Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the novel-environment test for measurement of exploration by bird species

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of Ethology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Novel-environment tests are the most widespread experimental technique for characterizing exploration, yet detailed evaluation of their performance among species is lacking. We compared the test for eight bird species by combining three well-known metrics of behavior: movement frequency, proportion of features visited, and scanning. In both overall and species-level analysis of our multi-group principal component analysis, all three metrics loaded strongly and similarly on one principal component, explaining comparable ranges of variation. We conclude that novel-environment tests are a robust means of quantifying exploration and that scanning behavior may be an important but under-used metric for exploration behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Abdi H, Williams LJ, Valentin D (2013) Multiple factor analysis: principal component analysis for miltitable and miltiblock data sets. Stat, WIREs Comput. doi:10.1002/wics.1246

    Google Scholar 

  • Augustsson H, Meyerson BJ (2004) Exploration and risk assessment: a comparative study of male house mice (Mus musculus musculus) and two laboratory strains. Physiol Behav 81:685–698

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Avery ML, Tillman EA, Keacher KL, Arnett JE, Lundy KJ (2012) Biology of invasive monk parakeets in South Florida. Wilson J Ornithol 124:581–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Both C, Dingemanse NJ, Drent PJ, Tinbergen JM (2005) Pairs of extreme avian personalities have highest reproductive success. J Anim Ecol 74:667–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS (1999) Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol Ecol Res 1:49–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Budaev SV (1997) Personality in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): a correlational study of exploration behavior and social tendency. J Comp Psychol 111:399–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler MW, Toomey MB, McGraw KJ, Rowe M (2012) Ontogenetic immune challenges shape adult personality in mallard ducks. Proc R Soc B 279:326–333

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. Chicage University, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrete M, Tella JL (2011) Inter-individual variability in fear of humans and relative brain size of the species are related to contemporary urban invasion in birds. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/jornal.pone.0018859

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter AJ, Marshall H, Heinsohn R, Cowlishaw G (2012) Evaluating animal personalities: do observer assessments and experimental tests measure the same thing? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:153–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter AJ, Feeney WE, Marshall HH, Cowlishaw G, Heinsohn R (2013) Animal personality: what are behavioural ecologists measuting? Biol Rev 88:465–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Choleris E, Thomas AW, Kavaliers M, Prato FS (2001) A detailed ethological analysis of the mouse open field test: effects of diazepam, chlordiazepoxide and an extremely low frequency pulsed magnetic field. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 25:235–260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cote J (2010) Personality traits and dispersal tendency in the invasive mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). Proc R Soc B 277:1571–1579

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Pasille AM, Rushen J, Martin F (1995) Interpreting the behavior of calves in an open-field test: a factor analysis. Appl Anim Behav Sci 45:201–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingemanse NJ, de Goede P (2004) The relation between dominance and exploration behavior is context-dependent in wild great tits. Behav Ecol 15:1023–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingemanse NJ, Both C, Drent PJ, van Oers K, van Noordwijk AJ (2002) Repeatability and heritability of exploration behavior in great tits from the wild. Anim Behav 64:929–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingemanse NJ, Both C, Drent PJ, Tinbergen JM (2004) Fitness consequences of avian personalities in a fluctuating environment. Proc R Soc B 271:847–852

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eslami A, Qannari EM, Kohler A, Bougeard S (2013) General overview of methods of analysis of multi-group datasets. RNTI 25:108–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Eslami A, Qannari EM, Bougeard S, Questions GS, Bougeard S (2014) Multigroup: methods for multigroup data analysis. R package version 0.2

  • Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Juricic E, Gall MD, Dolan T, O’Rourke C, Thomas S, Lynch JR (2011) Visual systems and vigilance behaviour of two ground-foraging avian prey species: white-crowned sparrow and California towhees. Anim Behav 81:705–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ Jr (2006) Emergent properties of conspecific attraction in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 168:207–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forsman JT, Hjernquist MB, Gustafsson L (2009) Experimental evidence for the use of density based interspecific social information in forest birds. Ecography 32:539–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gall MD, Fernández-Juricic E (2010) Visual fields, eye movements, and scanning behavior of a sit-and-wait predator, the black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans). J Comp Physiol A 196:15–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groothuis TGG, Carere C (2005) Avian personalities: characterization and epigenesist. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29:137–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guillette L, Reddon AR, Hoeschele M, Sturdy CB (2010) Sometimes slower is better: slow-exploring birds are more sensitive to changes in a vocal discrimination task. Proc R Soc B 278:767–773

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall BK (1994) Homolody: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Herborn KA, Macleod R, Miles WTS, Schofield ANB, Alexander L, Arnold KE (2010) Personality in captivity reflects personality in the wild. Anim Behav 79:835–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang P, Sieving KE, Mary CMS (2012) Heterospecific information about predation risk influences exploration behavior. Behav Ecol 23:463–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser HF (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 20:141–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley AE (1993) Locomotor activity and exploration. In: van Haaren F (ed) Methods in behavioral pharmacology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 499–518

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kluen E, Brommer JE (2013) Context-specific repeatability of personality traits in a wild bird: a reaction-norm perspective. Behav Ecol 24:650–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluen E, Kuhn S, Kempenaers B, Brommer JE (2012) A simple cage test captures intrinsic differences in aspects of personality across individuals in a passerine bird. Anim Behav 84:279–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krzanowski WJ (1979) Between-groups comparison of principal components. J Am Stat Assoc 74:703–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchetti C, Zehtindjiev P (2009) Migratory orientation of sedge warblers (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus) in relation to eating and exploratory behaviour. Behav Process 82:293–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCowan LSC, Mainwaring MC, Prior NH, Griffith SC (2015) Personality in the wild zebra finch: exploration, sociality, and reproduction. Behav Ecol 26:735–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mettke-Hofmann C, Rowe KC, Hayden TJ, Canoine V (2006) Effects of experience and object complexity on exploration in garden warblers (Sylvia borin). J Zool 268:405–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mettke-Hofmann C, Lorentzen S, Schlicht E, Schneider J, Werner F (2009) Spatial neophilia and spatial neophobia in resident and migratory warblers (Sylvia). Ethology 115:482–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minderman J, Reid JM, Hughes M, Denny MJH, Hogg S, Evans PGH, Whittingham MJ (2010) Novel environment exploration and home range size in starlings Sturnus vulgaris. Behav Ecol 21:1321–1329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mindernan J, Reid JM, Evans PGH, Whittingham MJ (2009) Personality traits in wild starlings: exploration behavior and environmental sensitivity. Behav Ecol 20:839

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP (2010) Interspecific variation in fear responses predicts urbanization in birds. Behav Ecol. doi:10.1093/beheco/arp199

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore BA, Doppler M, Young JE, Fernández-Juricic E (2013) Interspecific differences in the visual system and scanning behavior of three forest passerines that form heterospecific flocks. J Comp Physiol A 199:263–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutzel A, Kempenaers B, Laucht S, Dingemanse NJ, Dale J (2011) Circulating testosterone levels do not affect exploration in house sparrows: observational and experimental tests. Anim Behav 81:731–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual J, Senar JC, Domènech J (2014) Plumage brightness, vigilance, escape potential, and predation risk in male and female Eurasian Siskins (Spinus spinus). Auk 131:61–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renner MJ (1990) Neglected aspects of exploratory and investigatory behavior. Psychobiology 18:16–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson JML (2001) A comparative study of activity levels in larval anurans and response to the presence of different predators. Behav Ecol 12:51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ (1996) Phylogenetics in behavior: some cautions and expectations. In: Martins EP (ed) Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuett W, Dall SRX (2009) Sex differences, social context and personality in zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata. Anim Behav 77:1041–1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens JP (1992) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe RS (1988) Multiple group principal component analysis and population differentiation. J Zool 216:37–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillman EA, Genchi AC, Lindsay JR, Newman JR, Avery ML (2004) Evaluation of trapping to reduce monk parakeet populations at electric utility facilities. VPC. 21:126–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Valone TJ (1989) Group foraging, public information, and patch estimation. Oikos 56:357–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Oers K, Naguib M (2013) Avian Personality. In: Carere C, Maestripieri D (eds) Animal personalities: behaviour, physiology and evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 66–95

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Overveld T, Matthysen E (2010) Personality predicts spatial responses to food manipulations in free-ranging great tits (Parus major). Biol Lett 6:187–190

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek MEM, Drent PJ, Wiepkema PR (1994) Consistent individual differences in early exploratory behaviour of male great tits. Anim Behav 48:1113–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We extend our gratitude to the staff at Ordway–Swisher Biological Station and offer special thanks to USDA/APHIS Wildlife Research, Florida Field Station in Gainesville, FL, USA, and to several private landowners for permission to sample wild birds on their properties. We thank Kandy Keacher and Eddie Bruce for their assistance and support in the maintenance and housing of monk parakeets, and Michael Avery for insights into experimental design. We also appreciate many valuable discussions with students in the laboratories of Sieving, St Mary, and Rebecca Kimball at the University of Florida.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA

    Ping Huang & Colette M. St. Mary

  2. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA

    Kaan Kerman & Kathryn E. Sieving

Authors
  1. Ping Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kaan Kerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathryn E. Sieving
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Colette M. St. Mary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ping Huang.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huang, P., Kerman, K., Sieving, K.E. et al. Evaluating the novel-environment test for measurement of exploration by bird species. J Ethol 34, 45–51 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-015-0444-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-015-0444-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation