Advertisement

Object categorization by wild-ranging birds in nest defence

  • Nela NovákováEmail author
  • Petr Veselý
  • Roman Fuchs
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Recognition Categorization Global and local features Nest defence Red-backed shrike Kestrel 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank B. A. Christopher Mark Steer for the language improvement. We thank the Grant agency of the University of South Bohemia (048/2019/P) for financial support. We thank the government of the Podyjí National Park and the South Moravian Region for permissions to conduct the experiments within protected areas.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical note

Experiments carried out in this research comply with the current laws of the Czech Republic. Authors are licenced for animal experimentation (Czech Animal Welfare Commission No. 489/01) and for conducting laboratory experiments with titmice (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, licence no. 8809/2011-30). Faculty of Science of the University of South Bohemia has accredited breeding of titmice (Ministry of Agriculture, licence no. 9103/2009-17210).

Supplementary material

10071_2019_1329_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)

References

  1. Aust U, Huber L (2003) Elemental versus configural perception in a people-present/people-absent discrimination task by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 31(3):213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biederman I (1987) Recognition-by components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol Rev 94:115–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caro TM (2005) Antipredator defences in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cerella J (1980) The pigeon’s analysis of pictures. Pattern Recogn 12:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook RG, Wright AA, Drachman EE (2013) Categorization of birds, mammals, and chimeras by pigeons. Behav Process 93:98–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curio E (1975) The functional organization of anti-predator behaviour in the pied flycatcher: a study of avian visual perception. Anim Behav 23:1–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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):765–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 43:144–150Google Scholar
  12. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):403–410Google Scholar
  14. Kirkpatrick-Steger K, Wasserman EA, Biederman I (1996) Effects of spatial rearrangement of object components on picture recognition in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 65:465–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Korpimäki E (1985) Diet of the kestrel Falco tinnunculus in the breeding season. Ornis Fenn 62:130–137Google Scholar
  16. Krätzig H (1940) Untersuchungen zur Lebensweise des Moorschneehuhns (Lagopus l. lagopus L.) während der Jugendentwicklung. J Ornithol 88:139–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krebs JR, Davies NB (1993) An introduction to behaviour ecology, 3rd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Lefranc N (1997) Shrikes: a guide to the shrikes of the world. A&C Black, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Logothetis NK, Pauls J, Bülthoff HH, Poggio T (1994) View-dependent object recognition by monkeys. Curr Biol 4:401–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin TE (1993) Nest predation among vegetation layers and habitat types: revising the dogmas. Am Nat 141:897–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matsukawa A, Inoue S, Jitsumori M (2004) Pigeon’s recognition of cartoons: effects of fragmentation, scrambling, and deletion of elements. Behav Process 65:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nácarová J, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2018) Effect of the exploratory behaviour on a bird’s ability to categorize a predator. Behav Process 151:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Němec M, Fuchs R (2014) Nest defense of the red-backed shrike Lanius collurio against five corvid species. Acta Ethol 17(3):149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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):259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nice MM, Pelkwyk JT (1941) Enemy recognition by the song sparrow. Auk 58:195–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nováková N, Veselý P, Fuchs R (2017) Object categorization by wild ranging birds—winter feeder experiments. Behav Process 143:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patterson TL, Petrinovich L, James DK (1980) Reproductive value and appropriateness of response to predators by white-crowned sparrows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:227–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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):115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rock I, DiVita J (1987) A case of viewer-centered object perception. Cogn Psychol 19:280–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scaife M (1976) The response to eye-like shapes by birds. I. The effect of context: a predator and a strange bird. Anim Behav 24:195–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Šimek J (2001) Patterns of breeding fidelity in the Red-backed Shrike (Lanius collurio). Ornis Fennica 78:61–71Google Scholar
  32. Smith MJ, Graves HB (1978) Some factors influencing mobbing behavior in Barn Swallows (Hirundo rustica). Behav Biol 23(3):355–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 89:206–215Google Scholar
  34. 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-01726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Syrová M (2011) Artificial dummies as stimuli in field mobbing experiments—Bc. Thesis, Faculty of Sciences, The University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
  36. 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):e0159432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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):13–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Hamme LJ, Wasserman EA, Biederman I (1992) Discrimination of contour-deleted images by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 18:387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 151:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wasserman EA, Kirkpatrick-Steger K, Van Hamme LJ, Biederman I (1993) Pigeons are sensitive to the spatial organization of complex visual stimuli. Psychol Sci 4:336–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Watanabe S (2010) Pigeons can discriminate “good” and “bad” paintings by children. Anim Cogn 13(1):75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations