Object categorization by wild-ranging birds in nest defence.
Categorization
Global and local features
Kestrel
Nest defence
Recognition
Red-backed shrike
Journal
Animal cognition
ISSN: 1435-9456
Titre abrégé: Anim Cogn
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9814573
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
31
01
2019
accepted:
10
11
2019
revised:
31
10
2019
pubmed:
30
11
2019
medline:
2
7
2020
entrez:
30
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite object categorization being an important ability for the survival of wild animals, the principles behind this ability have been only scarcely studied using wild-ranging, untrained animals. Reiterating our previous study undertaken with wild-ranging titmice on winter feeders (Nováková et al. Behav Process 143:7-12, 2017), we aimed to test two hypotheses of object recognition proposed by animal psychology studies: the particulate feature theory and recognition by components in the methodological paradigm of nest defence. We tested whether the parents of the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) recognize the dummies of the common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus), which is a potential predator of large chicks or fledglings, as a threat in case when their body parts are scrambled. The kestrel dummy was presented with the head at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom of the body. We showed that the shrikes did not consider dummies of a kestrel with an inappropriately placed head as a threat to the nest and attacked it equally scarcely as the harmless control. These results support the theory of recognition by components, presuming that the mutual position of body parts is essential for appropriate recognition of the object. When the body parts were scrambled, most of shrikes were not able to identify the kestrel in such an object despite all local features (eye, beak, colouration, and claws) being present. Nevertheless, shrikes did not consider the scrambled dummies as completely harmless, because they fed their chicks in their presence significantly less often than in the presence of harmless control.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31781884
doi: 10.1007/s10071-019-01329-3
pii: 10.1007/s10071-019-01329-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
203-213Subventions
Organisme : Jihočeská Univerzita v Českých Budějovicích
ID : 151/2016/P
Références
Aust U, Huber L (2003) Elemental versus configural perception in a people-present/people-absent discrimination task by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 31(3):213–224
doi: 10.3758/BF03195984
Beránková J, Veselý P, Sýkorová J, Fuchs R (2014) The role of key features in predator recognition by untrained birds. Anim Cogn 17:963–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0728-1
doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0728-1
pubmed: 24458458
Beránková J, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2015) The role of body size in predator recognition by untrained birds. Behav Process 120:128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.09.015
doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.09.015
Biederman I (1987) Recognition-by components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol Rev 94:115–147
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.115
Caro TM (2005) Antipredator defences in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, London
Cerella J (1980) The pigeon’s analysis of pictures. Pattern Recogn 12:1–6
doi: 10.1016/0031-3203(80)90048-5
Cook RG, Wright AA, Drachman EE (2013) Categorization of birds, mammals, and chimeras by pigeons. Behav Process 93:98–110
doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2012.11.006
Curio E (1975) The functional organization of anti-predator behaviour in the pied flycatcher: a study of avian visual perception. Anim Behav 23:1–115
doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(75)90056-1
Davies NB, Welbergen JA (2008) Cuckoo-hawk mimicry? An experimental test. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol 275:1817–1822. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0331
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0331
Deppe C, Holt D, Tewksbury J, Broberg L, Petersen J, Wood K (2003) Effect of northern pygmy-owl (Glaucidium gnoma) eyespots on avian mobbing. Auk 120(3):765–771
doi: 10.1093/auk/120.3.765
Edwards G, Hosking E, Smith S (1950) Reactions of some passerine birds to a stuffed cuckoo. II. A detailed study of the willow-warbler. Br Birds 43:144–150
Gill SA, Neudorf DL, Sealy SG (1997) Host responses to cowbirds near the nest: for recognition. Anim Behav 53:1287–1293. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0362
doi: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0362
pubmed: 9236024
Goławski A, Mitrus C (2008) What is more important: nest-site concealment or aggressive behaviour? A case study of the red-backed shrike, Lanius collurio. Folia Zool 57(4):403–410
Kirkpatrick-Steger K, Wasserman EA, Biederman I (1996) Effects of spatial rearrangement of object components on picture recognition in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 65:465–475
doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-465
Korpimäki E (1985) Diet of the kestrel Falco tinnunculus in the breeding season. Ornis Fenn 62:130–137
Krätzig H (1940) Untersuchungen zur Lebensweise des Moorschneehuhns (Lagopus l. lagopus L.) während der Jugendentwicklung. J Ornithol 88:139–165
doi: 10.1007/BF01670363
Krebs JR, Davies NB (1993) An introduction to behaviour ecology, 3rd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford
Lefranc N (1997) Shrikes: a guide to the shrikes of the world. A&C Black, London
Logothetis NK, Pauls J, Bülthoff HH, Poggio T (1994) View-dependent object recognition by monkeys. Curr Biol 4:401–414
doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00089-0
Martin TE (1993) Nest predation among vegetation layers and habitat types: revising the dogmas. Am Nat 141:897–913
doi: 10.1086/285515
Matsukawa A, Inoue S, Jitsumori M (2004) Pigeon’s recognition of cartoons: effects of fragmentation, scrambling, and deletion of elements. Behav Process 65:25–34
doi: 10.1016/S0376-6357(03)00147-5
Nácarová J, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2018) Effect of the exploratory behaviour on a bird’s ability to categorize a predator. Behav Process 151:89–95
doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2018.03.021
Němec M, Fuchs R (2014) Nest defense of the red-backed shrike Lanius collurio against five corvid species. Acta Ethol 17(3):149–154
doi: 10.1007/s10211-013-0175-z
Němec M, Syrová M, Dokoupilová L, Veselý P, Šmilauer P, Landová E, Fuchs R et al (2015) Surface texture and priming play important roles in predator recognition by the red-backed shrike in field experiments. Anim Cogn 18(1):259–268
doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0796-2
Nice MM, Pelkwyk JT (1941) Enemy recognition by the song sparrow. Auk 58:195–214
doi: 10.2307/4079104
Nováková N, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2017) Object categorization by wild ranging birds—winter feeder experiments. Behav Process 143:7–12
doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.08.002
Patterson TL, Petrinovich L, James DK (1980) Reproductive value and appropriateness of response to predators by white-crowned sparrows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:227–231
doi: 10.1007/BF00299368
Peissig JJ, Young ME, Wasserman EA, Biederman I (2000) Seeing things from a different angle: the pigeon’s recognition of single geons rotated in depth. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 26(2):115
doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.26.2.115
Rock I, DiVita J (1987) A case of viewer-centered object perception. Cogn Psychol 19:280–293
doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90013-2
Scaife M (1976) The response to eye-like shapes by birds. I. The effect of context: a predator and a strange bird. Anim Behav 24:195–199
doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(76)80115-7
Šimek J (2001) Patterns of breeding fidelity in the Red-backed Shrike (Lanius collurio). Ornis Fennica 78:61–71
Smith MJ, Graves HB (1978) Some factors influencing mobbing behavior in Barn Swallows (Hirundo rustica). Behav Biol 23(3):355–372
doi: 10.1016/S0091-6773(78)91379-2
Strnad M, Němec M, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2012) Red-backed Shrikes (Lanius collurio) adjust the mobbing intensity, but not mobbing frequency, by assessing the potential threat to themselves from different predators. Ornis Fennica 89:206–215
Strnadová I, Němec M, Strnad M, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2018) The nest defence by the red-backed shrike Lanius collurio—support for the vulnerability hypothesis. J Avian Biol 49(5):jav-01726
doi: 10.1111/jav.01726
Syrová M (2011) Artificial dummies as stimuli in field mobbing experiments—Bc. Thesis, Faculty of Sciences, The University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
Syrová M, Němec M, Veselý P, Landová E, Fuchs R, Moskát C (2016) Facing a clever predator demands clever responses - Red-Backed Shrikes (Lanius collurio) vs. Eurasian Magpies (Pica pica). PloS one 11(7):e0159432
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159432
Trnka A, Prokop P (2012) The effectiveness of hawk mimicry in protecting cuckoos from aggressive hosts. Anim Behav 83:263–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.036
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.036
Tryjanowski P, Goławski A (2004) Sex differences in nest defence by the red-backed shrike Lanius collurio: effects of offspring age, brood size, and stage of breeding season. J Ethol 22(1):13–16
doi: 10.1007/s10164-003-0096-9
Tvardíková K, Fuchs R (2011) Do birds behave according to dynamic risk assessment theory? A feeder experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:727–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1075-0
doi: 10.1007/s00265-010-1075-0
Van Hamme LJ, Wasserman EA, Biederman I (1992) Discrimination of contour-deleted images by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 18:387–399
doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.18.4.387
Veselý P, Buršíková M, Fuchs R (2016) Birds at the winter feeder do not recognize an artificially coloured predator. Ethology 122:937–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12565
doi: 10.1111/eth.12565
Wacker DW, Coverdill AJ, Bauer CM, Wingfield JC (2009) Male territorial aggression and androgen modulation in high latitude populations of the Sooty, Passerella iliaca sinuosa, and Red Fox Sparrow, Passerella iliaca zaboria. J Ornithol 151:79–86
doi: 10.1007/s10336-009-0428-9
Wasserman EA, Kirkpatrick-Steger K, Van Hamme LJ, Biederman I (1993) Pigeons are sensitive to the spatial organization of complex visual stimuli. Psychol Sci 4:336–341
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00575.x
Watanabe S (2010) Pigeons can discriminate “good” and “bad” paintings by children. Anim Cogn 13(1):75
doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0246-8
Welbergen JA, Davies NB (2011) A parasite in wolf’s clothing: hawk mimicry reduces mobbing of cuckoos by hosts. Behav Ecol 22:574–579. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr008
doi: 10.1093/beheco/arr008