4.3 Article

Contrasting Responses to Novelty by Wild and Captive Orangutans

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY
卷 77, 期 10, 页码 1109-1121

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajp.22445

关键词

novelty response; orangutans; wild; zoo; captivity effect

类别

资金

  1. Waldemer von Frenckell's Foundation
  2. Paul Schiller Foundation
  3. A. H. Schultz Foundation
  4. Ella and Georg Ehrnrooths Foundation
  5. International Primatological Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several studies have suggested that wild primates tend to behave with caution toward novelty, whereas captive primates are thought to be less neophobic, more exploratory, and more innovative. However, few studies have systematically compared captive and wild individuals of the same species to document this captivity effect in greater detail. Here we report the responses of both wild and captive orangutans to the same novel items. Novel objects were presented to wild orangutans on multiple platforms placed in the canopy and equipped with motion-triggered video cameras. The same and different novel objects were also presented to orangutans in two different zoos. The results demonstrate extreme conservatism in both Bornean and Sumatran wild orangutans, who gradually approached the novel objects more closely as they became familiar, but avoided contact with them over many encounters spanning several months. Their zoo-living conspecifics, in contrast, showed an immediate neophilic response. Our results thus confirm the captivity effect. To the various ecological explanations proposed before (reduced risk and increased time and energy balance for captive individuals relative to wild ones), we add the social information hypothesis, which claims that individuals confronted with novel items preferentially rely on social cues whenever possible. This caution toward novelty disappears when human caretakers become additional role models and can also be eroded when all experience with novelty is positive. (C) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.3
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