john hawks weblog

paleoanthropology, genetics and evolution

orangutans

  • Orangutan loris capture and meat-eating

    Fri, 2012-01-20 16:38 -- John Hawks

    Madeleine Hardus and colleagues [1] describe long-term observations of hunting by Sumatran orangutans.

    The paper is straightforward in its description of the hunting observations: They hunt slow lorises, the practice is rare, it occurs at times when their other preferred foods are scarce, some individuals hunt but most don't, and food sharing among individuals other than mother-infant pairs wasn't observed. This isn't the first time hunting has been reported by wild orangutans, what it does is report a longer-term observation of one hunting female, tying this case to earlier observations.

    I'm pointing to the paper because it includes some discussion about the requirements of meat eating for early hominins. These orangutans take a long time to chew up a slow lorus.

    Orangutans used more than twice the amount of time (160.9 g/h) to eat the same amount of meat than chimpanzees (348 g/h) (Wrangham 2009; Wrangham and Conklin-Brittain 2003). Other chimpanzee data shows that this species is able to consume meat at much higher rates, i.e., 1.9±1.2 kg/h (Gilby 2006). This difference between orangutans and chimpanzees may suggest that higher sociality in chimpan- zees influences intake rates, where individuals are surrounded by conspecifics when eating meat, and where meat is a highly preferred food item and stealing occurs (Boesch and Boesch 1989; Goodall 1986; Stanford 1999).

    I'll point out that orangutans may make a better model for early hominin jaw mechanics than chimpanzees do, because the sizes of jaw musculature and teeth are more comparable. Neither orangutans nor australopithecines have teeth that look well-made for reducing fibrous, tough meat into smaller pieces. Recent humans have been able to cook meat, which reduces its mechanical resistance to chewing. Early hominins didn't cook, so getting some high fraction of their caloric requirements from meat (even if only seasonally) might have taken a lot of time.

    According to orangutan data (ingestion rate of 185 kcal/h), Australopithecus africanus would have had to chew for ca. 2 h to achieve 25% of these caloric requirements purely from meat (Table III, orangutans×A. africanus), while achieving the remaining 75% of its caloric requirements from food sources with faster chewing/intake rates, e.g., leaves or insects. This constitutes a considerable period of the day for orangutans, which spend ca. 6 h/d feeding (Morrogh-Bernard et al. 2009), and does not include the time necessary for the collection of vertebrate prey.

    That sounds like a lot of chewing time, but it's not an insuperable barrier. The isotopic values for A. africanus and A. robustus suggest the possibility of up to 25% meat consumption, although they may have gotten C4 plant input by several different food sources (e.g., corms, edible stems, aquatic animals) as well as meat. Altogether, the chewing time analysis shuts off one line of argument that early hominins would have faced extreme constraints preventing them from moving to a more meat-intensive diet before the control and routine use of fire.


    References

    Synopsis: 
    A discussion of early hominin meat-eating emerges from observations of orangutan hunting
  • Orangutan dynamics of Borneo

    Wed, 2010-11-24 01:46 -- John Hawks

    Bornean and Sumatran orangutans are the most highly divergent subspecies within any of the living species of great apes. The two farther apart even than chimpanzees and bonobos, which are good biological species. The time of the Bornean-Sumatran orangutan divergence as estimated from mtDNA is around 3.5 million years ago.

    This is old enough that many primatologists consider the two populations as separate biological species. The species distinction is supported by some aspects of morphology, but as yet we have no good nuclear DNA information about the extent of divergence. In chimpanzees, nuclear genetic comparisons suggest a relatively recent founding of one subspecies and recurrent gene flow between the others, despite high mtDNA divergence between the subspecies. So information from across the genomes of Bornean and Sumatran orangutans may be necessary to substantiate the hypothesis of long isolation suggested by mtDNA.

    Within Borneo, different local populations of orangutans have strong genetic differentiation, with few shared mtDNA haplotypes among them. A new study by Natasha Arora and colleagues [1] has provided further detail about these relationships within Borneo. Based on earlier work, they expected to find high population differentiation within Borneo, and that is what they found:

    [O]ur analyses revealed high and significant mitochondrial differentiation, with populations within currently recognized subspecies generally displaying as much differentiation as those between subspecies. Of notable interest is the great extent of subdivision and lack of reciprocal monophyly for the morphologically recognized subspecies P. p. morio and P. p. wurmbii. MtDNA haplotype sharing is uncommon and for populations separated by rivers occurs only in two instances: (i) for SA and GP and (ii) for the northern and southern populations across the Kinabatangan river. In both cases, very recent common ancestry could explain the incomplete mtDNA lineage sorting. For North Kinabatangan (NK) and SK, Jalil et al. (27) proposed an expansion from a recent common refugium further west in Mount Kinabalu, as posited for other Bornean species (46, 47, 49). DV, with its low haplotype diversity, might also be the result of a recent range expansion. GP is located proximally to the Bangka–Belitung–Karimata–Schwaner divide, from where orangutans are presumed to have dispersed to the rest of Borneo (12) and where we might expect a rich haplotype diversity. However, the presence of only one mtDNA haplotype shared with populations further east suggests that the current population in GP is recent and/or underwent a severe recent bottleneck. This and other local bottlenecks make it impossible to reconstruct a colonization of Borneo through the southwestern “choke point” (52).

    They were able to confirm the relatively strong differentiation of Bornean populations by examining nuclear microsatellites. These do not give a great indication of the time period over which the populations may have developed their differentiation, but the microsatellites do document the relative lack of allele sharing between the populations, attesting a history of low gene flow in the recent past. The populations they identify as strongly differentiated do not correspond entirely with the subspecies recognized along morphological lines, but there are strongly differentiated populations here.

    The "news" aspect of the paper is the one unexpected observation: the mtDNA ancestor of Bornean orangutans lived relatively recently, only around 176,000 years ago (with a range of error stretching from 72,000 to 320,000 years ago. The data in the study do not allow us to distinguish whether this was a time when the Bornean population may have been founded, or whether instead the mtDNA lineage spread through pre-existing populations. The authors pursue the hypothesis that Bornean orangutans were limited to a refugium sometime during the early Late Pleistocene:

    Assuming that orangutans arrived in Borneo around the same time as gibbons and macaques, the recent coalescence of Bornean orangutans could be explained by a bottleneck through a severe rainforest contraction. Such a bottleneck would have had a more dramatic impact on the mtDNA structure of orangutans compared with other species as a result of their low densities and slow life histories (18) as well as habitat requirements.

    The comparison with gibbons and macaques is necessary because both have substantially deeper mtDNA coalescence times within their Bornean populations. If the forest had been substantially reduced to a small area where orangutans could survive, we might expect the other primates to reflect this event -- and they don't. Nevertheless, a grab-bag of climate change scenarios appear next:

    Geomorphological and palynological data indicate the presence of dryer, more open vegetation in southern and western Borneo during the last glaciation (2, 41), and by extrapolation also during other glaciations (but c.f. refs. 42, 43). Climate change was especially severe during an extended cold period within the penultimate glaciation between 130 and 190 ka (44, 45), which occurred approximately at the time of mean coalescence of Bornean mtDNA haplotypes. More recently, the last Toba eruption approximately 74 ka resulted in a short, albeit signi␣cant, decrease in regional temperatures, ensued by a 1,800-y cold stadial (9, 10). Our data do not provide clear signals to make conclusive statements about potential Toba effects. Nonetheless, the coldest period of the penultimate glaciation (44, 45) was more prolonged than the cold period following the last Toba eruption, suggesting more severe effects of the former on the extent of rainforest across Sundaland. In any event, suitable rainforest habitat for orangutans should have existed in certain regions in Borneo where a refugium population survived the dry glacial conditions.

    A coalescence time of 176,000 years ago does not point to a short-duration bottleneck that began 74,000 years ago. If orangutans in the Middle Pleistocene of Borneo had high genetic differentiation, a crash would have to have been very severe -- eliminating all but one small regional population -- to have effected the present distribution. Still, the great uncertainty in the actual coalescence time leaves open many possibilities, and the refugium hypothesis in the general case is worth testing, even if the Toba eruption in particular cannot explain the data.

    Given the uncertainty about the habitat structure of the now-submerged areas of Sunda, we may also want to consider the hypothesis that the present orangutans arrived recently on Borneo from mainland Southeast Asia. Even if orangutans had lived on Borneo during the Middle Pleistocene, they may not have been the current orangutans. Or even better, they may have been Neanderorangs -- an initial population that was genetically swamped by migrants arriving from elsewhere. The deep Sumatra-Borneo divergence means that the Bornean population was probably not recently derived from Sumatra, but that's a very restricted source compared to the Late Pleistocene distribution of orangutans across mainland and island East and Southeast Asia.

    Some other animals walked from Sumatra to Borneo repeatedly during the Pleistocene, including humans. In the human case, we know that a large fraction of the genetic ancestry of Bornean and Javan people was derived from Asia within the last 100,000 years -- in other words, Late Pleistocene gene flow. The movement of genes may have happened in the context of a dispersal of Asian (or ultimately, African-derived) populations into island Southeast Asia. The paper includes some discussion of other primate species:

    For instance, the south Bornean gibbon Hylobates albibarbis and the Sumatran–Malaysian gibbon Hylobates agilis have a TMRCA of 1.56 Ma (36), and Bornean and Sumatran pig-tailed macaques have one of 3 to 4 Ma (37). By contrast, the Bornean–Sumatran common ancestor of both the silvered langur(39) and clouded leopard (40) is much more recent than that of orangutans, gibbons, and pig-tailed macaques, probably because of a higher ␣exibility in habitat use.

    The pig-tailed macaque divergence time is more or less the same as the orangutan divergence; the others are more like the time range for human dispersals into island Southeast Asia. We can add to the primates a few other medium-sized mammals; for example, clouded leopards are highly differentiated between Sumatran and Bornean populations, and their mtDNA divergence occurred sometime after 3 million years ago.

    There may be no contradiction between the recent mtDNA common ancestor and the high degree of population structure in Bornean orangutans; the mtDNA could have been selected. We really would want resequencing of a lot more loci in these orangtuan populations, for which we may not have to wait too long. Mitochondrial DNA is convenient in many ways, including its greater sensitivity to restricted population size and higher mutation rate. But the intrinsic variance of a single gene system under genetic drift is so high that this disadvantage probably outweighs all advantages for reconstructing population sizes.

    At any rate, the orangutans now provide an additional case where the subspecies-level history of hominoids is more complex than depicted five or six years ago. Uncovering these kinds of dynamics highlights the need for better modeling of demography and dispersal within a geographically widespread species. Isolation-by-distance and long-lasting subspecies are well-defined models, but when they are refuted, we have a lack of well-defined alternatives.


    References

  • Mailbag: Parallel knuckle-walkers

    Wed, 2010-06-02 16:30 -- John Hawks

    Regarding convergent evolution in the great apes, I thought it was well demonstrated that knuckle walking was convergent, because the mechanisms for spinal stabilization are distinctly different between gorillas and chimpanzees - and orangutans, who also use their palms instead of their knuckles.

    See for example the following article; figure 26 illustrates how orangutans and gorillas stabilize the spine through locking of different parts of the spinal vertebrae, while figure 28 shows how Pan achieves its stabilization through a system of ilio-lumbar ligaments.

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001019

    Given convergent evolution of similar locomotive behavior, the wrist features almost have to be convergent, and convergent evolution of morphological features in the hips and spine shouldn't be surprising.

    You're correct that there's a good argument that the chimpanzee and gorilla forms are non-homologous. I am inclined toward that point of view, also.

    However, a lot of people are unpersuaded by those observations. Chimpanzees and gorillas are very different in size, and it would be surprising indeed for them to carry their weight identically in every detail, as their functional requirements are different. So we shouldn't expect them to be identical even if they retain knuckle-walking from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Williams (2010, doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.03.005) argued that independent evolution of the hand and wrist traits supporting knuckle-walking is unlikely given the lack of morphological integration shown by the variation within chimpanzee and gorilla populations. That argument doesn't go too far with me, but it does suggest that the similarities are not an easy parallelism but a hard one for selection to generate.

    The orangutan and gibbon convergences carry a lot of weight with me, as it seems clear that the common ancestors of orangutans and the rest of us were quadrupeds. As you mention, that's not a knuckle-walking issue, but goes to limb proportions and lumbar spine function.

  • Swimming orangutans

    Thu, 2010-03-25 15:30 -- John Hawks

    New Scientist is running a gallery of orangutans interacting in water. These are orphaned orangutans that were relocated to an island and have since been observed to interact with water in all kinds of unusual ways -- snatching fish, sex in water, trawling for sunken fruit.

    Others in the group have found drier means of crossing water: they've learned how to build bridges. "They deliberately bend slender trees over and use them as bridges to travel over broad stretches of water," says [Anne] Russon. "The trees remain partially bent after the first use, and after several uses they stay permanently bent into these positions." And although each bridge is engineered by a single orang-utan, the structure is used by all the orang-utans on Kaja. "Nothing like this has been seen anywhere else," says Russon.

    The introduction notes that these behaviors are rarely observed, and that many zoo orangutans have drowned in "moats" meant to enclose them. Several of the behaviors seem to be driven by individuals using the water to prevent competition from others.

  • Orangutan facts

    Wed, 2009-11-04 16:57 -- John Hawks

    Current Biology has a Q and A with orangutan researcher Anne Russon. It's a good discussion to freshen one's knowledge of orangutan behavior. Here's an interesting passage:

    Orangutans also show chimpanzee-like traditions, so they too sustain cultures. Given their dispersed sociality, how they do so is unclear. Youngsters learn an enormous amount from their mother, but mostly basics. Consorts could learn from each other, but opportunities are very rare. And neither network can spread traditions community-wide. Adolescents may hold the answer: gregarious and keen on widening their horizons, they range beyond their natal range and hang out with non-kin — probably swapping knowledge and skills and jointly concocting new ones.

    This is a bit of a mystery, even in chimpanzees where the geographic distribution of "cultural" behaviors is better known. How do these traits manage to stake out territories larger than a local group, when opportunities for diffusion among groups are so few? Do they go along with dispersing females? Is mother-offspring learning (in chimpanzees, the major "broadband" channel of information transfer) sufficient, or are peers more important? How does transfer differ among behaviors?

    Russon herself has a very informative website with resources on orangutan conservation. Russon's 2004 book is Orangutans: Wizards of the Rain Forest (The Amazon page seems like a portal to everyone else's orangutan book, as well).

  • Orangutan music

    Mon, 2009-08-10 11:09 -- John Hawks

    One step closer to Ewoks:

    Orangutans make musical instrument

    Kiss squeaks come in three different forms: unaided (lips only); with the hand in front of the lips; and with leaves in front of the lips. The leaves are stripped off a twig and held in a bundle in front of the orangutan's mouth while the animal makes the kiss squeak.

    When scientists first observed this behavior, they weren't sure exactly why the orangutans used the leaves. The new study suggests that the tool lowers the frequency of the kiss squeak, making the orangutan producing the call sound bigger to their potential predator.

    OK, it's hardly "music" -- it's on the order of chimpanzee leaf sponges in terms of complexity. Kind of an ape kazoo.

  • Videos of the week

    Fri, 2009-08-07 13:00 -- John Hawks

    I've been sent two videos this week by several readers. I post them here together -- I've never embedded video before, and after some experimentation I didn't get it to load very well on the blog, so I'm just including links. My including them in one post is not a comment on either video! Just that, well that's the media about human evolution this week.

    1. The Daily Show does a bit where correspondent John Oliver interviews Jeff Schwartz and Todd Disotell about orangutan versus chimpanzees as our closest relatives.

    This is really funny, lampooning both sides. There is some off-color commentary, language, and sexual references (for those readers who might care). And Oliver does make an unkind reference to Disotell's mohawk.

    2. Elaine Morgan at the TED conference describing the Aquatic Ape Theory

    The Daily Show is the top-rated news broadcast among viewers 18-34. TEDGlobal is a conference with "elite" speakers for which people pay $6000 to attend the program. Which this year included aquatic apes.

    OK, so they have one thing in common, these two videos -- I won't be showing either in class!

    Many of the free TED talks are very useful for showing in classes, by the way -- check out previous paleoanthropologists include Louise Leakey and Zeresenay Alemseged, also notable is Nina Jablonski on skin color.

  • Orangutans coming out of the woodwork

    Tue, 2009-04-14 13:43 -- John Hawks

    A reader forwarded this AP story about a new orangutan count for a relatively unexplored corner of Borneo:

    JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) — Conservationists have discovered a new population of orangutans in a remote, mountainous corner of Indonesia — perhaps as many as 2,000 — giving a rare boost to one of the world's most endangered great apes.

    A team surveying forests nestled between jagged, limestone cliffs on the eastern edge of Borneo island counted 219 orangutan nests, indicating a "substantial" number of the animals, said Erik Meijaard, a senior ecologist at the U.S.-based The Nature Conservancy.

    The area is around a fifth the size of Yellowstone National Park in the U.S., so 2000 orangutans sounds like a pretty high density.

  • A Neanderthal droog?

    Mon, 2007-07-30 23:28 -- John Hawks

    The Telegraph has a Roger Highfield article about those zany Neanderthals.

    I can't get over the reconstruction that accompanies the article:

    Neandertal reconstruction, Natural History Museum, London

    Picture from article in the Telegraph, with caption: A model head of Neanderthal man created by Maurice Wilson of the Natural History Museum, London

    Those eyes say something to me, something very familiar....

    Film poster from <i>A Clockwork Orange</i>

    (via Gene Expression)

Pages

Subscribe to orangutans

Neandertals

For years, I've worked on their bones. Now I'm working on their genes. Read more about the science studying these ancient people.

Denisova

From a finger bone of an ancient human came the record of a completely unexpected population. My lab is working on the science of the Denisova genome.

Acceleration

The advent of agriculture caused natural selection to speed up greatly in humans. We're uncovering some of the ways that populations have rapidly changed during the last 10,000 years.

Malapa

Just outside Johannesburg, the Malapa site is producing some of the most exciting finds in human evolution. This site is the headquarters of the Malapa Soft Tissue Project.