Animals that have learned to use tools: what do we know about them?

What characterizes animals capable of using real tools in their natural environment?

Are there animals that have learned to use tools? This phenomenon has been recorded many times, both in nature and in captive environments, with a clear evolutionary purpose for the living being: to facilitate obtaining food, defense, grooming, entertainment or building structures.

It is sometimes violent for us to recognize that as a species we are not the only ones with such sophisticated cognitive abilities to manipulate our environment in complex ways. Human society is characterized by a slightly anthropocentric view of our environment.We tend to translate all natural behavior into human terms and purposes in order to better understand the processes around us.

Therefore, the use of tools in animals is a much more controversial topic than one might imagine, as the definition of the word "tool" in itself is already a challenge. If you want to know more about the exciting world of the cognitive abilities of living beings, read on.

Animals that have learned to use tools: optimizing the environment

Ethology is the branch of biology and experimental psychology that is in charge of understanding animal behaviorsboth in laboratory conditions and in their natural environment. The objectives of this discipline are the study of behavior, instinct, relationships with the environment and the patterns that guide innate or acquired behaviors in the world of living beings.

This branch is subject to continual scrutiny, since the interpretation of animal behaviors can be completely biased by the human who observes them or by the experimental conditions presented. or the experimental conditions presented. As much as statistical supports are required to suspect any kind of relationship, the reading of them will depend considerably on the eyes of the interpreter.

For example, if you take the mean of the clutch of various females of an invertebrate species in different areas and those in area A produce more eggs than those in area B, there is little more to discuss, is there? There seems to be a correlation between geographic area and the cohort of offspring produced. After discovering this, one can inquire as to why: more food present, females of larger sizes, evolutionary response to more predators, etc.

But, for example, let's take an experiment in which we have two colonies of bees, one that we have disturbed during the last few hours by shaking its comb and one that we have not disturbed. It turns out that the undisturbed colony is more likely to approach samples with unknown odors, while the one that has been "threatened" is more cautious and only approaches aromatic sources it already knows (this experiment, although simplified to the extreme, is real).

How do we interpret these data, can we affirm that the bees are aware of their own state of alertness and therefore decide not to take risks, are we dealing with a purely evolutionary primal mechanism or is there some associated complex cognitive capacity? Of course, the reading of the results is much more subject to debate than in the previous case.

What we wanted to emphasize with these two examples is that the extent of animal behavior depends largely on who sees it and the parameters measured. Thus, surprising as it may seem, not all scientists agree on the existence of animals that have learned to use tools, not all scientists agree on the existence of animals that have learned how to use tools.. It is not that they deny it completely, but that many cases known to the population would not strictly apply to this definition.

What is a tool?

The first stone we find in the way when recording these behaviors is the very description of the term tool. A fairly widespread definition, proposed in a scientific publication in 1980 and modified since then, is the following:

"The external use of an object available in the environment to more effectively alter the shape, position or condition of an object, another organism or the user himself, when he is the one who holds and manipulates the tool during or prior to its use and is responsible for its correct and effective orientation."

As we can see in this rudimentary translation from English, the very concept of tool has several meanings to be taken into account. For some researchers, the use of objects as if they were tools does not constitute a tool in itself.For some researchers, the use of objects as if they were tools does not constitute a tool in itself, since we humans are the only ones capable of modifying an object enough to be considered a real tool (and at most, other primates).

For example, when a bird uses a piece of bread to attract a fish and subsequently hunt it (real behavior), we cannot define this piece of food as a tool in itself. The general consensus is that it is a "proto-tool". Continuing with the example of birds, studies have found that birds using these proto-tools have less developed brains than those using real tools.

When animals use one tool to obtain another tool, we are dealing with a "meta-tool".. On the other hand, when they use one tool to later use another, we are dealing with "sequential tool use". As we can see, the world of object use in nature is much more complex than we might at first believe.

To keep the train of thought and not overcomplicate things, let's continue with the world of birds. As birds that use "real tools" we have the New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides), as they are capable of making sticks as tools from branches and other plant structures.

It is interesting to know that these tools show laterality, i.e., that they are are modified according to a specific pattern. The branches are effectively modified into a hook shape to be used later for obtaining beetle larvae in the recesses of the trees. As we can see, the basal structure is modified to generate a tool that facilitates a complex activity, so it would certainly fall under the strictest definition of "tool".

By presenting this dilemma, examples of tool use in the natural world are called into question. For example, can otters be considered to use tools if they use stones to break the shells of the marine invertebrates they eat? Once this information has been presented, the least we can do is to stop and think for a few seconds: Do they modify the stones before using them?

With these questions we do not want to circumscribe or delimit the animal behavior from a skeptical point of view, because we only try to express that not everything is as simple as several informative sources try to show. Yes, there are many examples of the use of real tools, such as the orangutans that make improvised whistles from tree leaves to warn others of the presence of predators or the manufacture of rudimentary "spears" by chimpanzees to hunt prey.

In this particular case the primate must take a branch, tear off the extensions and leave only one and sharpen the end with its teeth. Again, this is the actual making of a tool, since the object itself has been modified for a complex purpose. Of course, when we look at orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees, the situation changes, because complex manipulation of natural resources has been observed on multiple occasions and little doubt remains and there is little doubt when it comes to recognizing their ability to make tools.

Conclusions

As we can see, the key to understanding animals that have learned to use tools is, first of all, to define what is considered a tool or instrument and what is not.

Things get even more complicated in captive environments, as behaviors can be recorded that are relatively less common in the wildThe use of tools in the animal world may be more restricted than is initially thought, for example, due to the continuous contact between animals that have already learned to use tools in advance or a greater amount of energy and free time that is absent in the natural ecosystem.

Thus, the use of tools in the animal world may (or may not) be more restricted than at first thought. The purpose of the object, the modification of the object and the manipulation of the living being may be conditioning factors for what is considered (or not) according to personal judgment an effective use of tools.

Bibliographic references:

• 10 animals that use tools, sciencedirect.com. Retrieved September 3 at https://www.livescience.com/9761-10-animals-tools.html.
• Alcock, J. (1972). The evolution of the use of tools by feeding animals. Evolution, 464-473.
• Haslam, M. (2013). 'Captivity bias' in animal tool use and its implications for the evolution of hominin technology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1630), 20120421.
• How do we wrap our minds around bee consciousness? The best of our knowledge. Recogido a 3 de septiembre en https://www.ttbook.org/interview/how-do-we-wrap-our-minds-around-bee-consciousness
• Hunt, G. R., Gray, R. D., & Taylor, A. H. (2013). Why is tool use rare in animals. Tool use in animals: cognition and ecology, 89-118.
• Mann, J., & Patterson, E. M. (2013). Tool use by aquatic animals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1630), 20120424.
• Tool use in birds, convergent evolution of life. Recogido a 3 de septiembre en http://www.mapoflife.org/topics/topic_193_Tool-use-in-birds/