Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Commentary

Tool-using puffins prickle the puzzle of cognitive evolution

Auguste M. P. von Bayern, View ORCID ProfileIvo Jacobs, and Mathias Osvath
  1. aComparative Cognition Group, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, 82319 Seewiesen, Germany;
  2. bMax Planck Comparative Cognition Research Station, Loro Parque Fundacíon, 38400 Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain;
  3. cDepartment of Cognitive Science, Lund University, 22100 Lund, Sweden

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS February 11, 2020 117 (6) 2737-2739; first published January 22, 2020; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922117117
Auguste M. P. von Bayern
aComparative Cognition Group, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, 82319 Seewiesen, Germany;
bMax Planck Comparative Cognition Research Station, Loro Parque Fundacíon, 38400 Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: avbayern@orn.mpg.de
Ivo Jacobs
cDepartment of Cognitive Science, Lund University, 22100 Lund, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ivo Jacobs
Mathias Osvath
cDepartment of Cognitive Science, Lund University, 22100 Lund, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In PNAS, Fayet et al. (1) report on two cases of tool use in a seabird. In two distant populations they recorded Arctic puffins (Fratercula arctica) using sticks to scratch themselves (Fig. 1). The documentation of tool use in this species expands the ever-growing list of tool-using birds through rare observations under natural conditions. Although it is neither the first observation of tool use in wild seabirds, nor the first of stick-tool use outside of a foraging context in wild birds, these findings contribute to the debate on the evolutionary and cognitive origins of tool use.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

A puffin holding a stick in its beak before using it as a tool to scratch itself. Image courtesy of M. T. Ridoff (artist).

Discoveries of tool use in animals attract considerable attention, because tool use remains rare in nature and people intuitively associate it with intelligence. Not long ago, the wielding of tools was considered a purely human affair. In the 1950s, when Jane Goodall observed wild chimpanzees fishing for termites, we realized that tool use does not exclusively define us. Since then, tool use has been observed in an increasing number of species, spanning from invertebrates to apes, but is still only found in fewer than 1% of known genera so far (2). From this perspective, every discovery of a tool-using species adds an important puzzle piece to understanding this fascinating, rare, and multifarious phenomenon (2⇓–4).

In the traditional view, tool use reveals intelligence. Therefore, animal tool use has been regarded as one of few windows for studying the evolution of intelligence and our own evolutionary past. However, the picture today is more complex, and while tool use oftentimes does relate to advanced cognition, it is not always the case. The debate typically centers on what cognitive abilities enable tool use—ranging from goal directedness and flexible motor control to causal reasoning and intuitive physics.

Why Use Tools?

Many animals interact with fixed objects without the goal of altering them, such as rubbing an itchy body part against a tree. Tool use, in contrast, involves steering a freely maneuverable object toward a target (another object, organism or medium) with the goal of altering its position, form, or condition (3, 4). The majority of reported tool use cases in the wild come from foraging contexts. Fewer cases of tool use are seen in other contexts, such as courtship, defense, or body care—the latter exemplified by puffins using sticks to scratch themselves. Another example of wild birds using stick tools for a nonforaging goal is palm cockatoos (Probosciger aterrimus) rhythmically drumming on trees with sticks to enhance their vocal and visual displays (5). Next to the puffins, the only other observation to our knowledge of a wild seabird using a tool outside a foraging context was a double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) using a detached feather as a brush to spread preen gland oil over its plumage (6). Some seabirds and waterbirds use tools for foraging, in both captivity and the wild, such as gulls and herons using bait or lure for fishing (4, 7).

In an updated phylogeny, cormorants and puffins fall under the same clade containing all waterbirds (Aequorlitornithes) (8). This raises the question of possible shared evolutionary origins of tool use for self-maintenance in (some) waterbirds and urges further research on this understudied group. For both species, the body areas targeted by the tools were within bill reach, suggesting that improved access was not the main function. This stands in contrast to wild primates and elephants, and captive parrots, which often use tools to scratch body parts otherwise hard to reach (4).

In general, it is essential for birds to keep their feathers in prime condition, so perhaps finding cases of avian tool use for body care is not so surprising. One common way of using tools for body care in birds may not intuitively be understood as such by the casual observer: the practice of throwing substrates over the body while sand bathing. Several species use their beaks to rake or pick up and throw sand on their own bodies (9), which is a behavior that qualifies as tool use. This shows not only that body care is important for birds but also the difficulty in defining and categorizing tool use when it is camouflaged as seemingly plain behavior. Another peculiar example is the so-called anting, i.e., placing insects in the plumage in an attempt to combat parasites and reduce discomfort (4, 9).

The puffins (1) and the cormorant (6) used sticks and a feather as tools—objects commonly found in their environment—which lends support to the hypothesis that opportunity rather than necessity prompted their tool use (3). The finding that two seabird species use stick-like objects for body care invites further research to examine the adaptive value and ecological drivers of tool use for body maintenance.

Does Tool Use Require Intelligence?

A central question is whether tool use is associated with particular cognitive abilities and whether it plays a role in the evolution of intelligence (2⇓–4, 10⇓⇓⇓–14). It is not a straightforward question, because it is hard to agree upon a definition of intelligence. At least, most would agree that flexible behavior is a sign of a weighty cognitive repertoire. Flexible behavior is, put simply, when an animal goes beyond purely innate behaviors or the simplest forms of associative learning to solve an old or novel problem in a new way. The complexity of tool behavior can also be revealing (15); compared to a chicken throwing sand over its plumage, the puffins’ self-scratching with a tool is more complex as it requires more precision and prolonged control.

As Fayet et al. (1) point out, tool use can be divided into two broad categories, namely “genetically based” inflexible behavioral specializations adapted to one specific context and flexible “behavioral innovations” whose development may be partially governed genetically too but which can be employed in other contexts flexibly (14). This distinction is oversimplified but serves to point out that not all complex behaviors are underpinned by complex cognition. Highly complex behavioral patterns can be largely innate, rigid, and regulated by simple cues. While the evolution of inflexible tool use is interesting to understand, flexible tool use is most relevant for examining links between the evolution of advanced cognition and tool use.

In any case, what type of tool user the puffin is remains open. When a new tool-using species is discovered in the wild, it is often impossible to tell how its tool use first arose. It is equally conceivable that the puffins’ self-scratching represents a rare but species-wide, genetically programmed behavior, or an innovation by a single individual in each population that may spread through social learning.

Some scientists have rightly questioned why tool use should be considered as more cognitively challenging than other interactions with the physical or social world. Nest building, for example, is not categorized as tool use but arguably needs comparable fine motor control and possibly the same technical understanding speculated to underlie many forms of tool use (11). Does the tool use of the puffin require a more intricate cognitive machinery than that of, say, a bird weaving an elaborate nest? Can tool users reasonably be assumed to be more intelligent than nontool users?

In PNAS, Fayet et al. report on two cases of tool use in a seabird. In two distant populations they recorded Arctic puffins (Fratercula arctica) using sticks to scratch themselves.

Comparative studies have investigated whether birds that are habitual tool users (i.e., exhibiting species-wide tool use) have more advanced cognition than their nontool-using cousins. Comparisons of Darwin finches have not shown any discrepancies in general cognition between species that do and do not use tools (12, 13). Within corvids (i.e., the crow family) there are two known habitual tool users: New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides) and Hawaiian crows (Corvus hawaiiensis). While the latter still have hardly been studied (16), New Caledonian crows do not appear to exhibit higher levels of general cognition than other corvids (13, 17).

The other side of the coin reveals the ability of cognitively advanced birds that are not habitual tool users to use and even make tools. Corvids such as rooks (Corvus frugilegus) and ravens (Corvus corax) are able to quickly learn or spontaneously innovate tool use (10, 18). Similarly, Goffin’s cockatoos (Cacatua goffini) and kea (Nestor notabilis) are not habitual tool users but have shown remarkable tool-using skills in captivity (19, 20).

New Pieces in the Puzzle?

Thus, an observation of tool use in a species does not prima facie tell us much about its cognitive levels but prompts further research. The puffins and cormorants offer an interesting new angle because tool use in a body-care context is rare. Controlled studies on puffins are necessary to understand the origins of this behavior: Is it innate, or innovated and potentially socially learned? Future research should examine how their tool use develops from a young age and whether it can be learned from others. Second, the flexibility of this behavior should be tested, including whether other forms of tool use are within their capacity if exposed to situations where tools are needed or after training. Finally, we need to study the cognitive and innovative skills of puffins and cormorants alongside nontool-using seabirds for direct comparisons.

Fayet et al. (1) conclude by suggesting that one should include species that are traditionally not considered good candidates for tool use and to report “unusual behaviors” as markers of behavioral flexibility. We agree. If unraveling human cognitive evolution and its link to flexible, creative tool use is the goal, it may be more fruitful to shift our focus from tool use per se to behavioral flexibility and creativity in general. There may be plenty of species that can use novel tools spontaneously when exposed to problem-solving tasks, thus exhibiting a latent capacity for tool use, which rarely ever shows in nature. Studying them will inform us about the evolution of intelligence and the prerequisites of tool use.

Acknowledgments

We thank Megan Lambert for proofreading the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: avbayern{at}orn.mpg.de.
  • Author contributions: A.M.P.v.B., I.J., and M.O. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no competing interest.

  • See companion article on page 1277 in issue 3 of volume 117.

Published under the PNAS license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. A. L. Fayet,
    2. E. S. Hansen,
    3. D. Biro
    , Evidence of tool use in a seabird. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 1277–1279 (2020).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. D. Biro,
    2. M. Haslam,
    3. C. Rutz
    , Tool use as adaptation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 368, 20120408 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. T. K. Shackelford,
    2. V. A. Weekes-Shackelford
    1. I. F. Jacobs,
    2. M. Osvath
    , “Nonhuman tool use” in Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, T. K. Shackelford, V. A. Weekes-Shackelford, Eds. (Springer, New York, 2016).
  4. ↵
    1. R. W. Shumaker,
    2. K. R. Walkup,
    3. B. B. Beck
    , Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 2011).
  5. ↵
    1. R. Heinsohn,
    2. C. N. Zdenek,
    3. R. B. Cunningham,
    4. J. A. Endler,
    5. N. E. Langmore
    , Tool-assisted rhythmic drumming in palm cockatoos shares key elements of human instrumental music. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602399 (2017).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. A. J. Meyerriecks
    , Tool-using by a double-crested cormorant. Wilson Bull. 84, 482–483 (1972).
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. G. D. Ruxton,
    2. M. H. Hansell
    , Fishing with a bait or lure: A brief review of the cognitive issues. Ethology 117, 1–9 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. R. O. Prum et al
    ., A comprehensive phylogeny of birds (Aves) using targeted next-generation DNA sequencing. Nature 526, 569–573 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. D. H. Clayton,
    2. J. A. Koop,
    3. C. W. Harbison,
    4. B. R. Moyer,
    5. S. E. Bush
    , How birds combat ectoparasites. Open Ornithol. J. 3, 41–71 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. C. D. Bird,
    2. N. J. Emery
    , Insightful problem solving and creative tool modification by captive nontool-using rooks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 10370–10375 (2009).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. L. M. Guillette,
    2. S. D. Healy
    , Nest building, the forgotten behaviour. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 6, 90–96 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. I. Teschke,
    2. E. A. Cartmill,
    3. S. Stankewitz,
    4. S. Tebbich
    , Sometimes tool use is not the key: No evidence for cognitive adaptive specializations in tool-using woodpecker finches. Anim. Behav. 82, 945–956 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. I. Teschke et al
    ., Did tool-use evolve with enhanced physical cognitive abilities? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 368, 20120418 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. C. M. Sanz,
    2. J. Call,
    3. C. Boesch
    1. J. Call
    , “Three ingredients for becoming a creative tool user” in Tool Use in Animals: Cognition and Ecology, C. M. Sanz, J. Call, C. Boesch, Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013).
  15. ↵
    1. D. M. Fragaszy,
    2. S. E. Cummins-Sebree
    , Relational spatial reasoning by a nonhuman: The example of capuchin monkeys. Behav. Cogn. Neurosci. Rev. 4, 282–306 (2005).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. C. Rutz et al
    ., Discovery of species-wide tool use in the Hawaiian crow. Nature 537, 403–407 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. C. Kabadayi,
    2. L. A. Taylor,
    3. A. M. P. von Bayern,
    4. M. Osvath
    , Ravens, New Caledonian crows and jackdaws parallel great apes in motor self-regulation despite smaller brains. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160104 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. C. Kabadayi,
    2. M. Osvath
    , Ravens parallel great apes in flexible planning for tool-use and bartering. Science 357, 202–204 (2017).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. A. M. I. Auersperg,
    2. B. Szabo,
    3. A. M. P. von Bayern,
    4. A. Kacelnik
    , Spontaneous innovation in tool manufacture and use in a Goffin’s cockatoo. Curr. Biol. 22, R903–R904 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. A. M. I. Auersperg,
    2. A. M. P. von Bayern,
    3. G. K. Gajdon,
    4. L. Huber,
    5. A. Kacelnik
    , Flexibility in problem solving and tool use of kea and New Caledonian crows in a multi access box paradigm. PLoS One 6, e20231 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Tool-using puffins prickle the puzzle of cognitive evolution
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Tool-using puffins prickle the puzzle of cognitive evolution
Auguste M. P. von Bayern, Ivo Jacobs, Mathias Osvath
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2020, 117 (6) 2737-2739; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1922117117

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Tool-using puffins prickle the puzzle of cognitive evolution
Auguste M. P. von Bayern, Ivo Jacobs, Mathias Osvath
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2020, 117 (6) 2737-2739; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1922117117
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Evolution

See related content:

  • Evidence of tool use in a seabird
    - Dec 30, 2019
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 117 (6)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Why Use Tools?
    • Does Tool Use Require Intelligence?
    • New Pieces in the Puzzle?
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
Image credit: Witsawat.S.
Model of the Amazon forest
News Feature: A sea in the Amazon
Did the Caribbean sweep into the western Amazon millions of years ago, shaping the region’s rich biodiversity?
Image credit: Tacio Cordeiro Bicudo (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), Victor Sacek (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), and Lucy Reading-Ikkanda (artist).
Syrian archaeological site
Journal Club: In Mesopotamia, early cities may have faltered before climate-driven collapse
Settlements 4,200 years ago may have suffered from overpopulation before drought and lower temperatures ultimately made them unsustainable.
Image credit: Andrea Ricci.
Steamboat Geyser eruption.
Eruption of Steamboat Geyser
Mara Reed and Michael Manga explore why Yellowstone's Steamboat Geyser resumed erupting in 2018.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Birds nestling on tree branches
Parent–offspring conflict in songbird fledging
Some songbird parents might improve their own fitness by manipulating their offspring into leaving the nest early, at the cost of fledgling survival, a study finds.
Image credit: Gil Eckrich (photographer).

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490