Individual-learning ability predicts social-foraging strategy in house sparrows.
Social foragers can use either a 'producer' strategy, which involves searching for food, or a 'scrounger' strategy, which involves joining others' food discoveries. While producers rely on personal information and past experience, we may ask whether the tendency to forage as a producer is related to being a better learner. To answer this question, we hand-raised house sparrow (Passer domesticus) nestlings that upon independence were given an individual-learning task that required them to associate colour signal and food presence. Following the testing phase, all fledglings were released into a shared aviary, and their social-foraging tendencies were measured. We found a significant positive correlation between individual's performance in the individual-learning task and subsequent tendency to use searching (producing) behaviour. Individual-learning score was negatively correlated with initial fear of the test apparatus and with body weight. However, the correlation between individual learning and searching remained significant after controlling for these variables. Since it was measured before the birds entered a social group, individual-learning ability could not be the outcome of being a producer. However, the two traits may be initially associated, or individual learning could facilitate producing behaviour. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that associates individual-learning abilities with social-foraging strategies in animal groups.
Katsnelson
Edith
E
Department of Zoology, Tel Aviv University, , Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. edithkat@post.tau.ac.il
Motro
Uzi
U
Feldman
Marcus W
MW
Lotem
Arnon
A
D000818:Animals; D001522:Behavior, Animal / Q000502:physiology; D005247:Feeding Behavior / Q000502:physiology*; D007206:Individuality; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D012919:Social Behavior; D046370:Sparrows / Q000502:physiology*
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 29;99(22):14274-9
12391295
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Nov 29;357(1427):1559-66
12495513
Trends Ecol Evol. 1994 Nov;9(11):442-6
21236920
Nature. 2007 May 31;447(7144):581-4
17538618
Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Oct;21(10):542-7
16806574
Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Apr;20(4):187-93
16701367
Adv Study Behav. 2008;38:227-281
24991063
Ethology. 2012 Nov 1;118(11):1111-1121
23226911
Behav Genet. 2005 Sep;35(5):675-92
16184494
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 May 12;106(19):7893-8
19416834
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007 May;82(2):291-318
17437562
Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Feb 22;277(1681):601-8
19864281
Anim Behav. 2000 Jul;60(1):131-140
10924212
Horm Behav. 2003 Aug;44(2):132-9
13129485
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005 Feb;29(1):137-50
15652261
Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Mar 22;274(1611):755-61
17251088
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Aug 7;104(32):13051-5
17640898
Learn Behav. 2004 Feb;32(1):4-14
15161136
J Comp Psychol. 1992 Jun;106(2):172-83
1600722
J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2008 Nov 15;310(7):549-66
18756522
N Engl J Med. 2002 Jan 17;346(3):149-57
11796848
Biol Psychiatry. 2000 Mar 15;47(6):490-500
10715355
J Neurosci. 2003 Jul 23;23(16):6423-33
12878682
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Oct 14;105(41):15825-30
18838685
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2006 Sep;86(2):228-40
16650783
Q Rev Biol. 2004 Sep;79(3):241-77
15529965