title: Exploring or avoiding novel food resources? The novelty conflict in an invasive bird.
abstract: For an animal invading a novel region, the ability to develop new behaviors should facilitate the use of novel food resources and hence increase its survival in the new environment. However, the need to explore new resources may entail costs such as exposing the animal to unfamiliar predators. These two opposing forces result in an exploration-avoidance conflict, which can be expected to interfere with the acquisition of new resources. However, its consequences should be less dramatic in highly urbanized environments where new food opportunities are common and predation risk is low. We tested this hypothesis experimentally by presenting three foraging tasks to introduced common mynas (Acridotheres tristis) from environments with low and high urbanization levels from Australia. Individuals from the highly urbanized environments, where mynas are both more opportunistic when foraging and less fearful to predators, resolved a technical task faster than those from less urbanized environments. These differences did not reflect innovative 'personalities' and were not confounded by sex, morphology or motivational state. Rather, the principal factors underlying differences in mynas' problem-solving ability were neophobic-neophilic responses, which varied across habitats. Thus, mynas seem to modulate their problem-solving ability according to the benefits and costs of innovating in their particular habitat, which may help us understand the great success of the species in highly urbanized environments.
authors: Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications (CREAF) Autonomous University of Barcelona, Bellaterra, Catalonia, Spain. d.sol@creaf.uab.es
authors: Daniel
authors: D
authors: Sol
authors: Andrea S
authors: AS
authors: Griffin
authors: Ignasi
authors: I
authors: Bartomeus
authors: Hayley
authors: H
authors: Boyce
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Feb;24(2):66-7
references: 19110338
references: Psychol Bull. 2001 Jan;127(1):45-86
references: 11271756
references: Anim Behav. 1999 Feb;57(2):331-340
references: 10049472
references: Am Nat. 2008 Jul;172 Suppl 1:S63-71
references: 18554145
references: Anim Cogn. 2007 Apr;10(2):259-66
references: 17205290
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Apr 12;102(15):5460-5
references: 15784743
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Apr;21(4):186-91
references: 16701084
references: Oecologia. 2009 Apr;159(4):849-58
references: 19139922
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 May 12;106(19):7893-8
references: 19416834
references: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007 May;82(2):291-318
references: 17437562