Addition and subtraction in wild New Zealand robins

Garland, Alexis; Low, Jason

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.022

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We suggest plausible mechanisms of assessment, which we acknowledge, requires further study. First, while the capacity for numerical estimation is most common in brood parasites (Haywood 2016), there is evidence for numerical ability in other birds too (Hunt et al 2008, Garland andLow 2014), even in this specific context of assessing clutch size to choose nest site (Odell and Eadie 2010). Male flycatchers may have capability to visually estimate egg number based on the size of the contrasting light area of pale eggs against dark nest linings or using tactile stimulation.…”

Section: Assumptions 3 and 4 Inspection Of Tit Nests And Its Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is it interspecific information use or aggression between putative competitors that steers the selection of nest‐site characteristics? A reply to Slagsvold and Wiebe

Forsman

Seppänen

Mönkkönen

et al. 2018

Journal of Avian Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Assumptions 3 and 4 Inspection Of Tit Nests And Its Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is it interspecific information use or aggression between putative competitors that steers the selection of nest‐site characteristics? A reply to Slagsvold and Wiebe

Forsman

Seppänen

Mönkkönen

et al. 2018

Journal of Avian Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several bird species show ability in evaluating quantities and in counting elements (Pepperberg, 2006). Robins (Garland & Low, 2014) as well as newborn chicks (Rugani, Vallortigara, Priftis, & Regolin, 2015) have shown the ability of adding, subtracting or at least counting, presenting then ethological and physiological characteristics analogous to those of humans. Indeed, experiments made on corvid songbirds revealed that, when learned to count, a precise part of their brain is activated, just like is activated a precise part of humans' brain while counting (Ditz & Nieder, 2015, 2016.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ants Fail to Add Numbers of Same Elements Seen Consecutively

Cammaerts¹,

Cammaerts²

2019

IJB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The workers of the ant Myrmica sabuleti have been shown to be able to distinguish different numbers of elements and to be able to add them if seen side by side, at the same time. They have thus a concrete concept of numbers and of adding. It remained to know if they have an abstract mathematical concept of numbers and of their addition. For tempting answering this question, we presented, to M. sabuleti workers, two numbers of elements (circles) not placed side by side but making an angle, the ants having thus to move for seeing the one then the other of the numbers of elements. After 3, 6, 9 and 12 of such training days, the ants were tested in front of the two numbers of elements as well as of their correct sum and their sum plus one element. The ants responded essentially to the two numbers of elements they saw during training, and far less to their sum and sum plus one element. The ants have thus a basic, concrete concept of adding numbers of elements they see. Young human children (3 to 6 years old) have such a concrete concept of numbers and of adding, but they acquire in several months, through learning, an abstract mathematical concept of these notions and of related ones.

show abstract

“…Pigeons were able to correctly order numericals from 1 to 9, and were on par with rhesus monkeys Macaca mulatta in how correctly they performed this task (Scarf et al 2011). New Zealand robins Petroica longipes increased their search time and number of pecks when presented with an amount of prey that was incongruent with their expectations (Garland and Low 2014). Although the tit clutch size might be hard to measure, as it is continuously developing with one egg per day, and then covered by the incubating female when completed, it is not inconceivable that flycatchers can count the reproductive success of tits.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does territory owner aggression offer an alternative explanation to patterns in heterospecific information use studies? A comment on Slagsvold and Wiebe

Samplonius

2018

Journal of Avian Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Slagsvold and Wiebe (2017) criticize part of the literature on heterospecific information use, coined the interspecific cue hypothesis (ICH), which use geometric symbols to study whether flycatchers copy or reject the apparent choices of tits (Seppänen and Forsman 2007, Forsman et al. 2012, Loukola et al. 2013, Jaakkonen et al. 2015. They claim that some of the heterospecific social information use patterns in flycatchers as revealed by these apparent novel niche experiments (ANNE) can instead be explained by tit aggression. They introduce the owner aggression hypothesis (OAH), which proposes that tits aggressively defend alternative nest boxes, which may better explain the patterns that were previously interpreted as heterospecific information use. Slagsvold and Wiebe (2017) present the number of assumptions of the OAH as smaller than that of the ICH, essentially claiming that this provides a more parsimonious explanation for the patterns observed in the ICH literature. Although the owner aggression hypothesis is interesting and needs to be tested, there are still a number of patterns in the heterospecific information use literature that cannot be explained by tit aggression. Moreover, I do not agree with some of the arguments used to reject the ICH, and the number of assumptions of the OAH may be higher than claimed in the paper, undermining the claim that it is more parsimonious than the ICH.Tits and flycatchers share many resources in the same environment, from nesting holes to food sources like caterpillars. They also have common threats including aerial predators like sparrow hawks Accipiter nisus and nest predators like pine martens Martes martes among others. Considering the degree of niche overlap, it would be surprising if the later breeding migratory flycatchers should not use information from the presence of the earlier breeding resident tits. Moreover, tits spend the entire year in (the vicinity of ) the breeding grounds, in contrast to flycatchers, which spend the winter in Africa and can benefit from social information provided by the better informed tits. There is ample evidence that flycatchers use the information of tits in their settlement and reproductive decisions (Kivelä et al. 2014, Jaakkonen et al. 2015, Samplonius and Both 2017. Experiments with the apparent copying or rejection of geometric symbols (Seppänen and Forsman 2007, Seppänen et al.

show abstract

Addition and subtraction in wild New Zealand robins

Cited by 21 publications

References 61 publications

Is it interspecific information use or aggression between putative competitors that steers the selection of nest‐site characteristics? A reply to Slagsvold and Wiebe

Is it interspecific information use or aggression between putative competitors that steers the selection of nest‐site characteristics? A reply to Slagsvold and Wiebe

Ants Fail to Add Numbers of Same Elements Seen Consecutively

Does territory owner aggression offer an alternative explanation to patterns in heterospecific information use studies? A comment on Slagsvold and Wiebe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About