Food offering in jackdaws (Corvus monedula)

Kort, Selvino R. de; Emery, Nathan J.; Clayton, Nicola S.

doi:10.1007/s00114-003-0419-2

Cited by 25 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Examples of affiliative behaviour included food offering (e.g. active giving, begging, stealing and tolerated theft; de Kort et al 2003Kort et al , 2006, dual caching (i.e. two individuals cache the same piece of food together), bill-twining, play, allopreening and providing agonistic aid (i.e.…”

Section: Primate-like Social Complexity In Rooksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the early stages of pair formation, food sharing appeared to be the most important affiliative behaviour, particularly the unsolicited transfer of highly valuable food from one individual to another (active giving; de Kort et al 2003). The frequency of active giving appeared to be high at the initiation of the study when the rooks were approximately 3-4 months old (Block 1), but had significantly tailed off by the end of the first observation period (Block 5; figure 5).…”

Section: Primate-like Social Complexity In Rooksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cognitive adaptations of social bonding in birds

Emery

Seed

Bayern

et al. 2007

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

349

341

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ‘social intelligence hypothesis’ was originally conceived to explain how primates may have evolved their superior intellect and large brains when compared with other animals. Although some birds such as corvids may be intellectually comparable to apes, the same relationship between sociality and brain size seen in primates has not been found for birds, possibly suggesting a role for other non-social factors. But bird sociality is different from primate sociality. Most monkeys and apes form stable groups, whereas most birds are monogamous, and only form large flocks outside of the breeding season. Some birds form lifelong pair bonds and these species tend to have the largest brains relative to body size. Some of these species are known for their intellectual abilities (e.g. corvids and parrots), while others are not (e.g. geese and albatrosses). Although socio-ecological factors may explain some of the differences in brain size and intelligence between corvids/parrots and geese/albatrosses, we predict that the type and quality of the bonded relationship is also critical. Indeed, we present empirical evidence that rook and jackdaw partnerships resemble primate and dolphin alliances. Although social interactions within a pair may seem simple on the surface, we argue that cognition may play an important role in the maintenance of long-term relationships, something we name as ‘relationship intelligence’.

show abstract

Section: Primate-like Social Complexity In Rooksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Primate-like Social Complexity In Rooksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive adaptations of social bonding in birds

Emery

Seed

Bayern

et al. 2007

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

349

341

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Food sharing is considered as a prosocial behavior, which is by definition intended to benefit one or more other individuals (Batson & Powell, ) and can be defined as the joint use of a monopolizable food source (Stevens & Gilby, ). Despite the costs for donors, which consists in giving‐up the nutritional value of the food, food sharing has been observed in numerous taxa like insects (Vahed, ), fish (Griffiths & Armstrong, ), birds (Amat, ; Arnold & Owens, ; de Kort, Emery, & Clayton, ), primates (see Jaeggi & van Schaik, for review; de Waal, ; Hauser, Chen, Chen, & Chuang, ; Feistner & Price, ), and other mammals like lions (Cooper, ), wolves (Dale, Range, Stott, Kotrschal, & Marshall‐Pescini, ), killer‐whales (Wright, Stredulinsky, Ellis, & Ford, ), or vampire bats (Carter & Wilkinson, , ; Wilkinson, ). More importantly, food sharing has been observed in very different contexts, between kin, during parent and offspring interactions for example (Feistner & McGrew, ), but also between non‐kin (Clutton‐Brock, ; Stevens & Gilby, ; Wilkinson, Carter, Bohn, & Adams, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food sharing and affiliation: An experimental and longitudinal study in cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus)

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food sharing has attracted much attention because of its apparently altruistic nature and its link to prosociality. However, food sharing has been mostly studied in a reproductive context, during courtship and parental care, where the fitness benefits are obvious. We still lack a clear understanding of the functions of food sharing outside any reproductive context and within social groups of same‐aged peers. Previous studies suggest that cofeeding, the action to let another animal feed from the same monopolizable food source, may be used to build and strengthen bonds between individuals. This may be particularly crucial in social birds forming long‐term associations between mates or siblings such as psittacids and corvids. Here, we investigated food sharing and affiliative behaviors such as allopreening in a psittacine species, namely in a group of captive juvenile cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus) consisting of five siblings and five unrelated birds. Our main objective was to study the developmental pattern of food sharing over time and its implication in social bonding depending on kinship, affiliation, and sex. Studying cockatiels in this context is providing many new information since most of the studies on food sharing in birds focused on corvids. We found that, contrary to jackdaws, cockatiels continued to share food with multiple individuals, although the frequency of cofeeding as well as the number of cofeeding partners decreased over time. Cockatiels shared more food with their siblings than with other conspecifics but they were not more likely to do cofeeding with birds of the opposite sex. We also found evidence that young cockatiels exchanged more food with those from whom they received food (reciprocity) and, to a lesser extent, allopreening (interchange), than from other cockatiels. Our findings suggest that in cockatiels, food sharing within social groups serves the formation (and maintenance) of affiliative bonds, especially between siblings, rather than pair bonds, but might additionally be explained by reciprocity, interchange, and harassment avoidance.

show abstract

“…However, at other times, individuals worked together on one item. The duration of the study was too short to determine whether this was the beginning of developing relationships between cooperation partners, as shown in rooks (Emery, von Bayern, Seed, & Clayton, 2007) and jackdaws (von Bayern, de Kort, Clayton, & Emery, 2008; de Kort, Emery, & Clayton, 2003, 2006). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of caching and object permanence in western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica): Which emerges first?

Salwiczek¹,

Emery²,

Schlinger³

et al. 2009

Journal of Comparative Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies on the food-caching behavior of corvids have revealed complex physical and social skills, yet little is known about the ontogeny of food caching in relation to the development of cognitive capacities. Piagetian object permanence is the understanding that objects continue to exist even when they are no longer visible. Here, the authors focus on Piagetian Stages 3 and 4, because they are hallmarks in the cognitive development of both young children and animals. Our aim is to determine in a food-caching corvid, the Western scrub-jay, whether (1) Piagetian Stage 4 competence and tentative caching (i.e., hiding an item invisibly and retrieving it without delay), emerge concomitantly or consecutively; (2) whether experiencing the reappearance of hidden objects enhances the timing of the appearance of object permanence; and (3) discuss how the development of object permanence is related to behavioral development and sensorimotor intelligence. Our findings suggest that object permanence Stage 4 emerges before tentative caching, and independent of environmental influences, but that once the birds have developed simple object-permanence, then social learning might advance the interval after which tentative caching commences.

show abstract

Food offering in jackdaws (Corvus monedula)

Cited by 25 publications

References 24 publications

Cognitive adaptations of social bonding in birds

Cognitive adaptations of social bonding in birds

Food sharing and affiliation: An experimental and longitudinal study in cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus)

The development of caching and object permanence in western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica): Which emerges first?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About