Category Archives: Birds

Figaro: remarkable among tools or example of cockatoo capabilities?

Photo Credit: Alice Auersperg

A recent bit appeared in the “Correspondence” area of Current Biology pertaining to spontaneous tool use. The article is quite brief so definitely read it here. Tool use is not rare in birds, but is usually observed in corvids. This paper gives an example of spontaneous tool use in Goffin’s Cockatoos (Cacatua goffini) which are corellas that live in social groups.  “Figaro” is the star of this paper and it is basically presented as anecdotal observations. The authors did their best to quantify the behavior and while as a rule I dislike articles that refer to individual animals by name, this article is not trying to be something that it’s not. A pet bird in a group of birds did something cool. Figaro makes tools out of bamboo and twigs to rake food into his cage where he can reach it (Figure below). Figaro lives with two buddies, “Heidi” and “Pippin” who did not fare quite so well when given the task to make and use tools.

No tool use has been observed in the wild for Goffin’s Cockatoos, but it is possible that it does occur in the wild, perhaps they have the capacity for tool use or Figaro is just someone’s remarkable pet.

 

Blue-faced Parrotfinch moms have more sons in low quality rearing environments

Photo Credit: David Blank
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/resources/david_blank/Etrichroa1.jpg/view.html

A paper came out last month from Sarah Pryke and Lee Rollins (link to full text here) investigating the evolutionary theory predictions of mothers adjusting sex-ratios. The theory in short would suggest that mothers adjust the ratio when the gain of fitness or costs of rearing differs between the sexes. The goal is to maximize fitness. If sons for example are more costly to rear and the female is in a low quality environment with poor body condition she should produce fewer sons. On the other hand, theory predicts that when resources are high the sex-ratio should favor the sex that will reap the highest benefits. This is just a theory and there are many studies in a variety of vertebrates with variations in sex-ratios in response to conditions.

This particular paper pertains to the blue-faced parrotfinch (Erythrura trichroa) which is not sexually dimorphic. This study is particularly interesting because it separates two variables possibly affecting sex-ratio adjustment: maternal condition and rearing environment (nutritional quality). Adult blue-faced parrotfinches are pretty resistant to changes in diet. This means that the treatment of low or high quality diet will change the rearing environment but not the parental body condition.

The authors found that the sex-ratio resulting from low quality diets was around 73% male while the high quality diets resulted in 48% male. Beyond that, female offspring on low quality diets had a much great incidence of mortality when compared with males. These two pieces of evidence taken together suggest that moms adjust to have more sons because the males will fare better in the low quality environment.

So…..why do males fare better in low quality environments? There is no significant difference in birth weight and again the blue-faced parrotfinch is not sexually dimorphic. There should be no difference in the cost to the mother from having males or females.  The paper brings up the point of the heterogametic sex being the weaker sex because of sex-linked recessive alleles. (female birds are ZW) This phenomenon can be seen in other monomorphic birds as well.

Blue-footed Booby Monday

We commonly think of the blue-footed booby (Sula nebouxii) as living on the Galápagos Islands, but they are found on many other Pacific tropical islands. These birds are sexually dimorphic and the female is around 30% larger than the male. The blue-footed booby is best known for its elaborate mating dance which can be seen in the National Geographic video below.

Great White Pelican Moms get creative!

Mothers often take drastic measures to care for their young and the Great White Pelican is no exception. Check out the video below from the BBC “Life” series.

 

Who you calling a lyre (bird)?

The superb lyre bird (Menura novaehollandiae) has the incredible ability to imitate the songs of other birds and even some environmental noise.

Check out the incredible video below from the BBC’s “Life of Birds”.

 

Male bowerbirds recycle

If you’ve ever had important weekend guests that you want to impress you know that decorating your place can be costly in terms of time and resources. The male bowerbird knows this all too well.

Bowerbirds are known to reuse nonbodily ornaments from years past to redecorate. Just like your Mom at Christmastime, these guys are trekking down to the basement to bring out the old stuff. This saves your family time and resources that would be spent on new stuff and presumably does the same for the bowerbird. Natalie Doerr in a recent Animal Behaviour article (click here for the link to the full paper) examined great bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus nuchalis)  behavior and matched up males with similar numbers of ornaments. The decorations were removed for the test male and his control counterpart kept all of his decorations. The author found, not surprisingly that the males that lost their past ornaments acquired and stole more ornaments than their control counterparts. Interestingly, there was a positive correlation between the original number of ornaments and the number obtained after removal. If males are recycling the ornaments from the past then superior males (in terms of ornaments) will compound their advantage over other males year after year making it easier for females to distinguish the best dressed nest.

If you missed the past post on bowerbirds, then check it out below.

 

Old tits conform to neighbours and young tits rebel

Guest Post by Stephen Heap, PhD Candidate University of Melbourne

Animals must make decisions about where to breed, since some places are better than others in terms of how much reproduction can be accomplished. Individuals can sometimes make better decisions by observing others and either copying them, if it looks like a good choice, or doing the opposite, if it looks like a bad choice. A recent study by Olli Loukola (Animal Behaviour 83: 629-633) (click on link here) and colleagues aimed to determine if the great tit (Parus major) copied or rejected the nest site decisions made by other breeders of its species.

The researchers set up nest boxes in a habitat used by great tits for breeding. These boxes either had a circle or triangle shape placed over them (see Figure). The researchers faked decisions made by other breeders by putting egg clutches in some of the nests. Other pairs looking to choose their own nest will thus think that another pair has chosen a circle or triangle nest. The researchers used two different clutch sizes in the fake nests. Some had relatively many eggs, making it look like a good breeding attempt, and some had few eggs, making it look like a poor attempt. Breeding pairs were expected to use the information on this phoney nest site to make their own decisions, by either copying or rejecting the symbol above a nearby fake nest. Furthermore, breeding pairs were expected to base their decision on how well the nest appeared to be doing, copying nest sites that had more eggs (apparently a good decision) and rejecting nests that only had a few eggs (apparently a bad decision).

What actually happened was that breeding pairs ignored how many eggs were in the fake nests when making their own decisions. However, pairs that had an older male partner tended to copy the fake decision, but pairs with younger males tended to reject the fake decision (see Figure). That is, older males tended to occupy nests with the same symbols as the fake nest and younger males occupied nests with different symbols.

So why do young males try to be different and old males try to be the same as other breeders? The researchers interpreted the use of the nest site’s symbol as a signal to other breeders. Older males, who are more competitive, may choose a nest with the same symbol as their neighbour as a challenge for dominance. Younger males, on the other hand, may choose a nest with a different symbol to signal their willingness to submit to their neighbour. However, this interpretation makes a lot of assumptions about the use of arbitrary symbols on nest boxes. For instance, why would great tits, who have never being exposed to nest boxes with geometric symbols on them as part of their evolutionary history, incorporate such symbols into a communication system? The behaviour becomes increasingly more puzzling when we consider that decisions about nesting site are ultimately made by the female, not the male, of a pair. Are males coercing females into choosing a site based on some competitive game between neighbouring males? Or is the other way around? Are females taking the age of their male partners into account, pitting competitive males against one another and keeping younger, less competitive, partners from the fray? It could even be that females with younger partners are signalling to their male neighbour that there won’t be much competition if he wants some extra-pair copulations (i.e. cuckoldry). Clearly, more studies are needed to make sense of an individual’s age and sex affecting the manner in which it responds to the behaviour of others, yet this study still highlights the complexity of social information use in animals.