Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Amodio, P.

Publications and source records attributed to Amodio, P..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Little evidence that Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius) protect their caches by responding to cues about a conspecific's desire and visual perspective

Corvids appear to be capable of adjusting their behaviour according to anothers perspective, knowledge and desire. For example, Eurasian jays have been found to employ a variety of cache protection strategies to minimise cache loss by responding to cues about the visual perspective or current desire of an observing conspecific. However, it is not known whether these jays (or any other corvid) can integrate multiple cues about different mental states and perform the optimal response accordingly. Across five experiments, we found little evidence that our Eurasian jays responded to either the visual perspective or current desire of another agent. In Experiments 1 and 2 we investigated whether Eurasian jays can limit the risk of cache loss by responding simultaneously to cues about the desire and perspective of a potential conspecific pilferer. Building on established paradigms, we used opaque and clear barriers to manipulate the observers visual access to cache locations, and specific satiety to manipulate the observers desire towards different types of food. Across both experiments the jays caching pattern provided no evidence that they could integrate information about the observers desire and perspective. Moreover, the results were also inconsistent with the previously reported effects that jays protect their caches by responding to either the visual access or specific satiety of the observer independently. To gain further insight into these unexpected results, we conducted three more experiments. In Experiments 3 and 4, we attempted to replicate the previous finding that Eurasian jays prefer to cache behind an opaque barrier over a clear barrier when observed by a conspecific than when caching in private. In Experiment 5, we further investigated the previous finding that jays preferentially cache a type of food that had been eaten to satiety by a conspecific over a food that had not been eaten by the conspecific. Experiments 3, 4 and 5 found no significant effects in the direction of the previously reported effects, questioning their robustness. We conclude by discussing the implications of our study for the field of corvid cognition and highlight several key issues that affect the reliability of comparative cognition research.

animal behavior and cognition↗

Testing two competing hypotheses for Eurasian jays' caching for the future: planning versus compensatory caching

Previous research reported that corvids preferentially cache food in a location where no food will be available or cache more of a specific food in a location where this food will not be available. Here, we consider possible explanations for these prospective caching behaviours and directly compare two competing hypotheses. The Compensatory Caching Hypothesis suggests that birds learn to cache more of a particular food in places where that food was less frequently available in the past. In contrast, the Future Planning Hypothesis suggests that birds recall what-when-where features of specific past events to predict the future availability of food. We designed a protocol in which the two hypotheses predict different caching patterns across different caching locations such that the two explanations can be disambiguated. We formalised the hypotheses in a Bayesian model comparison and tested this protocol in two experiments with one of the previously tested species, namely Eurasian jays. Consistently across the two experiments, the observed caching pattern did not support either hypothesis; rather it was best explained by a uniform distribution of caches over the different caching locations. Future research is needed to gain more insight into the cognitive mechanism underpinning corvids caching for the future.

animal behavior and cognition↗

How flexible is tool use in Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius)?

Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius) do not habitually use tools, yet they can be trained to solve object-dropping tasks, i.e. to insert a tool into an apparatus to release a food reward. Previous research suggests the these jays can learn a preference toward functional tools - objects allowing to obtain a food reward placed inside an apparatus - according to their density (Cheke et al., 2011). However, it is not yet known whether they can also select functional tools (tool selectivity) according to other physical properties such as size and shape, and use different kinds of tools to solve a similar task. Here we conducted three object-dropping experiments aimed at exploring these abilities in Eurasian jays. In Experiment 1, jays tended to select large stones as tools irrespective of the diameter of the apparatus. However, jays progressively developed a preference for the small tool, which was functional with both the wide and the narrow apparatuses. In Experiment 2, only vertically-oriented long stones could fit into the narrow apparatus, whereas both long and round stones were functional with the wide apparatus. Jays showed a preference for the long stone and, with the narrow apparatus, tended to achieve the correct manipulation after one or more unsuccessful attempts. In Experiment 3, jays were able to use sticks and adopt a novel technique on the same object-dropping apparatus, thus providing the first evidence that Eurasian jays can use sticks as tools. Taken together, these results indicate that Eurasian jays may have limited tool selectivity abilities but nonetheless can use different kinds of tools to solve similar tasks.

animal behavior and cognition↗