4.1 Article

Brilliant bird brains: object recognition in Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus smithsonianus)

期刊

JOURNAL OF FIELD ORNITHOLOGY
卷 94, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

Resilience Alliance
DOI: 10.5751/JFO-00374-940407

关键词

animal behavior; memory; object recognition; seabirds; visual stimuli

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated object recognition by Herring Gulls and found that they display different behaviors toward different objects according to their levels of perceived threat.
The ability to recognize and associate objects with prior experiences has been demonstrated in several avian taxa. Corvids, for example, recognize visual stimuli associated with negative previous experiences and will modify their behavioral responses according to the level of perceived threat. However, the extent to which similar memory-based behaviors exist in seabirds is poorly understood. Our study investigated object recognition by Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus smithsonianus) on their breeding grounds, the site of a long-term monitoring project. When handling gulls and conducting field research, researchers wear standard bicycle helmets as a protective measure against physical aggression by nesting gulls. We tested whether previously banded gulls vary their behavioral responses based on the headgear worn by human researchers. Herring Gulls were significantly more aggressive when approached by helmeted observers compared to those wearing neutral headwear or even holding a helmet, thus indicating a potential association between wearing bike helmets and the negative experience with researchers. Our study demonstrates that Herring Gulls are capable of object memory and object recognition within context, and display different behaviors toward different objects according to their levels of perceived threat. This information is key when designing studies with nesting gulls to ensure that behavioral biases are not unintentionally created due to gull prior experiences or researcher safety gear.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据