Abstract
Tool use has been observed in a variety of primate species, including both New and Old World monkeys. However, such reports mainly address the most prodigious tool users and frequently limit discussions of tool-using behavior to a foraging framework. Here, we present observations of novel and spontaneous tool use in wild black-handed spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi), where female spider monkeys used detached sticks in a self-directed manner. We introduce factors to explain Ateles tool-using abilities and limitations, and encourage the synthesis of relevant research in order to gain insight into the cognitive abilities of spider monkeys and the evolution of tool-using behaviors in primates.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Tool use has been reported in a variety of primates, including both New and Old World monkeys (Beck 1980; Urbani and Garber 2002; Panger 2007). However, the literature mainly addresses the most prodigious tool users, particularly chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), and capuchin monkeys (Cebus sp.), and often limits discussions of tool-using behavior to a foraging or feeding framework (van Schaik et al. 1999; Urbani and Garber 2002). Such an emphasis overlooks the cognitive aspects of tool use in solving problems unrelated to food. Unlike foraging-related challenges, self-directed and social tool use are less constrained by outcome, which may provide greater opportunity for innovation and creativity. Here, we present evidence of tool use in wild black-handed spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi), where on three occasions females used detached sticks to scratch themselves.
Our observations are unique, as this type of tool use is absent in the published literature for Ateles. Employing tools for body care or comfort has been observed in other wild nonhuman primates (Macaca radiata: Sinha 1997; Pan paniscus: Hohmann and Fruth 2003; Pan troglodytes: Goodall 1970; Nishida and Nakamura 1993; Pongo pygmaeus: Galdikas 1982), primates living in urban areas or captivity (Leontopithecus rosalia: Stoinski and Beck 2001; Macaca fascicularis: Watanabe et al. 2007), and in nonprimate animals (Elephus maximus: Hart et al. 2001). Such behaviors fit Beck’s (1980) definition of tool use: “the external employment of an unattached environmental object to alter more efficiently the form, position, or condition of another object, another organism, or the user itself when the user holds or carries the tool during or just prior to use and is responsible for the proper and effective orientation of the tool.” We might predict that Ateles is capable of using tools given that cognitive measures generally correlating with this behavior (e.g., neocortex ratio, encephalization quotient) are similar among Ateles and well-known tool users (Jerison 1973; Kudo and Dunbar 2001; Panger 2007). Moreover, spider monkeys are highly frugivorous (Carpenter 1935), exhibit a fission–fusion social system (Chapman 1990), and have slow life history patterns relative to body size (Chapman and Chapman 1990), all of which are thought to be associated with the evolution of cognitive complexity (Milton 1981; Barrett et al. 2003; Aureli et al. 2008).
Methods
The study was conducted at El Zota Biological Field Station (10°57.6′N, 83°75.9′W) in northeastern Costa Rica. This private reserve hosts a spider monkey population sympatric with mantled howling monkeys (Alouatta palliata) and white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus). El Zota consists of approximately 10 km2 of lowland tropical wet and swamp forest (Holdridge et al. 1971), including several small plots of Gmelina arborea, Hyeronima alchornoidea, and Musa sp. monoculture. The region averages approximately 4000 mm of rainfall annually and lacks a pronounced dry season (Sanford et al. 1994).
Data were collected during two concurrent studies on the spider monkey communities at El Zota. A total of 169 contact hours were accumulated by the authors over the course of seven months between May 2005 and August 2006. Observations of tool use were recorded ad libitum.
Results
Three stick tool use events were documented in two spider monkey communities, known as Ceiba and Pilón, during the study period. In addition, observer-directed branch dropping events, which fit Beck’s (1980) tool use definition, occurred on numerous occasions but were not systematically recorded. All branch-dropping events appeared to have been a response to observer presence.
Case 1
On 4 June 2005 at 11:27 hours, SML observed an adult female of the Ceiba community holding a small, leafy branch in her hand, which she used to scratch her thoracic and abdominal regions. The subject was part of a mixed-sex subgroup of at least eight individuals.
Case 2
Later that day, SML encountered a mixed-sex subgroup of at least six individuals within the Ceiba community. At 15:56 hours, an adult female used a stick, lacking side branches and leaves, to scratch her left axilla region. She chewed the tool tip between scratching bouts. It could not be determined whether this female was the same individual from the first case.
Case 3
On 21 June 2006, MAR observed a party of at least four individuals of the Pilón community. At 15:59 hours, a juvenile female used a stick to scratch her anogenital region and the underside of her tail. Before using the tool, she chewed the distal tip and applied this end to her body.
Discussion
Our observations demonstrate that at least two individuals in different communities use stick tools at El Zota, which provides conclusive evidence of spontaneous tool use in wild spider monkeys. This record draws attention to existing—although often unacknowledged—spider monkey tool use observations consisting of branch dropping (Carpenter 1935) and fur rubbing (Campbell 2000; Laska et al. 2007). Branch dropping or throwing is classified as tool use if the branches are intentionally directed at the recipient in order to change their behavior (Beck 1980). However, diagnosing direction and intent may be ambiguous. Consequently, this behavior has been excluded from some discussions of tool use (Panger 1998). Fur rubbing, the action of rubbing aromatic substances on the body, qualifies as tool use but is generally limited to discussions of self-medication or olfactory communication (Campbell 2000; Laska et al. 2007). In addition to variation in how researchers conceptualize tool use, the rareness of tool-use reports for Ateles may be a consequence of overall observation time, as Ateles is understudied relative to other tool using primates.
For the events observed in this study, each individual scratched a region of the body that was accessible without the aid of a tool. Therefore, these tools did not exclusively function as extensions of the body. We propose that tool function is related to mechanical or chemical properties of tools, or olfactory communication. Recent accounts of novel tool use in primates indicate that differences in local environment and consequent behavioral variation are important aspects to consider in the evolution of tool use (Breuer et al. 2005; Pruetz and Bertolani 2007). At El Zota, tool function may also be associated with environmental context. Most long-term research on spider monkeys has been conducted in tropical moist or dry forests, but the wet forests at El Zota receive more annual precipitation. This wetter environment may lead to a higher prevalence of skin irritants caused by ectoparasites (Wolda and Galindo 1981) or fungi (Lupi et al. 2005), thereby provoking spider monkeys to use tools for body care. Alternatively, stick scratching may simply be a cultural variant of scratching behavior (Whiten et al. 1999). Itch relief may be the immediate explanation for this behavior and, under this assumption, stick tools may serve a mechanical or chemical purpose. In two of the three events reported here, individuals modified the distal end of the tool, resulting in a frayed edge that may have provided more relief and comfort during scratching. Modifying the tip might also be related to the chemical properties of the selected plant, as research on fur rubbing and self-medication indicates that some primates select plants or invertebrates with chemical properties for this reason (Valderrama et al. 2000 and references therein). Tool use could play a role in olfactory communication, as some portions of the body affected by scratching contain scent-producing glands. Campbell (2000) argues that spider monkeys at Barro Colorado Island rub a mixture of crushed leaves and saliva on the sternal region and rub this area on a substrate to chemically communicate with conspecifics. In this study, substrate rubbing was not observed but perhaps scratching behaviors stimulate scent glands and contribute to olfactory signals in an undetermined way. Clearly, more information on this behavior and the tools used are required in order to understand the proximate mechanisms, the prevalence of tool use within and between Ateles populations (sensu Whiten et al. 1999), and how such behavior is acquired.
Generally, tool use within primates is thought to be rare (Panger 2007). Tool use in Ateles is significant because this genus is lacking in some, but not all, behavioral and morphological traits associated with this behavior. van Schaik et al. (1999) proposed several conditions under which tool use, excluding object throwing (e.g., branch dropping), is likely to have evolved: opportunity to better exploit foods with tools, cognitive ability to socially acquire and transmit tool use techniques, and effective manual dexterity for handling tools. Ateles brain morphology fits the general pattern among primate tool users. Panger (2007) reviewed common measures of cognition and found that larger brain sizes, expressed as the neocortex ratio and encephalization quotient, are associated with tool use in primates. Ateles geoffroyi has a neocortex ratio similar to Cebus apella and Macaca radiata (Table 1 in Kudo and Dunbar 2001), and an encephalization quotient equivalent to P. troglodytes (Table 16.3 on page 392 of Jerison 1973; but see also page 13 of Stephan et al. 1988). Moreover, some researchers suggest there is a relationship between fission–fusion dynamics and enhanced cognition (Barrett et al. 2003; Aureli et al. 2008). Recent evidence supports this prediction in Ateles, Pan, and Pongo (Deaner et al. 2006; Amici et al. 2008). However, we would not expect to observe a large tool-use repertoire in spider monkeys, given that their diet does not rely on extractive foraging techniques (Russo et al. 2005) and manual dexterity is limited by their hand morphology. Primates that use tools to extract food items typically exhibit great manual dexterity (Parker 1973; Jouffroy 1993); i.e., independent movement of all five digits and flexibility of the hallux. The spider monkey, a semibrachiator, has long, hook-like phalanges and a reduced or absent hallux. Such morphology facilitates suspensory travel but limits the ability to grasp or grip objects (Jouffroy 1993; Napier 1956). Thus, for spider monkeys, locomotion adaptations may constrain tool use.
Theoretical discussions for the evolution of tool use that exclude nonforaging contexts fail to predict such behavior for spider monkeys. While caution should be employed when drawing conclusions about cognitive abilities from anecdotal evidence of rare or understudied behaviors, anecdotes should not be dismissed due to their rarity (Bates and Byrne 2007) or in the case of tool use for their lack of association with food resource acquisition (McGrew 1992). While the use of tools by nonhuman primates to procure food is often considered a hallmark of cognitive ability, solving social and self-related problems with tools, irrespective of taxon, is also a notable display of cognitive innovation. Reporting and synthesizing all observations of tool use and function may provide new directions for investigating the cognitive abilities of spider monkeys and the evolution of tool-using behaviors.
References
Amici F, Aureli F, Call J (2008) Fission–fusion dynamics, behavioral flexibility, and inhibitory control in primates. Curr Biol 18:1415–1419
Aureli F, Schaffner CM, Boesch C, Bearder SK, Call J, Chapman CA, Connor R, Di Fiore A, Dunbar RIM, Henzi SP, Holekamp K, Korstjens AH, Layton R, Lee P, Lehmann J, Manson JH, Ramos-Fernandez G, Strier KB, van Schaik CP (2008) Fission–fusion social dynamics. Curr Anthropol 49:627–654
Barrett L, Henzi P, Dunbar R (2003) Primate cognition: from ‘what now?’ to ‘what if?’. Trends Cogn Sci 7:494–497
Bates LA, Byrne RW (2007) Creative or created: using anecdotes to investigate animal cognition. Methods 42:12–21
Beck BB (1980) Animal tool behavior: the use and manufacture of tools by animals. Garland STPM, New York
Breuer T, Ndoundou-Hockemba M, Fishlock V (2005) First observation of tool use in wild gorillas. PLoS Biol 3:2041–2043
Campbell CJ (2000) Fur rubbing behavior in free-ranging black-handed spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) in Panama. Am J Primatol 51:205–208
Carpenter CR (1935) Behavior of red spider monkeys in Panama. J Mammal 16:71–180
Chapman CA (1990) Association patterns of spider monkeys: the influence of ecology and sex on social organization. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:409–414
Chapman CA, Chapman LJ (1990) Reproductive biology of captive and free-ranging spider monkeys. Zoo Biol 9:1–9
Deaner RO, van Schaik CP, Johnson V (2006) Do some taxa have better domain-general cognition than others? A meta-analysis of nonhuman primate studies. Evol Psychol 4:149–196
Galdikas B (1982) An unusual instance of tool-use among wild orang-utans in Tanjung Puting Reserve, Indonesian Borneo. Primates 23:138–139
Goodall J (1970) Tool-using primates and other vertebrates. In: Lehrman DS, Hinde RA, Shaw E (eds) Advances in the study of behavior, vol 3. Academic, London, pp 195–249
Hart BL, Hart LA, McCoy M, Sarath CR (2001) Cognitive behavior in Asian elephants: use and modification of branches for fly switching. Anim Behav 62:839–847
Hohmann G, Fruth B (2003) Culture in bonobos? Between-species and within-species variation in behavior. Curr Anthropol 44:563–609
Holdridge LR, Grenke WC, Hatheway WH, Liang T, Tosi JA Jr (1971) Forest environments in tropical life zones: a pilot study. Pergamon, New York
Jerison HJ (1973) Evolution of the brain and intelligence. Academic, London
Jouffroy FK (1993) Primate hands and the human hand: the tool of tools. In: Berthelet A, Chavaillon J (eds) The use of tools by human and non-human primates. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 6–33
Kudo H, Dunbar RIM (2001) Neocortex size and social network size in primates. Anim Behav 62:711–722
Laska M, Bauer V, Salazar LT (2007) Self-anointing behavior in free-ranging spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) in Mexico. Primates 48:160–163
Lupi O, Tyring SK, McGinnis MR (2005) Tropical dermatology: fungal tropical diseases. J Am Acad Dermatol 53:931–951
McGrew WC (1992) Chimpanzee material culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Milton K (1981) Distribution patterns of tropical plant foods as an evolutionary stimulus to primate mental development. Am Anthropol 83:534–548
Napier JR (1956) The prehensile movements of the human hand. J Bone Joint Surg 38:902–913
Nishida T, Nakamura M (1993) Chimpanzee tool use to clear a blocked nasal passage. Folia Primatol 61:218–220
Panger MA (1998) Object-use in free-ranging white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus) in Costa Rica. Am J Phys Anthropol 106:311–321
Panger MA (2007) Tool use and cognition in primates. In: Campbell CJ, Fuentes A, MacKinnon K, Panger M, Bearder SK (eds) Primates in perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 665–677
Parker CE (1973) Manipulatory behavior and responsiveness. In: Rumbaugh DM (ed) Gibbon and siamang, vol 2. Karger, Basel, pp 185–207
Pruetz JP, Bertolani P (2007) Savanna chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus, hunt with tools. Curr Biol 17:412–417
Russo SE, Campbell CJ, Dew JL, Stevenson PR, Suarez SA (2005) A multi-forest comparison of dietary preferences and seed dispersal by Ateles spp. Int J Primatol 26:1017–1037
Sanford RL Jr, Paaby P, Luvall JC, Phillips E (1994) Climate, geomorphology and aquatic systems. In: McDade LA, Bawa KS, Hespenheide HA, Hartshorn GS (eds) La Selva: ecology and natural history of a neotropical rain forest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 19–33
Sinha A (1997) Complex tool manufacture by a wild bonnet macaque, Macaca radiata. Folia Primatol 68:23–25
Stephan H, Baron G, Frahm HM (1988) Comparative size of brains and brain components. In: Steklis HD, Erwin J (eds) Comparative primate biology (Neurosciences, vol. 4). Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, pp 1–38
Stoinski TS, Beck B (2001) Spontaneous tool use in captive, free-ranging golden lion tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia rosalia). Primates 42:319–326
Urbani B, Garber PA (2002) A stone in their hand… are monkeys tool users? Anthropologie 40:183–191
Valderrama X, Robinson JG, Attygalle AB, Eisner T (2000) Seasonal anointment with millipedes in a wild primate: a chemical defense against insects? J Chem Ecol 26:2781–2790
van Schaik CP, Deaner RO, Merrill MY (1999) The conditions for tool use in primates: implications for the evolution of material culture. J Hum Evol 36:719–741
Watanabe K, Nontakorn U, Malaivijitnond S (2007) Long-tailed macaques use human hair as dental floss. Am J Primatol 69:940–944
Whiten A, Goodall J, McGrew WC, Nishida T, Reynolds V, Sugiyama Y, Tutin CEG, Wrangham RW, Boesch C (1999) Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature 399:682–685
Wolda H, Galindo P (1981) Population fluctuations of mosquitoes in the non-seasonal tropics. Ecol Entomol 6:99–106
Acknowledgments
We thank the Republic of Costa Rica for granting us permission to study and Hiner Ramirez for welcoming us to El Zota Biological Field Station. Jill Pruetz provided intellectual and logistical support, and Thomas LaDuke and Kimberly Dingess facilitated the research process. Thanks to Benjamin Beck, Dawn Kitchen, Janni Pedersen, Erik Otárola-Castillo, Kristina Walkup, Ellen Furlong, Matt Lattanzio and three anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments on previous versions of this paper. Several institutions generously contributed to our research: Animal Behavior Society, Department of Anthropology at Iowa State University, DANTA: Association for Conservation of the Tropics, and Sigma Xi.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Lindshield, S.M., Rodrigues, M.A. Tool use in wild spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). Primates 50, 269–272 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-009-0144-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-009-0144-3