There is currently much debate about the origins of animal culture, including why some animals have acquired the ability to use tools. Ecological problems often lead to the innovation of new tools. For example, a particular desirable food item may not be reachable without using a tool, or environmental conditions may make it difficult for an animal to find food without help.

Gruber et al. investigated how particular ecological factors influenced the use of tools in wild chimpanzees by combining controlled field experiments and observational data. When the ecological conditions were the most demanding, wild chimpanzees engaged most with the honey-trap experiment, an experiment where they had to use a tool to extract honey from a cavity dug in a log. Chimpanzees spent a longer time engaging with the apparatus when not much food was available and they had to travel more to obtain it. However, actual tool use during the experiments was only influenced by the travel effort made by the chimpanzees before they engaged with the log, not by how much fruit they had eaten beforehand.

In a larger analysis that included data from all of the long-term field sites with habituated chimpanzees, Gruber et al. found that chimpanzee communities that travel further on a daily basis use a wider range of tools to acquire food. These results suggest that travel is an important factor to consider when studying how tool use evolved. Furthermore, these results can be extrapolated to humans, who both travel further and use a greater variety of tools than chimpanzees.

Although innovation and culture are closely linked, innovation is mostly performed by individuals whereas culture is a social process. However, both are shaped by the environment. The next step will therefore be to disentangle and quantify the different contributions of environmental, individual and group factors in explaining how culture evolves.

What evolutionary pressures have favoured tool use in some species, including chimpanzees and humans, but not others? Recent work in non-human primate species has focussed on the role of ecological variables for the emergence of tool use (Fox et al., 1999; Humle and Matsuzawa, 2002; Möbius et al., 2008; Spagnoletti et al., 2012; Sanz and Morgan, 2013). These studies have enlightened our understanding of how ecology influences animal culture (Whiten et al., 1999; Laland and Janik, 2006) and are also informative for modelling early hominin lifestyle (Susman and Hart, 2015).

For non-human primates, Fox and colleagues proposed three hypotheses to test the relation between ecological factors and the innovation of feeding-related tool use in primates, i.e., the ‘invention’, ‘necessity’, and ‘opportunity’ hypotheses (Fox et al., 1999). While the invention hypothesis states that new forms of tool use are rare chance events, which spread through social learning (Fox et al., 2004), the necessity and opportunity hypotheses state that ecological factors can have an additional influence (Sanz and Morgan, 2013). While the necessity hypothesis predicts that tool use emerges as a response to food scarcity, the opportunity hypothesis predicts this emergence as a response to encounters with either the material needed to make a tool or the resources to be extracted by the tools (Koops et al., 2013). The current literature has generated conflicting and inconclusive results concerning the different ecological hypotheses, even within the same species (chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus; necessity: Yamakoshi, 1998; opportunity: Koops et al., 2013; inconclusive: Furuichi et al., 2015); capuchins (Sapajus spp., necessity: Moura and Lee, 2004; opportunity: Spagnoletti et al., 2012); bonobos (Pan paniscus; inconclusive: Furuichi et al., 2015); see (Sanz and Morgan, 2013) for a review).

Research on non-primates has generated an additional ecological hypothesis, the ‘relative profitability hypothesis’ to explain the emergence of tool use, which is based on optimal foraging theory and work on New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides). This hypothesis states that tool use can develop as a strategy to obtain dietary components difficult to obtain without tools, but only if this is more profitable than non-tool-based strategies and as long as the ecological conditions, such as low predation pressure, allow it (Rutz and St Clair, 2012).

Koops et al. (2014) proposed an enlarged opportunity hypothesis, which includes not only ecological but also social and cognitive opportunities as drivers of tool use innovation and maintenance. In this view, necessity cannot explain tool use in animals because of the lack of correlations between selected environmental indicators and tool use. In particular, in a study with unhabituated chimpanzees of Nimba forest, Guinea, there was no correlation between fruit availability and ant remains in faeces, a proxy for stick use (Koops et al., 2013). Additionally, there was no relation between feeding-related tool use variants and the number of dry months across chimpanzee sites through Africa, further suggesting that tool use did not emerge out of necessity (Koops et al., 2014). In contrast, support for the necessity hypothesis comes from another study with the nearby habituated chimpanzees of Bossou, Guinea, where nut-cracking increased when fruit availability was low, suggesting that tool use is a fall back strategy during periods of food scarcity (Yamakoshi, 1998).

One explanation for these conflicting results is that the necessity hypothesis is difficult to test. For instance, Sanz and Morgan (2013) argue that the abundance of preferred food is a poor proxy for necessity and that even low levels of these foods may not be sufficient to trigger significant behavioural changes. Second, necessity may be driven by the lack of particular micronutrients essential for survival but that do not account for a major part of the diet (Sanz and Morgan, 2013). Necessity-based tool inventions, in other words, may not always function to compensate for low caloric intake. A third problem with the necessity hypothesis may also be due to the narrow focus of the analyses conducted to test it, e.g. feeding opportunities determined through phenological surveys, with no data on (a) whether animals actually seize these opportunities, (b) their variation across large timescales (Gruber et al., 2012a), (c) the energetic costs incurred to benefit from them (Pontzer and Wrangham, 2004; Lehmann et al., 2007; Amsler, 2010), and (d) the differential needs of individuals across time. In this respect, while analysing entire communities or populations can be useful, for instance by correlating phenological variables with tool use frequencies or tool repertoire sizes of entire communities (see below), individual needs may differ substantially within groups, suggesting that additional levels of analysis may be necessary to test the necessity hypothesis.

In this study, we were interested in the role of ecological factors in the emergence of chimpanzee tool use at the individual level. We studied how individuals of a chimpanzee community known for its limited tool use behaviour, the Sonso community of Budongo Forest (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii), behaved in an experimental foraging task that required tool use. Although Sonso chimpanzees use tools in non-feeding contexts, such as for personal hygiene or communication, they have only been observed to use one type of tool to access resources, which consists of folding and chewing a handful of leaves to make a sponge, usually to collect water (Reynolds, 2005). Recently, some members of the Sonso community have learned a new technique, moss-sponging, to access mineral-rich suspensions from a clay pit (Hobaiter et al., 2014).

The Sonso community is part of a larger population of about 700 chimpanzees living in Budongo Forest, which most likely show the same limitations in tool use behaviour (Gruber et al., 2012a). For this reason, they constitute ideal subjects to study the emergence of new tool use behaviours, unlike other populations that already have complex food-related tool repertoires (Whiten et al., 1999).

We analysed data from a long-term field experiment, the honey-trap experiment, in which subjects were exposed to a novel foraging task that could only be solved with a tool. In doing so, we controlled for opportunity-based ecological aspects by presenting subjects with a standardised apparatus, which consisted of a small cavity drilled into a portable log, filled with liquid honey (Gruber et al., 2009, 2011). Our goal was to test individuals under conditions of high ecological validity, over an extended period of time (2009–2015), with an unprecedented subject pool of over 50 individuals of a fully habituated community. In contrast to previous studies, our experimental approach allowed us to carry out analyses at the individual level, by comparing individuals in their interactions with the apparatus (Gruber et al., 2009, 2011).

In our previous work, we found that 10 of 52 individuals (19.2%) who engaged with the apparatus proceeded to manufacture a leaf-sponge to extract artificially provided honey (Gruber et al., 2009, 2011; Gruber, 2016). This behaviour is customarily used by wild chimpanzees to drink water, but there are no reports of chimpanzees using this behaviour to collect naturally available honey from bee nests. During our experiments, we also recorded two individuals using a stick to access the honey, but only after much exposure and experimental facilitation (see Material & Methods), and in contrast to another Ugandan chimpanzee community, where stick use was customary to access experimentally provided honey (Gruber et al., 2009, 2011).

In the current study, we combined our long-term experimental data and behavioural observations to determine the natural parameters that influenced individual variation in engagement with the apparatus and the use of tools. As our experimental design controlled for opportunity, we were able to assess the influence of two key necessity-related variables, feeding time spent on ripe fruits (a proxy for food availability) and travel effort (a proxy for energetic demands), measured as the proportion of travel in the activity budget, on individuals’ (a) engagement time with the apparatus and (b) probability of tool use. As we had no specific predictions concerning the relevant time intervals, we carried out these analyses incorporating data from different time periods prior to interaction with the apparatus.

Second, to determine whether any eventual patterns characterised chimpanzees as a species, we ran a cross-population comparison of travel behaviour and fruit feeding in relation to differences in food-related tool repertoires comparing data from all long-term chimpanzee communities. Finally, we discuss how our findings can shed light on the different hypotheses outlined above, and how they can contribute to a unifying model of the emergence of tool use.

We analysed a total of 292 experimental trials (N = 52 subjects, mean/median number of trials per individual: 5.6/3.0, range: 1–39). Mean engagement time with the apparatus was 111 s (N = 292 trials, range: 1–1275 s). In 21 of these trials (7.2%), subjects also used a tool. These cases were distributed over 16 different experimental days (11 with a single tool-user, five with two successive tool-users). For each trial, we determined the preceding travel and ripe fruit feeding behaviour of the subject by systematically varying the time periods before each experiment (ranging from 1 to 13 weeks). To this end, we determined the proportion of all scans that contained travel and ripe fruit feeding for the focal individual of the test subject’s party. This is a reasonable approach since members of a chimpanzee party typically engage in the same behaviour at a given time (see Material and methods).

The first model assessed how a subject’s engagement time with the apparatus was related to ripe fruit feeding, travel time and time period. This model was significant overall (linear mixed-effects model, likelihood ratio test (LRT): _X² = 188.1, df = 10, p<0.0001, R²_m = 0.33, Table 1), with a significant three-way interaction between ripe fruit feeding, travel time and time period (LRT: _X² = 5.77, df = 1, p = 0.0163, Figure 1A). Specifically, when subjects fed little on ripe fruits, they engaged more with the apparatus, provided they also travelled much. This effect was modulated by the duration the subject was recorded in the same condition. For example, chimpanzees engaged more with the apparatus if they had travelled more and had consumed less ripe fruits for longer than shorter periods of time (Figure 1A, lower panel). However, when subjects spent much time feeding on ripe fruits, there was less variation in time spent engaging with the apparatus, regardless of prior travel time. In addition, older individuals and males engaged less with the apparatus than young individuals and females.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Figure 1—source data 1

Engagement data.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16371.005

Download elife-16371-fig1-data1-v2.csv

Figure 1—source data 2

Tool data 1 week.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16371.006

Download elife-16371-fig1-data2-v2.csv

Figure 1—source data 3

Tool data 7 weeks.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16371.007

Download elife-16371-fig1-data3-v2.csv

Figure 1—source data 4

Tool data 13 weeks.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16371.008

Download elife-16371-fig1-data4-v2.csv

Concerning the occurrence of tool use (observed in 21 of 292 trials; 7.2%), we built three generalized linear mixed models at three different time periods (1 week, 7 weeks and 13 weeks) because a single model analogous to the one presented above did not converge. Each of these models included the interaction between ripe fruit feeding and travel. We found that only the 1-week model was significantly different from its corresponding null model (LRT: 1 week: _X² = 12.0, df = 5, p = 0.0346, R²_m = 0.30; 7 weeks: _X² = 7.6, df = 5, p = 0.1810, R²_m = 0.19; 13 weeks: _X² = 8.5, df = 5, p = 0.1299, R²_m = 0.18). Contrary to the previous engagement time model, we did not find any effect of the interaction between ripe fruit feeding and travel time on the likelihood of tool use (all p>0.1, Table 2). However, we found a significant main effect of travel time on the probability of tool use, which increased with travel time (Table 3, Figure 1B top panel). No such result was found for ripe fruit feeding, although the effect went into the expected direction (i.e., more tool use with less ripe fruit feeding). For the other two time periods, the estimated effects of travel time and ripe-fruit feeding also went into the expected directions (Table 3, Figure 1B).

Finally, we analysed our data set on published estimates of diet and travel related behaviour of nine habituated wild chimpanzee communities (Table 4). In accordance with the results found in our analysis, we found that larger tool repertoires were associated with lower percentages of fruit consumption (Spearman’s rho = −0.43, N = 9, Figure 2A) and higher percentages of travel (rho = 0.61, N = 9, Figure 2B). When using average distance travelled per day, we found again a positive relationship with size of tool repertoire (rho = 0.77, N = 7, Figure 2C). Similar to our experimental data, the effect of the travel-related variables was larger than the effect of ripe fruit feeding.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Our results indicate that travel is directly related to the probability of tool use behaviour in wild chimpanzees. Our data first showed that the combination of low ripe-fruit availability and high travel effort increased their motivation to engage with a foraging problem that required tool use. Specifically, in situations of low fruit availability, the subjects spent more time engaging with the apparatus than at times of high ripe fruit availability, suggesting that they were possibly more inclined to explore alternative hard-to-get food possibilities. Our second finding was that tool use was mainly driven by short-term changes in daily travel, and less so by fruit availability. Specifically, tool use increased with increasing amounts of travel before the experiment, but this was mostly a short-term effect, up to one week prior to an experiment (Figure 1B, Table 3). Taken together, these results suggest that travel generates extra energetic costs in situations of low fruit abundance and that tool use is more likely to appear if ecological situations force chimpanzees to explore alternative feeding options in situations of high energy expenditures.

In this respect, tool use itself does not appear to be fostered by resource limitation, but rather by increased energetic costs. While tool use was interpreted as a fall back strategy in response to food scarcity in Bossou (Yamakoshi, 1998), in line with the original definition of necessity (Fox et al., 1999), this effect may not be observed in communities that do not display habitual feeding-related tool use behaviour, such as Sonso. The Budongo Forest has been described as a rich habitat where periods of extreme food scarcity are absent (Newton-Fisher, 1999), which may prevent chimpanzees from experiencing extreme necessity. Food availability nevertheless undergoes seasonal fluctuations (Reynolds, 2005) and, over the last decade, the food supply has noticeably gone down, in part due to anthropogenic activities (Babweteera et al., 2012). The Sonso chimpanzees have responded with behavioural adaptations to the disappearance of their original food resources (Reynolds et al., 2015), which suggests that detailed analyses are needed to better understand how food variation affects chimpanzee behaviour. Overall, our results suggest that chimpanzees are more eager to exploit difficult resources when the ecological conditions are more demanding relative to average conditions, both in terms of low food availability and high amounts of energy required to obtain the food. While high travel effort in itself is not necessarily linked with low diet quality in chimpanzees (e.g. Riedel et al., 2011), our analyses show that a combination of the two favours the exploration of alternative food resources, which creates opportunities for acquiring new tool behaviours. We interpret these findings as support for the more general idea that necessity can also drive invention in wild chimpanzees, when energetic demands are high. Necessity, in other words, is likely to be a major factor in driving the emergence of tool use behaviour in chimpanzees, if it is redefined to take into account both energetic costs and opportunities to compensate these costs. These results underline the importance of individual-based analyses that take into account data on both energetic expenditure and intake, with potentially important implications for theories about the origin of tool use behaviour.

Our results are in line with the ‘relative profitability hypothesis’, which states that extractive tool use will occur if it is relatively more profitable than other alternative foraging strategies that do not rely on tool use (Rutz and St Clair, 2012). If increased travel effort represents an extra energetic cost, then tool use is a relatively more profitable strategy, especially if this occurs in ecologically challenging situations, which may trigger the switch from non-tool to tool-based foraging. Interestingly, the chimpanzees of Budongo Forest have increased their crop raiding habits over the last decade (Tweheyo et al., 2005), a probable response to a general decrease in food availability in the forest (Babweteera et al., 2012). As such, the innovation of novel tool use may only be one possible reaction to a changing environment, highlighting the flexibility of chimpanzees in dealing with changes in food availability (Hockings et al., 2015). Another facet of the relative profitability hypothesis is that tool use may provide individuals with a selective advantage over non-tool-using individuals (Patterson and Mann, 2011), as it provides them access to an energetically valuable resource, although in only 7% of trials did subjects succeed to do so. Perhaps this is not so surprising as tool use innovation is itself rarely observed in the animal kingdom (Shumaker et al., 2011) and only some species will develop tool use under identical ecological conditions (Rutz and St Clair, 2012), a reasoning that may apply at the population or individual level, as suggested by the current study.

While alternate strategies, such as crop-raiding, may contribute in part to the general lack of tool use inventions in this community, it is equally possible that psychological mechanisms can explain some of the observed patterns, offering insights into the ‘invention hypothesis’. Here, one important result of our study is that the large majority of the tool-using individuals (19 of 21 cases, 90.5%) applied a familiar technique, leaf-sponging, in the experiment, behaving much different from when extracting honey from natural bee nests with their hands. Nevertheless, while adapting an existing behaviour to a novel context may be considered an innovation (Reader and Laland, 2003; Reader et al., 2016), only two individuals chose a different technique by attempting to use sticks. However, these two individuals did not incorporate this behaviour into their repertoire, raising questions about how wild chimpanzees represent artefacts as potentially useful tools (Gruber et al., 2015; Gruber, 2016). Additional studies are needed to explore the cognitive processes underlying chimpanzee tool use and, particularly, to decipher how ecological pressures and cognitive factors interact to lead to tool use innovation.

A neglected aspect in this study were the social opportunities for individuals to engage with the device or observe others to do so (see Koops et al. (2014)). In our study, engagement with the apparatus overlapped between social contexts (Figure 3), suggesting that the presence of others did not prevent subjects from engaging with it. However, it is less clear how the presence of others influenced the use of tools. Six individuals used a tool while being alone, seven others while in the company of family members, and eight in the company of other group members, to the effect that the current study cannot disentangle the relative role of social competition. Although tool-users spent more time with the apparatus and consumed more honey (Gruber (2016) and see Table 1), it is unlikely that this was because they monopolized the log. Rather, these individuals had developed a successful technique to recover the honey, compared to others who abandoned the apparatus earlier (Gruber, 2016). However, social influences are also in terms of social learning opportunities. As described elsewhere (Gruber, 2016), chimpanzees were generally tolerant to each other, but it is unclear whether they learnt from each other that leaf-sponge use was a suitable solution to extract honey. Social learning is a reasonable explanation for three individuals, but individual learning cannot be ruled out, largely because leaf-sponging was already part of their behavioural repertoire. Nevertheless, wild chimpanzees can learn socially from each other, even in a competitive context, and it is equally possible that this may even enhance social learning as it facilitates close observations of the novel behaviour (Hobaiter et al., 2014).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

From our data, we conclude that the emergence of tool use in our group was due to a combination of necessity (energetic demands), opportunity (inaccessible honey) and relative profitability (lack of alternatives), suggesting that ecological and temporal aspects of resources availability as well as individual efforts all played a role (Gruber, 2013). While it is important to quantify the food available over the entire home range, it is also important to take into account the temporal variation of food availability and its consequences on the relative attractiveness of alternative foods simultaneously available to individuals, even for foods as attractive as honey. We concur with Koops et al. (2014) that individuals must be exposed to the right ecological opportunities, in our case the honey-trap apparatus, and that the probability of tool use may directly depend on the frequency with which they will encounter this challenge, a parameter we controlled for in our experiment. For tool acquisition and spread to appear, the right social settings may also have to be present (Sanz and Morgan, 2013), under the form of opportunities for close observation (Hobaiter et al., 2014). In our case, encountering tools left by others (i.e. discarded sticks) did not appear to constitute a sufficient condition for social learning (Gruber et al., 2011). Our data also suggest that individual differences need to be taken into account. Finally, while cognitive abilities are likely to play a part in innovation and learning (Gruber, 2016), the emergence of tool use may also depend on whether it is relatively more profitable to do so, at any given time (Rutz and St Clair, 2012). Here, our data suggest that energetic demands resulting from individual variation in diet and travel effort directly influence the probability of tool use.

Is the relationship between travel and tool use generally found in the Hominidae? Our analysis of nine chimpanzee communities, although limited by the availability of published data on travel effort and tool use, suggests that our findings represent a general pattern. This analysis corroborated our empirical findings that travel effort and fruit consumption have opposing effects on tool repertoire size, and that travel effort, which arguably is best represented by the average daily distance walked by the chimpanzees, is likely to be more important than fruit consumption in explaining variation in tool repertoires between chimpanzee populations. In the long run, with more chimpanzee communities being currently habituated spanning across their entire ecological range (e.g. savanna in Fongoli, Pruetz, 2006), future studies will have to disentangle how environmental changes influence the relationship between tool use, energy intake and expenditure across a larger sample of chimpanzee populations. Regarding other great apes, both gorillas (genus Gorilla) and most orangutans (genus Pongo) show limited to no feeding-related tool use and interestingly they spend significantly less time travelling per day compared to chimpanzees, which suggests that their energy requirements are lower (Pontzer and Wrangham, 2004; Pontzer et al., 2016). Nevertheless, because travel is mostly arboreal in orangutans, more work is needed to estimate how this compares to chimpanzees, particularly with respect to Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii) for whom interesting variation in feeding-related tool use behaviour has been described (van Schaik et al., 2003; Gruber et al., 2012b).

The most promising comparison may come from the chimpanzees’ closest relatives, the bonobos (Pan paniscus), where the lack of tool use has been connected to smaller travel distance between food patches and reduced feeding competition (Wrangham and White, 1988). The estimated daily travel effort for bonobos (2.6 km, Furuichi et al. (2008)) is comparable with some chimpanzee communities, incidentally the ones with the smallest tool repertoires for the species (Kanyawara, Ngogo and Sonso, all in Uganda), underlining a possible convergence in ecological pressures faced by these populations (Gruber et al., 2010). Interestingly, some convergence can also be found with modern humans. For instance, modern human hunter-gatherers walk on average 11.4–14.1 km/day (Marlowe, 2005; Pontzer et al., 2012, 2016) and have the most diverse tool repertoire of all Hominidae, much beyond anything reported from the great apes (Marlowe, 2010). Combined, the results of the present study and the data from the three living hominines (Homo, Pan) reviewed here suggest an important role of travel in the emergence of tool use, but this needs to be tested across more study groups in different habitats and species. Whether this pattern holds for larger taxonomic groups beyond hominines remains to be investigated, taking into account the various ecological conditions faced by each species.

In conclusion, our findings suggest that tool use in hominids evolved in reaction to environmental changes that made preferred food harder to obtain. By extension, our results have direct implications for understanding hominid technological evolution, particularly in relation to the evolution of locomotor behaviour in the early stages of human evolution, as hominids faced similar ecological pressures. In effect, a number of major biogeographic events in the human lineage occurred at times of climate instability and it has been suggested that the development of tool use and sociality in hominins could constitute adaptive responses to heightened habitat instability (Potts, 2013). Australopithecines, for instance, evolved in a changing environment at the beginning of the Pliocene, where they faced more patchy resources of potentially lower quality (Foley and Gamble, 2009; Potts, 2013). Our findings support the view that tool use is connected to energy gain in a changing environment and that using tools is a response to increased costs of travel and lower quality of available food. In parallel, the adoption of bipedalism, which is less energetically costly than the quadrupedal and bipedal locomotion of chimpanzees, also allowed minimizing energy expenditure (Pontzer et al., 2009). Efficient, human-like bipedalism and tool use may have had complementary effects on travel costs, allowing both energy gain through the exploitation of novel ecological niches and energy economy during locomotion. Whether their development to unrivalled levels is what led to the dispersal of early humans throughout Africa and the advent of complex technology around 3.0 million years ago (Foley and Gamble, 2009; Harmand et al., 2015) remains to be investigated.

1. 1. Amsler SJ

   (2010) Energetic costs of territorial boundary patrols by wild chimpanzees

   American Journal of Primatology 72:93–103.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20757

   • Google Scholar
2. Book

   1. Baayen RH

   (2008)

   Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R

   Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

   • Google Scholar
3. Book

   1. Babweteera F
   2. Sheil D
   3. Reynolds V
   4. Plumptre AJ
   5. Zuberbuhler K
   6. Hill CM
   7. Webber A
   8. Tweheyo M

   (2012)

   Environmental and anthropogenic changes in and around Budongo Forest Reserve

   In: Plumptre AJ, editors. The Ecological Impact of Long-Term Changes in Africa's Rift Valley. New York: Nova Publishers Hauppauge. pp. 31–53.

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Barr DJ
   2. Levy R
   3. Scheepers C
   4. Tily HJ

   (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal

   Journal of Memory and Language 68:255–278.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001

   • Google Scholar
5. Software

   1. Bates DM
   2. Maechler M
   3. Bolker BM
   4. Walker SC

   (2014)

   lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4, version version 1.1-7

   lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4.
6. 1. Bates LA
   2. Byrne RW

   (2009) Sex differences in the movement patterns of free-ranging chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii): foraging and border checking

   Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64:247–255.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0841-3

   • Google Scholar
7. Book

   1. Boesch C
   2. Boesch-Achermann H

   (2000)

   The Chimpanzees of the Taï Forest: Behavioural Ecology and Evolution

   Oxford: Oxford University Press.

   • Google Scholar
8. Book

   1. Boesch C
   2. Goné Bi ZB
   3. Anderson DP
   4. Stahl D

   (2006)

   Food choice in Taï chimpanzees: are cultural differences present?

   In: Hohmann G, Robbins MM, Boesch C, editors. Feeding Ecology in Apes and Other Primates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 365–399.

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bogart SL
   2. Pruetz JD

   (2011) Insectivory of savanna chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Fongoli, Senegal

   American Journal of Physical Anthropology 145:11–20.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.21452

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Bolker BM
    2. Brooks ME
    3. Clark CJ
    4. Geange SW
    5. Poulsen JR
    6. Stevens MH
    7. White JS

    (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24:127–135.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008

    • Google Scholar
11. Book

    1. Dobson AJ

    (2002)

    An Introduction to Generalized Linear Models, 2nd eds

    Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall.

    • Google Scholar
12. Book

    1. Fawcett KA

    (2000)

    Female Relationships and Food Availability in a Forest Community of Chimpanzees

    Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

    • Google Scholar
13. Book

    1. Field A
    2. Miles J
    3. Field Z

    (2012)

    Discovering Statistics Using R

    London: Sage Publications.

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Foley R
    2. Gamble C

    (2009) The ecology of social transitions in human evolution

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364:3267–3279.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0136

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Forstmeier W
    2. Schielzeth H

    (2011) Cryptic multiple hypotheses testing in linear models: overestimated effect sizes and the winner's curse

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65:47–55.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1038-5

    • Google Scholar
16. Book

    1. Fox EA
    2. Sitompul AF
    3. van Schaik CP

    (1999) Intelligent tool use in wild Sumatran orangutans

    In: Parker S, Miles L, Mitchell A, editors. The Mentality of Gorillas and Orangutans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 99–117.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511542305.005

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Fox EA
    2. van Schaik CP
    3. Sitompul A
    4. Wright DN

    (2004) Intra-and interpopulational differences in orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) activity and diet: implications for the invention of tool use

    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125:162–174.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10386

    • Google Scholar
18. Book

    1. Fox J
    2. Weisberg S

    (2011)

    An R Companion to Applied Regression (2nd Edn)

    Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Furuichi T
    2. Sanz C
    3. Koops K
    4. Sakamaki T
    5. Ryu H
    6. Tokuyama N
    7. Morgan D

    (2015) Why do wild bonobos not use tools like chimpanzees do?

    Behaviour 152:425–460.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003226

    • Google Scholar
20. Book

    1. Furuichi T
    2. Mulavwa M
    3. Yangozene K
    4. Yamba-Yamba M
    5. Motema-Salo B
    6. Idani G
    7. Ihobe H
    8. Hashimoto C
    9. Tashiro Y
    10. Mwanza N

    (2008) Relationships among fruit abundance, ranging rate, and party size and composition of bonobos at Wamba

    In: Furuichi T, Thompson J, editors. The Bonobos: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. New York: Springer. pp. 135–149.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74787-3_8

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Fürtbauer I
    2. Mundry R
    3. Heistermann M
    4. Schülke O
    5. Ostner J

    (2011) You mate, I mate: macaque females synchronize sex not cycles

    PLoS One 6:e26144.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026144

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Gruber T
    2. Clay Z
    3. Zuberbühler K

    (2010) A comparison of bonobo and chimpanzee tool use: evidence for a female bias in the Pan lineage

    Animal Behaviour 80:1023–1033.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.09.005

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Gruber T
    2. Muller MN
    3. Reynolds V
    4. Wrangham R
    5. Zuberbühler K

    (2011) Community-specific evaluation of tool affordances in wild chimpanzees

    Scientific Reports 1:128.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00128

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Gruber T
    2. Muller MN
    3. Strimling P
    4. Wrangham R
    5. Zuberbühler K

    (2009) Wild chimpanzees rely on cultural knowledge to solve an experimental honey acquisition task

    Current Biology 19:1806–1810.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.08.060

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Gruber T
    2. Potts KB
    3. Krupenye C
    4. Byrne M-R
    5. Mackworth-Young C
    6. McGrew WC
    7. Reynolds V
    8. Zuberbühler K

    (2012a) The influence of ecology on chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) cultural behavior: A case study of five Ugandan chimpanzee communities

    Journal of Comparative Psychology 126:446–457.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028702

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Gruber T
    2. Singleton I
    3. van Schaik C

    (2012) Sumatran orangutans differ in their cultural knowledge but not in their cognitive abilities

    Current Biology 22:2231–2235.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.041

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Gruber T
    2. Zuberbühler K
    3. Clément F
    4. van Schaik C

    (2015) Apes have culture but may not know that they do

    Frontiers in Psychology 6:91.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00091

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Gruber T

    (2013) Historical hypotheses of chimpanzee tool use behaviour in relation to natural and human-induced changes in an East African rain forest1

    Revue De Primatologie.

    https://doi.org/10.4000/primatologie.1690

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Gruber T

    (2016) Great apes do not learn novel tool use easily: Conservatism, functional fixedness, or cultural influence?

    International Journal of Primatology 37:296–316.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-016-9902-4

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Harmand S
    2. Lewis JE
    3. Feibel CS
    4. Lepre CJ
    5. Prat S
    6. Lenoble A
    7. Boës X
    8. Quinn RL
    9. Brenet M
    10. Arroyo A
    11. Taylor N
    12. Clément S
    13. Daver G
    14. Brugal JP
    15. Leakey L
    16. Mortlock RA
    17. Wright JD
    18. Lokorodi S
    19. Kirwa C
    20. Kent DV
    21. Roche H

    (2015) 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya

    Nature 521:310–315.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14464

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Harrison ME
    2. Marshall AJ

    (2011) Strategies for the use of fallback foods in apes

    International Journal of Primatology 32:531–565.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-010-9487-2

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Hector A
    2. von Felten S
    3. Schmid B

    (2010) Analysis of variance with unbalanced data: an update for ecology & evolution

    The Journal of Animal Ecology 79:308–316.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01634.x

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Hedwig D
    2. Mundry R
    3. Robbins MM
    4. Boesch C

    (2015) Contextual correlates of syntactic variation in mountain and western gorilla close-distance vocalizations: indications for lexical or phonological syntax?

    Animal Cognition 18:423–435.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0812-6

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Herbinger I
    2. Boesch C
    3. Rothe H

    (2001) Territory characteristics among three neighboring chimpanzee communities in the Tai National Park, Cote d'Ivoire

    International Journal of Primatology 22:143–167.

    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005663212997

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Hobaiter C
    2. Poisot T
    3. Zuberbühler K
    4. Hoppitt W
    5. Gruber T

    (2014) Social network analysis shows direct evidence for social transmission of tool use in wild chimpanzees

    PLoS Biology 12:e1001960.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001960

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Hockings KJ
    2. Anderson JR
    3. Matsuzawa T

    (2009) Use of wild and cultivated foods bychimpanzees at the Republic of Guinea: Feeding dynamics in a human-influencedenvironment

    American Journal of Primatology 71:1–11.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20624

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Hockings KJ
    2. Anderson JR
    3. Matsuzawa T

    (2012) Socioecological adaptations by chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus, inhabiting an anthropogenically impacted habitat

    Animal Behaviour 83:801–810.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.01.002

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Hockings KJ
    2. McLennan MR
    3. Carvalho S
    4. Ancrenaz M
    5. Bobe R
    6. Byrne RW
    7. Dunbar RI
    8. Matsuzawa T
    9. McGrew WC
    10. Williamson EA
    11. Wilson ML
    12. Wood B
    13. Wrangham RW
    14. Hill CM

    (2015) Apes in the Anthropocene: flexibility and survival

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30:215–222.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.02.002

    • Google Scholar
39. Book

    1. Huffman MA

    (1990)

    Some socio-behavioral manifestations of old age

    In: Nishida T, editors. The Chimpanzees of the Mahale Mountains. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. pp. 237–255.

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Humle T
    2. Matsuzawa T

    (2002) Ant-dipping among the chimpanzees of Bossou, Guinea, and some comparisons with other sites

    American Journal of Primatology 58:133–148.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.10055

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Johnson PC

    (2014) Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth's R (2) GLMM to random slopes models

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution / British Ecological Society 5:944–946.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12225

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Koops K
    2. McGrew WC
    3. Matsuzawa T

    (2013) Ecology of culture: do environmental factors influence foraging tool use in wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus?

    Animal Behaviour 85:175–185.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.022

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Koops K
    2. Visalberghi E
    3. van Schaik CP

    (2014) The ecology of primate material culture

    Biology Letters 10:20140508.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0508

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Laland KN
    2. Janik VM

    (2006) The animal cultures debate

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:542–547.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.06.005

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Lehmann J
    2. Korstjens AH
    3. Dunbar RIM

    (2007) Fission–fusion social systems as a strategy for coping with ecological constraints: a primate case

    Evolutionary Ecology 21:613–634.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-006-9141-9

    • Google Scholar
46. Book

    1. Marlowe F

    (2010)

    The Hadza: Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania

    Berkeley: University of California Press.

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Marlowe FW

    (2005) Hunter-gatherers and human evolution

    Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 14:54–67.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.20046

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Marshall AJ
    2. Wrangham RW

    (2007) Evolutionary consequences of fallback foods

    International Journal of Primatology 28:1219–1235.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-007-9218-5

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Matsumoto-Oda A

    (2002) Behavioral seasonality in Mahale chimpanzees

    Primates 43:103–117.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02629670

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Morgan D
    2. Sanz C

    (2006)

    Primate Feeding Ecology in Apes and Other Primates: Ecological, Physiological, and Behavioural Aspects

    97–122, Chimpanzee feeding ecology and comparisons with sympatric gorillas in the Goualougo Triangle, Republic of Congo, Primate Feeding Ecology in Apes and Other Primates: Ecological, Physiological, and Behavioural Aspects.

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Moura AC
    2. Lee PC

    (2004) Capuchin stone tool use in Caatinga dry forest

    Science 306:1909.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102558

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Mundry R

    (2011) Issues in information theory-based statistical inference—a commentary from a frequentist’s perspective

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65:57–68.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1040-y

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Möbius Y
    2. Boesch C
    3. Koops K
    4. Matsuzawa T
    5. Humle T

    (2008) Cultural differences in army ant predation by West African chimpanzees? A comparative study of microecological variables

    Animal Behaviour 76:37–45.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.01.008

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Nakagawa S
    2. Schielzeth H

    (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4:133–142.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Newton-Fisher NE
    2. Reynolds V
    3. Plumptre AJ

    (2000) Food supply and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) party size in the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda

    International Journal of Primatology 21:613–628.

    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005561203763

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Newton-Fisher NE

    (1999) The diet of chimpanzees in the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda

    African Journal of Ecology 37:344–354.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2028.1999.00186.x

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Nishida T
    2. Uehara S

    (1983) Natural diet of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii): long-term record from the Mahale Mountains, Tanzania

    African Study Monographs 3:109–130.

    https://doi.org/10.14989/67987

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Patterson EM
    2. Mann J

    (2011) The ecological conditions that favor tool use and innovation in wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.)

    PLoS One 6:e22243.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022243

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Pontzer H
    2. Brown MH
    3. Raichlen DA
    4. Dunsworth H
    5. Hare B
    6. Walker K
    7. Luke A
    8. Dugas LR
    9. Durazo-Arvizu R
    10. Schoeller D
    11. Plange-Rhule J
    12. Bovet P
    13. Forrester TE
    14. Lambert EV
    15. Thompson ME
    16. Shumaker RW
    17. Ross SR

    (2016) Metabolic acceleration and the evolution of human brain size and life history

    Nature 533:390–392.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17654

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Pontzer H
    2. Raichlen DA
    3. Sockol MD

    (2009) The metabolic cost of walking in humans, chimpanzees, and early hominins

    Journal of Human Evolution 56:43–54.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.09.001

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Pontzer H
    2. Raichlen DA
    3. Wood BM
    4. Mabulla AZ
    5. Racette SB
    6. Marlowe FW

    (2012) Hunter-gatherer energetics and human obesity

    PLoS One 7:e40503.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040503

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Pontzer H
    2. Wrangham RW

    (2004) Climbing and the daily energy cost of locomotion in wild chimpanzees: implications for hominoid locomotor evolution

    Journal of Human Evolution 46:315–333.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2003.12.006

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Potts KB
    2. Watts DP
    3. Wrangham RW

    (2011) Comparative feeding ecology of two communities of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in Kibale National Park, Uganda

    International Journal of Primatology 32:669–690.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-011-9494-y

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Potts R

    (2013) Hominin evolution in settings of strong environmental variability

    Quaternary Science Reviews 73:1–13.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.04.003

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Pruetz J
    2. Bertolani P

    (2009) Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) behavioral responses to stresses associated with living in a savannah-mosaic environment: implications for hominin adaptations to open habitats

    Paleo Anthropology 2009:252–262.

    https://doi.org/10.4207/PA.2009.ART33

    • Google Scholar
66. Book

    1. Pruetz JD

    (2006)

    Feeding ecology of savanna chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Fongoli, Senegal

    In: Hohmann G, Robbins MM, Boesch C, editors. Feeding Ecology in Apes and Other Primates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 326–364.

    • Google Scholar
67. Book

    1. Quinn GP
    2. Keough MJ

    (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists

    Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511806384

    • Google Scholar
68. Software

    1. R Core Team

    (2014)

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
69. Book

    1. Reader SM
    2. Laland KN

    (2003)

    Animal Innovation

    Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Reader SM
    2. Morand-Ferron J
    3. Flynn E

    (2016) Animal and human innovation: novel problems and novel solutions

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371:20150182.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0182

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Reynolds V
    2. Lloyd AW
    3. English CJ
    4. Lyons P
    5. Dodd H
    6. Hobaiter C
    7. Newton-Fisher N
    8. Mullins C
    9. Lamon N
    10. Schel AM
    11. Fallon B

    (2015) Mineral acquisition from clay by Budongo Forest Chimpanzees

    PLoS One 10:e0134075.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134075

    • Google Scholar
72. Book

    1. Reynolds V

    (2005)

    The Chimpanzees of the Budongo Forest: Ecology, Behaviour and Conservation

    Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Riedel J
    2. Franz M
    3. Boesch C

    (2011) How feeding competition determines female chimpanzee gregariousness and ranging in the Taï National Park, Côte d'Ivoire

    American Journal of Primatology 73:305–313.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20897

    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Rutz C
    2. St Clair JJ

    (2012) The evolutionary origins and ecological context of tool use in New Caledonian crows

    Behavioural Processes 89:153–165.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2011.11.005

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Sanz CM
    2. Morgan DB

    (2007) Chimpanzee tool technology in the Goualougo Triangle, Republic of Congo

    Journal of Human Evolution 52:420–433.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.11.001

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Sanz CM
    2. Morgan DB

    (2013) Ecological and social correlates of chimpanzee tool use

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 368:20120416.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0416

    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Sanz CM

    (2004)

    Behavioral ecology of chimpanzees in a Central African forest: Pan troglodytes troglodytes in the Goualougo Triangle, Republic of Congo

    Behavioral ecology of chimpanzees in a Central African forest: Pan troglodytes troglodytes in the Goualougo Triangle, Republic of Congo, Washington University.

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Schielzeth H

    (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1:103–113.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00012.x

    • Google Scholar
79. Book

    1. Shumaker RW
    2. Walkup KR
    3. Beck BB

    (2011)

    Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals

    The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Spagnoletti N
    2. Visalberghi E
    3. Verderane MP
    4. Ottoni E
    5. Izar P
    6. Fragaszy D

    (2012) Stone tool use in wild bearded capuchin monkeys, Cebus libidinosus. Is it a strategy to overcome food scarcity?

    Animal Behaviour 83:1285–1294.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.03.002

    • Google Scholar
81. Book

    1. Susman RL
    2. Hart D

    (2015)

    Modeling the past: The primatological approach

    In: Henke W, Tattersall I, editors. Handbook of Paleoanthropology, 2nd eds. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 791–815.

    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Tweheyo M
    2. Hill CM
    3. Obua J

    (2005) Patterns of crop raiding by primates around the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda

    Wildlife Biology 11:237–247.

    https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2005)11[237:POCRBP]2.0.CO;2

    • Google Scholar
83. 1. van Schaik CP
    2. Ancrenaz M
    3. Borgen G
    4. Galdikas B
    5. Knott CD
    6. Singleton I
    7. Suzuki A
    8. Utami SS
    9. Merrill M

    (2003) Orangutan cultures and the evolution of material culture

    Science 299:102–105.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1078004

    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Whiten A
    2. Goodall J
    3. McGrew WC
    4. Nishida T
    5. Reynolds V
    6. Sugiyama Y
    7. Tutin CE
    8. Wrangham RW
    9. Boesch C

    (1999) Cultures in chimpanzees

    Nature 399:682–685.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/21415

    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Wrangham RW
    2. White FJ

    (1988) Feeding competition and patch size in the chimpanzee species pan paniscus and pan troglodytes

    Behaviour 105:148–164.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/156853988X00494

    • Google Scholar
86. Book

    1. Wrangham RW

    (1977) Feeding behaviour of chimpanzees in Gombe National Park, Tanzania

    In: Clutton-Brock T. H, editors. Primate Ecology: Studies of Feeding and Ranging Behavior in Lemurs, Monkeys, and Apes. London: Academic Press. pp. 504–538.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-176850-8.50022-6

    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Yamakoshi G

    (1998) Dietary responses to fruit scarcity of wild chimpanzees at Bossou, Guinea: possible implications for ecological importance of tool use

    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 106:283–295.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199807)106:3<283::AID-AJPA2>3.0.CO;2-O

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Thibaud Gruber

   1. Department of Comparative Cognition, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
   2. Budongo Conservation Field Station, Masindi, Uganda
   3. Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

   Contribution

   TG, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   thibaud.gruber@gmail.com

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6766-3947

2. Klaus Zuberbühler

   1. Department of Comparative Cognition, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
   2. Budongo Conservation Field Station, Masindi, Uganda
   3. School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   KZ, Drafting or revising the article, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

3. Christof Neumann

   Department of Comparative Cognition, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

   Contribution

   CN, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0236-1219

• 2,888

  views

• 546

  downloads

• 21

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.