Behavioural Processes 107 (2014) 1–14 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Behavioural Processes jo ur nal homep ag e: www.elsevier.com/locate/behavproc Motivation and manipulation capacities of the blue and yellow macaw and the tufted capuchin: A comparative approach Anaïs Brunon c,∗ , Dalila Bovet a,1 , Aude Bourgeois b,2 , Emmanuelle Pouydebat c,3 a Laboratoire d’Éthologie et Cognition Comparées (Laboratory of Compared Ethology and Cognition) EA 3456, BSL – Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, 200 avenue de la République, 92001 Nanterre Cedex, France b Ménagerie du Jardin des Plantes, PARIS-JARDIN, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France c Departement d’Ecologie et de Gestion de la Biodiversité (Department of Ecology and Biodiversity Management), Equipe FUNEVOL UMR 7179 C.N.R.S/M.N.H.N, UMR 7179 C.N.R.S/M.N.H.N, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris, France a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 3 November 2013 Received in revised form 1 June 2014 Accepted 6 June 2014 Available online 18 July 2014 Keywords: Ara ararauna Complex manipulation Motivation Object manipulation Sapajus apella a b s t r a c t This study compared the motivation of the blue and yellow macaw (n = 8) and the tufted capuchin (n = 3) to manipulate objects that presented different features, their manipulative repertoires, and their ability to solve complex manipulation tasks. Results show that both species seem to be more motivated to manipulate objects that look like food items and that manipulative behavior may be considered as play behavior in the blue and yellow macaws, and would improve foraging motor skills. The tufted capuchins performed more different action styles than the macaws when manipulating objects, and performed substrate-use behavior – the object is put in relationship with a substrate – while the macaws did not. This is an interesting difference because these characteristics are supposed to be precursory of tool-use, behavior never observed in this macaw species. It may be due to the arboreal lifestyle of the macaw and its neophobic character that do not allow it to easily contact objects. Following the same method and using more individuals, further comparative studies should be conducted in order to test these hypotheses. Both species were able to solve complex manipulation tasks. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Object manipulation is a behavior thought to be involved in sev- eral environments (Iwaniuk and Whishaw, 2000), and is observed in many contexts: feeding, locomotion, play, and even social con- texts (Sustaita et al., 2013). Here we define manipulation as any behavior that involves voluntary action(s) on an object through motor activities. This behavior can be described in detail by using three components: the body part(s) involved, the action type real- ized, and the possible relationship with another object or with an environmental substrate (Takeshita and Walraven, 1996; Torigoe, 1985). Simple manipulations can be distinguished from complex manipulations: simple manipulations usually involve few body parts, simple actions (i.e. no or few combinatorial movements), and the manipulated objects are not put in connection with another ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 0675370440. E-mail addresses: anaisbrunon@gmail.com (A. Brunon), dbovet@u-paris10.fr (D. Bovet), bourgeois@mnhn.fr (A. Bourgeois), epouydebat@mnhn.fr (E. Pouydebat). 1 Tel.: +33 01 4097 7480. 2 Tel.: +33 01 4079 5784. 3 Tel.: +33 01 4079 8119. object or with an environmental substrate. In complex manipu- lations, more body parts are used (principally hands and feet), more actions type are used through combinatorial movements, and the object is usually put in connection with a substrate or another object, behavior called “substrate-use behavior” or “orienting manipulation” (Torigoe, 1985). Scientists are strongly interested in the evolution of manipulation because of its sug- gested key role in the evolutionary success of tetrapods. Moreover, complex manipulation, and particularly substrate use behavior, could be predictive of tool use, or could be a condition required to elicit tool use behavior, and might be related to successful problem solving skills (Byrne and Suomi, 1996; Chevalier-Skolnikoff, 1989; Fragaszy and Adams-Curtis, 1991; Hayashi et al., 2006; Sumita et al., 1985). As such, many studies focus on complex manipulation, and interspecific comparison studies are carried out to elucidate the fac- tors contributing to its evolution. Both the morphology and ecology of an individual are thought to influence these abilities, and cogni- tive skills may also play a role (Crast et al., 2009; Cunningham et al., 2006; Gruber et al., 2010; Torigoe, 1985; Takeshita and Walraven, 1996). Primates, and particularly great apes, thought to possess high cognitive abilities, have been widely studied (Breuer et al., 2005; Emery and Clayton, 2004; van Schaik et al., 2003; Yamakoshi http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.06.006 0376-6357/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.