Old age variably impacts chimpanzee engagement and efficiency in stone tool use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We know vanishingly little about how long-lived apes experience senescence in the wild, particularly with respect to their foraging behaviors, which are essential for survival. Some wild apes use tools during foraging and, given the additional cognitive and physical challenges presented by tool use, we predict that such behaviors are at a heightened risk of senescence. However, until the present, longitudinal analysis of the effects of progressive aging on wild ape tool-use behaviors has not been possible due to a lack of available data. In response to this research gap, we sampled data from a longitudinal video archive that contained footage of wild chimpanzees engaging in one of their most complex forms of tool use - the cracking of hard-shelled nuts with hammers and anvil stones, termed nut cracking - at an ‘outdoor laboratory’ at Bossou, Guinea. By sampling data over a 17-year period, we describe how progressive old age influences the extent to which wild chimpanzees engage with – and efficiently perform – nut cracking. With increasingly old age, chimpanzees began attending experimental nut cracking sites less frequently than younger individuals. Several elderly chimpanzees exhibited reductions in efficiency across multiple components of nut cracking, including taking more time to select stone tools prior to use, and taking longer to crack open nuts and consume the associated pieces of kernel. Two chimpanzees also began using less streamlined behavioral sequences to crack nuts, including a greater number of actions (such as more numerous strikes of the hammer stone). Most notably, we report interindividual variability in the extent to which tool-use behaviors senesced during aging – ranging from small to profound reductions in tool engagement and efficiency – as well as differences in the specific aspects of nut cracking behaviors which senesced for each individual. We discuss the possible causes of these changes with reference to research into senescence in captive primates, and provide future directions for research of primate aging in both captive and wild settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".