4.3 Article

Evaluating social influences on food-processing behavior in white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus)

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
卷 127, 期 4, 页码 481-491

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20095

关键词

social traditions; nonhuman culture; extractive foraging; manipulation; Cebines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interpopulation variability in patterns of food processing, similar to what is described as traditional or cultural variation in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), was identified in white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus). However, recent comparisons of food processing in capuchins were conducted only at the population level, with relatively little attention given to variability among groups, age/sex classes, or individuals. This paper examines variability in the processing of specific food types within the context of various social networks (i.e., patterns of association, rank, and kinship) among free-ranging Cebus capucinus at Santa Rosa National Park in Costa Rica. We collected data on two groups of white-faced capuchins in 2001, identifying rates of food interest for each individual, as well as forms of processing for specific food types. Juveniles exhibited the most interest in the food-processing behavior of other group members, and food interest was directed most frequently toward adult females. We identified distinctive processing techniques for several food items (Luehea candida pods, Sloanea terniflora fruits, and caterpillars) that facilitated comparisons among individuals within groups. Food-processing techniques for Sloanea fruit and caterpillars appeared to vary independently of the social networks examined in this study. However, we found evidence that variation in Luehea candida processing is to some degree linked to both patterns of association and social rank. The potential influence of these variables on observed food processing patterns warrants further scrutiny. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.3
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