|
|
Schmidt, J., Scheid, C., Kotrschal, K., Bugnyar, T., & Schloegl, C. (2011). Gaze direction – A cue for hidden food in rooks (Corvus frugilegus)? Behavioural Processes, 88(2), 88–93.
Abstract: Other individual's head- and eye-directions can be used as social cues indicating the presence of important events. Among birds, ravens and rooks have been shown to co-orient with conspecifics and with humans by following their gaze direction into distant space and behind visual screens. Both species use screens to cache food in private; also, it had been suggested that they may rely on gaze cues to detect hidden food. However, in an object-choice task, ravens failed to do so, and their competitive lifestyle may have prevented them from relying on these cues. Here we tested closely related and cooperative rooks. Food was hidden in one of two cups and the experimenter gazed at the baited cup. In a second experiment, we aimed to increase the birds’ motivation to choose correctly by increasing the investment needed to obtain the reward. To do so, the birds had to pull on a string to obtain the cup. Here, the birds as a group tended to rely on gaze cues. In addition, individual birds quickly learned to use the cue in both experiments. Although rooks may not use gaze cues to find hidden food spontaneously, they may quickly learn to do so.
|
|
|
|
Bugnyar, T., & Kotrschal, K. (2004). Leading a conspecific away from food in ravens ( Corvus corax)? Anim. Cogn., 7(2), 69–76.
Abstract: Active misleading of conspecifics has been described as a social strategy mainly for primates. Here we report a raven leading a competitor away from food in a social foraging task. Four individuals had to search and compete for hidden food at color-marked clusters of artificial food caches. At the beginning of the experiment, a subordinate male found and exploited the majority of the food. As a result, the dominant male displaced him from the already opened boxes. The subordinate male then developed a pattern, when the loss of reward to the dominant got high, of moving to unrewarded clusters and opening boxes there. This diversion often led the dominant to approach those unrewarded clusters and the subordinate then had a head start for exploiting the rewarded boxes. Subsequently, however, the dominant male learned not to follow the subordinate to unrewarded clusters and eventually started searching for the reward himself. These interactions between the two males illustrate the ravens' potential for deceptively manipulating conspecifics. We discuss under which circumstances ravens might use this capacity.
|
|
|
|
Heinrich, B., & Bugnyar, T. (2007). Just how smart are ravens? Sci Am, 296(4), 64–71.
|
|
|
|
Schloegl, C., Kotrschal, K., & Bugnyar, T. (2008). Modifying the object-choice task: Is the way you look important for ravens? Behav. Process., 77(1), 61–65.
Abstract: Most animals seem to have difficulties in using gaze cues to find hidden food in object-choice tasks. For instance, chimpanzees usually fail in these tests, even though they are capable of following other's gaze geometrically behind barriers. Similar to chimpanzees, common ravens are skilled in tracking other's gaze but fail in object-choice tasks. We here explored whether procedural modifications, which had been used successfully in chimpanzees, would also yield positive results in ravens. In our modifications (a) the experimenter approached the cup while gazing at it, (b) the gaze cue was accompanied by a sound and (c) the experimenter could actually see the food while giving the gaze cue. Two out of seven birds performed above chance level in some of these conditions. However, we ascribe this improvement to the individuals' learning ability rather than to an understanding of the communicative nature of the task. This interpretation is further supported by results of a follow-up experiment suggesting that ravens may not rely on conspecifics' gaze cues for finding food caches in a natural foraging context. In sum, our results suggest that ravens may not transfer their gaze follow abilities to foraging situations involving hidden food.
|
|
|
|
Bílá, K., Beránková, J., Veselý, P., Bugnyar, T., & Schwab, C. (2017). Responses of urban crows to con- and hetero-specific alarm calls in predator and non-predator zoo enclosures. Anim. Cogn., 20(1), 43–51.
Abstract: Urban animals and birds in particular are able to cope with diverse novel threats in a city environment such as avoiding novel, unfamiliar predators. Predator avoidance often includes alarm signals that can be used also by hetero-specifics, which is mainly the case in mixed-species flocks. It can also occur when species do not form flocks but co-occur together. In this study we tested whether urban crows use alarm calls of conspecifics and hetero-specifics (jackdaws, Corvus monedula) differently in a predator and a non-predator context with partly novel and unfamiliar zoo animal species. Birds were tested at the Tiergarten Schönbrunn in the city of Vienna by playing back con- and hetero-specific alarm calls and control stimuli (great tit song and no stimuli) at predator (wolf, polar bear) and non-predator (eland antelope and cranes, peccaries) enclosures. We recorded responses of crows as the percentage of birds flying away after hearing the playback (out of those present before the playback) and as the number of vocalizations given by the present birds. A significantly higher percentage of crows flew away after hearing either con- or hetero-specific alarm calls, but it did not significantly differ between the predator and the non-predator context. Crows treated jackdaw calls just as crow calls, indicating that they make proper use of hetero-specific alarm calls. Responding similarly in both contexts may suggest that the crows were uncertain about the threat a particular zoo animal represents and were generally cautious. In the predator context, however, a high percentage of crows also flew away upon hearing the great tit control song which suggests that they may still evaluate those species which occasionally killed crows as more dangerous and respond to any conspicuous sound.
|
|
|
|
Griffin, A. S., Tebbich, S., & Bugnyar, T. (2017). Animal cognition in a human-dominated world. Anim. Cogn., 20(1), 1–6.
Abstract: In the USA, each year, up to one billion birds are estimated to die from colliding with windowpanes (Sabo et al. 2016). A further 573,000 are struck down by wind turbines, along with 888,000 bats (Smallwood 2013). Worldwide, unintended capture in fishing devices is recognized as the single most serious global threat to migratory, long-lived marine taxa including turtles, birds, mammals and sharks (Wallace et al. 2013). Estimates put the number of amphibians killed per year on Australian roads at 5 million (Seiler 2003). The likelihood of a green turtle erroneously ingesting plastic debris, often by mistaking them for food, rose from 30% in 1985 to almost 50% in 2012 (Schuyler et al. 2013). Human-induced rapid environmental change (HIREC, sensu Sih et al. 2011) is filling animals’ environments with new threats which bear little or excessive similarity to those they have encountered in their evolutionary history (Dwernychuk and Boag 1972; Patten and Kelley 2010; Witherington 1997). As a consequence, many of the stimuli involved fall outside the adaptive processing space of animals’ evolutionary perceptual, learning, memory and decision-making systems, making individuals particularly vulnerable to their impact.
|
|
