Don't Swat That Fly! It May Have Just Decided to Fly The Wrong Way

I would like to conclude my blog with a cool article I discovered about an unusual test subject. So although most if not all of my articles have been about the cute and furries of the animal kingdom, I would like to present to you another test subject that has changed the way scientists look at animal cognition. It is the the fruit fly, Drosophilia  melanogaster. This small and not so cute test subject has actually shown similar decision-making skills to that of humans! Researcher Dr. Gero Miesenböck, a neuroscientist at the University of Oxford has discovered that the average fruit fly takes longer amounts of time to make more difficult decisions just like humans do. When humans come upon a perceptual decision that is harder, they need more time for the brain to process all of the information, and fruit flies apparently do the same. To test this, Oxford researchers placed the fruit flies in bifurcated chambers filled on both sides with an odor they had been taught to avoid. When the odor was stronger on one side the flies easily chose the chamber with the weaker odor to inhabit. However when the odors were equally subtle the flies took longer to make a decision, and were more prone to make the wrong choice. This surprised scientists because they originally thought that the flies would act impulsively. This study has shown that because the process in fruit flies so closely mimics decision making in people the same mathematical models used to describe the actions of deliberating people can be used to predict a fly’s behavior. The common link between fly and human mental activity appears to be FOXP. FOXP is a gene that is closely associated with cognitive development and language in humans. A defective copy of this gene is linked to slower decision making skills, low intelligence, and language problems in humans. The question is however, is this gene related to gathering information through other senses like touch or eyesight? Or is it specific to this particular perceptual problem (olfactory decision-making problems)? More research is needed to answer these problems and scientists are eager to continue it. If flies are able to make decisions like us, what other species may be capable of similar cognitive processes to humans? It certainly makes you rethink about swatting that annoying buzzing fly in your home!





References 

DasGupta, S, Ferreira, C, & Miesenböck, G 2014, 'FoxP influences the speed and accuaracy of a
perceptual decision in Drosophila', Science, vol. 344, pp. 901-904.

Do Dogs Have A Moral Code?

Extensive research has gone into the study of dogs because of how close we as humans are to them. They are our pets, family members, and friends. Recent research however, has suggested a very bold and interesting idea that dogs actually have a moral code. This come from the work of Marc Bekoff who is a Cognitive ethologist and professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder. He has been studying dogs for many years and is keen about understanding how dogs communicate with each other through play. For example, when looking at dogs at a dog park, some dogs will display what is known as a "play bow", which is used as an instigation, clarification, warning, and an apology. Dogs will often do this before lunging at another dog or nipping at them as if to say "I am just trying to play with you not hurt you" or " I didn't mean to push you over, I am sorry". These actions seem to suggest some sort of moral code while playing. To test this, Bekoff has analyzed years of videotaped data of animals playing to look for certain body language and cues that dogs give each other to send them a message as well as maintain tight social bonds. He found that canines "role-reverse" or "self-handicap" during play, which is when a larger dog will role on their back so that a smaller dog will have an advantage and the larger one will not jump on the smaller one as many times as the smaller one jumps on the larger one. He noticed that certain "rules" are maintained and must be followed and a dog will signal another dog if these rules are broken or are not being followed. These signals can range from a small eye squint to a certain dog or certain group members not engaging in acts of play when one member is being too rough. Another example is that dogs will often not begin to play with another dog until they have their attention by running into their field of view or tugging on their ear suggesting that dogs know when they are not being paid attention to. Bekoff's work has suggested a much deeper intuition and moral standing than previously thought, although I am sure most if not all dog owners knew there dog had this ability by now.

References

Bekoff, M 1995, 'Play signals as punctuation, The structure of social play in canids', Behaviour, vol. 132, pp. 419-429.

Patience Is A Virtue, Or Is It?

Researcher Jeffrey Stevens has been studying primates to better understand how humans 
evolved patience. He primarily studied chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans to figure out just how the trait of patience evolved. He has figured out that patience isn't just a trait however, but that it has actually evolved through genes. Natural selection has shaped levels of patience in different species based on the different types of problems that different animals face. Therefore, patience is also a species specific quality that is passed on from generation to generation. Stevens has discovered that patience depends on body mass, brain size, lifespan, and home ranges and increases as we go higher up the primate classification order. For instance, a chimpanzee will wait approximately 2 minutes for a reward (the longest of any of the primate species studied) whereas a cotton-top tamarin will wait about 8 seconds until they opt for a smaller and more immediate reward. Stevens tested his subjects by having them choose between a tray with 2 grapes that they could choose sooner, or a tray of 8 grapes that they could have later. The times to wait to have the tray of 8 grapes was gradually increased until the subject reached an "indifference point" when it opted for the smaller, immediate reward instead of waiting. Other parameters have listed cognitive ability as well as social complexity as necessary components of patience, however Stevens negates these hypotheses. This is because  he found no correlation between patience levels and an animal's relative brain size compared to its body size, the measure he used to quantify cognitive ability as well as no correlations between species' social group sizes and their patience levels. The only factor that correlated with patience was metabolic rate, and body mass. This is due to the fact that if you have a faster metabolic rate than you need food faster and are less likely to be able to wait for it to survive. This is also the theory behind how humans evolved patience yet more research needs to be conducted. 

References

Rosati, A, Stevens, J, Hare, B, & Hauser, M 2007, 'The evolutionary origins of human
patience: Temporal preferences in chimpanzees, bonobos, and human adults', Current Biology, vol. 17, pp. 1663-1668.

When Parenting Doesn't Work

Because of the lecture this week, I figured the was a very appropriate (though somewhat depressing) topic to discuss. I recently read an article about occurrences of infanticide that have recently occurred in two very different animal species in zoos. The article begins by describing the cutest and newest addition to the sloth bear (think Baloo from the "Jungle Book") captive community in the United States. However, the interesting part about this baby bear is that she is the only surviving sibling out of three that were born at the Smithsonian National Zoo. When she and her siblings were born, her mother ate the first sibling (a still born), and killed the second cub. Zookeepers later realized after doing a necropsy on the second cub was that it had parasites in its intestines. They then decided to remove the third cub for her own safety because she too was ill. She is now under 24 hour care by zookeepers as they now become full time "momma bears". Although this is a sad case that many humans don't like to see, it is a natural process that can and does occurs in zoos in many animal species. Infanticide is about making sure the strongest offspring survive, which entails the killing of infants by the mother or father. This can be because the offspring were too weak, sick, or because the mother needs the nutrients for other offspring or to get pregnant again. Thankfully the baby sloth bear is in good hands and is now on to a healthy happy life. The second occurrence of infanticide came from a cheetah mother named Ally, who gave birth this past winter to four healthy cubs at the National Zoo. However, after three weeks of a seemingly healthy start to life, the new mother became nervous and began carrying her cubs in and out of the den quite frequently. This caused deep wounds in the shoulders and scruffs of the new cubs, which led to infections. The first cub died before the zookeepers could reach it while the remaining three have been treated with multiple surgeries and are now under constant supervision and separated from their mother. The zookeepers now hope to have these three cubs fostered by another cheetah named Mitty, who has six cubs of her own. Cheetah adoptions happen in the wild as well, when a mother is killed another female will sometimes take in and adopt remaining cubs. The three cubs are now on their way to a better and more promising life and hopefully a new mum and siblings. Although infanticide is a grim topic, it is explained by nature that some may not make it and for the future reproductive success of the parents it is an easy way out. It is quite common in nature in many species of both birds and mammals and unless humans intervene, it does even occur in captive situations like zoos. Infanticide is the darker side of parenting, although its purpose in nature is to benefit the future generations of species in the end.

Figure 1. One of the baby cheetahs undergoing a routine bandage change to its wounds. 

Figure 2. The two-month old baby sloth bear giving the camera a "kiss". 

References

Jacobsen, R. 2014. Why some animals eat their young. Science.

Sneaky Birds and Intelligent Vocalizations

Figure 1. A Fork-tailed Drongo Bird. 

Fork-tailed Drongo birds in Africa have evolved a very interesting and intelligent way of getting food. They are able to mimic the calls of other species, like birds and even meerkats. So when they are feeling a bit hungry and spot another animal with a tasty morsel, they cleverly mimic the alarm calls of that animal then retrieve the food when it is left behind by that animal running for its life. Ornithologists already knew the skilled vocal thieves were able to mimic other animal's alarm calls, however they wanted to know how the species kept their victims from habituating to their deceptive behavior. So they spent more than 800 hours in the field, watching 64 Drongo birds and recording their calls and behaviors. Through this, the researchers witnessed around 700 attempted food robberies. They realized, after analyzing their data, that the Drongo's success is actually quite complicated. These birds are able to produce a large number of mimicked alarm calls, some individuals had a repertoire of up to 30 calls! Six of these alarm calls are used within their own species, which other animals pick up and use the birds as their own personal bodyguards warning them of danger. Throughout the day, Drongos will pick a victim and then report a number of truths and lies, warning the individual of real and fake predators while also switching between their own species warning calls and mimicked ones. To figure out how effective this system was, researchers played a number of different alarms to a species of Pied babblers that are often a target species for the Drongos. They played drongo alarms, drongo-mimicking-babbler alarms, true babbler alarms and warning calls from starlings. The Pied Babblers reacted to their own species warning calls the most but also reacted to the Drongos warning calls as well, just not as frequently. By mixing up which species to victimize, the Drongos have quite an intelligent and successful system until the species becomes aware of what these sneaky birds are up to. Although this example is not necessarily in the realm of cognition, it sure sparks an interesting idea of how the Fork-tailed Drongo bird learns other species alarm calls and is able to judge just exactly when to use the call.

Figure 2. A Pied Babbler. 

References:
Nuwer, R 2014, 'This bird tricks other animals into handing over their meals', Smithsonian.