“Innovation across 13 Ungulate Species: Problem Solvers Are Less Integrated in the Social Group and Less Neophobic”, 2023-04-05 ():
Innovation is the ability to solve new problems or find novel solutions to familiar problems, and it is known to provide animals with crucial fitness benefits. Although this ability has been extensively studied in some taxa, the factors that predict innovation within and across species are still largely unclear.
In this study, we used a novel foraging task to test 111 individuals belonging to 13 ungulate species—a still understudied taxon. To solve the task, individuals had to open transparent and opaque cups with food rewards, by removing their cover. We assessed whether individual factors (neophobia, social integration, sex, age, rank) and socio-ecological factors (dietary breadth, fission-fusion dynamics, domestication, group size) predicted participation and performance in the task.
Using a phylogenetic approach, we showed that success was higher for less neophobic and socially less integrated individuals. Moreover, less neophobic individuals, individuals of domesticated species and having higher fission-fusion dynamics were more likely to participate in the task.
These results are in line with recent literature suggesting a central role of sociality and personality traits to successfully deal with novel challenges, and confirm ungulates as a promising taxon to test evolutionary theories with a comparative approach.
…3. Results: On average, 62% of the study subjects participated in at least one condition of the task. However, participation varied widely across species, with 100% of the dromedaries approaching the cups but only 33% of the sheep. Overall, only 36% of the study subjects were successful in retrieving food at least once. The species with a higher percentage of successful individuals were dromedaries and goats, with 86% and 69% of the individuals opening the cups, respectively. Among the individuals that solved the task, latency to open the cup for the first time was on average 51 s, ranging from an average of 6 s for Przewalski’s horse to more than 5 min for mhorr gazelles. Finally, we found that only 9⁄40 successful individuals used more than one strategy to solve the task, including 3⁄6 successful dromedaries and both successful scimitar oryx.
After accounting for phylogeny, the more complex model for Model 1 provided a better fit to the data than the simpler one (complex model, AIC: 124.8, weight: 0.993; simple model, AIC: 134.7, weight: 0.007). Participation was higher in species with fission-fusion dynamics (posterior estimate: 7.2 [95% CIs: 0.5–14.5], p = 0.010), in domesticated species (posterior estimate: 6.7 [95% CIs: 0.9–13.7], p = 0.005) and in individuals with lower neophobia (posterior estimate: −12.8 [95% CIs: −24.5 to −3.3], p = 0.001). For Model 2, the more complex model provided a better fit to the data than the simpler one (complex model, AIC: 110.4, weight: 0.871; simple model, AIC: 114.2, weight: 0.129). The probability of success was predicted by lower levels of neophobia (posterior estimate: −23.0 [95% CIs: −41.2 to −7.1], p < 0.001) and by lower integration in the social network (posterior estimate: −13.4 [95% CIs: −32.7–1.8], p = 0.047). Finally, the simpler model provided a better fit to the data than the more complex one for Model 3 (simple model, AIC: 13.0, weight: 1; complex model, AIC: 28.7, weight: 0), suggesting that none of the test predictors we included reliably predicted inter-individual and interspecific variation in the probability of using more than one strategy to solve the task.