More opportunities to peck for identical food availability increases foraging efficiency in pigeons

Abstract

The opportunity and the information available to secure food resources drives foraging behaviour. We tested how inconsistent hole-food pairings and coverings could alter foraging performance, even when food availability is held constant. In our first experiment, we exposed pigeons (Columba livia) to a board in which each of the 60 covered holes contained one food item and to another board in which only one third of the 180 covered holes randomly contained one food item. In a second experiment, only the 60-hole board was used and the holes were not covered. The pigeons increased their body weight, gave fewer pecks per hole, revisited holes less often, and inspected fewer adjacent holes with 180 rather than 60 covered holes while eating similar amounts. However, their pecks were disproportionately higher near the edges of the board with 60 covered holes. This behaviour was not evident in the second experiment, when the food items were visible and individuals could know where food was available. Thus, the information about food location may drive foraging behaviour more directly than the information about food availability.

Visual categories and concepts in the avian brain

“…This principle can be extended far beyond peck-tracking. Modern video analysis, such markerless pose estimation, allows tracking of behavioral aspects that were previously difficult to systematically incorporate in a detailed analysis (for example using DeepLab Cut: Nath et al 2019 ; Wittek et al 2022 ). All these approaches reduce experimenter biases and can reveal details not obviously visible in aggregated data to achieve an ecological valid and unbiased behavioral analysis (Anderson and Perona 2014 ).…”

Effortful foraging activity for uncertain food in pigeons

“…By contrast, in Experiment 2, the R area was covered, so its depletion status after multiple pecks could not easily be assessed-and became as uncertain as in the U area. One possible explanation for the multiple revisits in the R area is that pigeons failed to remember the locations they inspected previously (Roberts, 1988;Spetch & Edwards, 1986;Wittek et al, 2022). In this case, the pigeons showed a motivational/cognitive bias for more investment in the R area, which was the most profitable option at the beginning of a session.…”