Effects of food material properties and embedded status on food processing efficiency in bearded capuchins

Abstract

Objectives: Capuchin monkeys (Cebus spp. and Sapajus spp.) routinely extract food resources that are embedded in protective matrices. Features such as relative brain size, manual dexterity, and-in the case of Sapajus spp.-a robust feeding system are considered adaptations for accessing embedded foods. Compared with adults, juvenile capuchins exhibit reduced food processing efficiency when processing embedded foods. Although this reduced efficiency has been attributed to inexperience or lack of strength when processing embedded foods, little is known about how food material properties (FMPs) relate to age-related changes in feeding efficiency. Materials and methods:We used data collected from three groups of Sapajus libidinosus to test relationships between feeding efficiency and FMP variation when processing embedded and nonembedded foods. Feeding efficiency was defined in three ways: (i) duration, (ii) frequency, and (iii) variation in sequence of food processing behaviors.Results: We found limited support for an effect of FMPs and age on feeding sequence durations or on processing behavior frequency. Number of unique behavioral patterns was negatively correlated with age. Embedded foods elicited longer

Oral Processing of Three Guenon Species in Taï National Park, Côte d’Ivoire

“…Considering ingestive behavioral variation in wild primate populations rather than simply quantifying diets or working only in a laboratory context has provided important insights to the study of primate craniodental morphology, pointing towards selective pressures on morphology [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 40 , 45 ], highlighting surprising dietary challenges [ 38 ], and examining how oral-processing behavior relates to community ecology [ 23 , 32 , 51 ]. Because our data do not characterize oral-processing profiles across the dietary regimes of Diana monkeys, Campbell’s monkeys, and Lesser spot-nosed guenons, we are reticent to use these data to directly compare guenon oral-processing profiles to other primate taxa.…”

“…Processing this fruit induces repeated loads on L. catta’s thin-enameled teeth, as they repeatedly bite the pod to induce cracking; this is likely a significant contributor to high rates of dental wear and tooth loss in this L. catta population [ 32 ]. Observations of the ingestive behaviors and mechanical properties of foods eaten by Sapajust libidinosus in Brazil [ 33 , 34 , 35 ] coupled with captive research on mandibular strain and muscle fiber architecture in this species [ 36 , 37 ] suggest that ingestive behaviors, particularly those related to high mandibular strain, are important pressures on craniodental morphology in robust capuchin monkeys. Dental and cranial traits of Gorilla gorilla gorilla , including thick enamel and increased molar-shearing crests, are generally assumed to facilitate the processing of tough, fracture-resistant foods such as leaves and fibrous vegetation [ 38 ].…”

Energetic costs of feeding in 12 species of small-bodied primates

“…Extreme food preparation behaviours, although not measured in this study, occur in many mammals, including several for whom feeding data are presented here (Hapalemur griseus, Daubentonia madagascariensis, Sapajus apella). Diets that include structurally defended foods such as seeds and wood-boring insect larvae, and other difficult to access foods such as bamboo pith and underground storage organs, may require large amounts of muscle force and power output (or non-oral processing) before food intake occurs [40,120] and incur high energetic costs [14,[121][122][123].…”

“…Similarly, the foods primates eat in the wild and in the laboratory have been well studied (e.g. [38][39][40][41]), and can be quantified in terms of their mechanical and geometric properties.…”

The effects of feeding frequency on jaw loading in two lemur species

“…Food mechanical properties (FMPs) testing provides insights into how primates access, prepare, and masticate foods (e.g., Chalk‐Wilayto et al, 2022; Coiner‐Collier et al, 2016; Laird et al, 2020; Laird et al, 2022; Lucas, 2004; McGraw et al, 2016; Van Casteren et al, 2016; Wright et al, 2008; Yamashita et al, 2009). FMPs interact with feeding behaviors (e.g., food placement and biting and chewing rates) to load the jaw (McGraw & Daegling, 2019; Ross et al, 2012).…”