Tool making cockatoos adjust the lengths but not the widths of their tools to function

Hooded crows (Corvus cornix) manufacture objects relative to a mental template

It was recently found that not only tool-specialized New Caledonian crows, but also Goffin cockatoos can manufacture physical objects in accordance with a mental template. That is, they can emulate features of existing objects when they manufacture new items. Both species spontaneously ripped pieces of card into large strips if they had previously learned that a large template was rewarded, and small strips when they previously learned that a small template was rewarded. Among New Caledonian crows, this cognitive ability was suggested as a potential mechanism underlying the transmission of natural tool designs. Here, we tested for the same ability in another non-specialised tool user-Hooded crows (Corvus cornix). Crows were exposed to pre-made template objects, varying first in colour and then in size, and were rewarded only if they chose pre-made objects that matched the template. In subsequent tests, birds were given the opportunity to manufacture versions of these objects. All three crows ripped paper pieces from the same colour material as the rewarded template, and, crucially, also manufactured objects that were more similar in size to previously rewarded, than unrewarded, templates, despite the birds being rewarded at random in both tests. Therefore, we found the ability to manufacture physical objects relative to a mental template in yet another bird species not specialized in using or making foraging tools in the wild, but with a high level of brain and cognitive development.

Flexible tool set transport in Goffin's cockatoos

The use of tool sets constitutes one of the most elaborate examples of animal technology, and reports of it in nature are limited to chimpanzees and Goffin's cockatoos. Although tool set use in Goffin's was only recently discovered, we know that chimpanzees flexibly transport tool sets, depending on their need. Flexible tool set transport can be considered full evidence for identification of a genuine tool set, as the selection of the second tool is not just a response to the outcomes of the use of the first tool but implies recognizing the need for both tools before using any of them (thus, categorizing both tools together as a tool set). In three controlled experiments, we tested captive Goffin's in tasks inspired by the termite fishing of Goualougo Triangle's chimpanzees. Thereby, we show that some Goffin's can innovate the use and flexibly use and transport a new tool set for immediate future use; therefore, their sequential tool use is more than the sum of its parts. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Recent developments in parrot cognition: a quadrennial update

Psittacines, along with corvids, are commonly referred to as 'feathered apes' due to their advanced cognitive abilities. Until rather recently, the research effort on parrot cognition was lagging behind that on corvids, however current developments show that the number of parrot studies is steadily increasing. In 2018, M. L. Lambert et al. provided a comprehensive review on the status of the most important work done so far in parrot and corvid cognition. Nevertheless, only a little more than 4 years after this publication, more than 50 new parrot studies have been published, some of them chartering completely new territory. On the 25th anniversary of Animal Cognition we think this warrants a detailed review of parrot cognition research over the last 4 years. We aim to capture recent developments and current trends in this rapidly expanding and diversifying field.

Innovative composite tool use by Goffin's cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana)

Composite tool use (using more than one tool simultaneously to achieve an end) has played a significant role in the development of human technology. Typically, it depends on a number of specific and often complex spatial relations and there are thus very few reported cases in non-human animals (e.g., specific nut-cracking techniques in chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys). The innovative strategies underlying the innovation and spread of tool manufacture and associative tool use (using > 1 tools) across tool using animals is an important milestone towards a better understanding of the evolution of human technology. We tested Goffin's cockatoos on a composite tool problem, the 'Golf Club Task', that requires the use of two objects in combination (one used to control the free movement of a second) to get a reward. We demonstrate that these parrots can innovate composite tool use by actively controlling the position of the end effector and movement of both objects involved in a goal directed manner. The consistent use of different techniques by different subjects highlights the innovative nature of the individual solutions. To test whether the solution could be socially transmitted, we conducted a second study, which provided only tentative evidence for emulative learning. To our knowledge, this indicates that the cognitive preconditions for composite tool use have also evolved outside the primate lineage.

Casting the Net Widely for Change in Animal Welfare: The Plight of Birds in Zoos, Ex Situ Conservation, and Conservation Fieldwork

Simple Summary

Animal welfare measures have been designed to improve the health and environmental conditions of animals living under human control, for whatever reason. Welfare regulations have evolved also in line with new research insights into the cognitive, affective, and physiological domain of birds, as this paper discusses. This paper casts a critical eye on areas that Animal Welfare regulations have not reached at all, have not gone far enough, or are not regulated or supervised. It identifies the plight of birds living in captivity or being studied in the field, which either by neglect, ignorance, or design are subject to practices and procedures that may not meet basic welfare standards. The paper discusses some profound contradictions in the way we think about birds and their plight in today’s world: marked for extinction on one hand and highly admired as pets on the other; damaging fieldwork on one hand and the aims of conservation on the other. It highlights some common and distressing examples of poor welfare in birds. It also offers some solutions involving simple legislative changes and ways to eliminate some unacceptably low ethical standards in the handling and management of birds.

Abstract

This paper discusses paradoxes in our relationship to and treatment of birds in captive and conservation contexts. The paper identifies modern and new challenges that arise from declining bird numbers worldwide. Such challenges have partly changed zoos into providers of insurance populations specifically for species at risk of extinction. They have also accelerated fieldwork projects, but by using advanced technological tools and in increasing numbers, contradictorily, they may cause serious harm to the very birds studied for conservation purposes. In practice, very few avian species have any notable protection or guarantee of good treatment. The paper first deals with shortcomings of identifying problematic avian behavior in captive birds. It then brings together specific cases of field studies and captive breeding for conservation in which major welfare deficits are identified. Indeed, the paper argues that avian welfare is now an urgent task. This is not just because of declining bird numbers but because of investment in new technologies in field studies that may have introduced additional stressors and put at risk bird survival. While the paper documents a substantial number of peer-reviewed papers criticizing practices counter to modern welfare standards, they have by and large not led to changes in some practices. Some solutions are suggested that could be readily implemented and, to my knowledge, have never been considered under a welfare model before.

Extending the Reach of Tooling Theory: A Neurocognitive and Phylogenetic Perspective

Tool use research has suffered from a lack of consistent theoretical frameworks. There is a plethora of tool use definitions and the most widespread ones are so inclusive that the behaviors that fall under them arguably do not have much in common. The situation is aggravated by the prevalence of anecdotes, which have played an undue role in the literature. In order to provide a more rigorous foundation for research and to advance our understanding of the interrelation between tool use and cognition, we suggest the adoption of Fragaszy and Mangalam's (2018) tooling framework, which is characterized by the creation of a body-plus-object system that manages a mechanical interface between tool and surface. Tooling is limited to a narrower suite of behaviors than tool use, which might facilitate its neurocognitive investigation. Indeed, evidence in the literature indicates that tooling has distinct neurocognitive underpinnings not shared by other activities typically classified as tool use, at least in primates. In order to understand the extent of tooling incidences in previous research, we systematically surveyed the comprehensive tool use catalog by Shumaker et al. (2011). We identified 201 tool use submodes, of which only 81 could be classified as tooling, and the majority of the tool use examples across species were poorly supported by evidence. Furthermore, tooling appears to be phylogenetically less widespread than tool use, with the greatest variability found in the primate order. However, in order to confirm these findings and to understand the evolution and neurocognitive mechanisms of tooling, more systematic research will be required in the future, particularly with currently underrepresented taxa.

Of Great Apes and Magpies: Initiations into Animal Behaviour

Simple Summary

Animal encounters have been favourite subjects for a long time and it would scarcely be novel to report such stories for their own sake, even though the ones told here are dramatic enough to stand on their own. The questions addressed in this paper are twofold. The first question is: What influence may particular and dramatic animal encounters have on the human observer and how dependent is such a response on previously held attitudes? This paper provides three cases studies of extraordinary moments that changed the lives of the human participants and turned them into advocates of the species they had encountered. The next question asked is how we can be respectful of animals without anthropomorphising them and study them in ways that help us understand their abilities and their needs rather than impose questions that mean much to the human researcher but could be irrelevant to the species? The examples given here compare and contrast species that are especially close to us (great apes) with studies of those that are distant from us in their evolution (birds) and show how different attitudes change the questions that can be asked by scientists, demonstrably leading to new and even stunning results.

Abstract

This paper presents three case studies of exceptional human encounters with animals. These particular examples were selected because they enabled analysis of the underlying reasons that led the human participants to respond in new ways to their animal counterparts. The question asked here is whether sudden insights into the needs and abilities of an animal arises purely from an anthropocentric position as empathy because of genetic closeness (e.g., chimpanzees) or is something else and whether new insights can be applied to other phylogenetic orders not close to us, e.g., birds, and change research questions and implicit prejudices and stereotypes. Particularly in avian species, phylogenetically distant from humans, the prejudices (anthroprocentric position) and the belief in human uniqueness (human exceptionalism) might be greater than in the reactions to primates. Interestingly, in studies of great apes, contradictory opinions and controversies about cognitive abilities, especially when compared with humans, tend to be pronounced. Species appropriateness in test designs are desirable present and future goals but here it is suggested how different experiences can also lead to different questions that explode the myth of human uniqueness and then arrive at entirely different and new results in cognitive and affective abilities of the species under investigation.

Innovative problem solving in macaws

Behavioural innovations with tool-like objects in non-habitually tool-using species are thought to require complex physical understanding, but the underlying cognitive processes remain poorly understood. A few parrot species are capable of innovating tool-use and borderline tool-use behaviours. We tested this capacity in two species of macaw (Ara ambiguus, n = 9; Ara glaucogularis, n = 8) to investigate if they could solve a problem-solving task through manufacture of a multi-stone construction. Specifically, after having functional experience with a pre-inserted stick tool to push a reward out of a horizontal tube, the subjects were required to insert five stones consecutively from one side to perform the same function as the stick tool with the resulting multi-component construction. One Ara glaucogularis solved the task and innovated the stone construction after the experience with the stick tool. Two more subjects (one of each species) did so after having further functional experience of a single stone pushing a reward out of a shortened tube. These subjects were able to consistently solve the task, but often made errors, for example counter-productive stone insertions from the opposing end, even in some of the successful trials. Conversely, multiple trials without errors also suggested a strong goal direction. Their performance in the follow-up tasks was inconclusive since they sometimes inserted stones into un-baited or blocked ‘dummy tubes’, but this could have been an attention-deficit behaviour as subjects had not encountered these ‘dummy tubes’ before. Overall, the successful subjects’ performance was so erratic that it proved difficult to conclude whether they had functional understanding of their multi-stone constructions.

Object manufacture based on a memorized template: Goffin's cockatoos attend to different model features

Although several nonhuman animals have the ability to recognize and match templates in computerized tasks, we know little about their ability to recall and then physically manufacture specific features of mental templates. Across three experiments, Goffin cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana), a species that can use tools in captivity, were exposed to two pre-made template objects, varying in either colour, size (long or short) or shape (I or L-shaped), where only one template was rewarded. Birds were then given the opportunity to manufacture versions of these objects themselves. We found that all birds carved paper strips from the same colour material as the rewarded template, and half were also able to match the size of a template (long and short). This occurred despite the template being absent at test and birds being rewarded at random. However, we found no evidence that cockatoos could carve L-shaped pieces after learning that L-shaped templates were rewarded, though their manufactured strips were wider than in previous tests. Overall, our results show that Goffin cockatoos possess the ability to physically adjust at least the size dimension of manufactured objects relative to a mental template. This ability has previously only been shown in New Caledonian crows, where template matching was suggested as a potential mechanism allowing for the cumulative cultural transmission of tool designs. Our results show that within avian tool users, the ability to recreate a physical template from memory does not seem to be restricted to species that have cumulative tool cultures.

New Caledonian crows' basic tool procurement is guided by heuristics, not matching or tracking probe site characteristics

Contrasting findings made it unclear what cognitive processes New Caledonian crows use to procure suitable tools to solve tool tasks. Most previous studies suggested that their tool procurement is achieved by either trial and error or a simple heuristic. The latter provides a fast and cognitively efficient method for stable, routinized behaviour based on past experience with little or no deliberate decision-making. However, early papers by Chappell and Kacelnik reported that two New Caledonian crows procured tools after closely assessing the tool characteristics required for the task, thus using deliberate decision-making, or a 'customized strategy'. Here, I tested eight New Caledonian crows to determine their default behaviour in basic tool procurement tasks as a check on whether or not they use customized strategies. I used two rigorous experiments closely based on Chappell and Kacelnik's experiments. The crows did not use a customized strategy in either experiment, but their behaviour was clearly consistent with tool procurement predominantly guided by a familiarity heuristic. I discuss potential methodological issues that may have led to different conclusions in Chappell and Kacelnik's studies. Heuristic-guided, routinized behaviour in tool procurement has potential implications for understanding how standardization occurs in the early evolution of complex tool manufacture, both in New Caledonian crows and early humans.

Using an Innovation Arena to compare wild-caught and laboratory Goffin's cockatoos

The ability to innovate, i.e., to exhibit new or modified learned behaviours, can facilitate adaptation to environmental changes or exploiting novel resources. We hereby introduce a comparative approach for studying innovation rate, the ‘Innovation Arena’ (IA), featuring the simultaneous presentation of 20 interchangeable tasks, which subjects encounter repeatedly. The new design allows for the experimental study of innovation per time unit and for uncovering group-specific problem-solving abilities – an important feature for comparing animals with different predispositions and life histories. We applied the IA for the first time to investigate how long-term captivity affects innovative capacities in the Goffin’s cockatoo, an avian model species for animal innovation. We found that fewer temporarily-captive wild birds are inclined to consistently interact with the apparatus in comparison to laboratory-raised birds. However, those that are interested solve a similar number of tasks at a similar rate, indicating no difference in the cognitive ability to solve technical problems. Our findings thus provide a contrast to previous literature, which suggested enhanced cognitive abilities and technical problem-solving skills in long-term captive animals. We discuss the impact and discrepancy between motivation and cognitive ability on innovation rate. Our findings contribute to the debate on how captivity affects innovation in animals.