4.2 Article

Natural history of Camponotus ant-fishing by the M group chimpanzees at the Mahale Mountains National Park, Tanzania

期刊

PRIMATES
卷 52, 期 4, 页码 329-342

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10329-011-0270-6

关键词

Chimpanzee; Tool-use; Ant-fishing; Camponotus; Mahale; Culture

类别

资金

  1. MEXT [16255007, 19107007]
  2. [A14]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16255007, 19107007] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to provide basic data on ant-fishing behavior among the M group chimpanzees at the Mahale Mountains National Park, Tanzania. Ant-fishing is a type of tool-using behavior that has been exhibited by Mahale chimpanzees when feeding upon arboreal carpenter ants (Camponotus spp.) since the 1970s, and is now regarded as a candidate of wild chimpanzee culture. Herein, I describe in detail the features of ant-fishing shown by the Mahale M group chimpanzees: (1) 2 species of Camponotus ants (Camponotus sp. (chrysurus-complex) [C. sp.1] and C. brutus) were identified as the target species of ant-fishing, and C. sp.1 was selected intensively as the main target; (2) 24 species (92 individuals) of trees were identified as ant-fishing sites-these were widely distributed throughout the western/lowland region of the M group's home range, and the top 5 species were used more frequently; (3) the efficiency of ant-fishing was influenced not only by the site choice or the skillfulness of the chimpanzees, but inevitably by the condition of the ants; (4) the estimated nutritional intake from ant-fishing was apparently negligible; (5) most of the M group members (50/60 individuals) older than 3 years of age successfully used tools to fish for ants; and (6) female chimpanzees engaged in ant-fishing more frequently and for longer periods than males did. Further, I compared the features of ant-fishing exhibited by the Mahale M group chimpanzees with those exhibited by the former K group at Mahale and by other populations of wild chimpanzees.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据