Advertisement

Influence of early experience on processing 2D threatening pictures by European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)

Abstract

Stimuli such as visual representations of raptors, snakes, or humans are generally assumed to be universally fear-inducing in birds and considered as a product of evolutionary perceptual bias. Both naïve and experienced birds should thus react to such stimuli with fear reactions. However, studies on different species have shown the importance of experience in the development of these fear reactions. We hypothesized that the responses of adult European starlings to fear-inducing visual stimuli may differ according to experience. We compared the reactions of Hand-raised adults with no experience of predators to those of Wild-caught adults, with potentially extensive experience with predators. Three visual stimuli (i.e. human, raptor, snake) were broadcast to 17 birds as 2D pictures (displayed via a LCD screen) with different modalities of presentation: degree of proximity and with or without movement. The results reveal that the birds were particularly sensitive to proximity and movement, with more attention towards moving stimuli and more withdrawal for close stimuli. The human stimulus elicited attention in both the distant and moving modalities but, like the other stimuli, mostly withdrawal when it was close. Developmental experience appeared to influence the emotional level, as the Hand-raised birds reacted strongly to all stimuli and all modalities, contrarily to the WC birds which performed withdrawals almost only for close stimuli and attention to moving stimuli. Stimuli proximity and movement seemed, therefore, relevant features that elicited negative reactions in Wild-caught birds. The Hand-raised birds were equally attentive to both distant and moving stimuli. Thus the young birds showed no real discrimination. Early and later experiences may, therefore, influence birds’ reactions. Starlings may require experience with real threats to develop adaptive responses, i.e. limiting unnecessary loss of energy by fleeing in front of non-dangerous stimuli.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Andelt WF, Woolley TP, Hopper SN (1997) Effectiveness of barriers, pyrotechnics, flashing lights, and Scarey Man® for deterring heron predation on fish. Wildl Soc Bull 25:686–694

  2. Asher L, Bateson M (2008) Use and husbandry of captive European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in scientific research: a review of current practice. Lab Anim 42:111–126

  3. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Statist Soc B 57:289–300

  4. Bize P, Diaz C, Lindström J (2012) Experimental evidence that adult antipredator behaviour is heritable and not influenced by behavioural copying in a wild bird. Proc R Soc B 279: 1380–1388

  5. Blois-Heulin C (1999) Variability in social visual attention in the Red-Capped mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus torquatus) and the Grey-Cheeked mangabey (Cercocebus albigena albigena). Folia Primatol 70:264–268

  6. Blumstein DT (2003) Flight-initiation distance in birds is dependent on intruder starting distance. J Wildl Manage 67:852–857

  7. Blumstein DT, Fernández-Juricic E, Zollner PA, Garity SC (2005) Inter-specific variation in avian responses to human disturbance. J Appl Ecol 42:943–953

  8. Brilot BO, Normandale CL, Parkin A, Bateson M (2009) Can we use starlings’ aversion to eyespots as the basis for a novel ‘cognitive bias’ task? Appl Anim Behav Sci 118:182–190

  9. Burger J, Gochfeld M (1981) Discrimination of the threat of direct versus tangential approach to the nest by incubating Herring and Great Black-backed Gulls. J Comp Physiol Psychol 95:676–684

  10. Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  11. 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

  12. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1985) Social and non-social knowledge in vervet monkeys. Philos T Roy Soc B 308:187–201

  13. Conover M (1979) Response of birds to raptor models. Bird Control Seminars Proceedings. Paper 4. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmbirdcontrol/4

  14. Conover MR, Perito JJ (1981) Response of starlings to distress calls and predator models holding conspecific prey. Z Tierpsychol 57:163–172

  15. Cooper WE Jr (1997a) Threat factors affecting antipredatory behavior in the broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps): repeated approach, change in predator path, and predator’s field of view. Copeia 1997: 613–619

  16. Cooper WE Jr (1997b) Escape by a refuging prey, the broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps). Can J Zool 75:943–947

  17. Cousillas H, Mathelier M, Richard JP, Henry L, Hausberger M (2006) Social experience: a major factor in the development of a central auditory area. Naturwissenchaften 93:588–596

  18. Cousillas H, George I, Henry L et al (2008) Linking social and vocal brains: could social segregation prevent a proper development of a central auditory area in a female songbird? PLoS One 3:e2194

  19. Cummings JL, Knittle CE, Guarino JL (1986) Evaluating a pop-up scarecrow coupled with a propane exploder for reducing blackbird damage to ripening sunflower. Proceedings of the twelfth vertebrate pest conference. 20. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc12/20

  20. Curio E, Ernst U, Vieth W (1978) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. Z Tierpsychol 48:184–202

  21. Cyr NE, Romero ML (2007) Chronic stress in free-living European starlings reduces corticosterone concentrations and reproductive success. Gen Comp Endocr 151:82–89

  22. D’Eath RB (1998) Can video images imitate real stimuli in animal behaviour experiments? Biol Rev 73:267–292

  23. Dessborn L, Englund G, Elmberg J, Arzél C (2012) Innate responses of mallard ducklings towards aerial, aquatic and terrestrial predators. Behaviour 149:1299–1317

  24. Devereux CL, Whittingham MJ, Fernández-Juricic E, Vickery JA, Krebs JR (2006) Predator detection and avoidance by starlings under differing scenarios of predation risk. Behav Ecol 17:303–309

  25. Erickson WA, Marsh RE, Salmon TP (1990) A review of falconry as a bird-hazing technique. Proceedings of the fourteenth vertebrate pest conference. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc14/25

  26. Farrell TM, Weaver K, An Y-S, MacDougall-Shackleton SA (2012) Song bout length is indicative of spatial learning in European starlings. Behav Ecol 23:101–111

  27. Feare C (1984) The starling. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  28. Feenders G, Bateson M (2012) The development of stereotypic behavior in caged European starlings, Sturnus vulgaris. Dev Psychobiol 54:773–784

  29. Feinkohl A, Klump G (2011) Processing of transient signals in the visual system of the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and humans. Vision Res 51:21–25

  30. Forkman B, Boissy A, Meunier-Salaün M-C, Canali E, Jones RB (2007) A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiol Behav 92:340–374

  31. Frid A, Dill L (2002) Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol 6:11

  32. George I, Alcaix S, Henry L, Richard J-P, Cousillas H et al (2010) Neural correlates of experience-induced deficits in learned vocal communication. PLoS ONE 5(12):e14347. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014347

  33. George I, Cousillas H, Richard J-P, Hausberger M (2012) Experience with adults shapes multisensory representation of social familiarity in the brain of a songbird. PLoS ONE 7:e38764

  34. Greenwood VJ, Smith EL, Goldsmith AR, Cuthill IC, Crisp LH, Walter-Swan MB, Bennett ATD (2004) Does the flicker frequency of fluorescent lighting affect the welfare of captive European starlings? Appl Anim Behav Sci 86:145–159

  35. Griffin AS (2004) Social learning about predators: a review and prospectus. Anim Learn Behav 32:131–140

  36. Harris RE, Davis RA (1998) Evaluation of the efficacy of products and tech niques for airport bird control. LGL limited environmental research associates for Aerodrome Safety Branch, Transport Canada, Ontario

  37. Hausberger M, Henry L, Cousillas H, Mathelier M, Bourjade M (2006) Social experience, vocal learning and social cognition in the European starlings, Sturnus vulgaris. Acta Zoolog Sin 52:618–621

  38. Henry L, Le Cars K, Mathelier M et al (2008) The use of a mirror as a ‘social substitute’ in laboratory birds. C R Biol 331:526–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2008.04.005

  39. Herzog M, Hopf S (1984) Behavioral responses to species-specific warning calls in infant squirrel monkeys reared in social isolation. Am J Primatol 7:99–106

  40. Hothem RL, DeHaven RW (1982) Raptor-mimicking kites for reducing bird damage to wine grapes. Proceedings of the tenth vertebrate pest conference. 19. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc10/19

  41. Inglis IR (1980) Visual bird scarers: an ethological approach. In: Wright EN, Inglis IR, Feare CJ (Ed) Birds problems in agriculture. London British Crop Protection Council, London, pp 121–143

  42. Ivins BL, Smith AT (1983) Responses of pikas (Ochotona princeps, Lagomorpha) to naturally occurring terrestrial predators. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:277–285

  43. Jayne K, Feenders G, Bateson M (2013) Effects of developmental history on the behavioural responses of European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) to laboratory husbandry. Anim Welf 22:67–78

  44. Jones RB (1980) Reactions of male domestic chicks to two-dimensional eye-like shapes (1980). Anim Behav 28:212–218

  45. Kleindorfer SM, Fessl B, Hoi H (2005) Avian nest defence behaviour: assessment in relation to predator distance and type, and nest height. Anim Behav 69:307–313

  46. Kullberg C, Lind J (2002) An experimental study of predator recognition in Great Tit fledglings. Ethology 108:429–441

  47. Kullberg C, Jakobsson S, Fransson T (1998) Predator–induced take–off strategy in great tits (Parus major). Proc R Soc Lond B 265: 1659–1664

  48. Lind J, Hollén L, Smedberg E, Svensson U, Vallin A, Jakobsson S (2003) Detection distance influences escape behaviour in two parids, Parus major and P. caeruleus. J Avian Biol 34:233–236

  49. Marsh RE, Erickson WA, Salmon TP (1992) Scarecrows and predator models for frighteningbirds from specific areas. Proceedings of the fifteenth vertebrate pest conference 1992. 49. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc15/49

  50. Matheus JC, Wittmann U, Jahn O, Leutfeld M, Schuchmann KL (1996) Reactions of birds to nestling predation by a snake. Ornitol Neotrop 7:163–164

  51. Mineka S, Cook M (1988) Social learning and the acquisition of snake fear in monkeys. In: Zentall TR, Galef BG Jr (eds) Social learning: psychological and biological perspectives, Hillsdale, pp 51–75

  52. Ouattara K, Zuberbühler K, N’goran EK, Gombert JE, Lemasson A (2009) The alarm call system of female Campbell’s monkeys. Anim Behav 78:35–44

  53. Perret A, Henry L, Coulon M, Caudal J-P, Richard J-P, Cousillas H et al (2015) Social visual contact, a primary ‘drive’ for social animals? Anim Cogn 18:657–666

  54. Pongrácz P, Altbäcker V (2000) Ontogeny of the responses of European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) to aerial and ground predators. Can J Zoolog 78:655–665

  55. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2013; 1-3604. Available: http://web.mit.edu/r_v3.0.1/fullrefman.pdf

  56. Schleidt W, Shalter MD, Moura-Neto H (2011) The hawk/goose story: the classical ethological experiments of Lorenz and Tinbergen, revisited. J Comp Psychol 125:121–133

  57. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (1986) Vocal development in vervet monkeys. Anim Behav 34:1640–1658

  58. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (1997) Some general features of vocal development in nonhuman primates. In: Hausberger M, Snowdon CT (eds) Social influences on vocal development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 249–273

  59. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Marler P (1980) Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210:801–803

  60. Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences McGraw-Hill, New York

  61. Smith SM (1975) Innate recognition of coral snake pattern by a possible avian predator. Science 187:759–760

  62. Smith SM (1977) Coral-snake pattern recognition and stimulus generalization by naive great kiskadees (Aves: Tyrannidae). Nat Lond 265:535–536

  63. Suthers HB (1978) Analysis of a flock of starlings. Bird Banding 49:35–46

  64. Swaddle JP, Johnson CW (2007) European starlings are capable of discriminating subtle size asymmetries in paired stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav 87:39–49

  65. Templeton CN, Greene E, Davis K (2005) Allometry of alarm calls: black-capped chickadees encode information about predator size. Science 308:1934–1937

  66. Thomson RL, Tomás G, Forsman JT, Broggi J, Mönkkönen M (2010) Predator proximity as a stressor in breeding flycatchers: mass loss, stress protein induction, and elevated provisioning. Ecology 91:1832–1840

  67. Vallortigara G, Regolin L, Marconato F (2005) Visually inexperienced chicks exhibit spontaneous preference for biological motion patterns. PLoS Biol 3(7):e208

  68. Vieth W, Curio E, Ernst U (1980) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. III. Cultural transmission of enemy recognition in blackbirds: Cross-species tutoring and properties of learning. Anim Behav 28:1217–1229

  69. Walters JR (1990) Anti-predatory behavior of lapwings: field evidence of discriminative abilities. Wilson Bull 102:49–70

  70. Ydenberg RC, Dill LM (1986) The economics of fleeing from predators. Adv Study Behav 16:229–249

  71. Zoratto F, Manzari L, Oddi L, Pinxten R, Eens M, Santucci D, Alleva E, Carere C (2014) Behavioural response of European starlings exposed to video playback of conspecific flocks: effect of social context and predator threat. Behav Process 103:269–277

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by University of Rennes, CNRS and Airbus group. We are grateful to Nathalie PAPIN for her motivation for this study. We are also grateful to Emmanuel de MARGERIE and Robert MARIONNEAU for their help during the experiments, and Adrian CRAIG and Craig Symes for English proofreading and editing.

Author information

Correspondence to Laurence Henry.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (WMV 1223 KB)

Supplementary material 1 (WMV 1223 KB)

Supplementary material 2 (WMV 1629 KB)

Supplementary material 2 (WMV 1629 KB)

Supplementary material 3 (WMV 1629 KB)

Supplementary material 3 (WMV 1629 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Belin, L., Formanek, L., Heyraud, C. et al. Influence of early experience on processing 2D threatening pictures by European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Anim Cogn 21, 749–758 (2018) doi:10.1007/s10071-018-1207-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Vision
  • Perception
  • Starlings
  • Predator recognition
  • Human–animal relationship
  • Cognitive development