Abstract
Nest-building behaviour in birds may be particularly relevant to investigating the evolution of physical cognition, as nest building engages cognitive mechanisms for the use and manipulation of materials. We hypothesized that nest-building ecology may be related to physical cognitive abilities. To test our hypothesis, we used zebra finches, which have sex-differentiated roles in nest building. We tested 16 male and 16 female zebra finches on three discrimination tasks in the following order: length discrimination, flexibility discrimination, and color discrimination, using different types of string. We predicted that male zebra finches, which select and deposit the majority of nesting material and are the primary nest builders in this species, would learn to discriminate string length and flexibility-structural traits relevant to nest building-in fewer trials compared to females, but that the sexes would learn color discrimination (not structurally relevant to nest building) in a similar number of trials. Contrary to these predictions, male and female zebra finches did not differ in their speed to learn any of the three tasks. There was, however, consistent among-individual variation in performance: learning speed was positively correlated across the tasks. Our findings suggest that male and female zebra finches either (1) do not differ in their physical cognitive abilities, or (2) any cognitive sex differences in zebra finches are more specific to tasks more closely associated with nest building. Our experiment is the first to examine the potential evolutionary relationship between nest building and physical cognitive abilities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alabrudzińska J, Kaliński A, Słomczyński R et al (2003) Effects of nest characteristics on breeding success of Great Tits Parus major. Acta Ornithol 38:151–154. https://doi.org/10.3161/068.038.0202
Álvarez E, Belda EJ, Verdejo J, Barba E (2013) Variation in Great Tit nest mass and composition and its breeding consequences: a comparative study in four Mediterranean habitats. Avian Biol Res 6:39–46. https://doi.org/10.3184/175815513X13609517587237
Auersperg AMI, Huber L, Gajdon GK (2011) Navigating a tool end in a specific direction: Stick-tool use in kea (Nestor notabilis). Biol Lett 7:825–828. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0388
Auersperg AMI, Szabo B, Von Bayern AMP, Kacelnik A (2012) Spontaneous innovation in tool manufacture and use in a Goffin’s cockatoo. Curr Biol 22:R903–R904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.002
Auersperg A, Teschke I, Tebbich S (2017) Physical cognition and tool use in birds. In: Avian cognition, pp 163–183
Bailey IE, Morgan KV, Bertin M et al (2014) Physical cognition: birds learn the structural efficacy of nest material. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3225
Barber I, Nairn D, Huntingford FA (2001) Nests as ornaments: revealing construction by male sticklebacks. Behav Ecol 12:390–396. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/12.4.390
Beiko J, Lander R, Hampson E et al (2004) Contribution of sex differences in the acute stress response to sex differences in water maze performance in the rat. Behav Brain Res 151:239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2003.08.019
Bird CD, Emery NJ (2009) Insightful problem solving and creative tool modification by captive nontool-using rooks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:10370–10375. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901008106
Boogert NJ, Giraldeau LA, Lefebvre L (2008) Song complexity correlates with learning ability in zebra finch males. Anim Behav 76:1735–1741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.08.009
Boogert NJ, Madden JR, Morand-Ferron J, Thornton A (2018) Measuring and understanding individual differences in cognition. Philos Trans R Soc B 373:20170280. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0280
Breen AJ, Guillette LM, Healy SD (2016) What can nest-building birds teach us? Comp Cogn Behav Rev 11:83–102. https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2016.110005
Brust V, Wuerz Y, Krüger O (2013) Behavioural flexibility and personality in zebra finches. Ethology 119:559–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12095
Brust V, Krüger O, Naguib M, Krause ET (2014) Lifelong consequences of early nutritional conditions on learning performance in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Behav Process 103:320–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.01.019
Burkart JM, van Schaik CP (2016) The evolution of general intelligence. Behav Brain Sci 42:1–65. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16000959
Bushby EV, Friel M, Smith L et al (2018) Factors influencing individual bariation in farm animal cognition and how to account for these statistically. Front Vet Sci 5:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00193
Camacho-Alpízar A, Eckersley T, Lambert CTCT et al (2021) If it ain’t broke don’t fix it: breeding success affects nest-building decisions. Behav Process. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2021.104336
Chiappe D, MacDonald K (2005) The evolution of domain-general mechanisms in intelligence and learning. J Gen Psychol 132:5–40. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.132.1.5-40
Cynx J (1993) Conspecific song perception in zebra finches. J Comp Psychol 107:395–402
Dawson RD, Lawrie CC, O’Brien EL (2005) The importance of microclimate variation in determining size, growth and survival of avian offspring: experimental evidence from a cavity nesting passerine. Oecologia 144:499–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0075-7
Day LB, Westcott DA, Olster DH (2005) Evolution of bower complexity and cerebellum size in bowerbirds. Brain Behav Evol 66:62–72. https://doi.org/10.1159/000085048
Edwards SC, Shoot TT, Jeffrey Martin R et al (2020) It’s not all about temperature: breeding success also affects nest design. Behav Ecol 31:1065–1072. https://doi.org/10.1093/BEHECO/ARAA052
Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2009) Tool use and physical cognition in birds and mammals. Curr Opin Neurobiol 19:27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2009.02.003
Fadem BH, Kraus DB, Sheffet RH (1986) Nest-building in gray short-tailed opossums: temperature effects and sex differences. Physiol Behav 36:667–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(86)90351-3
Guigueno MF, Sherry DF (2017) Hippocampus and spatial memory in brood parasitic cowbirds. In: Avian brood parasitism, pp 203–218
Guillette LM, Healy SD (2015) Nest building, the forgotten behaviour. Curr Opin Behav Sci 6:90–96
Guillette LM, Hoeschele M, Hahn AH, Sturdy CB (2013) Heterospecific discrimination of poecile vocalizations by zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). J Comp Psychol 127:227–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029992
Guillette LM, Hahn AH, Hoeschele M et al (2015) Individual differences in learning speed, performance accuracy and exploratory behaviour in black-capped chickadees. Anim Cogn 18:165–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0787-3
Hall ZJ, Street SE, Healy SD (2013) The evolution of cerebellum structure correlates with nest complexity. Biol Lett 9:3–6. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0687
Hansell M, Ruxton GD (2008) Setting tool use within the context of animal construction behaviour. Trends Ecol Evol 23:73–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.006
Hunt GR, Gray RD, Taylor AH (2010) Why is tool use rare in animals? In: Tool use in animals: cognition and ecology, pp 67–88
Jha NA, Kumar V (2017) Effect of no-night light environment on behaviour, learning performance and personality in zebra finches. Anim Behav 132:29–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.07.017
Johnson-Frey SH (2003) What’s so special about human tool use? Neuron 39:201–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00424-0
Jones CM, Braithwaite VA, Healy SD (2003) The evolution of sex differences in spatial ability. Behav Neurosci 117:403–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.117.3.403
Kacelnik A (2009) Tools for thought or thoughts for tools? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:10071–10072. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0904735106
Kriengwatana B, Farrell TM, Aitken SDT et al (2015) Early-life nutritional stress affects associative learning and spatial memory but not performance on a novel object test. Behaviour 152:195–218. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003239
Kriengwatana B, Spierings MJ, ten Cate C (2016) Auditory discrimination learning in zebra finches: effects of sex, early life conditions and stimulus characteristics. Anim Behav 116:99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.03.028
Liu Y, Day LB, Summers K, Burmeister SS (2016) Learning to learn: advanced behavioural flexibility in a poison frog. Anim Behav 111:167–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.018
Lois-Milevicich J, Kacelnik A, Reboreda JC (2020) Sex differences in the use of spatial cues in two avian brood parasites. Anim Cogn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01434-8
Mackintosh NJ, McGonigle B, Holgate V, Vanderver V (1968) Factors underlying improvement in serial reversal learning. Can J Psychol 22:85–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082753
Mainwaring MC, Nagy J, Hauber ME (2021) Sex-specific contributions to nest building in birds. Behav Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arab035
Matzel LD, Han YR, Grossman H et al (2003) Individual differences in the expression of a “general” learning ability in mice. J Neurosci 23:6423–6433. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.23-16-06423.2003
Møller AP, Adriaensen F, Artemyev A et al (2014) Variation in clutch size in relation to nest size in birds. Ecol Evol 4:3583–3595. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1189
Mueller AJ, Miller KD, Bowers EK (2019) Nest microclimate during incubation affects posthatching development and parental care in wild birds. Sci Rep 9:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41690-4
Muth F, Healy SD (2011) The role of adult experience in nest building in the zebra finch, Taeniopygia guttata. Anim Behav 82:185–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.04.021
Muth F, Healy SD (2014) Zebra finches select nest material appropriate for a building task. Anim Behav 90:237–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.008
Muth F, Tripodi AD, Bonilla R et al (2021) No sex differences in learning in wild bumblebees. Behav Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arab013
Perdue BM, Snyder RJ, Zhihe Z et al (2011) Sex differences in spatial ability: a test of the range size hypothesis in the order Carnivora. Biol Lett 7:380–383. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.1116
Perrot-Sinal TS, Kostenuik MA, Ossenkopp KP, Kavaliers M (1996) Sex differences in performance in the Morris water maze and the effects of initial nonstationary hidden platform training. Behav Neurosci 110:1309–1320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.110.6.1309
R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/
Sargent TD (1965) The role of experience in the nest building of the zebra finch. Auk 82:48–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/4082794
Searcy WA, Brenowitz EA (1988) Sexual differences in species recognition of avian song. Nature 332:152–154. https://doi.org/10.1038/332152a0
Seed AM, Tebbich S, Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2006) Investigating physical cognition in rooks, Corvus frugilegus. Curr Biol 16:697–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.02.066
Smith AP (1978) An investigation of the mechanisms underlying nest construction in the mud wasp Paralastor sp. (Hymenoptera: Eumenidae). Anim Behav 26:232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(78)90023-4
Soler JJ, De Neve L, Martínez JG, Soler M (2001) Nest size affects clutch size and the start of incubation in magpies: an experimental study. Behav Ecol 12:301–307. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/12.3.301
Soler JJ, Morales J, Cuervo JJ, Moreno J (2019) Conspicuousness of passerine females is associated with the nest-building behaviour of males. Biol J Linn Soc 126:824–835. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blz015
Stout D, Chaminade T (2012) Stone tools, language and the brain in human evolution. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 367:75–87. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0099
Taylor AH, Gray RD (2014) Is there a link between the crafting of tools and the evolution of cognition? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 5:693–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1322
Teschke I, Tebbich S (2011) Physical cognition and tool-use: performance of Darwin’s finches in the two-trap tube task. Anim Cogn 14:555–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0390-9
Teschke I, Cartmill EA, Stankewitz S, Tebbich S (2011) Sometimes tool use is not the key: no evidence for cognitive adaptive specializations in tool-using woodpecker finches. Anim Behav 82:945–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.032
Teschke I, Wascher CAF, Scriba MF et al (2013) Did tool-use evolve with enhanced physical cognitive abilities? Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0418
van Horik JO, Madden JR (2016) A problem with problem solving: motivational traits, but not cognition, predict success on novel operant foraging tasks. Anim Behav 114:189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.02.006
Walsh PT, Hansell M, Borello WD, Healy SD (2010) Repeatability of nest morphology in African weaver birds. Biol Lett 6:149–151. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0664
Walsh PT, Hansell M, Borello WD, Healy SD (2011) Individuality in nest building: Do Southern Masked weaver (Ploceus velatus) males vary in their nest-building behaviour? Behav Process 88:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2011.06.011
Walsh PT, Hansell M, Borello WD, Healy SD (2013) Are elaborate bird nests built using simple rules? Avian Biol Res 6:157–162. https://doi.org/10.3184/175815513X13629302805186
Williams H, Cynx J, Nottebohm F (1989) Timbre control in zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) song syllables. J Comp Psychol 103:366–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.103.4.366
Zann RA (1996) The zebra finch: a synthesis of field and laboratory studies, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Acknowledgements
We thank Tristan Eckersley for assistance in designing the experiment and breeding the birds used for the experiment, Isaac Lank for his help in setting up the equipment and experimental apparatuses, and the University of Alberta animal care staff for their work in helping care for the birds. This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (RGPIN-2019-04733, NSERC DGECR-2019-00173), the Department of Psychology at the University of Alberta, and a Start-up Grant from the Faculty of Science at the University of Alberta (UOFAB SF FAC SCI). CTL was funded in part by the Alberta Graduate Excellence Scholarship from the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research of the University of Alberta.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CTL and LMG developed and designed the experiment with input from GB and AC-A. CTL collected the data and provided bird care with help from GB and AC-A. CTL analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript with input from GB, AC-A and LMG. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest in this research. The data from this research and the code used to analyze these data are available as supplementary electronic material.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
10071_2021_1577_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx
Supplementary file1. The data used for the experiment in an excel file, including a key explaining the column headings for each data sheet. (XLSX 44 kb)
Supplementary file3. A video showing a passing trial for each of the three discrimination tasks. (MP4 32508 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lambert, C.T., Balasubramanian, G., Camacho-Alpízar, A. et al. Do sex differences in construction behavior relate to differences in physical cognitive abilities?. Anim Cogn 25, 605–615 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01577-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01577-2