Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 291–298 | Cite as

Does urbanization facilitate individual recognition of humans by house sparrows?

  • Ernő Vincze
  • Sándor Papp
  • Bálint Preiszner
  • Gábor Seress
  • András Liker
  • Veronika Bókony
Original Paper


Wild animals living in proximity to humans may benefit from recognizing people individually and adjusting their behaviour to the potential risk or gain expected from each person. Although several urban-dwelling species exhibit such skills, it is unclear whether this is due to pre-existing advanced cognitive abilities of taxa predisposed for city life or arises specifically in urban populations either by selection or through ontogenetic changes facilitated by exposure to humans. To test these alternatives, we studied populations of house sparrows (Passer domesticus) along the urbanization gradient. We manipulated the birds’ experience (hostile or not) associated with humans with different faces (masks) and measured their behavioural responses to the proximity of each person. Contrary to our expectations, we found that while rural birds showed less fear of the non-hostile than of the hostile or an unfamiliar person, urban birds made no distinction. These results indicate that house sparrows are less able to recognize individual humans or less willing to behaviourally respond to them in more urbanized habitats with high human population density. We propose several mechanisms that may explain this difference, including reduced pay-off of discrimination due to a low chance of repeated interactions with city people, or a higher likelihood that city people will ignore them.


Urban–rural gradient Avian cognition Human disturbance House sparrow 



We thank András Péter for providing Solomon Coder. Birds were housed at Veszprém Zoo. The research was financed by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA, K84132). During the study, A.L. was supported by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship. During the preparation of the manuscript, we were supported by the European Union, with the co-funding of the European Social Fund (S.P., B.P., and E.V. by TÁMOP-4.2.2.A-11/1/KONV-2012-0064, and V.B. by TÁMOP-4.2.4.A/2-11/1-2012-0001 ‘National Excellence Program’).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures were in accordance with Hungarian laws and licensed by the Middle Transdanubian Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, Natural Protection and Water Management (permission number: 31559/2011).

Supplementary material

10071_2014_799_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (204 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 203 kb)
10071_2014_799_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (93 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 93 kb)


  1. Anderson TR (2006) Biology of the ubiquitous house sparrow: from genes to populations. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belguermi A, Bovet D, Pascal A, Prévot-Julliard A-C, Saint Jalme M, Rat-Fischer L, Leboucher G (2011) Pigeons discriminate between human feeders. Anim Cogn 14:909–914. doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0420-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamini Y, Drai D, Elmer G, Kafkafi N, Golani I (2001) Controlling the false discovery rate in behavior genetics research. Behav Brain Res 125:279–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bókony V, Kulcsár A, Liker A (2010) Does urbanization select for weak competitors in house sparrows? Oikos 119:437–444. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17848.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bókony V, Seress G, Nagy S, Lendvai ÁZ, Liker A (2012) Multiple indices of body condition reveal no negative effect of urbanization in adult house sparrows. Landsc Urban Plan 104:75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bókony V, Lendvai ÁZ, Vágási CI, Pătraş L, Pap PL, Németh J, Vincze E, Papp S, Preiszner B, Seress G, Liker A (2014) Necessity or capacity? Physiological state predicts problem-solving performance in house sparrows. Behav Ecol 25:124–135. doi: 10.1093/beheco/art094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boogert NJ, Monceau K, Lefebvre L (2010) A field test of behavioural flexibility in Zenaida doves (Zenaida aurita). Behav Processes 85:135–141. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.06.020 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 6:e18859. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018859 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carter J, Lyons NJ, Cole HL, Goldsmith AR (2008) Subtle cues of predation risk: starlings respond to a predator’s direction of eye-gaze. Proc R Soc B 275:1709–1715. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0095 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clucas B, Marzluff JM (2012) Attitudes and actions toward birds in urban areas: human cultural differences influence bird behavior. Auk 129:8–16. doi: 10.1525/auk.2011.11121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook RG, Levison DG, Gillett SR, Blaisdell AP (2005) Capacity and limits of associative memory in pigeons. Psychon Bull Rev 12:350–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis H, Gibson JA (2000) Can rabbits tell humans apart? Discrimination of individual humans and its implications for animal research. Comp Med 50:483–485PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. De Azevedo CS, Silva KS, Ferraz JB, Tinoco HP, Young RJ, Rodrigues M (2012) Does people’s knowledge about an endangered bird species differ between rural and urban communities? The case of the Greater Rhea (Rhea americana, Rheidae) in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Rev Bras Ornitol 20:8–18Google Scholar
  14. Dittrich L, Adam R, Unver E, Güntürkün O (2010) Pigeons identify individual humans but show no sign of recognizing them in photographs. Behav Processes 83:82–89. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.10.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Davies ZG, Armsworth PR, Gaston KJ (2012) Interactions between people and birds in urban landscapes. In: Lepczyk CA, Warren PS (eds) Urban Bird Ecol. Conserv. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gácsi M, Miklósi A, Varga O, Topál J, Csányi V (2004) Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Anim Cogn 7:144–153. doi: 10.1007/s10071-003-0205-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hampton R (1994) Sensitivity to information specifying the line of gaze of humans in sparrows (Passer domesticus). Behaviour 130:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kendrick KM, da Costa AP, Leigh AE, Hinton MR, Peirce JW (2001) Sheep don’t forget a face. Nature 414:165–166. doi: 10.1038/35102669 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee WY, Lee S, Choe JC, Jablonski PG (2011) Wild birds recognize individual humans: experiments on magpies, Pica pica. Anim Cogn 14:817–825. doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0415-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Legendre P (2005) Species associations: the Kendall coefficient of concordance revisited. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 10:226–245. doi: 10.1198/108571105X46642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levey DJ, Londoño GA, Ungvari-Martin J, Hiersoux MR, Jankowski JE, Poulsen JR, Stracey CM, Robinson SK (2009) Urban mockingbirds quickly learn to identify individual humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:8959–8962. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811422106 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liker A, Papp Z, Bókony V, Lendvai ÁZ (2008) Lean birds in the city: body size and condition of house sparrows along the urbanization gradient. J Anim Ecol 77:789–795. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01402.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maklakov AA, Immler S, Gonzalez-Voyer A, Rönn J, Kolm N (2011) Brains and the city: big-brained passerine birds succeed in urban environments. Biol Lett 7:730–732. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0341 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marzluff JM, Walls J, Cornell HN, Withey JC, Craig DP (2010) Lasting recognition of threatening people by wild American crows. Anim Behav 79:699–707. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Møller AP (2010) Interspecific variation in fear responses predicts urbanization in birds. Behav Ecol 21:365–371. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arp199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mongillo P, Bono G, Regolin L, Marinelli L (2010) Selective attention to humans in companion dogs, Canis familiaris. Anim Behav 80:1057–1063. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2010) Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 85:935–956. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00141.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Overington SE, Morand-Ferron J, Boogert NJ, Lefebvre L (2009) Technical innovations drive the relationship between innovativeness and residual brain size in birds. Anim Behav 78:1001–1010. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peig J, Green AJ (2009) New perspectives for estimating body condition from mass/length data: the scaled mass index as an alternative method. Oikos 118:1883–1891. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17643.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peirce JW, Leigh AE, DaCosta APC, Kendrick KM (2001) Human face recognition in sheep: lack of configurational coding and right hemisphere advantage. Behav Processes 55:13–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Péter A (2013) Solomon Coder: a simple and free solution for behavior coding.
  32. Porter JP (1904) A preliminary study of the psychology of the English sparrow. Am J Psychol 15:313–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Racca A, Amadei E, Ligout S, Guo K, Meints K, Mills D (2010) Discrimination of human and dog faces and inversion responses in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 13:525–533. doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0303-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sætre G-P, Riyahi S, Aliabadian M, Hermansen JS, Hogner S, Olsson U, Gonzalez Rojas MF, Sæther SA, Trier CN, Elgvin TO (2012) Single origin of human commensalism in the house sparrow. J Evol Biol 25:788–796. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02470.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sasvári L (1985) Keypeck conditioning with reinforcements in two different locations in thrush, tit and sparrow species. Behav Processes 11:245–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Snell-Rood EC, Wick N (2013) Anthropogenic environments exert variable selection on cranial capacity in mammals. Proc R Soc B 280:20131384. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1384 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sol D, Lapiedra O, González-Lagos C (2013) Behavioural adjustments for a life in the city. Anim Behav 85:1101–1112. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.01.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stephan C, Wilkinson A, Huber L (2012) Have we met before? Pigeons recognise familiar human faces. Avian Biol Res 5:75–80. doi: 10.3184/175815512X13350970204867 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Suárez-Rodríguez M, López-Rull I, Garcia CM (2013) Incorporation of cigarette butts into nests reduces nest ectoparasite load in urban birds: new ingredients for an old recipe? Biol Lett 9:20120931. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0931 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ernő Vincze
    • 1
  • Sándor Papp
    • 1
  • Bálint Preiszner
    • 1
  • Gábor Seress
    • 1
  • András Liker
    • 1
  • Veronika Bókony
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of LimnologyUniversity of PannoniaVeszprémHungary
  2. 2.Lendület Evolutionary Ecology Research Group, Centre for Agricultural Research, Plant Protection InstituteHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations