As we destroy the natural world, how can we save species from extinction? Uncovering the mystery of how animals think could hold the key.

Humans have changed 77% of the world’s land and 87% of the oceans through activities such as farming and burning fossil fuels¹. As demands set by growing human populations destroy and transform habitats, animal species are threatened with a global extinction crisis².

How animals perceive, understand and learn in their environment affects the way they respond³. Therefore, a rapidly changing world is changing animal behaviour. Where this places animals at risk of new threats, ground-breaking conservation strategies must work to shape this behaviour.

Reading their minds

The existence of animal minds has long been debated. Philosophers such as René Descartes claimed that animals are “merely machines made of flesh”, whilst Darwin thought that animals could experience joy, love and grief⁴. Now, scientists accept that some animals process information through mental experiences⁴.

Over millennia, minds evolved so that animals would behave in a way for them to overcome challenges. For instance, vervet monkeys can tell the difference between alarm calls⁵ for different predators so that they can suitably respond, looking up for eagles and down for snakes, or by running into trees away from leopards.

Today, rapid change presents new environments to which animal minds are not yet adapted. Noise from boats masks echolocation signals⁶ and communication⁷ between dolphins. Being unable to perceive these signals prevents them from searching for food and mates⁶.

Two features of animal minds can be targeted: firstly, how animals perceive the world, which affects initial behaviours³; and secondly, how animals learn, which decides their long-term behaviour³. Understanding these areas of cognition across species means that these processes can be suitably exploited to shape behaviour so that animals can overcome threats.

Dealing with change

Large-scale overlap of humans and wildlife has created unfamiliar surroundings that animals perceive. Where animals experience negative responses to new surroundings, this is called neophobia³. Neophobia can help animals to avoid unknown dangers, such as species that they have not encountered before but are predators⁸. However, neophobia can also be harmful to survival, for instance if animals reject new foods⁹.

Understanding the degree of neophobia across species helps conservationists to assess threats. An example is human-wildlife conflict where animals compete with people for resources¹⁰. For example, lions attack cattle¹¹ and seabirds steal fish¹² from boats. Clearly, these animals do not fear the unfamiliarity of farms or fishing vessels, and this damages livelihoods¹¹. Barriers and patrols are often put in place, but it takes time to see their effects and they are often costly¹¹. Therefore, people tend to kill wildlife for instant security¹¹, as was seen in Uganda where 11 lions were poisoned in 2018¹³.

Where animals are not ‘fearful’ of new and dangerous environments, conservationists must increase neophobia so that animals naturally avoid human areas and being killed. The best way to stimulate fear is to take advantage of existing neophobias³. Unfamiliar cues known to generate fear can be placed within areas that the animal is not wanted. To reduce wolf attacks on livestock for example, ropes have been tied to fences in a method known as fladry. The unfamiliarity of the ropes drives wolves away¹¹. This improves opinion on wildlife and paves the way for human-wildlife co-existence by reducing the need to kill animals.

Learning lessons

Most animals can learn from others through social learning³. Social learning involves different processes across species. By understanding learning abilities across species, conservationists can exploit the ones that deliver desired and lasting behaviours. This is important when reintroducing animals³ to increase population sizes, where the released animal must behave in natural ways that benefit survival.

Capuchins are more likely to perform a new behaviour (such as eat unfamiliar foods) if they have seen another capuchin carry out this behaviour and gain rewards. This is known as response facilitation¹⁴. Animals that learn through this process can be raised on certain foods so that when they are released they know that this food is safe and will eat it. Therefore, others will also be likely to eat it. Being able to eat new foods is crucial as habitats, including certain foods, are destroyed¹.

Another social learning type is imitation. Here animals display a new behaviour after watching that same behaviour be performed by another¹⁵. This was seen in chimpanzees¹⁶, where a single individual from two groups was trained to extract food by ‘poking’ into a container or by ‘lifting’ a door. In each group the behaviour used by the trained chimpanzee spread. Animals that imitate can be trained in captivity to prepare for the wild. When Michelle Desilets, Executive Director of the Orangutan Land Trust¹⁷, was asked how rescued orangutans learnt natural behaviours she said, “We demonstrate”. ‘Teachers’ at the centre will pick out suitable nesting materials and pick up termites with sticks to show infants how to use tools.

The right to survive

Carrying out conservation requires support. Through the research into animal minds that is helping to shape behaviour, it has been found that some animals have similar mental abilities as humans. Elephants, dolphins and magpies can recognise themselves in a mirror, meaning they are self-aware^4,18. Chimpanzees can understand the purposes and desires of others, a skill known as theory of mind¹⁹. Based on these similarities “to fail to grant [animals] rights would disregard scientific reality and make a mockery of…justice”, says Kevin Schneider of the Non-human Rights Project⁴. Where we are justified in demanding our own safety, these mental similarities can argue for the legal protection of threatened animals.

The complexity of animal minds means that we cannot view animals as mere ‘things’ to exploit. In a time where human population size is expected to reach 11.2 billion by 2100, unprecedented environmental change is just around the corner. Shaping species’ responses to change, by tapping into their unique cognitive processes, is becoming vital to prevent their extinction and to allow us to live alongside wildlife peacefully.

Author: P. Downes

References

1. Watson, J. E. M., Venter, O., Lee, J., Jones, K. R., Robinson, J. G., Possingham, H. P. and Allan, J. R. (2018) ‘Protect the last of the wild’, Nature, 563(7729), pp. 27-30.
2. Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O. U., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B., Marshall, C., McGuire, J. L., Lindsey, E. L., Maguire, K. C., Mersey, B. and Ferrer, E. A. (2011) ‘Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?’, Nature, 471, pp. 51- 57. doi: 10.1038/nature09678.
3. Greggor, A. L., Clayton, N. S., Phalan, B. and Thornton, A. (2014) ‘Comparative cognition for conservationists’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 29(9), pp. 489-495.
4. The Economist (2017) ‘Can we know what animals are thinking?’, 14 March. Available at: https://medium.economist.com/can-we-know-what-animals-are-thinking-83991bc994c4
5. Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L. and Marler, P. (1980) ‘Vervet monkey alarm calls: Semantic communication in a free-ranging primate’, Animal Behaviour, 28(4), pp. 1070-1094.
6. Laiolo, P. (2010) ‘The emerging significance of bioacoustics in animal species conservation’, Biological Conservation, 143(7), pp. 1653-1645.
7. Buckstaff, K. C. (2004) ‘Effects of Watercraft Noise on the Acoustic Behaviour of Bottlenose Dolphins, Tursiops Truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida’, Marine Mammal Science, 20(4), pp. 709-725.
8. Greenberg, R. and Mettke-Hofmann, C. (2001) ‘Ecological aspects of neophobia and neophilia in birds’, in Budden, A. E. and Wright, J. (eds.) Current Ornithology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 119-178
9. Marples, N. M., Roper, T. J. and Harper, D. G. C. (1998) ‘Responses of Wild Birds to Novel Prey: Evidence of Dietary Conservatism’, Oikos, 83(1), pp. 161-165.
10. Schnakner, Z. A. and Blumstein, D. T. (2013) ‘Behavioural biology of marine mammal deterrents: A review and prospectus’, Biological Conservation, 167, pp. 380-389.
11. Blackwell, B. F. and Breck, S. W. (2016) ‘No single solution: application of behavioural principles in mitigating human-wildlife conflict’, Animal Behaviour, 120, pp. 245-254.
12. Bird Life International (2012) Simple changes to fishing methods can get seabirds off the hook. Available at: http://datazone.birdlife.org/sowb/casestudy/simple-changes-to-fishing-methods-can-get-seabirds-off-the-hook- (Accessed: 3 April 2019).
13. Actman, J. and Bale, R. (2018) ‘8 Lion Cubs Killed in Suspected Poison Attack’, National Geographic, 13 April. Available at: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/04/wildlife-watch-lions-poisoned-uganda-cattle-retaliation/
14. Visalberghi, E. and Addessi, E. (2000) ‘Seeing group members eating a familiar food enhances the acceptance of novel foods in capuchin monkeys’, Animal Behaviour, 60(1), pp. 69-76.
15. Call, J. and Carpenter, M. (2002) ‘Three Sources of Information in Social Learning’ in Nehaniv, C. and Dautenhahn, K. (eds.) Imitation in animals and artifacts. London: MIT Press.
16. Whiten, A., McGuigan, N., Marshall-Pescini, S. and Hopper, L. M. (2009) ‘Emulation, imitation, over-imitation and the scope of culture for child and chimpanzee’, Philosophical Transcations of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1528), pp. 2417-2428.
17. Neme, L. (2010) ‘Teaching orangutans to be wild – orangutan rehabilitation’, Mongabay, 15 December. Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2010/12/teaching-orangutans-to-be-wild-orangutan-rehabilitation/ (Accessed: 3 April, 2019).
18. Uddin, L. Q., Iacoboni, M., Lange, C. and Keenan, J. P. (2007) ‘The self and social cognition: the role of cortical midline structures and mirror neurons’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(4), pp. 153-157.
19. Call, J. and Tomasello, M. (2008) ‘Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later’ Trends in the Cognitive Sciences, 12(5), pp. 187-192.