Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1285–1297 | Cite as

Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation

  • David J. Pritchard
  • T. Andrew Hurly
  • Susan D. Healy
Original Paper


Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower that was placed in a constant spatial relationship with two artificial landmarks. In the first experiment, the landmarks and flower were 0.25, 0.5 or 1 m apart and we always moved them 3–4 m after each visit by the bird. In the second experiment, the landmarks and flower were always 0.25 m apart and we moved them either 1 or 0.25 m between trials. In tests, in which we removed the flower, the hummingbirds stopped closer to the predicted flower location when the landmarks had been closer to the flower during training. However, while the distance that the birds stopped from the landmarks and predicted flower location was unaffected by the distance that the landmarks moved between trials, the birds directed their search nearer to the predicted direction of the flower, relative to the landmarks, when the landmarks and flower were more stable in the environment. In the field, then, landmarks alone were sufficient for the birds to determine the distance of a reward but not its direction.


Navigation Landmarks Spatial memory Spatial cognition Orientation Hummingbirds 



We thank Ken Cheng and two anonymous reviews for their comments, which greatly improved this manuscript. We also thank Maria Tello Ramos, Rachael Marshall, Caitlin Hamilton and Jamie Dunlop for their assistance over the field season. This work was supported by the University of St Andrews, the University of Lethbridge and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada.

Supplementary material

10071_2015_896_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)


  1. Batschelet E (1981) Circular statistics in biology. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Biegler R, Morris RG (1993) Landmark stability is a prerequisite for spatial but not discrimination learning. Nature 361:631–633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Biegler R, Morris R (1996) Landmark stability: studies exploring whether the perceived stability of the environment influences spatial representation. J Exp Biol 199:187–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chamizo VD, Manteiga RD, Rodrigo T, Mackintosh NJ (2006) Competition between landmarks in spatial learning: the role of proximity to the goal. Behav Processes 71:59–65. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2005.11.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng K (1988) Some psychophysics of the pigeon’s use of landmarks. J Comp Physiol A 162:815–826CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng K (1989) The vector sum model of pigeon landmark use. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 15(4):366–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng K (1990) More psychophysics of the pigeon’s use of landmarks. J Comp Physiol A 166:857–863. doi: 10.1007/BF00187333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng K (1994) The determination of direction in landmark-based spatial search in pigeons: a further test of the vector sum model. Anim Learn Behav 22:291–301. doi: 10.3758/BF03209837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng K (1998) Distances and directions are computed separately by honeybees in landmark-based search. Anim Learn Behav 26:455–468. doi: 10.3758/BF03199239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng K, Spetch ML, Kelly DM, Bingman VP (2006) Small-scale spatial cognition in pigeons. Behav Processes 72:115–127. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2005.11.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Collett TS, Cartwright BA, Smith BA (1986) Landmark learning and visuo-spatial memories in gerbils. J Comp Physiol A 158:835–851. doi: 10.1007/BF01324825 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dyer F (1998) Cognitive ecology of navigation. In: Dukas R (ed) Cogn. Ecol. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp 201–260Google Scholar
  13. Flores-Abreu IN, Hurly TA, Healy SD (2012) One-trial spatial learning: wild hummingbirds relocate a reward after a single visit. Anim Cogn 15:631–637. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0491-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibson B, McGowan F (2014) Rats average entire vectors when navigating toward a hidden goal: a test of the vector sum model in rodents. Behav Processes 102:18–24. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.12.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson BM, Shettleworth SJ (2003) Competition among spatial cues in a naturalistic food-carrying task. Anim Learn Behav 31:143–159. doi: 10.3758/BF03195977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson BM, Wilks TJ, Kelly DM (2007) Rats (Rattus norvegicus) encode the shape of an array of discrete objects. J Comp Psychol 121:130–144. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.121.2.130 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gould KL, Kelly DM, Kamil AC (2010) What scatter-hoarding animals have taught us about small-scale navigation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 365:901–914. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0214 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gould-Beierle KL, Kamil AC (1996) The use of local and global cues by Clark’s nutcrackers, Nucifraga columbiana. Anim Behav 52:519–528. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gould-Beierle KL, Kamil AC (1999) The effect of proximity on landmark use in Clark’s nutcrackers. Anim Behav 58:477–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Healy SD, Hurly TA (1998) Rufous hummingbirds’ (Selasphorus rufus) memory for flowers: patterns or actual spatial locations? J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 24:396–404Google Scholar
  21. Healy SD, Hurly TA (2003) Cognitive ecology: foraging in hummingbirds as a model system. Adv Study Behav 32:325–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henderson J, Hurly TA, Healy SD (2006) Spatial relational learning in rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus). Anim Cogn 9:201–205. doi: 10.1007/s10071-006-0021-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hurly TA, Healy SD (2002) Cue learning by rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 28:209–223. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.28.2.209 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hurly TA, Franz S, Healy SD (2010) Do rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) use visual beacons? Anim Cogn 13:377–383. doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0280-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones JE, Antoniadis E, Shettleworth SJ, Kamil AC (2002) A comparative study of geometric rule learning by nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana), pigeons (Columba livia) and jackdaws (Corvus monedula). J Comp Psychol 116:350–356. doi: 10.1037//0735-7036.116.4.350 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kamil AC, Jones JE (2000) Geometric rule learning by Clark’s nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 26:439–453. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.26.4.439 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelly DM (2010) Features enhance the encoding of geometry. Anim Cogn 13:453–462. doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0296-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. McGregor A, Good MA, Pearce JM (2004) Absence of an interaction between navigational strategies based on local and distal landmarks. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 30:34–44. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.30.1.34 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria.
  30. Roberts ADL, Pearce JM (1998) Control of spatial behaviour by an unstable landmark. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 24:172–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts ADL, Pearce JM (1999) Blocking in the Morris swimming pool. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 25:225–235. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.25.2.225 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shettleworth S (2009) Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Spetch ML (1995) Overshadowing in landmark learning: touch-screen studies with pigeons and humans. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 21:166–181. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.21.2.166 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Spetch ML, Wilkie DM (1994) Pigeons′ use of landmarks presented in digitized images. Learn Motiv 25:245–275. doi: 10.1006/lmot.1994.1014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wagner AR, Logan FA, Haberlandt K, Price T (1968) Stimulus selection in animal discrimination learning. J Exp Psych 76(2):171–180. doi: 10.1037/h0030023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Pritchard
    • 1
  • T. Andrew Hurly
    • 2
  • Susan D. Healy
    • 1
  1. 1.School of BiologyUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada

Personalised recommendations