Food-washing monkeys recognize the law of diminishing returns

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this paper, the authors had 2 aims:

(1) Measure macaques' aversion to sand and see if its' removal is intentional, as it likely in an unpleasurable sensation that causes tooth damage.

(2) Show that or see if monkeys engage in suboptimal behavior by cleaning foods beyond the point of diminishing returns, and see if this was related to individual traits such as sex and rank, and behavioral technique.

They attempted to achieve these aims through a combination of geochemical analysis of sand, field experiments, and comparing predictions to an analytical model.

The authors' conclusions were that they verified a long-standing assumption that monkeys have an aversion to sand as it contains many potentially damaging fine grained silicates, and that removing it via brushing or washing is intentional.

They also concluded that monkeys will clean food for longer than is necessary, i.e. beyond the point of diminishing returns, and that this is rank-dependent.

High and low-ranking monkeys tended not to wash their food, but instead over-brushed it, potentially to minimize handling time and maximize caloric intake, despite the long-term cumulative costs of sand.

This was interpreted through the *disposable soma hypothesis*, where dominants maximize immediate needs to maintain rank and increase reproductive success at the potential expense of long-term health and survival.

Strengths:

The field experiment seemed well designed, and their quantification of the physical and mineral properties of quartz particles (relative to human detection thresholds) seemed good relative to their feret diameter and particle circularity (to a reviewer that is not an expert in sand). The *Rank Determination* and *Measuring Sand* sections were clear.

In achieving Aim 1, the authors validated a commonly interpreted, but unmeasured function, of macaque and primate behavior-- a key study/finding in primate food processing and cultural transmission research.

I commend their approach in trying to develop a quantitative model to generate predictions to compare to empirical data for their second aim.
This is something others should strive for.

I really appreciated the historical context of this paper in the introduction and found it very enjoyable and easy to read.

I do think that interpreting these results in the context of the *disposable soma hypothesis* and the potential implications in the *paleolithic matters* section about interpreting dental wear in the fossil record are worthwhile.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this paper, the authors had 2 aims:

(1) Measure macaques' aversion to sand and see if its' removal is intentional, as it likely in an unpleasurable sensation that causes tooth damage.

(2) Show that or see if monkeys engage in suboptimal behavior by cleaning foods beyond the point of diminishing returns, and see if this was related to individual traits such as sex and rank, and behavioral technique.

They attempted to achieve these aims through a combination of geochemical analysis of sand, field experiments, and comparing predictions to an analytical model.

The authors' conclusions were that they verified a long-standing assumption that monkeys have an aversion to sand as it contains many potentially damaging fine grained silicates, and that removing it via brushing or washing is intentional.

They also concluded that monkeys will clean food for longer than is necessary, i.e. beyond the point of diminishing returns, and that this is rank-dependent.

High and low-ranking monkeys tended not to wash their food, but instead over-brushed it, potentially to minimize handling time and maximize caloric intake, despite the long-term cumulative costs of sand.

This was interpreted through the *disposable soma hypothesis*, where dominants maximize immediate needs to maintain rank and increase reproductive success at the potential expense of long-term health and survival.

# Strengths

The field experiment seemed well designed, and their quantification of the physical and mineral properties of quartz particles (relative to human detection thresholds) seemed good relative to their feret diameter and particle circularity (to a reviewer that is not an expert in sand). The *Rank Determination* and *Measuring Sand* sections were clear.

In achieving Aim 1, the authors validated a commonly interpreted, but unmeasured function, of macaque and primate behavior-- a key study/finding in primate food processing and cultural transmission research.

I commend their approach in trying to develop a quantitative model to generate predictions to compare to empirical data for their second aim.
This is something others should strive for.

I really appreciated the historical context of this paper in the introduction and found it very enjoyable and easy to read.

I do think that interpreting these results in the context of the *disposable soma hypothesis* and the potential implications in the *paleolithic matters* section about interpreting dental wear in the fossil record are worthwhile.

# Weaknesses

Several of my concerns in an earlier review were addressed in revision, which I appreciate. One thing I think could strengthen this paper is a clearer link to social foraging theory to explore heterogeneity in handling times (as the currency they are trying to maximize).

I am satisfied with the improvements in statistics and that I can access the code and data.

I am still struck that there was an analysis of only trials where <3 individuals are present. If rank was important, I would imagine that behavior might be different in social contexts when theft, scrounging, policing, aggression, or other distractions might occur-- where rank would have effects on foraging behavior. Maybe lower rankers prioritize rapid food intake then. If rank should be related to investment in this behavior, we might expect this to be magnified (or different) in social contexts where it would affect foraging. It might just be that the data was too hard to score or process in those settings, or the analysis was limited. Additionally, I think that more robust metrics of rank from more densely sampled focal follow data would be a better measure, but I acknowledge the limitations in getting the ideal . Since rank is central to the interpretation of these results, I think that reduced social contexts in which rank was analyzed and the robustness of the data from which rank was calculated and analyzed are the main weaknesses of the evidence presented in this paper.

While some of the boxes about raccoons and Concorde Fallacy were interesting, they did feel like a bit of a distraction from the main message in the paper.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This revised paper provides evidence that food washing and brushing in wild long-tailed macaques are deliberate behaviors to remove sand that can damage tooth enamel. The demonstration of the immediate functional importance of these behaviors is nicely done, and there is some interesting initial evidence that macaques differ systematically in their investment in food cleaning based on dominance rank.

The authors interpret this evidence as support for "disposable soma" effects: that reduced time and effort invested food washing in high-ranking individuals is attributable to prioritizing reproductive effort. Given that the analysis is on a single group with no longitudinal data, there are no fitness measures or fitness proxies, the energetic constraints faced by this population are not clear, and both sexes are combined into a single dominance hierarchy (trade-offs between different forms of investment are typically thought to differ between sexes), this conclusion is premature, although an interesting foundation for future studies.

More generally, the results directly supported by the data collection and analysis (grit on Koshima likely damages macaque teeth; processing food helps mitigate the damage; there is some interesting interindividual variation in food processing time, and that time is not always in line with what appears to be optimal) tend to be combined with interpretation that is much more speculative (e.g., the effect sizes observed are consequential for fitness; high-ranking animals are making choices that optimize their long-term fitness at the expense of their soma). This is in part a stylistic choice but can have the effect of drawing attention away from the stronger empirical findings and/or be misleading. Similarly, although I appreciate that the authors were trying to interpret and respond to previous feedback from reviewers, I found the addition of the box text on the raccoon nomenclature and on irrational behavior and the Concorde effect distracting (more intro-textbook style than journal article style).