Articles «Previous Next»

Cross-site differences in foraging behavior of white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus)

Melissa A. Panger
Susan Perry
Lisa M. Rose, University of British Columbia
Julie Gros-Louis
Erin Vogel
Katherine C. MacKinonn
Mary Baker


Researchers have identified a variety of cross-site differences in the foraging behavior of free-ranging great apes, most notably among chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and more recently orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), that are not due to obvious genetic or ecological differences. These differences are often referred to as “traditions.” What is not known is whether this high level of interpopulation variation in behavior is limited to hominoids. In this study, we use long-term data from three Costa Rican field sites that are geographically close and similar ecologically to identify potential foraging traditions in white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus). Foraging traditions are predicted in Cebus because of many behavioral and morphological convergences between this genus and the great apes. The processing techniques used for the same food species were compared across sites, and all differences found were classified as present, habitual, or customary. Proximity data were also analyzed to determine if social learning mechanisms could explain variation in foraging behavior. Of the 61 foods compared, we found that 20 of them are processed differently by capuchins across sites. The differences involve pound, rub, tap, “fulcrum,” “leaf-wrap,” and “army ant following.” For most of the differences with enough data to analyze, the average proximity score of the “matched” dyads (two individuals within a group who shared a “different” processing technique) was statistically higher than the average proximity score of the remaining “unmatched” dyads.

Suggested Citation

Melissa A. Panger, Susan Perry, Lisa M. Rose, Julie Gros-Louis, Erin Vogel, Katherine C. MacKinonn, and Mary Baker. "Cross-site differences in foraging behavior of white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus)" American Journal of Physical Anthropology 119.1 (2002): 52-66.
Available at:

This document is currently not available here.