Contrafreeloading in kea (Nestor notabilis) in comparison to Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus)

Abstract

Contrafreeloading—working to access food that could be freely obtained—is rarely exhibited and poorly understood. Based on data from Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus), researchers proposed a correlation between contrafreeloading and play: that contrafreeloading is more likely when subjects view the task as play. We tested that hypothesis by subjecting a relatively more playful parrot species, the kea (Nestor notabilis), to the same experimental tasks. Experiment 1 presented eight kea with container pairs holding more- or less-preferred free or enclosed food items, and examined three types of contrafreeloading: calculated (working to access preferred food over less-preferred, freely available food); classic (working to access food identical to freely available food); and super (working to access less-preferred food over preferred, freely available food). At the group level, the kea behaved similarly to the Greys: They significantly preferred calculated contrafreeloading, performed classic contrafreeloading at chance, and significantly failed to super contrafreeload. However, overall kea engaged in more contrafreeloading than Greys. Experiment 2 examined a potentially more ecologically relevant task, a choice between shelled and unshelled walnuts. No kea contrafreeloaded for nuts, whereas two of five Greys significantly preferred nut contrafreeloading and one chose at chance. We examine proximate and adaptive explanations for the performances of these differentially playful parrot species to further elucidate the role of play in contrafreeloading.

Kea, bird of versatility. Kea parrots (Nestor notabilis) show high behavioural flexibility in solving a demonstrated sequence task

“…A test setup that clearly distinguishes these two mechanisms would have to be devised, i.e., one including a ghost control (Whiten and Ham 1992 ). Consistent with previous findings kea show high behavioural flexibility (Werdenich and Huber 2006 ; Auersperg et al 2011 ; Laschober et al 2021 ) and preferentially engage in exploratory behaviour, being more interested in potential affordances than feeding success (Diamond and Bond 1999 ; Huber et al 2001 ; Smith et al 2022 ; Suwandschieff et al 2023 ). These results are in accordance with kea’s natural feeding strategies, as opportunistic group foragers, with kea paying close attention to what others feed on while engaging in individual manipulation strategies to obtain the resources (Diamond and Bond 1999 ).…”

“…Parrots are renowned for their technical intelligence, vocal mimicry and social learning capacities (Pepperberg and Funk 1990 ; Huber et al 2001 ; Funk 2002 ; Huber and Gajdon 2006 ; Werdenich and Huber 2006 ; Auersperg et al 2009 , 2011 , 2012 , 2014 ; Miyata et al 2011 ; Goodman et al 2018 ; Klump et al 2021 ; Smith et al 2022 ). Yet surprisingly few parrot species have been tested on their motor imitation skills (budgerigars: Dawson and Foss 1965 ; Galef et al 1986 ; Heyes and Saggerson 2002 ; grey parrots ( Psittacus erithacus ): Moore 1992 ; kea ( Nestor notabilis ): Huber et al 2001 ; Suwandschieff et al 2023 ; Goffin cockatoos ( Cacatua goffiniana ): Auersperg et al 2012 ), revealing mixed results.…”

Domestic pet dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) do not show a preference to contrafreeload, but are willing

“… Willingness to CFL? Starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris ) 8 , 20 No Yes 8 , 20 Yes 8 , 20 Red jungle fowl ( Gallus gallus ) 14 , 15 No Yes 14 , 15 Yes 14 , 15 Grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) 9 No Not assessed Yes Maned wolves ( Chrysocyon brachyurus ) 22 No Not assessed Yes Rhesus macaques ( Macaca mulatta ) 23 No Not assessed Yes Japanese macaques ( Macaca fuscata ) 25 No Not assessed Yes Stump-tailed macaque ( Macaca arctoides ) 26 No Not assessed Yes Chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ) 27 No Not assessed Yes Kea parrots ( Nestor notabilis ) 28 No Yes Yes Grey parrots ( Psittacus erithacus ) 29 ...…”

Contrafreeloading Indicating the Behavioural Need to Forage in Healthy and Feather Damaging Grey Parrots

“…Contrafreeloading (CFL) is a behavioural phenomenon that reflects an animal’s preference to work for food (“earned food”) even though identical food is freely available from another, nearby source (“free food”) [ 1 ]. After Jensen [ 2 ] first described occurrence of CFL in rats ( Rattus norvegicus ) in the 1960s, the phenomenon has been widely demonstrated in both wild and domesticated animal species, including mice ( Mus musculus ) [ 3 ], gerbils ( Meriones unguiculatus ) [ 4 ], mink ( Mustela vison ) [ 5 ], pigs ( Sus scrofa ) [ 6 , 7 ], cattle ( Bos taurus taurus ) [ 8 ], goats ( Capra aegagrus hircus ) [ 9 ], Northern giraffes ( Giraffa camelopardalis ) [ 10 ], Grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) [ 11 ], Maned wolves ( Chrysocyon brachyurus ) [ 12 ], Chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ) [ 13 ], Japanese and Rhesus macaques( Macaca fuscata , Macaca mulatta ) [ 14 , 15 ], Siamese fighting fish ( Betta splendens ) [ 16 ], American crows ( Corvus brachyrhynchos ) [ 17 ], starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris ) [ 18 ], Rock pigeons ( Columba livia ) [ 19 ], chickens ( Gallus gallus , Gallus domesticus ) [ 20 , 21 ], and various types of parrots, including Orange-winged Amazon parrots ( Amazona amazonica ) [ 22 ], Grey parrots ( Psittacus erithacus ) [ 23 , 24 ] and Kea ( Nestor notabilis ) [ 24 ]. Contrafreeloading is usually explicitly studied by providing animals a choice between free food in a food bowl and performing an operant (e.g., lever press) or natural foraging task (e.g., scatter feed, manipulate a foraging device) to obtain the same type of food.…”

“…Over the years, many authors have speculated why animals contrafreeload. Explanations for this behaviour include stimulation seeking [ 1 ], opportunity to play [ 23 , 24 ], alleviation from boredom [ 11 ], reducing uncertainty in an unfamiliar (captive) environment [ 1 , 11 ], innate reinforcing properties of the behaviour, particularly where it concerns species-typical behaviours [ 1 ], and gathering information about the environment and potential alternative food sites as part of the so-called ‘information primacy hypothesis’ [ 1 , 32 , 33 ]. The information primacy hypothesis suggests that foraging decisions involve a dynamic process in which the additional energy spent on working for food is weighed against the satiation of immediate needs in the short term and the possibilities for more efficient food intake due to decreased environmental uncertainty in the long term [ 1 , 32 , 33 ].…”