Foraging in a social setting: a comparative analysis of captive gorillas and chimpanzees.

Kristin E Bonnie, Laura M Bernstein-Kurtycz, Marisa A Shender, Stephen R Ross, Lydia M Hopper
Author Information
  1. Kristin E Bonnie: Department of Psychology, Beloit College, Beloit, WI, USA.
  2. Laura M Bernstein-Kurtycz: Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL, USA.
  3. Marisa A Shender: Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL, USA.
  4. Stephen R Ross: Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL, USA.
  5. Lydia M Hopper: Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL, USA. lhopper@lpzoo.org. ORCID

Abstract

This study was designed to investigate the foraging behavior of zoo-housed western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and compare it with that of zoo-housed chimpanzees (Pan trogloydytes) tested previously in a similar paradigm. Specifically, we aimed to document how a group of zoo-housed gorillas foraged within a familiar environment to discover novel food sources and whether they sought out more preferred foods, even if they had to travel further to reach them, as they do in the wild. Gorillas were provided plastic tokens to exchange with researchers at two locations-at the same location as the tokens (close) for carrot pieces and another 6.5 m away (far) for grapes. Over the course of 30 sessions, a single individual-the silverback male-accounted for 96% of the 1546 tokens exchanged, all of which took place at the far location. Inter-individual distance measures collected during each session, as well as during matched control sessions, showed that while both gorillas and chimpanzees express similar patterns of social association across the two conditions, the average dyadic association for chimpanzees was stronger than that for gorillas. Together, these findings provide an example of the value of employing identical methodologies to compare cognition and behavior across species as well highlight the importance of the social context in which studies take place.

Keywords

References

  1. Anim Cogn. 2003 Jun;6(2):77-86 [PMID: 12687418]
  2. Am J Primatol. 2004 Oct;64(2):207-22 [PMID: 15470743]
  3. J Comp Psychol. 2005 May;119(2):145-54 [PMID: 15982158]
  4. Curr Biol. 2005 Oct 25;15(20):1855-60 [PMID: 16243033]
  5. Primates. 2006 Oct;47(4):294-9 [PMID: 16596463]
  6. Anim Cogn. 2006 Jul;9(3):193-9 [PMID: 16612632]
  7. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2006 Jul;32(3):239-52 [PMID: 16834492]
  8. Anim Cogn. 2009 Mar;12(2):401-4 [PMID: 18925419]
  9. Am J Primatol. 2009 Feb;71(2):91-100 [PMID: 19021124]
  10. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009 Dec;140(4):739-50 [PMID: 19890854]
  11. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009 Dec;140(4):727-38 [PMID: 19890869]
  12. Behav Processes. 2014 Jun;105:71-8 [PMID: 24680959]
  13. PeerJ. 2015 Mar 17;3:e833 [PMID: 25802805]
  14. Anim Behav. 2011 Jun 1;81(6):1195-1202 [PMID: 27011390]
  15. Zoo Biol. 2016 Jul;35(4):293-7 [PMID: 27232752]
  16. Sci Rep. 2016 Oct 11;6:34783 [PMID: 27725706]
  17. PeerJ. 2017 Aug 3;5:e3649 [PMID: 28791199]
  18. Hum Nat. 2018 Jun;29(2):91-103 [PMID: 29619667]
  19. Primates. 2000 Apr;41(2):147-160 [PMID: 30545167]

MeSH Term

Animals
Animals, Zoo
Feeding Behavior
Female
Gorilla gorilla
Male
Pan troglodytes
Social Behavior