Abstract
Innovation is the ability to solve novel problems or find novel solutions to familiar problems, and it is known to affect fitness in both human and non-human animals. In primates, innovation has been mostly studied in captivity, although differences in living conditions may affect individuals’ ability to innovate. Here, we tested innovation in a wild group of Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). In four different conditions, we presented the group with several identical foraging boxes containing food. To understand which individual characteristics and behavioural strategies best predicted innovation rate, we measured the identity of the individuals manipulating the boxes and retrieving the food, and their behaviour during the task. Our results showed that success in the novel task was mainly affected by the experimental contingencies and the behavioural strategies used during the task. Individuals were more successful in the 1-step conditions, if they participated in more trials, showed little latency to approach the boxes and mainly manipulated functional parts of the box. In contrast, we found no effect of inhibition, social facilitation and individual characteristics like sex, age, rank, centrality, neophobia and reaction to humans, on the individuals’ ability to innovate.
Highlights
Innovation is the ability to solve novel problems or find novel solutions to familiar problems, and it is known to affect fitness in both human and non-human animals
Innovation has been defined as the solution to a novel problem, or the novel solution to a familiar problem[1,2]
It is possible that more innovative individuals increase their prestige or status through the implementation of novel solutions, so that they are preferred over other social partners[51,52]
Summary
Innovation is the ability to solve novel problems or find novel solutions to familiar problems, and it is known to affect fitness in both human and non-human animals. The Innovation by Necessity hypothesis ( called Bad Competitor hypotheses18), in particular, predicts that innovation is especially frequent in those individuals who would otherwise have no access to food, and need to take the risk of performing potentially dangerous novel behaviours as a last resort[2,31,32]. According to this hypothesis, better innovators would be individuals in bad physical condition, lower-ranking or younger, and in species with sexual dimorphism, individuals of the smaller sex (e.g. birds[13] and primates[33,34]). In line with the Innovation by Necessity hypothesis, in contrast, low sociality would imply lower individual fitness, and higher innovation rate
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
