|
Dyer, F. C. (2002). Animal behaviour: when it pays to waggle (Vol. 419).
|
|
|
Pennisi, E. (2006). Animal cognition. Social animals prove their smarts (Vol. 312).
|
|
|
Bouchard, J. (2002). Is social learning correlated with innovation in birds? An inter-and an interspecific test. Master's thesis, Department of Biology McGili University Montréal, Québec, .
Abstract: This thesis focuses on the relationship between innovation and social learning in the foraging context, across and within bird species, using two different sources of data: anecdotal reports from the literature, and experimental tests in the laboratory and the field. In chapter 1, I review the trends in innovation and social learning in the avian literature, and contrast them with trends in mammals, especially primates. In chapter 2, I use anecdotal reports of feeding innovation and social learning in the literature to assess taxonomic trends and to study the relationship between the two traits at the interspecific level. In chapter 3, I investigate the relationship between innovation and social learning at the intraspecific level in captive feral pigeons (Columba livia). Innovation is estimated from the ability to solve an innovative foraging problem, and social learning is measured as the number of trials required to learn a foraging task from a proficient demonstrator. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
|
|
|
Houpt, K. A., Zahorik, D. M., & Swartzman-Andert, J. A. (1990). Taste aversion learning in horses. J. Anim Sci., 68(8), 2340–2344.
Abstract: The ability of ponies to learn to avoid a relatively novel food associated with illness was tested in three situations: when illness occurred immediately after consuming a feed; when illness occurred 30 min after consuming a feed; and when illness was contingent upon eating one of three feeds offered simultaneously. Apomorphine was used to produce illness. The feeds associated with illness were corn, alfalfa pellets, sweet feed and a complete pelleted feed. The ponies learned to avoid all the fees except the complete feed when apomorphine injection immediately followed consumption of the feed. However, the ponies did not learn to avoid a feed if apomorphine was delayed 30 min after feed consumption. They could learn to avoid alfalfa pellets, but not corn, when these feeds were presented with the familiar “safe foods,” oats and soybean meal. Ponies apparently are able to learn a taste aversion, but there were constraints on this learning ability. Under the conditions of this study, they did not learn to avoid a food that made them sick long after consumption of the food, and they had more difficulty learning to avoid highly palatable feeds.
|
|
|
Houpt, T. R. (1985). The physiological determination of meal size in pigs. Proc Nutr Soc, 44(2), 323–330.
|
|
|
Dixon, G., Green, L. E., & Nicol, C. J. (2006). Effect of diet change on the behavior of chicks of an egg-laying strain. J Appl Anim Welf Sci, 9(1), 41–58.
Abstract: Injurious pecking has serious welfare consequences in flocks of hens kept for egg laying, especially when loose-housed. Frequent diet change is a significant risk for injurious pecking; how the mechanics of diet change influence pecking behavior is unknown. This study investigated the effect of diet change on the behavior of chicks from a laying strain. The study included a 3-week familiarity phase: 18 chick pairs received unflavored feed (Experiment 1); 18 pairs received orange oil-flavored (Experiment 2). All chicks participated in a dietary preference test (P); a diet change (DC); or a control group (C), 6 scenarios. All P chicks preferred unflavored feed. In Experiment 1, DC involved change from unflavored to orange-flavored; Experiment 2, orange- flavored to unflavored. Compared with controls, Experiment 2 DC chicks exhibited few behavioral differences; Experiment 1 DC chicks exhibited increased behavioral event rates on Days 1 and 7. They pecked significantly longer at their environment; by Day 7, they showed significantly more beak activity. There was little evidence of dietary neophobia. Change from more preferred to less preferred feed led to increased activity and redirected pecking behavior.
|
|
|
Nicol, C. J. (2004). Development, direction, and damage limitation: social learning in domestic fowl. Learn Behav, 32(1), 72–81.
Abstract: This review highlights two areas of particular interest in the study of social learning in fowl. First, the role of social learning in the development of feeding and foraging behavior in young chicks and older birds is described. The role of the hen as a demonstrator and possible teacher is considered, and the subsequent social influence of brood mates and other companions on food avoidance and food preference learning is discussed. Second, the way in which work on domestic fowl has contributed to an understanding of the importance of directed social learning is examined. The well-characterized hierarchical social organization of small chicken flocks has been used to design studies which demonstrate that the probability of social transmission is strongly influenced by social relationships between birds. The practical implications of understanding the role of social learning in the spread of injurious behaviors in this economically important species are briefly considered.
|
|
|
Brosnan, S. F., Freeman, C., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2006). Partner's behavior, not reward distribution, determines success in an unequal cooperative task in capuchin monkeys. Am. J. Primatol., 68(7), 713–724.
Abstract: It was recently demonstrated that capuchin monkeys notice and respond to distributional inequity, a trait that has been proposed to support the evolution of cooperation in the human species. However, it is unknown how capuchins react to inequitable rewards in an unrestricted cooperative paradigm in which they may freely choose both whether to participate and, within the bounds of their partner's behavior, which reward they will receive for their participation. We tested capuchin monkeys with such a design, using a cooperative barpull, which has been used with great success in the past. Contrary to our expectations, the equity of the reward distribution did not affect success or pulling behavior. However, the behavior of the partner in an unequal situation did affect overall success rates: pairs that had a tendency to alternate which individual received the higher-value food in unequal reward situations were more than twice as successful in obtaining rewards than pairs in which one individual dominated the higher-value food. This ability to equitably distribute rewards in inherently biased cooperative situations has profound implications for activities such as group hunts, in which multiple individuals work together for a single, monopolizable reward.
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). How animals do business. Sci Am, 292(4), 54–61.
|
|
|
Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2004). A concept of value during experimental exchange in brown capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella. Folia Primatol (Basel), 75(5), 317–330.
Abstract: We evaluated the response of brown capuchin monkeys to two differentially valued tokens in an experimental exchange situation akin to a simple barter. Monkeys were given a series of three tests to evaluate their ability to associate tokens with food, then their responses were examined in a barter situation in which tokens were either limited or unlimited. Capuchins did not perform barter in the typical sense, returning the tokens which were associated with the reward. However, females, but not males, showed a different response, preferring the higher-value token. This may indicate that they learned to prefer one token over the other rather than to associate the tokens with their specific rewards. This sex difference parallels previous findings of greater reciprocity in female brown capuchins than in males.
|
|