Animal Cognition

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 755–764 | Cite as

Means–end comprehension in four parrot species: explained by social complexity

  • Anastasia Krasheninnikova
  • Stefan Bräger
  • Ralf Wanker
Original Paper

Abstract

A comparative approach is required to investigate the evolutionary origins of cognitive abilities. In this paper, we compare the performance of four parrot species, spectacled parrotlets (Forpus conspicillatus), rainbow lorikeets (Trichoglossus haematodus), green-winged macaws (Ara chloroptera) and sulphur-crested cockatoos (Cacatua galerita triton) in standardized string-pulling and string-choice paradigms. We varied the spatial relationship between the strings, the presence of a reward and the physical contact between the string and the reward to test different cognitive skills requiring means–end comprehension. The species tested showed a high individual and inter-specific variation in their ability to solve the tasks. Spectacled parrotlets performed best among the four species and solved the most complex choice tasks, namely crossed-string task and broken-string task, spontaneously. In contrast, macaws and cockatoos failed to identify the correct string in these two tasks. The rainbow lorikeets were outperformed by the parrotlets, but outperformed in turn the macaws and the cockatoos. The findings can be best explained by the variation in social complexity among species, rather than in their ecology.

Keywords

Ara chloroptera Cacatua galerita triton Comparative cognition Forpus conspicillatus Means–end relationship Trichoglossus haematodus 

References

  1. Altevogt R (1953) Über das “Schöpfen” einiger Vogelarten. Behaviour 4:147–152Google Scholar
  2. Bagozkaya MS, Smirnova AA, Zorina ZA (2010) Comparative study of the ability to solve a string-pulling task in Corvidae. Zh Vyssh Nerv Deyat 60:321–329Google Scholar
  3. Burish MJ, Kueh HY, Wang SSH (2004) Brain architecture and social complexity in modern and ancient birds. Brain Behav Evol 63:107–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman T (2005) The status and impact of the rainbow lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus moluccanus) in South-West Western Australia, Department of Agriculture miscellaneous publication 04/2005Google Scholar
  5. Dunbar RIM (1998) The social brain hypothesis. Evol Anthropol 6:178–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunbar RIM (2008) Cognitive constraints on the structure and dynamics of social networks. Group Dyn Theor Res 12:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2004) The mentality of crows: convergent evolution of intelligence in corvids and apes. Science 306:1903–1907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forshaw JM (2002) Australian parrots, 3rd edn. Alexander Editions, RobinaGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilardi JD, Munn CA (1998) Patterns of activity, flocking, and habitat use in parrots of the Peruvian Amazon. Condor 100:641–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harvey PH, Clutton-Brock TH, Mace GM (1980) Brain size and ecology in small mammals and primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77:4387–4389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haverschmidt F (1954) Evening flights of Southern Everglade Kite and the Blue and Yellow Macaw in Surinam. Wilson Bull 66:254–255Google Scholar
  12. Heinrich B (1995) An experimental investigation of insight in common ravens (Corvus corax). Auk 112:994–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heinrich B, Bugnyar T (2005) Testing problem solving in ravens: string pulling to reach food. Ethology 111:962–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koutsos EA, Matson KD, Klasing KC (2001) Nutrition of birds in the order Psittaciformes: a review. J Avian Med Surg 15:257–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krasheninnikova A, Wanker R (2010) String-pulling in spectacled parrotlets (Forpus conspicillatus). Behaviour 147:725–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lefebvre L, Sol D (2008) Brains, lifestyles and cognition: are there general trends? Brain Behav Evol 72:135–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liedtke J, Werdenich D, Gajdon G, Huber L, Wanker R (2011) Big brains are not enough: performance of three parrot species in the trap-tube paradigm. Anim Cogn 14:143–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marler P (1996) Are primates smarter than birds? Curr Ornithol 13:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pepperberg IM (2004) “Insightful” string-pulling in Grey Parrots (Psittacus erithacus) is affected by vocal competence. Anim Cogn 7:263–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ratcliffe JM, Fenton MB, Shettleworth SJ (2006) Behavioral flexibility positively correlated with relative brain volume in predatory bats. Brain Behav Evol 67:165–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reader SM, MacDonald K (2003) Environmental variability and primate behavioural flexibility. In: Reader SM, Laland KN (eds) Animal innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 83–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schuck-Paim C, Borsari A, Ottoni EB (2009) Means to an end: neotropical parrots manage to pull strings to meats their goal. Anim Cogn 12:287–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seibt U, Wickler W (2006) Individuality in problem solving: string pulling in two carduelis species (Aves: passeriformes). Ethology 112:493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2002) What are big brains for? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:4141–4142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sol D, Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Lefebvre L (2005) Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:5460–5465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Styche A (2000) Distribution and behavioural ecology of the sulphur-crested cockatoo (Cacatua galerita L.) in New Zealand. PhD thesis, Victoria University, Wellington/New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  27. Taylor AH, Medina FS, Holzhaider JC, Hearne LJ, Hunt GR, Gray RD (2010) An investigation into the cognition behind spontaneous string pulling in New Caledonian crows. PLoS ONE 5:e9345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ulrich S, Ziswiller V, Bregulla H (1972) Biologie und Ethologie des Schmalbindenloris, Trichoglossus haematodus massena Bonaparte. Zool Garten N F 42:51–94Google Scholar
  29. Uribe F, Nos R, Camerino M (1982) Differences between the social behaviour of two species of Macaws of the genus Ara (Aves, Psittacidae) in captivity. Misc Zool 6:103–108Google Scholar
  30. Utschick H, Brandl R (1989) Roosting activities of the Rainbow Lory (Trichoglossus haematodus) at Wau, Papua New Guinea. Spixiana 11:303–310Google Scholar
  31. Vince MA (1961) “String-pulling” in birds. III: the successful response in greenfinches and canaries. Behaviour 17:103–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wanker R (2002) Social system and acoustic communication of spectacled parrotlets (Forpus conspicillatus): research in captivity and in the wild. In: Mettke-Hofmann C, Ganzloßer U (eds) Bird research and breeding. Filander Verlag, FürthGoogle Scholar
  33. Wanker R, Cruz Bernate L, Franck D (1996) Socialization of spectacled parrotlets (Forpus conspicillatus): the role of parents, crèches in siblings groups in nature. J Ornithol 137:447–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Waterhouse RD (1997) Some observations on the ecology of the Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus in Oatley, south Sydney. Corella 21:17–24Google Scholar
  35. Werdenich D, Huber L (2006) A case of quick problem solving in birds: string pulling in keas, Nestor notabilis. Anim Behav 71:855–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wright TF, Schirtzinger ER, Matsumoto T, Eberhard JR, Graves GR, Sanchez JJ, Capelli S, Müller H, Scharpegge J, Chambers GK, Fleischer RC (2008) A molecular phylogeny of the parrots (Psittaciformes): support for a Gondwanan origin during the Cretaceous. Mol Biol Evol 25:2141–2156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anastasia Krasheninnikova
    • 1
  • Stefan Bräger
    • 2
  • Ralf Wanker
    • 1
  1. 1.Biozentrum Grindel, Department of BiologyUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.SchellhornGermany

Personalised recommendations