Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 75–82 | Cite as

Inferential reasoning and egg rejection in a cooperatively breeding cuckoo

  • Christina Riehl
  • Meghan J. Strong
  • Scott V. Edwards
Original Paper

Abstract

Inferential reasoning—associating a visible consequence with an imagined event—has been demonstrated in several bird species in captivity, but few studies have tested wild birds in ecologically relevant contexts. Here, we investigate inferential reasoning by the greater ani, a cooperatively breeding cuckoo in which several females lay eggs in one nest. Prior to laying her first egg, each female removes any eggs that have already been laid by other females in the shared nest. After laying her first egg, however, each female stops removing eggs, presumably in order to avoid accidentally rejecting her own. But are anis using inferential reasoning to track the fate of their eggs in the communal nest, or is egg ejection governed by non-cognitive determinants? We experimentally removed eggs from two-female nests after both females had laid at least one egg and used video recording to verify that both females viewed the empty nest. We waited until one female (A) laid an egg in the nest, and video recorded the behavior of the female that had not yet re-laid (B). We predicted that if capable of inferential reasoning, female B should infer that the new egg could not be her own and she should remove it. Five out of five females tested failed to make this inference, suggesting that egg removal is either determined by the female’s reproductive status or by the amount of time elapsed between egg removal and re-laying. This apparent cognitive constraint may have implications for the evolutionary stability of the anis’ unusual breeding system.

Keywords

Inferential reasoning Cognition Conspecific brood parasitism Egg recognition Egg rejection Ani 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Tom Beckers, M. Andres Blanco, Egbert G. Leigh, Jr., and an anonymous reviewer for their useful comments on the manuscript. Oris Acevedo, Belkys Jimenez, and Alison Pirie provided logistical support for field work, and William T. Wcislo provided advice on the use of video cameras. This study was supported by grants awarded to C.R. from the Putnam Expedition Fund from the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University and from the Milton Fund from Harvard University. We are grateful to the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute for their continued support of this study population and field site.

References

  1. Alves MAS, Bryant DM (2003) Responses to experimental brood parasitism in sand martins, Riparia riparia. Ibis 145:156–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bond AB, Kamil AC, Balda RP (2003) Social complexity and transitive inference in corvids. Anim Behav 65:479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown CR, Brown MB (1989) Behavioural dynamics of intraspecific brood parasitism in colonial cliff swallows. Anim Behav 37:111–196Google Scholar
  4. Buntin JD (1996) Neural and hormonal control of parental behavior in birds. Adv Stud Behav 25:161–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne RW, Bates LA (2011) Cognition in the wild: exploring animal minds with observational evidence. Biol Lett 7:619–622PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Call J (2004) Inferences about the location of food in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, and Pongo pygmaeus). J Comp Psychol 118:232–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Call J, Carpenter M (2001) Do apes and children know what they have seen? Anim Cogn 4:207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cariello MO, Macedo RHF, Schwabl HG (2006) Maternal androgens in eggs of communally breeding guira cuckoos (Guira guira). Horm Behav 49:654–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clayton NS, Dally JM, Emery NJ (2007) Social cognition by food-caching corvids. The western scrub-jay as a natural psychologist. Phil Trans R Soc B 362:507–522PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Blois TS, Novak AM, Bond M (1998) Object permanence in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus). J Comp Psychol 112:137–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de la Colina MA, Pompilio L, Hauber ME, Reboreda JC, Mahler B (2012) Different recognition cues reveal the decision rules used for egg rejection by hosts of a variably mimetic avian brood parasite. Anim Cogn 15:881–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emery NJ (2006) Cognitive ornithology: the evolution of avian intelligence. Phil Trans R Soc B 361:23–43PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emery NJ, Jally DM, Clayton NS (2004) Western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica) use cognitive strategies to protect their caches from thieving conspecifics. Anim Cogn 7:37–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erdőhegyi A, Topál J, Virányi Z, Miklósi A (2007) Dog-logic: inferential reasoning in a two- way choice task and its restricted use. Anim Behav 74:725–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldsmith AR (1983) Prolactin in avian reproductive cycles. In: Balthazart J, Prove E, Gilles R (eds) Hormones and behaviour in higher vertebrates. Springer, Berlin, pp 375–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haslam M (2013) “Captivity bias” in animal tool use and its implications for the evolution of hominin technology. Phil Trans R Soc B 368:20120421PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hogue M-E, Beaugrand JP, Laguë PC (1996) Coherent use of information by hens observing their former dominant defeating or being defeated by a stranger. Behav Process 38:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kastak CR, Schusterman RJ (2002) Sea lions and equivalence: expanding classes by exclusion. J Exp Anal Behav 78:449–465PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laidre M (2008) Spontaneous performance of wild baboons on three novel food-access puzzles. Anim Cogn 11:223–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lazareva OF, Smirnova AA, Bagozkaja MS, Zorina ZA, Rayevsky VV, Wasserman EA (2004) Transitive responding in hooded crows requires linearly ordered stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav 82:1–19PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lyon BE (2003) Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism. Nature 422:495–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McRae SB, Burke T (1996) Intraspecific brood parasitism in the moorhen: parentage and parasite-host relationships determined by DNA fingerprinting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mikolasch S, Kotrschal K, Schloegl C (2011) African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) use inference by exclusion to find hidden food. Biol Lett 7:875–877PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mikolasch S, Kotrschal K, Schloegl C (2012) Is caching the key to exclusion in corvids? The case of carrion crows (Corvus corone corone). Anim Cogn 15:73–82PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moskát C, Hauber ME (2007) Conflict between egg recognition and egg rejection decisions in common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) hosts. Anim Cogn 10:377–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moskát C, Bán M, Székely T, Komdeur J, Lucassen RWG, van Boheemen LA, Hauber ME (2010) Discordancy or template-based recognition? Dissecting the cognitive basis of the rejection of foreign eggs in hosts of avian brood parasites. J Exp Biol 213:1976–1983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Müller GE, Pilzecker A (1900) Experimentelle Beiträge zur Lehre vom Gedächtnis. Z Psychol Ergänzungsband 1:1–300Google Scholar
  28. Neiworth JJ, Steinmark E, Basil BM, Wonders R, Steely F, DeHart C (2003) A test of object permanence in a new-world monkey species, cotton top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Anim Cogn 6:27–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paz-y-Miño G, Bond AB, Kamil AC, Balda RP (2004) Pinyon jays use transitive inference to predict social dominance. Nature 430:778–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Premack D (1995) Cause/induced motion; intention/spontaneous motion. In: Changeux JP, Chavaillon J (eds) Origins of the human brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 286–308Google Scholar
  31. Premack D, Premack AJ (1994) Levels of causal understanding in chimpanzees and children. Cognition 50:347–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Riehl C (2010a) A simple rule reduces conspecific brood parasitism in a communally breeding bird. Curr Biol 20:1830–1833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Riehl C (2010b) Egg ejection risk and hatching asynchrony predict egg mass in a communally breeding cuckoo, the Greater Ani. Behav Ecol 21:676–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Riehl C (2011) Living with strangers: direct benefits favor non-kin cooperation in a communally breeding bird. Proc R Soc B 278:1728–1735PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Riehl C, Bogdanowicz SM (2009) Isolation and characterization of microsatellite markers from the greater ani Crotophaga major (Aves: Cuculidae) [Internet]. Mol Ecol Res http://tomato.biol.trinity.edu/manuscripts/9-6/mer-09-0270.pdf
  36. Riehl C, Jara L (2009) Natural history and reproductive biology of the communally breeding greater ani (Crotophaga major) at Gatún Lake, Panama. Wilson J Ornithol 121:679–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rothstein SI (1974) Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: possible learned and innate factors. Auk 91:796–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sabbatini G, Visalberghi E (2008) Inferences about the location of food in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) in two sensory modalities. J Comp Psychol 122:156–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schloegl C (2011) What you see is what you get—reloaded: can jackdaws (Corvus monedula) find hidden food through exclusion? J Comp Psychol 125:162–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schloegl C, Dierks A, Cajdon GK, Huber L, Kotrschal K, Bugnyar T (2009) What you see is what you get ? Exclusion performances in ravens and keas. PLoS One 4:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmaltz G, Somers CM, Sharma P, Quinn JS (2006) Non-destructive sampling of maternal DNA from the external shell of bird eggs. Conserv Genet 7:543–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmitt V, Fischer J (2009) Inferential reasoning and modality dependent discrimination learning in olive baboons (Papio hamadryas Anubis). J Comp Psychol 123:316–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sealy SG (1995) Burial of cowbird eggs by parasitized yellow warblers: an empirical and experimental study. Anim Behav 49:877–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stouffer PC, Kennedy ED, Power HW (1987) Recognition and removal of intraspecific parasite eggs by Starlings. Anim Behav 35:1583–1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tornick JK, Gibson BM (2013) Tests of inferential reasoning by exclusion in Clark’s nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana). Anim Cogn 16:583–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vehrencamp SL (1977) Relative fecundity and parental effort in anis, Crotophaga sulcirostris. Science 197:403–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weiß BM, Kehmeier S, Schloegl C (2010) Transitive inference in free-living greylag geese, Anser anser. Anim Behav 79:1277–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wynne CDL (1997) Pigeon transitive inference: tests of simple accounts of a complex performance. Behav Process 39:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yamaguchi Y (1997) Intraspecific nest parasitism and anti-parasite behavior in the grey starling, Sturnus cineraceus. J Ethol 15:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Riehl
    • 1
  • Meghan J. Strong
    • 2
  • Scott V. Edwards
    • 1
  1. 1.Museum of Comparative Zoology and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary BiologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Anthropology DepartmentCalifornia State University NorthridgeNorthridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations