Learning Differences between Feral Pigeons and Zenaida Doves: The Role of Neophobia and Human Proximity

Abstract

Learning differences predicted from ecological variables can be confounded with differences in wariness of novel stimuli (neophobia). Previous work on feral pigeons (Columba livia), as well as on group‐feeding and territorial zenaida doves (Zenaida aurita), reported individual and social learning differences predicted from social foraging mode. In the present study, we show that speed of learning a foraging task covaries with neophobia and latency to feed from a familiar dish in the three types of columbids. Pigeons were much faster than either territorial or group‐feeding zenaida doves on all tests conducted in captivity, but showed unexpectedly strong neophobia in some urban flocks during field tests. Human proximity strongly affected performance in group‐feeding doves both in the field and in captivity. They were slightly faster at learning than their territorial conspecifics in cage tests. In multiple regressions, species identity, but not social foraging mode, significantly predicted individual variation in learning, as did individual variation in neophobia. Wariness of novel stimuli and species differences associated with artificial selection appear to be more important than foraging mode and wariness of humans in accounting for learning differences between these columbids.

The relation between social rank, neophobia and individual learning in starlings

“…This discrepancy may reflect methodological differences. In contrast to our experiments, the test subjects in the studies by Seferta et al (2001) and Webster & Lefebvre (2001) were never habituated to the foraging task apparatus to the extent that they fed from it within their normal, or 'control', latency to feed. Indeed, the research literature supports Greenberg's (2003) remark that animals shying away from unfamiliar situations, as reflected by, for example, their object neophobia, are unlikely to assess the costs and benefits of a novel foraging opportunity such as finding the solution to a novel foraging task.…”

“…In apparent contrast, object neophobia did correlate with flexibility in problemsolving attempts in five opportunistic avian species on Barbados (Webster & Lefebvre 2001). Furthermore, both feral pigeons, Columba livia, and Zenaida doves, Zenaida aurita, that were slow to feed from a novel apparatus were also slow at learning to open it (Seferta et al 2001). This discrepancy may reflect methodological differences.…”

“…At level 1, a quarter of the dish was covered by the lid, half was covered at task level 2, three-quarters at level 3, five-eighths at level 4 up to task level 5 where the dish was completely covered. We adopted a systematic shaping procedure that progressively led the subject through the levels of the task (Carlier & Lefebvre 1996;Seferta et al 2001). When the starling managed to reach and eat the mealworm on two subsequent trials, it passed on to the next level of difficulty on the next trial.…”

Innovation and social learning: individual variation and brain evolution

“…Responses to novel objects are a well-established correlate of avian innovation, as measured by the time taken to solve novel foraging tasks. In feral pigeons Columba livia, zenaida doves Zenaida aurita, cut-throat nches Amadina fasciata, and zebra nches Taeniopygia guttata, those birds that are least reluctant to approach novel objects (a measure of inanimate object neophobia, henceforth 'object neophobia') are the quickest to solve novel tasks (Whittle, 1996;Seferta et al, 2001;Bouchard, 2002). Wild-caught Carib grackles Quiscalus lugubris are neophilic, in that they approach novel objects more rapidly than control objects (Reader and Lefebvre, unpubl.…”

An Approach to Distinguish between Plasticity and Non-random Distributions of Behavioral Types Along Urban Gradients in a Wild Passerine Bird

“…Relationships between phenotypes and environments can be caused by various distinct mechanisms such as phenotypic plasticity, differential settlement, and/or the selective (dis)appearance of distinct types of individuals (Dingemanse et al, 2010). Several studies have demonstrated behavioral plasticity in response to urbanization (Lefebvre, 1995;Seferta et al, 2001;Bouchard et al, 2007;Levey et al, 2009). Song birds such as nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos) and great tits (Parus major) have been shown to adjust song amplitude (Brumm, 2004) and frequency (Slabbekoorn and den Boer-Visser, 2006) to background noise.…”