A comparison of bonobo and chimpanzee tool use: evidence for a female bias in the Pan lineage

Gruber, Thibaud; Clay, Zanna; Zuberbühler, Klaus

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.09.005

Cited by 119 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Variation among great ape species in innovation and problem-solving biases illustrates this. Thus, bonobos bias their innovations, including those involving tool use, more toward solving social problems, chimpanzees more toward solving subsistence problems, and orangutans more toward enhancing physical comfort [50][51][52][53]. These divergent biases are found in the wild, but also in captivity, where conditions are uniform across the species concerned.…”

Section: Domain-specific or Domain-general Cognitive Abilities?mentioning

confidence: 96%

Explaining brain size variation: from social to cultural brain

Schaik

Isler

Burkart

2012

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

160

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Domain-specific or Domain-general Cognitive Abilities?mentioning

confidence: 96%

Explaining brain size variation: from social to cultural brain

Schaik

Isler

Burkart

2012

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

160

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Kanzi is able to produce stone flakes and selectively choose tools that are more useful than others [Schick et al, 1999]. These findings suggest that bonobos have the same understanding of the functional properties of tools as other great apes [Hermann et al, 2008] and a cognitive ability for toolrelated behaviours [Jordan, 1982;Gruber et al, 2010]. Gruber et al (2010) reported the nutcracking ability in the bonobos of Lola ya Bonobo sanctuary, but details of this complex tool-use behaviour have not yet been documented.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Despite the general absence of tool-use in the wild, bonobos in captivity demonstrate an equally diverse and highly complex repertoire of tool-use behaviours compared with captive chimpanzees [Jordan, 1982;Takeshita and Walraven, 1996;Gruber et al, 2010;Roffman et al, 2015]. The bonobo "Kanzi" is the best example illustrating this species' capability to develop highly skilled tool-making and tool-using behaviours [e.g., Toth et al, 1993].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nut‐cracking behaviour in wild‐born, rehabilitated bonobos (Pan paniscus): a comprehensive study of hand‐preference, hand grips and efficiency

Neufuss

Humle

Cremaschi

et al. 2016

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been an enduring interest in primate tool-use and manipulative abilities, most often with the goal of providing insight into the evolution of human manual dexterity, right-hand preference, and what behaviours make humans unique. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are arguably the most well-studied tool-users among non-human primates, and are particularly wellknown for their complex nut-cracking behaviour, which has been documented in several West African populations. However, their sister-taxon, the bonobos (Pan paniscus), rarely engage in even simple tool-use and are not known to nut-crack in the wild. Only a few studies have reported tool-use in captive bonobos, including their ability to crack nuts, but details of this complex tool-use behaviour have not been documented before. Here, we fill this gap with the first comprehensive analysis of bonobo nut-cracking in a natural environment at the Lola ya Bonobo sanctuary, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Eighteen bonobos were studied as they cracked oil palm nuts using stone hammers. Individual bonobos showed exclusive laterality for using the hammerstone and there was a significant group-level right-hand bias. The study revealed 15 hand grips for holding differently sized and weighted hammerstones, 10 of which had not been previously described in the literature. Our findings also demonstrated that bonobos select the most effective hammerstones when nut-cracking. Bonobos are efficient nutcrackers and not that different from the renowned nut-cracking chimpanzees of Bossou, Guinea, which also crack oil palm nuts using stones.

show abstract

“…Comparative 542 studies of the physical and cognitive abilities of great apes have failed to explain the 543 paucity of tool use by bonobos. Within captive settings, bonobo tool use repertoires are as 544 large and diverse as chimpanzees (Gruber, Clay et al 2010). This is unlike gorillas, who 545 use tools for feeding but acquire the behaviour more slowly and perform it less frequently 546 than chimpanzees, suggesting a species difference in predisposition ( understanding of tool functional properties (Herrmann, Wobber et al 2008).…”

Section: Abundance Of Preferred Resources 296mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…use of tools, understanding of physical 555 causality) (Herrmann, Hare et al 2010). In a comparison of several captive groups, the 556 only major difference between chimpanzee and bonobo tool use was that bonobos of all 557 age and sex classes used tools in a play context (Gruber, Clay et al 2010). The propensity 558 of adult bonobos to engage in play is thought to reflect their neotenous nature, as well as 559 environmental conditions that afford leisure time and a behavioural preference for 560 certain types of social interaction.…”

Section: Abundance Of Preferred Resources 296mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do wild bonobos not use tools like chimpanzees do?

Furuichi

Sanz

Koops

et al. 2015

Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. One of the most conspicuous behavioural differences among great apes is the paucity of 22 tool use among wild bonobos (Pan paniscus) in comparison to chimpanzees (Pan 23 troglodytes) who are one of the most prolific and skilled tool users in the animal kingdom. 24 This is in spite of the fact that bonobo tool use repertories are as large and diverse as 25 chimpanzees in captive settings. In this study, we compared tool using behaviours and 26 potential drivers of these behaviours in the Wamba bonobo population located in central 27 De...

show abstract

A comparison of bonobo and chimpanzee tool use: evidence for a female bias in the Pan lineage

Cited by 119 publications

References 49 publications

Explaining brain size variation: from social to cultural brain

Explaining brain size variation: from social to cultural brain

Nut‐cracking behaviour in wild‐born, rehabilitated bonobos (Pan paniscus): a comprehensive study of hand‐preference, hand grips and efficiency

Why do wild bonobos not use tools like chimpanzees do?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About