Dental wear patterns reveal dietary ecology and season of death in a historical chimpanzee population

Dental wear analyses have been widely used to interpret the dietary ecology in primates. However, it remains unclear to what extent a combination of wear analyses acting at distinct temporal scales can be beneficial in interpreting the tooth use of primates with a high variation in their intraspecific dietary ecology. Here, we combine macroscopic tooth wear (occlusal fingerprint analysis, long-term signals) with microscopic 3D surface textures (short-term signals) exploring the tooth use of a historical western chimpanzee population from northeastern Liberia with no detailed dietary records. We compare our results to previously published tooth wear and feeding data of the extant and continually monitored chimpanzees of Taї National Park in Ivory Coast. Macroscopic tooth wear results from molar wear facets of the Liberian population indicate only slightly less wear when compared to the Taї population. This suggests similar long-term feeding behavior between both populations. In contrast, 3D surface texture results show that Liberian chimpanzees have many and small microscopic wear facet features that group them with those Taї chimpanzees that knowingly died during dry periods. This coincides with historical accounts, which indicate that local tribes poached and butchered the Liberian specimens during dust-rich dry periods. In addition, Liberian females and males differ somewhat in their 3D surface textures, with females having more microscopic peaks, smaller hill and dale areas and slightly rougher wear facet surfaces than males. This suggests a higher consumption of insects in Liberian females compared to males, based on similar 3D surface texture patterns previously reported for Taї chimpanzees. Our study opens new options for uncovering details of feeding behaviors of chimpanzees and other living and fossil primates, with macroscopic tooth wear tracing the long-term dietary and environmental history of a single population and microscopic tooth wear addressing short-term changes (e.g. seasonality).

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) Population Spans Multiple Protected Areas in the Albertine Rift

We used mitochondrial DNA to examine gene flow in a region of western Uganda that has received little attention regarding chimpanzee population dynamics. The area is critical to gene flow between isolated Democratic Republic of Congo populations and the rest of East Africa. None of the chimpanzees in each of the 4 protected areas under consideration (Toro-Semliki Wildlife Reserve, Semuliki National Park, Rwenzori Mountains National Park and Itwara Central Forest Reserve) are fully habituated. Therefore, it is not clear whether one or more populations have historically used this fragmented landscape for (1) regular ranging and/or (2) infrequent dispersal. We incorporated the published sequences of the first hypervariable region of the D-loop of the mitochondrial genome from 3 previously sampled sites (<i>n</i> = 39) while also contributing the first extensive genetic sampling of chimpanzees in Toro-Semliki (<i>n</i> = 80). Our goal was to generate a historical baseline model of metapopulation dynamics in this region and determine which, if any, of these protected areas forms a fragmented landscape for a single chimpanzee population. According to a discriminant analysis of principal components, the haplotypes at Toro-Semliki form a central cluster, and Itwara is its nearest genetic neighbor. Rwenzori Mountains National Park is the most distant neighbor of all protected areas. We performed an analysis of molecular variance for 14 different population models that divided the samples from the 4 protected areas into 2, 3 or 4 populations. The best fit model included 3 populations: Toro-Semliki Wildlife Reserve and Itwara Forest Reserve comprised a single population; Semuliki National Park and Rwenzori Mountains National Park formed 2 additional separate populations (variance among = 9%, <i>p</i> = 0.014). The results indicated that some protected areas comprised distinctive populations, while others formed a fragmented landscape for a population’s ranging for foraging purposes. Therefore, the edges of a protected area do not always define a chimpanzee population. We propose a closer examination of those dynamics through renewed sampling. Advances in DNA extraction and next-generation sequencing will allow us to compare thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the genomes of unhabituated chimpanzees living in each of these protected areas.

Differences in Behavior Between Elderly and Nonelderly Captive Chimpanzees and the Effects of the Social Environment

The population of NIH-owned or NIH-supported captive research chimpanzees is quickly becoming aged, and the 1998 NIH breeding moratorium has resulted in a skewed age distribution. As such, behavioral management programs aimed at refining the care of an aging captive chimpanzee population have become increasingly important. However, little research exists that addresses the ways in which captive chimpanzee behavior differs as a function of the interaction of age and aspects of the captive environment. We examined overall differences in behavior between elderly (35 y and older) and nonelderly (younger than 35 y) captive chimpanzees. Elderly chimpanzees exhibited significantly more rough scratching (a behavioral indicator of anxiety) and inactivity, less behavioral diversity, and less affiliation than their nonelderly counterparts. We also assessed whether elderly chimpanzee behavior and wounding rates differed as a function of housing in geriatric (group average age, 35 y or older) or nongeriatric (group average age, younger than 35 y) groups. In our program, geriatric social groups were characterized by smaller group size, more females within the group, and higher levels of individual mobility impairment compared with nongeriatric groups. Furthermore, elderly chimpanzees housed in geriatric groups displayed significantly increased rough scratching, decreased locomotion and submission than nongeriatric animals but no difference in wounding. These findings suggest that housing elderly chimpanzees in nongeriatric groups may be beneficial, given that doing so may stimulate locomotion. However, the establishment and maintenance of geriatric groups may be unavoidable as the demographics of the population of captive former research chimpanzees continues to age. Therefore, refinements to captive geriatric care strategies for chimpanzees should focus on methods of evaluating and enhancing functionally appropriate captive environments within geriatric groups.

Why do wild bonobos not use tools like chimpanzees do?

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.