Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 387–396 | Cite as

Behavioral flexibility of a generalist carnivore

  • Sarah E. Daniels
  • Rachel E. Fanelli
  • Amy Gilbert
  • Sarah Benson-AmramEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Innovative problem solving, repeated innovation, learning, and inhibitory control are cognitive abilities commonly regarded as important components of behaviorally flexible species. Animals exhibiting these cognitive abilities may be more likely to adapt to the unique demands of living in novel and rapidly changing environments, such as urbanized landscapes. Raccoons (Procyon lotor) are an abundant, generalist species frequently found in urban habitats, and are capable of innovative problem solving, which makes them an ideal species to assess their behavioral flexibility. We gave 20 captive raccoons a multi-access puzzle box to investigate which behavioral and cognitive mechanisms enable the generation of innovative and flexible behaviors in this species. Over two-thirds of raccoons tested were not only capable of innovative problem solving, but displayed repeated innovation by solving more than one solution on the multi-access puzzle box and demonstrated that they learned multiple solutions to a novel problem. Although we found no relationship between our measure of inhibitory control and a raccoon’s ability to exhibit repeated innovations, we did find a positive relationship between the diversity of behaviors that an individual exhibited when interacting with the problem and the number of solution types that they solved. We identified other predictors of problem-solving performance, including neophobia and persistence. Finally, we examine the implications of our results in the context of the cognitive-buffer hypothesis and consider whether the widespread success of an adaptive generalist carnivore could be due in part to having these cognitive and behavioral traits.

Keywords

Repeated innovation Learning Inhibitory control Cognition Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the NWRC for their collaboration on this project. We also thank the Division of Research Support at the University of Wyoming for constructing our puzzle box. This research was supported by a grant from the Animal Behavior Society to SED and two NSF EPSCoR grants to REF. We are grateful for suggestions and revisions on this manuscript from members of the Animal Behavior and Cognition Lab at the University of Wyoming.

Author contributions

SED designed the study, ran experimental trials, conducted statistical analyses, and wrote the manuscript; REF ran experimental trials and wrote the manuscript; AG provided access to the study site and subjects; SBA designed the study and wrote the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for publication.

Supplementary material

10071_2019_1252_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (75 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 74 KB)
10071_2019_1252_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (44 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 44 KB)

References

  1. Audet J, Ducatez S, Lefebvre L (2016) The town bird and the country bird: problem solving and immunocompetence vary with urbanization. Behav Ecol 27:637–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auersperg AMI, von Bayern AMP, Gajdon GK et al (2011) Flexibility in problem solving and tool use of kea and new caledonian crows in a multi access box paradigm. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020231 Google Scholar
  3. Auersperg AMI, Gajdon GK, von Bayern AMP (2012) A new approach to comparing problem solving, flexibility and innovation. Commun Integr Biol 5:140–145.  https://doi.org/10.4161/cib.18787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benson-Amram S, Holekamp KE (2012) Innovative problem solving by wild spotted hyenas. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 279:4087–4095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benson-Amram S, Weldele ML, Holekamp KE (2013) A comparison of innovative problem-solving abilities between wild and captive spotted hyaenas, Crocuta crocuta. Anim Behav 85:349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benson-Amram S, Heinen VK, Gessner A et al (2014) Limited social learning of a novel technical problem by spotted hyenas. Behav Processes.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.019 Google Scholar
  7. Benson-Amram S, Dantzer B, Stricker G et al (2016) Brain size predicts problem-solving ability in mammalian carnivores. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1505913113 Google Scholar
  8. Bonier F, Martin P, Wingfield J (2007) Urban birds have broader environmental tolerance. Biol Lett 3:670–673.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coppens CM, de Boer SF, Koolhaas JM (2010) Coping styles and behavioural flexibility: towards underlying mechanisms. Phil Trans R Soc B 365:4021–4028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis H (1984) Discrimination of the number three by a raccoon (Procyon lotor). Anim Learn Behav 12:409–413.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199987 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ducatez S, Audet JN, Rodriguez JR et al (2017) Innovativeness and the effects of urbanization on risk-taking behaviors in wild Barbados birds. Anim Cogn 20:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-1007-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Echeverría AI, Vassallo AI (2008) Novelty responses in a bird assemblage inhabiting an urban area. Ethology 114:616–624.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01512.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaynor KM, Hojnowski CE, Carter NH, Brashares JS (2018) The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science 360:1232–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gould SJ, Vrba ES (1982) Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8:4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffin AS, Diquelou MC (2015) Innovative problem solving in birds: a cross-species comparison of two highly successful passerines. Anim Behav 100:84–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffin AS, Guez D (2014b) Innovation and problem solving: a review of common mechanisms. 109:121–134Google Scholar
  17. Griffin AS, Diquelou M, Perea M (2014) Innovative problem solving in birds: a key role of motor diversity. Anim Behav 92:221–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.04.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffin a. Guez S DG (2014a) Innovation and problem solving: a review of common mechanisms. Behav Processes 109:121–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hendry A, Farrugia T, Kinnison M (2008) Human influences on rates of phenotypic change in wild animal populations. Mol Ecol 17:20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hu Y, Cardoso GC (2009) Are bird species that vocalize at higher frequencies preadapted to inhabit noisy urban areas? Behav Ecol 20:1268–1273.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson JI Jr, Michels KM (1958) Learning sets and object-size effects on visual discrimination learning by raccoons. J Comp Physiol Psychol 51:376–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson SR, Crider NJ, Weyer GA et al (2016) Bait development for oral delivery of pharmaceuticals to raccoons (Procyon lotor) and striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis). J Wildl Dis 52:893–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson-Ulrich L, Johnson-Ulrich Z, Holekamp K (2018) Proactive behavior, but not inhibitory control, predicts repeated innovation by spotted hyenas tested with a multi-access box. Anim Cogn 21:379–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones CB (2005) Behavioral flexibility in primates: causes and consequences. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kummer H, Goodall J (1985) Conditions of innovative behaviour in primates. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 308:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Legagneux P, Ducatez S (2013) European birds adjust their flight initiation distance to road speed limits. Biol Lett 9:20130417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacDonald SE, Ritvo S (2016) Comparative cognition outside the laboratory. Comp Cogn Behav Rev 11:49–61.  https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2016.110003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacLean EL, Hare B, Nunn CL et al (2014) The evolution of self-control. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:E2140–E2148.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323533111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maklakov A, Immler S, Gonzalez-Voyer A et al (2011) Brains and the city: big-brained passerine birds succeed in urban environments. Biol Lett 7:730–732.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manrique HM, Völter CJ, Call J (2013) Repeated innovation in great apes. Anim Behav 85:195–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Michels KM, Pustek JJ, Johnson JI (1961) The solution of patterned-strings problems by raccoons. J Comp Physiol Psychol 54:439–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Møller AP (2008) Flight distance of urban birds, predation, and selection for urban life. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:63–75.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0636-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Møller AP (2009) Successful city dwellers: a comparative study of the ecological characteristics of urbanbirds in the western palearctic. Oceologica 159:849–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Overington SE, Griffin AS, Sol D, Lefebvre L (2011) Are innovative species ecological generalists? A test in North American birds. Behav Ecol 22:1286–1293.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parks SE, Johnson M, Nowacek D, Tyack PL (2010) Individual right whales call louder in increased environmental noise. Biol Lett 7:33–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ramsey G, Bastian ML, van Schaik C (2007) Animal innovation defined and operationalized. Behav Brain Sci 30:393–407Google Scholar
  37. Reader SM, Laland KN (2003) Animal innovation: an introduction. In: Reader SM, Laland KN (eds) Animal innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rose PE, Nash SM, Riley LM (2017) To pace or not to pace? A review of what abnormal repetitive behavior tells us about zoo animal management. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res 20:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Samia DSM, Nakagawa S, Nomura F et al (2015) Increased tolerance to humans among disturbed wildlife. Nat Commun 6:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9877 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Samia DSM, Blumstein DT, Díaz M et al (2017) Rural-urban differences in escape behavior of European birds across a latitudinal gradient. Front Ecol Evol 5:66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sol D (2009a) The cognitive-buffer hypothesis for the evolution of large brains. In: Dukas R, Ratcliffe RM (eds) Cognitive ecology II. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sol D (2009b) Revisiting the cognitive buffer hypothesis for the evolution of large brains. Biol Lett 5:130–133.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stanton L, Davis E, Johnson S et al (2017) Adaptation of the Aesop’s Fable paradigm for use with raccoons (Procyon lotor): considerations for future application in non-avian and non-primate species. Anim Cogn.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1129-z Google Scholar
  44. Tigas LA, Van Vuren DH, Sauvajot RM (2002) Behavioral responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biol Conserv 108:299–306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00120-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Webster S, Lefebvre L (2001) Problem solving and neophobia in a columbiform–passeriform assemblage in Barbados. Anim Behav 62:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wong BBM, Candolin U (2015) Behavioral responses to changing environments. Behav Ecol 26:665–673.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zeveloff S (2002) Raccoons: a natural history. UBC Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology and PhysiologyUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA
  2. 2.National Wildlife Research Center/APHIS/USDAFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Program in EcologyUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations