Diversity of nutcracking tool sites used bySapajus libidinosusin BrazilianCerrado

Abstract

Cracking nuts with tools is a behavior documented in a small number of populations of tufted capuchins, mainly in semi-arid Caatinga and Caatinga-Cerrado transitional environments of northeastern Brazil. Only one of these populations inhabits the less arid Cerrado in Central Brazil, where environments are composed of a heterogeneous mosaic of fields, savannas and forest formations. We conducted surveys in 10 of 20 localities where nutcracking by capuchins was reported by the local inhabitants in the Cerrrado of Northern Goiás and Tocantins. Our purpose was to evaluate nutcracking sites (anvils and associated hammers and nuts) based on indirect evidence of extensive pounding of nuts and seeds. Nutcracking was confirmed at all 10 surveyed localities. A total of 270 sites were identified. Surveyed localities included areas that were ecologically similar to those where capuchins crack nuts in Caatinga, as well as less arid localities with more typical Cerrado habitat. Anvils and hammers were made of materials including quartz, limestone, sandstone and wood, and displayed a wider range of sizes (i.e., 60-3,750 g for hammers' weight) than reported at previously studied localities. Nuts of seven genera were found in association with anvils and hammers. We conclude that nutcracking by capuchins are not restricted to arid environments and argue that the occurrence and diversity of nutcracking tool sites result from complex interactions of environmental variables (e.g., availability of food and mineral resources, density of canopy cover) and social variables (e.g., spatial cohesiveness and tolerance among group members) that need to be examined through long-term research of habituated groups. Localities in the Cerrado of Northern Goiás and Tocantins vary considerable in the ecological conditions faced by wild groups, and therefore offer the opportunity to examine these interactions.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.