|
|
Bergmüller, R., & Taborsky, M. (2010). Animal personality due to social niche specialisation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(9), 504–511.
Abstract: The existence of 'animal personality', i.e. consistent individual differences in behaviour across time and contexts, is an evolutionary puzzle that has recently generated considerable research interest. Although social factors are generally considered to be important, it is as yet unclear how they might select for personality. Drawing from ecological niche theory, we explore how social conflict and alternative social options can be key factors in the evolution and development of consistent individual differences in behaviour. We discuss how animal personality research might benefit from insights into the study of alternative tactics and illustrate how selection can favour behavioural diversification and consistency due to fitness benefits resulting from conflict reduction among social partners.
|
|
|
|
Tebbich, S., Taborsky, M., Fessl, B., & Blomqvist, D. (2001). Do woodpecker finches acquire tool-use by social learning? Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 268(1482), 2189–2193.
Abstract: Tool–use is widespread among animals, but except in primates the development of this behaviour is poorly known. Here, we report on the first experimental study to our knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the acquisition of tool–use in a bird species. The woodpecker finch Cactospiza pallida, endemic to the Galápagos Islands, is a famous textbook example of tool–use in animals. This species uses modified twigs or cactus spines to pry arthropods out of tree holes. Using nestlings and adult birds from the field, we tested experimentally whether woodpecker finches learn tool–use socially. We show that social learning is not essential for the development of tool–use: all juveniles developed tool–use regardless of whether or not they had a tool–using model. However, we found that not all adult woodpecker finches used tools in our experiments. These non–tool–using individuals also did not learn this task by observing tool–using conspecifics. Our results suggest that tool–use behaviour depends on a very specific learning disposition that involves trial–and–error learning during a sensitive phase early in ontogeny.
|
|
|
|
Mersmann, D., Tomasello, M., Call, J., Kaminski, J., & Taborsky, M. (2011). Simple Mechanisms Can Explain Social Learning in Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris). Ethology, 117(8), 675–690.
Abstract: Abstract Recent studies have suggested that domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) engage in highly complex forms of social learning. Here, we critically assess the potential mechanisms underlying social learning in dogs using two problem-solving tasks. In a classical detour task, the test dogs benefited from observing a demonstrator walking around a fence to obtain a reward. However, even inexperienced dogs did not show a preference for passing the fence at the same end as the demonstrator. Furthermore, dogs did not need to observe a complete demonstration by a human demonstrator to pass the task. Instead, they were just as successful in solving the problem after seeing a partial demonstration by an object passing by at the end of the fence. In contrast to earlier findings, our results suggest that stimulus enhancement (or affordance learning) might be a powerful social learning mechanism used by dogs to solve such detour problems. In the second task, we examined whether naïve dogs copy actions to solve an instrumental problem. After controlling for stimulus enhancement and other forms of social influence (e.g. social facilitation and observational conditioning), we found that dogs’ problem solving was not influenced by witnessing a skilful demonstrator (either an unknown human, a conspecific or the dog’s owner). Together, these results add to evidence suggesting that social learning may often be explained by relatively simple (but powerful) mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
Riebli, T., Avgan, B., Bottini, A. - M., Duc, C., Taborsky, M., & Heg, D. (2011). Behavioural type affects dominance and growth in staged encounters of cooperatively breeding cichlids. Anim. Behav., 81(1), 313–323.
Abstract: In animals, behavioural properties such as aggressive propensity are often consistent over a life span, and they may form part of a behavioural syndrome. We studied how aggressive propensity influences dominance, contest behaviour and growth in the cooperatively breeding cichlid fish Neolamprologus pulcher. We tested whether intrinsic aggressive propensity (1) influences dominance in paired contests, (2) causes different aggression levels in contests with partners matched for aggressive propensity compared to unmatched partners, and how it (3) affects growth rate in groups that were either matched or unmatched for aggressive propensity. Intrinsic aggressive propensity was first scored with a mirror test and classified as high, medium or low. Thereafter we tested fish with either high or low aggressive propensity with partners matched for size and either matched or unmatched for aggressive type in a paired contest for a shelter. We scored dominance, aggression and submission. As predicted, (1) dominance was more clearly established in unmatched than in matched contests and (2) individuals with high aggressive propensity launched more attacks overall than fish with low intrinsic aggressiveness, suggesting a higher propensity to escalate independently of winning or losing the paired contest. However, contrary to expectation, (3) individuals with low aggressiveness grew faster than aggressive ones in unmatched groups, whereas the opposite occurred in matched groups. This suggests that individuals with low aggressive propensity may benefit from conflict evasion, which might allow them to gain dominance in the future owing to larger body size.
|
|
|
|
Tebbich, S., Taborsky, M., & Winkler, H. (1996). Social manipulation causes cooperation in keas.52(1), 1–10.
Abstract: Abstract. This study assessed whether keas,Nestor notabilis, are able to cooperate in an instrumental task. Seven birds of a captive group were tested in group situations and in dyads. At least two individuals had to manipulate an apparatus to obtain food but only one participant was rewarded. One bird had to push down a lever to enable another one to collect food from a box. The distribution of the two different roles was clearly dependent on hierarchy. The higher ranking individual always obtained the reward and each bird changed its role according to dominance status. Owing to the non-linear hierarchy in the group, each bird participating in cooperative interactions had at least one submissive partner. Therefore, in group situations the reward was distributed symmetrically and cooperation was persistent. In dyadic test situations, three individual keas aggressively manipulated their respective subordinate partners to open the apparatus. Their dominance status enabled them to force cooperation.
|
|
