bonobos were also more likely to show alarm and other fearful behaviors, although such neophobic (and conversely, neophilic) responses were generally rare. Among all three species, individuals looked at cameras longer when they were young, were associating with fewer individuals, and did not live near a long-term research site. Overall, these findings partially validate results from great ape novelty paradigms in captivity [7, 8]. We further suggest that species-typical leadership styles [16] and social and environmental effects, including familiarity with humans, best explain novelty responses of wild great apes. In sum, this study illustrates the feasibility of large-scale field experiments and the importance of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors in shaping animal curiosity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据