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

Abstract

A living hen is a very attractive imprinting stimulus compared to artificial stimuli. The present study examined to what extent this attractiveness is influenced by the behaviour of the hen. The effectiveness of a living quail hen as an imprinting stimulus was compared with that of a moving stuffed hen, a non‐moving stuffed hen and an empty cage. Naive quail chicks were exposed to one of these stimuli for 2 h. Both during and after this period chicks exposed to the living hen showed the strongest attachment to the stimulus, next came chicks exposed to a moving stuffed hen, while chicks exposed to a non‐moving stuffed hen showed no indication of any attachment, i.e. they behaved in the same way as chicks exposed to an empty cage. Also, among chicks exposed to the living hen a correlation was present between the strength of the attachment to the hen and the behaviour of this hen during the exposure. In particular pecking and behaviour directed at the chick seemed to stimulate the development of a filial bond. Together, these findings indicate that a living hen is attractive not just because she moved, but also because of specific qualities of this movement. The behaviour of the living hen differed in various ways from the movement of the moving stuffed hen. The influence of these differences on the filial imprinting process is discussed and compared with similar findings for sexual imprinting and song learning.

Precocial bird mothers shape sex differences in the behavior of their chicks

“…To assess the reactions of NB and B chicks to separation respectively from cagemate or from mother and cagemate, latencies to take first step was noted, as well as numbers of steps and distress calls. Chicks' general activity in this familiar environment is considered to reflect their reaction to separation from cagemate and the strength of filial bond in the case of brooded chicks (Cate, ; Pittet et al, in press).…”

Life is in motion (through a chick’s eye)

“…Many naive biases have been discovered when imprinting was scrutinised in the laboratory. Some shapes, colours, structures and motions appeared to catch the chicks’ attention more quickly than others (Cate 1989 ; Hoffman 1978 ; Johnson and Horn 1988 ; Kovach 1971 ; Lemaire 2020 ; Lemaire et al 2021 ; Schulman et al 1970 ). Biases have been discovered in naïve, newly hatched domestic chicks that appear to canalise their attention toward animacy cues and lead them to approach stimuli that are more likely to be social partners (Di Giorgio et al 2017a , b ; Rosa-Salva et al 2015 ; Vallortigara 2012 , 2021 ).…”

A systematic review of methodologies for studying behavioral imprinting

“…These authors tested the capacity for ducklings to filially imprint on the concepts of same vs. different by exclusively using pairs of novel stimuli during the testing phase. We found seven spatial proximity tests that used a live animal as the stationary stimulus, and in these cases, the stimulus individual was confined and isolated (Carter & Marr, 1970; Gerlach et al., 2008; Gerlach et al., 2019; Mattson & Evans, 1974; Pallante et al., 2021; and ten Cate, 1989). Even within the spatial proximity test category, measurements used to gauge imprinted preference strength varied between the individual's first choice, the number of approaches an individual made to a stimulus, the latency to approach, or the length of time an individual spent near a stimulus (Figure 8a).…”