Animal Cognition

, 14:909 | Cite as

Pigeons discriminate between human feeders

  • Ahmed Belguermi
  • Dalila Bovet
  • Anouck Pascal
  • Anne-Caroline Prévot-Julliard
  • Michel Saint Jalme
  • Lauriane Rat-Fischer
  • Gérard Leboucher
Short Communication

Abstract

Considered as plague in many cities, pigeons in urban areas live close to human activities and exploit this proximity to find food which is often directly delivered by people. In this study, we explored the capacity of feral pigeons to take advantage of this human-based food resource and discriminate between friendly and hostile people. Our study was conducted in an urban park. Pigeons were fed by two experimenters of approximately the same age and skin colour but wearing coats of different colours. During the training sessions, the two human feeders displayed different attitudes: one of the feeders was neutral and the second was hostile and chased away the pigeons. During the two test phases subsequent to the training phase, both feeders became neutral. Two experiments were conducted, one with one male and one female feeder and the second with two female feeders. In both experiments, the pigeons learned to quickly (six to nine sessions) discriminate between the feeders and maintained this discrimination during the test phases. The pigeons avoided the hostile feeder even when the two feeders exchanged their coats, suggesting that they used stable individual characteristics to differentiate between the experimenter feeders. Thus, pigeons are able to learn quickly from their interactions with human feeders and use this knowledge to maximize the profitability of the urban environment. This study provides the first experimental evidence in feral pigeons for this level of human discrimination.

Keywords

Feral pigeons Foraging behaviour Inter-specific recognition 

References

  1. Adachi I, Kuwahata H, Fujita K (2007) Dogs recall their owner’s face upon hearing the owner’s voice. Anim Cogn 10:17–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aust U, Huber L (2001) The role of item- and category-specific information in the discrimination of people versus non-people images by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 29:107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aust U, Huber L (2003) Elemental versus configural perception in a people-present/people-absent discrimination task by pigeons. Learn Behav 31:213–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burger B (1984) Grebes nesting in gull colonies: protective associations and early warning. Am Nat 123:327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook RG (Ed) (2001) Avian visual cognition. Available via: www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/
  7. Cook RG, Cavoto BR, Katz JS, Cavoto KK (1997) Pigeon perception and discrimination of rapidly changing texture stimuli. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 23:390–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dittrich WH, Lea SEG (2001) Motion discrimination and recognition. In: Cook RG (ed) Avian visual cognition. Available via: http://pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/dittrich/ default.htm
  9. Dittrich L, Adam R, Ünver E, Güntürkün O (2010) Pigeons identify individual humans but show no sign of recognizing them in photographs. Behav Process 83:82–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gompertz T (1956) Some observation on the feral pigeon in London. Bird Study 4:2–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodale E, Kotagama SW (2005) Alarm calling in Sri Lankan mixed species bird flocks. Auk 122:108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halpin ZT (1991) Kin recognition cues of vertebrates. In: Hepper PG (ed) Kin recognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 220–258Google Scholar
  13. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH (1964) Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science 146:549–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huber L (2001) Visual categorization in pigeons. In: Cook RG (ed) Avian visual cognition. Available via: http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/huber/default.htm
  15. Jerolmack C (2008) How pigeons became rats: the cultural-spatial logic of problem animals. Soc Probl 55:72–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnston RF, Janiga M (1995) Feral pigeons. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Jokimaki J, Suhonen J (1998) Distribution and habitat selection of wintering birds in urban environments. Landsc Urban Plan 39:253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levey DJ, Londono GA, Ungvari-Martin J, Hiersoux MR, Jankowski JE, Poulsen JR, Stracey CM, Robinson SK (2009) Urban mockingbirds quickly learn to identify individual humans. PNAS 106:8959–8962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marzluff JM, Walls J, Cornell HN, Withey JC, Craig DP (2010) Lasting recognition of threatening people by wild American crows. Anim Behav 79:699–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1983) Generalised linear modelling. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Miklósi Á, Soproni K (2006) A comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn 9:81–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sliwa J, Duhamel JR, Pascalis O, Wirth S (2011) Spontaneous voice–face identity matching by rhesus monkeys for familiar conspecifics and humans. PNAS 108:1735–1740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sol D, Senar JC (1995) Urban pigeon population: stability, home range, and the effect of removing individuals. Can J Zool 73:1154–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sol D, Santos DM, Garcia J, Cuadrado M (1998) Competition for food in urban pigeons: the cost of being juvenile. Cooper Ornithol Soc 100:298–304Google Scholar
  25. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed Belguermi
    • 1
    • 5
  • Dalila Bovet
    • 1
  • Anouck Pascal
    • 1
  • Anne-Caroline Prévot-Julliard
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michel Saint Jalme
    • 2
  • Lauriane Rat-Fischer
    • 4
  • Gérard Leboucher
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Ethologie et Cognition ComparéesUniversité Paris Ouest Nanterre La DéfenseNanterre CedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire Conservation des Espèces, Restauration et Suivi des Populations (CERSP)UMR 7204 CNRS Museum National d’Histoire NaturelleParisFrance
  3. 3.Institut des Sciences de la Communication du CNRS (ISCC)ParisFrance
  4. 4.Laboratoire Psychologie de la PerceptionUniversité René Descartes, CNRS, UMR 8158ParisFrance
  5. 5.Laboratoire d’Ethologie et Cognition Comparées, EA 3456Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, NanterreNanterreFrance

Personalised recommendations