ALBERT

Description: Observations of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) provide valuable comparative data for understanding the significance of conspecific killing. Two kinds of hypothesis have been proposed. Lethal violence is sometimes concluded to be the result of adaptive strategies, such that killers ultimately gain fitness benefits by increasing their access to resources such as food or mates. Alternatively, it could be a non-adaptive result of human impacts, such as habitat change or food provisioning. To discriminate between these hypotheses we compiled information from 18 chimpanzee communities and 4 bonobo communities studied over five decades. Our data include 152 killings (n = 58 observed, 41 inferred, and 53 suspected killings) by chimpanzees in 15 communities and one suspected killing by bonobos. We found that males were the most frequent attackers (92% of participants) and victims (73%); most killings (66%) involved intercommunity attacks; and attackers greatly outnumbered their victims (median 8:1 ratio). Variation in killing rates was unrelated to measures of human impacts. Our results are compatible with previously proposed adaptive explanations for killing by chimpanzees, whereas the human impact hypothesis is not supported.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Notes: 〈/span〉Wilson, Michael L -- Boesch, Christophe -- Fruth, Barbara -- Furuichi, Takeshi -- Gilby, Ian C -- Hashimoto, Chie -- Hobaiter, Catherine L -- Hohmann, Gottfried -- Itoh, Noriko -- Koops, Kathelijne -- Lloyd, Julia N -- Matsuzawa, Tetsuro -- Mitani, John C -- Mjungu, Deus C -- Morgan, David -- Muller, Martin N -- Mundry, Roger -- Nakamura, Michio -- Pruetz, Jill -- Pusey, Anne E -- Riedel, Julia -- Sanz, Crickette -- Schel, Anne M -- Simmons, Nicole -- Waller, Michel -- Watts, David P -- White, Frances -- Wittig, Roman M -- Zuberbuhler, Klaus -- Wrangham, Richard W -- R01 AI 058715/AI/NIAID NIH HHS/ -- England -- Nature. 2014 Sep 18;513(7518):414-7. doi: 10.1038/nature13727.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Author address: 〈/span〉1] Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota, 395 Humphrey Center, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA [2] Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 1987 Upper Buford Circle, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA. ; Department of Primatology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany. ; 1] Division of Neurobiology, Ludwig-Maximilians Universitaet Muenchen, Germany [2] Centre for Research and Conservation, Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp, Belgium. ; Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, 41-2 Kanrin, Inuyama, Aichi 484-8506, Japan. ; 1] Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, 104 Biological Sciences Building, Box 90383, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0680, USA [2] School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, PO Box 872402, Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402, USA. ; School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, Westburn Lane, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9JP, UK. ; Wildlife Research Center, Kyoto University, 2-24 Tanaka-Sekiden-Cho, Sakyo, Kyoto, Japan. ; Division of Biological Anthropology, Department of Archaeology &Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Henry Wellcome Building, Fitzwilliam Street, Cambridge CB2 1QH, UK. ; Zoology Department, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda. ; 1] Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, 41-2 Kanrin, Inuyama, Aichi 484-8506, Japan [2] Japan Monkey Center, 26 Kanrin, Inuyama, Aichi 484-0081, Japan. ; Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, 101 West Hall, 1085 S. University Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA. ; Gombe Stream Research Centre, The Jane Goodall Institute - Tanzania, P.O. Box 1182, Kigoma, Tanzania. ; The Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, Illinois 60614, USA. ; Department of Anthropology, MSC01-1040, Anthropology 1, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA. ; Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany. ; Department of Anthropology, Iowa State University, 324 Curtiss, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA. ; Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, 104 Biological Sciences Building, Box 90383, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0680, USA. ; Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St Louis, Campus Mailbox 1114, One Brookings Drive, St Louis, Missouri 63130, USA. ; University of York, Department of Psychology, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK. ; Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, USA. ; Department of Anthropology, Yale University, 10 Sachem Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA. ; 1] School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, Westburn Lane, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9JP, UK [2] Universite de Neuchatel, Institut de Biologie, Rue Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland. ; Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Record origin:〈/span〉 〈a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25230664" target="_blank"〉PubMed〈/a〉

Description: Young orangutans are highly neophobic, avoid independent exploration and show a preference for social learning. Accordingly, they acquire virtually all their learned skills through exploration that is socially induced. Adult exploration rates are also low. Comparisons strongly suggest that major innovations, i.e. behaviours that have originally been brought into the population through individual invention, are made where ecological opportunities to do so are propitious. Most populations nonetheless have large innovation repertoires, because innovations, once made, are retained well through social transmission. Wild orangutans are therefore not innovative. In striking contrast, zoo-living orangutans actively seek novelty and are highly exploratory and innovative, probably because of positive reinforcement, active encouragement by human role models, increased sociality and an expectation of safety. The explanation for this contrast most relevant to hominin evolution is that captive apes generally have a highly reduced cognitive load, in particular owing to the absence of predation risk, which strongly reduces the costs of exploration. If the orangutan results generalize to other great apes, this suggests that our ancestors could have become more curious once they had achieved near-immunity to predation on the eve of the explosive increase in creativity characterizing the Upper Palaeolithic Revolution.

Description: Despite the large body of literature on ape conservation, much of the data needed for evidence‐based conservation decision‐making is still not readily accessible and standardized, rendering cross‐site comparison difficult. To support knowledge synthesis and to complement the IUCN SSC Ape Populations, Environments and Surveys database, we created the A.P.E.S. Wiki (https://apeswiki.eva.mpg.de), an open‐access platform providing site‐level information on ape conservation status and context. The aim of this Wiki is to provide information and data about geographical ape locations, to curate information on individuals and organizations active in ape research and conservation, and to act as a tool to support collaboration between conservation practitioners, scientists, and other stakeholders. To illustrate the process and benefits of knowledge synthesis, we used the momentum of the update of the conservation action plan for western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) and began with this critically endangered taxon. First, we gathered information on 59 sites in West Africa from scientific publications, reports, and online sources. Information was compiled in a standardized format and can thus be summarized using a web scraping approach. We then asked experts working at those sites to review and complement the information (20 sites have been reviewed to date). We demonstrate the utility of the information available through the Wiki, for example, for studying species distribution. Importantly, as an open‐access platform and based on the well‐known wiki layout, the A.P.E.S. Wiki can contribute to direct and interactive information sharing and promote the efforts invested by the ape research and conservation community. The Section on Great Apes and the Section on Small Apes of the IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group will guide and support the expansion of the platform to all small and great ape taxa. Similar collaborative efforts can contribute to extending knowledge synthesis to all nonhuman primate species. Despite the large body of literature on ape conservation, much of the data needed for evidence‐based conservation decision‐making is still not readily accessible and standardized, rendering cross‐site comparison difficult. To support knowledge synthesis and to complement the IUCN SSC Ape Populations, Environments and Surveys database, we created the A.P.E.S. Wiki (https://apeswiki.eva.mpg.de), an open‐access platform providing site‐level information on ape conservation status and context. The aim of this Wiki is to provide information and data about geographical ape locations, to curate information on individuals and organizations active in ape research and conservation, and to act as a tool to support collaboration between conservation practitioners, scientists, and other stakeholders. To illustrate the process and benefits of knowledge synthesis, we used the momentum of the update of the conservation action plan for western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) and began with this critically endangered taxon. First, we gathered information on 59 sites in West Africa from scientific publications, reports, and online sources. Information was compiled in a standardized format and can thus be summarized using a web scraping approach. We then asked experts working at those sites to review and complement the information (20 sites have been reviewed to date). We demonstrate the utility of the information available through the Wiki, for example, for studying species distribution. Importantly, as an open‐access platform and based on the well‐known wiki layout, the A.P.E.S. Wiki can contribute to direct and interactive information sharing and promote the efforts invested by the ape research and conservation community. The Section on Great Apes and the Section on Small Apes of the IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group will guide and support the expansion of the platform to all small and great ape taxa. Similar collaborative efforts can contribute to extending knowledge synthesis to all nonhuman primate species.

Description: Johann Heinrich von Thunen-Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries began publishing the Informationen aus der Fischereiforschung – Information on Fishery research in 2010

Description: The Southeast-Asian tree snail subgenus Amphidromus s. str. (Gastropoda Pulmonata: Camaenidae) is unusual among all gastropods for its genetic antisymmetry: populations consist of stable mixtures of individuals with clockwise (dextral) and counterclockwise (sinistral) coiling directions. Although previous studies in A. inversus suggest that this genetic dimorphism is maintained by sexual selection, it cannot be ruled out that environmental factors also play a role. Adult shell shapes in A. inversus are known to show subtle differences between both coiling morphs, and it is\nknown that in snails in general, shell shape is under environmental selection, thus creating the possibility that micro-niche use of both coiling morphs differs. In this paper, we first confirm that hatchlings also differ in shell shape. We then proceed with field studies to compare dextral and sinistral juveniles and adults for (i) direction and rate of dispersal within the vegetation and (ii) micro-niche occupation. However, we failed to detect any difference in both ecological traits. In addition to earlier data that show that there is no clustering of morphs in the field and that both morphs suffer identical predation pressure, these new data do not provide any evidence for a role for environmental factors in maintaining the coil dimorphism in this species.