4.5 Article

Safekeeping of tools in Goffin's cockatoos, Cacatua goffiniana

Journal

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
Volume 128, Issue -, Pages 125-133

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.04.010

Keywords

cost-benefit; future-oriented cognition; parrot; tool use; tool safekeeping

Funding

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 29084, P 29075]
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P29084] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tool use in animals can be costly as foraging tools need to be actively searched for or manufactured. Consequently, some habitually tool-using species keep their tools safe and ` recycle' them for further use. We tested the Indonesian Goffin's cockatoo, a parrot with the capacity but no apparent adaptive specialization for tool use to investigate how tool safekeeping can arise innovatively. In this case, we further intended to test whether and how such safekeeping changes in different feeding contexts. We demonstrate that, in a set-up allowing for tool losses, the birds quickly started to keep their tools safe in between tool-using events. They used different individual strategies, suggesting that the behaviour was a product of innovation rather than inherited predispositions. The frequency of safekeeping improved over time indicating individual learning. Furthermore, the birds flexibly adjusted their performance depending on different contexts: paralleling previous results in the habitually tool-using New Caledonian crow, Corvus moneduloides, the cockatoos saved their tools more often when the foraging site was elevated and when the food item was easy rather than difficult to process. Furthermore, when feeding at heights, the birds tended to use a different safekeeping mode than when the foraging site was low. (C) 2017 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available