Advertisement

Journal of Ethology

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 45–51 | Cite as

Evaluating the novel-environment test for measurement of exploration by bird species

  • Ping Huang
  • Kaan Kerman
  • Kathryn E. Sieving
  • Colette M. St. Mary
Article

Abstract

Novel-environment tests are the most widespread experimental technique for characterizing exploration, yet detailed evaluation of their performance among species is lacking. We compared the test for eight bird species by combining three well-known metrics of behavior: movement frequency, proportion of features visited, and scanning. In both overall and species-level analysis of our multi-group principal component analysis, all three metrics loaded strongly and similarly on one principal component, explaining comparable ranges of variation. We conclude that novel-environment tests are a robust means of quantifying exploration and that scanning behavior may be an important but under-used metric for exploration behavior.

Keywords

Exploratory behavior Novel-environment test Scanning behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We extend our gratitude to the staff at Ordway–Swisher Biological Station and offer special thanks to USDA/APHIS Wildlife Research, Florida Field Station in Gainesville, FL, USA, and to several private landowners for permission to sample wild birds on their properties. We thank Kandy Keacher and Eddie Bruce for their assistance and support in the maintenance and housing of monk parakeets, and Michael Avery for insights into experimental design. We also appreciate many valuable discussions with students in the laboratories of Sieving, St Mary, and Rebecca Kimball at the University of Florida.

References

  1. Abdi H, Williams LJ, Valentin D (2013) Multiple factor analysis: principal component analysis for miltitable and miltiblock data sets. Stat, WIREs Comput. doi: 10.1002/wics.1246 Google Scholar
  2. Augustsson H, Meyerson BJ (2004) Exploration and risk assessment: a comparative study of male house mice (Mus musculus musculus) and two laboratory strains. Physiol Behav 81:685–698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Avery ML, Tillman EA, Keacher KL, Arnett JE, Lundy KJ (2012) Biology of invasive monk parakeets in South Florida. Wilson J Ornithol 124:581–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Both C, Dingemanse NJ, Drent PJ, Tinbergen JM (2005) Pairs of extreme avian personalities have highest reproductive success. J Anim Ecol 74:667–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown JS (1999) Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol Ecol Res 1:49–71Google Scholar
  6. Budaev SV (1997) Personality in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): a correlational study of exploration behavior and social tendency. J Comp Psychol 111:399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler MW, Toomey MB, McGraw KJ, Rowe M (2012) Ontogenetic immune challenges shape adult personality in mallard ducks. Proc R Soc B 279:326–333PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. Chicage University, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Carrete M, Tella JL (2011) Inter-individual variability in fear of humans and relative brain size of the species are related to contemporary urban invasion in birds. PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/jornal.pone.0018859 Google Scholar
  10. Carter AJ, Marshall H, Heinsohn R, Cowlishaw G (2012) Evaluating animal personalities: do observer assessments and experimental tests measure the same thing? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter AJ, Feeney WE, Marshall HH, Cowlishaw G, Heinsohn R (2013) Animal personality: what are behavioural ecologists measuting? Biol Rev 88:465–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Choleris E, Thomas AW, Kavaliers M, Prato FS (2001) A detailed ethological analysis of the mouse open field test: effects of diazepam, chlordiazepoxide and an extremely low frequency pulsed magnetic field. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 25:235–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cote J (2010) Personality traits and dispersal tendency in the invasive mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). Proc R Soc B 277:1571–1579PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. De Pasille AM, Rushen J, Martin F (1995) Interpreting the behavior of calves in an open-field test: a factor analysis. Appl Anim Behav Sci 45:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dingemanse NJ, de Goede P (2004) The relation between dominance and exploration behavior is context-dependent in wild great tits. Behav Ecol 15:1023–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dingemanse NJ, Both C, Drent PJ, van Oers K, van Noordwijk AJ (2002) Repeatability and heritability of exploration behavior in great tits from the wild. Anim Behav 64:929–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dingemanse NJ, Both C, Drent PJ, Tinbergen JM (2004) Fitness consequences of avian personalities in a fluctuating environment. Proc R Soc B 271:847–852PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Eslami A, Qannari EM, Kohler A, Bougeard S (2013) General overview of methods of analysis of multi-group datasets. RNTI 25:108–123Google Scholar
  19. Eslami A, Qannari EM, Bougeard S, Questions GS, Bougeard S (2014) Multigroup: methods for multigroup data analysis. R package version 0.2Google Scholar
  20. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernández-Juricic E, Gall MD, Dolan T, O’Rourke C, Thomas S, Lynch JR (2011) Visual systems and vigilance behaviour of two ground-foraging avian prey species: white-crowned sparrow and California towhees. Anim Behav 81:705–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fletcher RJ Jr (2006) Emergent properties of conspecific attraction in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 168:207–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Forsman JT, Hjernquist MB, Gustafsson L (2009) Experimental evidence for the use of density based interspecific social information in forest birds. Ecography 32:539–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gall MD, Fernández-Juricic E (2010) Visual fields, eye movements, and scanning behavior of a sit-and-wait predator, the black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans). J Comp Physiol A 196:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Groothuis TGG, Carere C (2005) Avian personalities: characterization and epigenesist. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29:137–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Guillette L, Reddon AR, Hoeschele M, Sturdy CB (2010) Sometimes slower is better: slow-exploring birds are more sensitive to changes in a vocal discrimination task. Proc R Soc B 278:767–773PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall BK (1994) Homolody: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  28. Herborn KA, Macleod R, Miles WTS, Schofield ANB, Alexander L, Arnold KE (2010) Personality in captivity reflects personality in the wild. Anim Behav 79:835–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huang P, Sieving KE, Mary CMS (2012) Heterospecific information about predation risk influences exploration behavior. Behav Ecol 23:463–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaiser HF (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 20:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kelley AE (1993) Locomotor activity and exploration. In: van Haaren F (ed) Methods in behavioral pharmacology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 499–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kluen E, Brommer JE (2013) Context-specific repeatability of personality traits in a wild bird: a reaction-norm perspective. Behav Ecol 24:650–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kluen E, Kuhn S, Kempenaers B, Brommer JE (2012) A simple cage test captures intrinsic differences in aspects of personality across individuals in a passerine bird. Anim Behav 84:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krzanowski WJ (1979) Between-groups comparison of principal components. J Am Stat Assoc 74:703–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marchetti C, Zehtindjiev P (2009) Migratory orientation of sedge warblers (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus) in relation to eating and exploratory behaviour. Behav Process 82:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCowan LSC, Mainwaring MC, Prior NH, Griffith SC (2015) Personality in the wild zebra finch: exploration, sociality, and reproduction. Behav Ecol 26:735–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mettke-Hofmann C, Rowe KC, Hayden TJ, Canoine V (2006) Effects of experience and object complexity on exploration in garden warblers (Sylvia borin). J Zool 268:405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mettke-Hofmann C, Lorentzen S, Schlicht E, Schneider J, Werner F (2009) Spatial neophilia and spatial neophobia in resident and migratory warblers (Sylvia). Ethology 115:482–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Minderman J, Reid JM, Hughes M, Denny MJH, Hogg S, Evans PGH, Whittingham MJ (2010) Novel environment exploration and home range size in starlings Sturnus vulgaris. Behav Ecol 21:1321–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mindernan J, Reid JM, Evans PGH, Whittingham MJ (2009) Personality traits in wild starlings: exploration behavior and environmental sensitivity. Behav Ecol 20:839Google Scholar
  42. Møller AP (2010) Interspecific variation in fear responses predicts urbanization in birds. Behav Ecol. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arp199 Google Scholar
  43. Moore BA, Doppler M, Young JE, Fernández-Juricic E (2013) Interspecific differences in the visual system and scanning behavior of three forest passerines that form heterospecific flocks. J Comp Physiol A 199:263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mutzel A, Kempenaers B, Laucht S, Dingemanse NJ, Dale J (2011) Circulating testosterone levels do not affect exploration in house sparrows: observational and experimental tests. Anim Behav 81:731–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pascual J, Senar JC, Domènech J (2014) Plumage brightness, vigilance, escape potential, and predation risk in male and female Eurasian Siskins (Spinus spinus). Auk 131:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Renner MJ (1990) Neglected aspects of exploratory and investigatory behavior. Psychobiology 18:16–22Google Scholar
  47. Richardson JML (2001) A comparative study of activity levels in larval anurans and response to the presence of different predators. Behav Ecol 12:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ryan MJ (1996) Phylogenetics in behavior: some cautions and expectations. In: Martins EP (ed) Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  49. Schuett W, Dall SRX (2009) Sex differences, social context and personality in zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata. Anim Behav 77:1041–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stevens JP (1992) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  51. Thorpe RS (1988) Multiple group principal component analysis and population differentiation. J Zool 216:37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tillman EA, Genchi AC, Lindsay JR, Newman JR, Avery ML (2004) Evaluation of trapping to reduce monk parakeet populations at electric utility facilities. VPC. 21:126–129Google Scholar
  53. Valone TJ (1989) Group foraging, public information, and patch estimation. Oikos 56:357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Oers K, Naguib M (2013) Avian Personality. In: Carere C, Maestripieri D (eds) Animal personalities: behaviour, physiology and evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 66–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Overveld T, Matthysen E (2010) Personality predicts spatial responses to food manipulations in free-ranging great tits (Parus major). Biol Lett 6:187–190PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Verbeek MEM, Drent PJ, Wiepkema PR (1994) Consistent individual differences in early exploratory behaviour of male great tits. Anim Behav 48:1113–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ping Huang
    • 1
  • Kaan Kerman
    • 2
  • Kathryn E. Sieving
    • 2
  • Colette M. St. Mary
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations