Olfactory sensitivity in Kea and Kaka

Gsell, Anna C.; Hagelin, Julie C.; Brunton, Dianne H.

doi:10.1071/mu11052

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Objects can also be discriminated on the basis of olfactory cues ( Uwano, Nishijo, Ono, & Tamura, 1995 ) and kea, indeed, have a well-developed sense of smell ( Gsell, Hagelin, & Brunton, 2012; Steiger, Fidler, Valcu, & Kempenaers, 2008 ). However, their poor performance in the first trials of the solid objects reversal makes the use of olfactory cues for the discriminations unlikely.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The advantage of objects over images in discrimination and reversal learning by kea, Nestor notabilis

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies investigating the same paradigm but employing different methods are often directly compared in the literature. One such paradigm used to assess behavioural flexibility in animals is reversal learning. Commonly, these studies require individuals to learn the reward contingency of either solid objects presented on the ground or images presented on a touchscreen. Once learned, these contingencies are swapped. Researchers often refer to trials required to reach learning criteria from different studies, to compare the flexibility of different species, but rarely take methodological differences into account. A direct evaluation of the validity of such comparisons is lacking. To address this latent question, we confronted kea, an alpine parrot species of New Zealand and known for its behavioural flexibility, with a standard reversal learning paradigm on the touchscreen and a standard reversal learning paradigm with solid objects. The kea required significantly more trials to reach criterion in the acquisition and the reversal on the touchscreen. Also, the absolute increase in the number of trials required for the reversal was significantly greater on the touchscreen. This indicates that it is not valid to compare learning speed across studies that do not correspond in the addressed methodology. Taking into account the kea's ecology and explorative nature we discuss stimulus abstraction (limited depth cues and tactile stimulus feedback) and the spatial relation between reward and stimulus on the touchscreen as possible causes for decreased inhibition in this condition. Contrary to the absolute increase in number of trials required for the reversal, the increase in relation to the acquisition was greater with solid objects. This highlights the need for further research on the mechanisms involved causing methodology-dependent differences, some of which we discuss, in order to increase the validity of interpretations across studies and in respect to the subject's ecology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The advantage of objects over images in discrimination and reversal learning by kea, Nestor notabilis

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A literature search finds that although some parrot species may use olfactory information, olfaction is not a strong enough sense to enable them to distinguish odor in the format of the closely spaced food-baited and unbaited cups used in our studies (note, e.g., Zelenitsky, Therrien, Ridgely, McGee, and Witmer, 2011 for a discussion of olfaction sensitivity in parrots). Even Gsell, Hagelin, and Brunton’s (2012) study on New Zealand keas ( Nestor notabilis ) and kakas ( N. meridionalis )—parrots that are expected to use scent more often than other psittaciformes (e.g., Healy & Guilford, 1990)—showed that responses were less strong to food-related scents than to other ecologically relevant material such as feathers (potentially containing pheromones; note Mihailova, Berg, Buchanan, & Bennett, 2014). Moreover, in Gsell and colleagues’ (2012) study, scent levels were set by the experimenter so as to be potentially noticeable and lures, open to the air , were purposefully spaced approximately a meter apart so as to carefully disambiguate scented from unscented material.…”

Section: Issues Of Cuingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even Gsell, Hagelin, and Brunton’s (2012) study on New Zealand keas ( Nestor notabilis ) and kakas ( N. meridionalis )—parrots that are expected to use scent more often than other psittaciformes (e.g., Healy & Guilford, 1990)—showed that responses were less strong to food-related scents than to other ecologically relevant material such as feathers (potentially containing pheromones; note Mihailova, Berg, Buchanan, & Bennett, 2014). Moreover, in Gsell and colleagues’ (2012) study, scent levels were set by the experimenter so as to be potentially noticeable and lures, open to the air , were purposefully spaced approximately a meter apart so as to carefully disambiguate scented from unscented material. Too, the authors state that after cleaning the materials used in their study, residual scents were not detected by their subjects.…”

Section: Issues Of Cuingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reply to Jaakkola (2014): “Do animals understand invisible displacement? A critical review”.

Pepperberg¹

2015

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jaakkola (2014) critiques studies that investigate nonhuman capacities to track objects undergoing invisible displacements. She states that the results of most of these studies are tainted by cuing, that conceptual understanding is lacking, and that, as a consequence, great apes are the only nonhumans to have full Stage 6 object permanence. Any critique, however, must clearly take into account all published information on the techniques being used, including more recent data that counter its negative claims. Furthermore, disagreements as to the interpretation of the underlying mechanisms, although common, need not always cast doubt on the actual findings reported. Here I present material with respect to Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) to counter Jaakkola's critique. First, I take issue with Jaakkola's claims of cuing, based both on data from newer studies and citations from the original material. Second, I discuss her suggestions that associative learning rather than inferential mechanisms underlie demonstrated performance, pointing out some difficulties in drawing clear lines between the 2 interpretations. In sum, I argue that Grey parrots, at least, do indeed succeed on tasks involving invisible displacement, and demonstrate full object permanence.

show abstract

“…However, the review also concluded that the avian taste system differs significantly between species, suggesting that experimental assessment of compounds as repellents for kea will be necessary, at least in the short term, and that what is repellent to kea may not be effective on other New Zealand native bird species. Kea have also demonstrated an ability to distinguish between test scents and experimental control compounds and to detect novel scents (Gsell et al 2012), so odours related to pest control baits may also play a role in, or be able to be exploited to, promote avoidance learning.…”

Section: Potential Repellents For Keamentioning

confidence: 99%

Repellents with potential to protect kea and other native birds from aerial poisoning for possum and rat control

Cowan¹,

Booth²,

Crowell³

2016

NZ J Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern about non-target risks to native birds, particularly kea (Nestor notabilis), from aerial poisoning has prompted the evaluation of potential repellent compounds that could be incorporated into the cereal pellet bait used for possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and rat (Rattus spp.) control. Initial trials of d-pulegone and anthraquinone were not wholly successful, with the former having poor stability in bait and the latter reducing bait uptake by rats. While research to stabilise d-pulegone in bait remains an option, a review of alternative compounds was undertaken to assist with decision-making about future directions for research, including consideration of possible formulation issues and cost. Most of the information reviewed related to use of repellents for crop protection where the aim is to reduce economic loss rather than prevent feeding on the crop, whereas preventing feeding is the primary aim for native bird protection. A further constraint was the lack of information for many compounds on response of rodents and possums. Cinnamamide, tannic acid, caffeine, garlic oil, ortho-aminoacetophenone, and thiram were identified as possible candidates and evaluated in relation to their potential to repel native birds from eating cereal baits without affecting efficacy for possums and rats. Cinnamamide, caffeine, and thiram, while effective as bird repellents, are likely to be repellent to rats at concentrations suitable for use with native birds, including kea. The little information found suggested that garlic oil was repellent to birds; it has not been formally tested on possums and rats, but anecdotal evidence did not suggest strong aversion. Ortho-aminoacetophenone appears effective as a bird repellent, but its repellency for possums and rats requires clarification. Tannic acid has some efficacy as a bird repellent, and is not repellent to possums and rats at lower concentrations. It is not clear if tannic acid exerts its effect solely as a primary repellent or whether it also has secondary repellent effects. In order from most to least promising, tannic acid, ortho-aminoacetophenone, and garlic oil are worthy of further investigation. Because each compound has demonstrated some efficacy as a bird repellent, initial testing should focus on screening against possums and rats.

show abstract

Olfactory sensitivity in Kea and Kaka

Cited by 7 publications

References 22 publications

The advantage of objects over images in discrimination and reversal learning by kea, Nestor notabilis

The advantage of objects over images in discrimination and reversal learning by kea, Nestor notabilis

Reply to Jaakkola (2014): “Do animals understand invisible displacement? A critical review”.

Repellents with potential to protect kea and other native birds from aerial poisoning for possum and rat control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About