Distress calling induced by reductions in group size in ducklings reared with conspecifics or imprinting stimuli

Abstract

Peking ducklings were reared for 1-2weeks with either 9 or 12 companions, which were either conspecifics or imprinting stimuli (blocks of foam rubber). They were then tested for their tendency to distress call as the number of companions was reduced systematically. Consistent with prior research, ducklings reared with conspecifics modulated their distress calling as a function of both the number of companions with which they were reared and the number of companions with which they were tested. In contrast, ducklings reared with moving imprinting stimuli gave few if any distress calls, regardless of the number of stimuli with which they were reared or tested, as long as at least one imprinting stimulus was present. The difference in responding did not reflect just a lack of attachment to the imprinting stimuli, since when all stimuli were removed these ducklings gave as many distress calls as the ducklings that had all their conspecifics removed. Finally, ducklings reared with stationary imprinting stimuli displayed an erratic pattern of distress calling when the number of test stimuli was manipulated. These latter ducklings appeared to be less strongly imprinted than the ducklings reared with either conspecifics or moving imprinting stimuli. Implications for understanding duckling perception of brood size and the nature of sibling vs. filial imprinting are examined. Lorenz's (1935) pioneering work on the development of social attachments in young birds (imprinting) marked the beginning of an extensive research effort that continues to the present time. This research has focused largely on filial and sexual imprinting, that is, the processes by which a young bird learns the features of its mother and the species with which it will subsequently mate, respectively (

Effects of environmental novelty on filial behavior in imprinted ducklings

“…Although early studies (Eiserer & Hoffman, 1973) had suggested that the behavioral control of a stationary imprinting object might be comparable in strength to that of the object in motion, the present results (although of marginal significance) join more recent research in indicating relatively weaker control by a stationary imprinting object (Eiserer, 1977;Gaioni & Ross, 1982;Sluckin et aI., 1979). Thus, the present experiment has essentially replicated the findings of Sluckin et al despite basic procedural differences in how the stationary object acquired control.…”

Animal-to-robot social attachment: initial requisites in a gallinaceous bird

“…But a limitation of this first ARI experiment in quail was that the robot was not presented very early to the chicks (36 h after hatching), and moreover was present for only 1 h per day with each chick group, because of technical limitations (a single robot was available). As a possible consequence of weak imprinting, chicks did not manifest distress when separated from the robot, contrary to what they do when separated from a real hen, from other chicks, or from an efficient imprinting object (Gaioni andRoss 1982, Ten Cate 1989). In other words, although the animal-robot interaction took place, and successfully modulated the animals' behaviour, we lacked evidence that the robot was truly integrated as a conspecific.…”

“…It is an exciting, albeit complex question, that relates to the classic 'filial versus sibling imprinting' issue (see e.g. Gaioni and Ross 1982). Here are a few issues:…”

“…The attraction for peers appears rapidly after hatching in precocial birds and can easily be expressed towards unrelated birds or even towards young from a different species (Darczewska 1999). Young precocial birds express distress calls when the brood size is reduced and even more so when they are isolated from peers (Gaioni andRoss 1982, Feltenstein et al 2003). How to define the social bond in young and developing precocial birds is a question per se (Hennessy 1997, Schweitzer 2009.…”

Stimulus Movement, Hen Behaviour and Filial Imprinting in Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica)

“…The effect of movement on the attractiveness of a stimulus is so profound that this movement was even suggested to constitute an UCS for the imprinting process, with the static features of the stimulus as the CS (e.g. HOFFMAN et al 1970;EISERER 1980;GAIONI & Ross 1982). But although the effect Stimulus Movement, Hen Behaviour and Filial Imprinting 289 of movement as an enhancer of imprinting is well known, surprisingly little attention has been given to a more precise analysis of the effect of various types of movement, and, in particular, to comparing the effect of artificial movement with that of the natural behaviour of a living hen.…”