adaptive specializations in birds? psych 1090 lecture 6
Post on 20-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
Adaptive Specializations in Birds?
Psych 1090
Lecture 6
First of all, why did I choose these particular experiments for
examples in class?
Because they are particularly intriguing with respect to tying
together
brains, general behavior, nurture/nature and cognition
And, although many researchers find all the data
compelling,
others are not convinced and are arguing against the
conclusions
thus making for a good topic for discussion
And that will be a theme for several classes
Other systems in other species and lineages are certainly of interest as well…but we can’t
do everything
and birds are my strong point….
Several avian species appear to depend on food-storing for
survival
What we will be examining is whether this ability reflects a modularity that is genetically
determinedAnd how one goes about
determining the answer to such a question
What is absolutely clear is that
in the wild, some species cache and others do not
the extent to which various species rely on caches to survive differs
the time between caching and recovery differs across species
What is also clear is that
for some species, such as nutcrackers, we have very
accurate data concerning their abilities in nature
and for others, like chickadees, we do not
So that, in some cases, the choice of subjects to study
have more to do with their availability and ease of maintenance in the lab
than our knowledge that they would make good subjects for
study
We also do not know, for all the species studied
how their caching ability develops over time
In a paper by Clayton (Behavioral Neuroscience, 2001,115, 614-625
), we find that at least one species needs to learn about
storing for the ability to develop properly
In fact, birds prevented from caching
Did not develop a large hippocampus if they were
juveniles
Did not maintain a large hippocampus if they were adults
Such data suggest, as Elizabeth Bates once said,
that “modules are made, not born”
In other words, an organism may be born or hatched or spawned
with a possible blueprint for development
but experience is needed for the brain area involved to develop
All this is not to denigrate any of the studies we’ve read…..
but rather to remind you that even as well-designed as they may be…
other issues may be involved for which the experimenters did not
—or could not—control
And we really need to keep those ideas in mind as we
read these papers
Because these ideas may—tho’ I can’t at all guarantee—be the
reasons for some of the disparate results that we find
So, with all that in mind, let’s review what is known about avian
caching… caching birds seem to rely on some form of memory to retrieve caches
caching birds in general have larger hippocampal areas than birds that do not cache
the hippocampus in mammals is related to spatial memory
The question that Shettleworth raises, however,
is whether spatial memory is a particular adaptation, or whether
caching birds are just good at remembering things…period
And, following Shettleworth, we’ll discuss in some detail what is
meant by ‘specialization’…
morphological: specific physical traits such as long beaks
physiological: specific brain variations behavioral: caching itself
cognitive: specifically good memories
We can argue that a trait has arisen because of specific
selection pressures
but, correlation is not causation
Thus we have to test that the trait evolved because it really does
improve fitness
and isn’t just a coincidence
We can test this idea in several ways…
We can propose a model that can be tested against data from
nature:
If the data are consistent with the model
we can argue that it may accurately represent reality
What Shettleworth does not discuss openly
but that does run through her and her colleagues work
is the importance of having multiple competing hypotheses
and models
Because showing that your data are consistent with one particular
hypothesis
Does NOT prove that particular hypothesis
but only makes it one of several possible explanations….
Alternatively,
If your data are not consistent with a given hypothesis
you can rule out that particular hypothesis or model
And that allows you to look at one of a number of other competing
hypotheses or models
Performing experiments helps you obtain data to test various
hypotheses…
But you have to make sure that you’ve set up the appropriate
controls so that you are indeed testing what you plan to test
with internal and external validity
Remember that you NEVER should set out to PROVE your
hypothesis
but rather to test it to see if it holds up
And to ensure that you are open-minded about the results
The third way to test hypotheses is to collect
observational data
And sometimes that has to go first, so that you have enough of
an idea as to what may be happening
so as to be able to form a model
Shettleworth also argues for using nonhumans
because they allow us to see how adaptations have arisen
in conjunction with exploitation of particular ecological niches
In ways that are much more difficult to study in humans…
but not impossible…
Relevant to these lectures are the now famous neuro studies of
London cabbies …(Hippocampus, 13:250-9, 2003)
who must pass map tests to get their licenses
Compared to the average human
hippocampal areas in London cabbies were statistically
significantly larger than normal
and the size difference was correlated with the amount of
time they had been driving cabs
The specific questions that arise for the caching birds,
however
is the extent to which we can provide a laboratory situation
that appropriately tests what is going on in nature
One of the big issues in these papers is, indeed,
whether the so-called “contextual variables” of the laboratory
are responsible for the data
and whether there really aren’t species differences
As does Shettleworth, let’s start by looking at what we might expect to find when doing
comparative laboratory work across species….
good
poor
RI or memory load
A
B
When the retention interval is short or there are few things to remember, both are equal
As RI increase or lots more to remember, one species falls apart faster than the other
Three critical points:
No ceiling effect: there’s something that is making the
situation at least equally difficult for both birds at the beginning
The change in conditions affects one species more than the other
Both can do an easy task
good
poor
RI or memory load
A
B
No matter what happens, one is better
Might be due to general abilities…if a number of birds, not individual differences
good
poor
RI or memory load
A
B
Even when the retention interval is short or there are few things to remember, one is
betterAs RI increase or lots more to remember, one species falls apart even faster than the other
Such data suggest that even under easy conditions
One species is better than the other
And retains its advantage, even tho’ it is challenged as
conditions get tougher
good
poor
RI or memory load
A
B
When the retention interval is short or there are few things to remember, one is better
As RI increase or lots more to remember, one species completely falls apart; the other is ok
A kind of turtle and hare situation….
Which might seem surprising, but could come about in a
species that doesn’t have to remember much,
but has to remember it for a long time
Shettleworth also discusses the difficulty inherent in comparing tasks across
species
How do you know whether the different tasks really tap into
different abilities?
Sometimes that is truly difficult to determine
And, in a bird, with a brain that is very strongly weight and
metabolically limited because of flight limitations
[Heavy brains and overly full stomachs make flight difficult]
Various compromises need to be made
One issue that is not discussed, particularly for chickadees
is that their brains change quite a bit from fall to spring
areas for storing grow in the fall and shrink in the spring
For other birds, the same thing happens in reverse for song
centers….
Interestingly, chickadees have pretty simple songs and lots of
calls used year-round
Possibly leaving more space for storing?
But this brings up a matter introduced only briefly….
Keeping birds on a sorta fall light cycle…
Is that the only thing that mediates the changes?
I don’t think we know….
What if birds’ bodies cycled through without the light
cycles?
Unlikely, but I’m not sure it has been tested…
Or whether group living might have an effect wrt competition?
We’ll see next time that birds pilfer from each other….
Maybe operant situations, which don’t reflect such
pilfering, unnaturally affect some
results???
What about the relationship between hippocampus and any
avian memory?
I’m not arguing that such effects must exist…
Only that some of these are controls that haven’t been
done….
And might affect data…
Another issue is in what is involved in birds’ abilities to
remember where food might be obtained?
That is, how do foraging strategies affect the results….
maybe color is what attracts some birds to a food source, not memory
for place?
In these papers, Shettleworth compares caching chickadees
with non-caching juncos…
The former have relatively larger hippocampus areas than
the latter
Both seem to work fairly well in laboratory settings
The technique is operant spatially delayed nonmatching
to sample…
So birds saw two disks, side by side, with only one lit
They pecked the lit one and the lights went out
They then had to fly to the back of the cage
Then, WHATEVER key they had pecked previously would be
wrong
To get a reward, they had to switch
Chickadees overall had a better memory, whatever the
retention level….
If the birds could, just by chance, choose the SAME
sample they had chosen before
That is, if they could pick something and sit on it…
Then the juncos looked more like the chickadees, tho’ still a
bit less good….
Shettleworth argues that the issue is “interference”…
That chickadees are less likely to be confused by what happened in
a previous trial
That a bird that stores lots of stuff in different places better
be able to separate out different memories for different
eventsAnd both had trouble
remembering when their hippocampi were lesioned….
With chickadees fairing worse…
But how well does this task reflect the birds’ lives in
nature?
Would this possibly have to do with how well birds learn
where to find food?
For juncos, how often do they need to shift?
This idea comes up in the next experiment
where birds simply had to learn that it was win-shift, period
No samples to match or nonmatch,
Just keep alternating right/left
So why would juncos do so much better this time?
Even in initial acquisition?
Maybe the issue was external validity….
A bird that stores and retrieves, like the chickadee, is good at a
two-step process
But is less good at abstracting a one-step pattern?
Other studies compared caching marsh and non-caching blue tits (also parids; look a lot
like our chickadees)
The first task was a “simple” memory task, of finding food
designated by a mark
So bird saw something like this
Blue marks the spot where they ate a bit
Birds were then removed from the room for a bit of
time
Then allowed to return
Now the holes were covered
Not clear if sticker was removed….
Birds of either species had no problem
Researchers saw no difference in ability
But what if the holes were covered initially?
So now the birds were having to visit possibly several boxes
before finding the nut….
Once they got the nut, they were again excluded and then could
return
marsh tits had less trouble; could blue tits just not remember the
site?
Or was it an issue of interference of memory for
going into all the empty boxes?
Here the boxes were not clearly marked for the birds;
Position factors were the key
When Shettleworth next did what was supposed to be a replication with an operant
procedure
The results were unexpected….
Let’s look at what the birds had to experience…
At first, each of these were rewarded….
Then birds saw
Followed by
or
or
Juncos did better than chickadees at choosing the
most recently observed sample
The technical explanation is that the juncos simply did
recent association
and chickadees had recognition memory…
But in terms of ecology….
Chickadees store a bunch of stuff in different places
And don’t necessarily retrieve them in order
But have to remember them all
But these tasks don’t necessarily emphasize the difference between spatial skills and other forms of
memory…
What would happen if you pit various forms of spatial
information against something like color or pattern?
So, you give birds that kind of choice…. “x” marks food
x
Then the bird experiences this:
And the chickadees choose in a standard pattern with
respect to spatial cues first and color last
Juncos went to a feeder that did match the sample at some
level, but randomly with respect to color versus
location
An issue mentioned only briefly involves seasonal effects….
Chickadees store for very short periods of time in nature…at most
only a few hours
in the summer, colors and patterns won’t change
In the winter, a quick storm might cause differences over a
brief time period
And, of course, brain areas for storing grow in chickadees in
the fall…
Maybe in summer their brains are closer to those of juncos?
Other issues, only briefly mentioned, involved the visual fields used for close-up versus
distancewhich likely have some effect on
how the bird is locating a box in an aviary
compared to hitting a button on a screen….
tho’ that may have been controlled
And possibly the differences between juncos and chickadees
Which is different from how well they remember these types of
information…
have to do with how quickly and well they encode various
forms of information….
One might come up with any number of ‘just-so-stories’ based
on the need to grab several seeds at once
and find hiding places without being seen
and somehow coding these sites
As opposed to just remembering in a general sense where food might be
And sorting through food versus non-food types of things
while competing w/ several other birds in your group…
In general, Shettleworth argues for a modular approach
which is fine as long as we are open to the possibility
that these modules develop and are maintained by experience
And, we have to recognize that a module is considered
a processing center…
Not necessarily a memory storage site
Although some researchers interpret modules that way
Now, in the next paper Shettleworth performs
experiments to tease apart
the issues of color versus location in caching and
noncaching birds
One important point is the argument that color vision in all
passerines is similar
But that of course doesn’t mean that the birds’ spectral
sensitivities
are necessarily tightly connected behaviorally…
All humans have pretty much the same color vision
but different groups have different ways of color labeling
So we need to keep that in mind when comparing the work on
juncos and chickadees…
particularly when using color discriminations that may be valid
for humans
but might be different for birds
So, even on the experiments that pit location against color
and the chickadees choose with respect to location and the juncos
randomly
Lots of reasons may be—tho not necessarily are—involved in their
choices
Which is why Shettleworth tried to tease apart species differences in
attention to color vs shape
spatial versus color memory
spatial discrimination
Interestingly, most studies to examine how subjects respond
to compound stimuli use things like
vs
or
But such tests really seem quite confusing as nothing in the choices really match the
original item
which is why Shettleworth’s compound
makes a bit more sense
So, the birds saw a variety of possibilities….
or
Or a similar task but with only a color or shape as the
initial sample
The only reason I can fathom as to why the birds never saw
something like
Pitting color versus location
was that Shettleworth wanted to emphasize
that the compound stimulus could indeed be dissembled
into its component parts
and those parts tested independently
Interestingly, both species had lots of problems overall…
At least over a thousand trials before reaching statistical
significance
And both species really had trouble with a color choice after seeing the compound sample
But, overall, the chickadees eventually did better than the juncos on the location trials
And the juncos did better than the chickadees on just the color
trials alone
suggesting that location versus color differences did hold up
somewhat
The next experiment didn’t deal with the compound stimuli
But gave the same birds the location only and color only
tests
to see what would happen when the birds had to remember the task for longer times….but less
than 1 min
Supposedly, in the wild, chickadees cache for longer
periods than that…And note that Shettleworth is
careful to argue that the chickadees maintained their
hippocampal size
because Clayton argued that experience was necessary to
maintain a large hippocampus
Interestingly, chickadees forgot locations faster than the juncos…
which doesn’t jive with what one might expect in the wild…
But in the wild the birds are actually storing something
Then remembering the site
Here the birds are being asked to remember something not
associated with food in order to get food….
So maybe the task was more unnatural for the chickadee than
the junco?
In the third experiment, Shettleworth wanted to find out if cachers and noncachers differed
indiscriminating locations that were
‘close’ versus those that were ‘far’
‘close’ and ‘far’ being somewhat constrained for a touch screen
So they compared results for trials like
vs
They found no species differences for difficult, ‘near’
trials
but chickadees were a bit better on the easier, ‘far’ trials
And both birds more or less coded space similarly
at least for this kind of task
My personal “take” on this work is that species differences do exist
And that often the operant-type experiment does not reflect reality well enough for these
differences to show up
And although the lesion data are compelling in terms of
impaired performance
What might be impaired is the ability to form memories and
process information
rather than the ability to recall information
But let’s look at other operant studies on species
for which much more is known about their natural
behaviornutcrackers and various
types of jays
Here, all species cache, but to varying degrees
And many experiments have shown that those species that
are most dependent upon caching for survival
nutcrackers and the pinyon jays
perform better on tasks of spatial memory
than scrub and Mexican jays that do not
But, as we wondered for the chickadees….
Were some jays just smarter overall or were they specialized
for spatial memory?
So they had to be tested for nonspatial memory tasks
Now, some minor issues that might be of importance as we
look at the Kamil-Balda work….
First, birds were on a summer-like light schedule
Such was set to encourage caching as they would in the wild
But what about retrieval?
Also, the amount of caching each bird was doing varied…
That caching is necessary to maintain large hippocampus area
and the ability to cache
and birds’ histories might be important
was not known at the time this work was done
Another issue, not known at the time,
was that birds that prefer to cache degradable items
might perform a bit differently than seed-cachers
We’ll talk more about that next week
For now, let’s just look at the studies….
The nonmatch color task was similar to all the others…
The bird saw
Followed by
And birds were trained til they hit the nonmatch at
85%
What they then did was to test how long the birds could
maintain their memory for the sample
When the bird was correct, the next trial had a longer interval
When the bird erred, the next trial had a shorter interval
They analyzed the data with respect to speed of
acquisition as well as how long the birds could
remember
Scrub jays were overall slower than the pinyon and Mexican jays
The one slow nutcracker may have made that species look
‘bad’
The really interesting result here was that pinyon jays and
Mexican jays did somewhat better than the nutcrackers and
scrub jaysThus overall memory (not spatial in particular) had less to do with
caching
than with their sociality…
Possibly the birds that lived in groups—the pinyon and
Mexican jays
had to rely on some kind of pattern memory to recognize
several individuals
whereas the other jays did not
But Kamil and Balda had to make sure that there wasn’t anything strange about this
group of birds
So they gave the same birds a simple nonmatch-to-sample
spatial test…
Birds thus saw
Followed by
And they had to choose the opposite location
from what they had seen
After reaching 85 % criterion, they experienced the same
titration task
and researchers found this time that the nutcrackers were
special
They learned faster and retained the information
longer
What was surprising was that the pinyon jays didn’t do much
better than the scrub or Mexican jays….
They had done better in other spatial memory tasks in previous experiments
Again, one wonders about an operant task..
Interestingly, tho’, the pinyon jays’ hippocampus is more like that of the scrub and Mexican
jayswhereas the nutcrackers’ is much
larger
Which makes one wonder why the pinyon jays did so well on the
other tasks…(e.g., radial maze)
Other data on woodpeckers who cache (Volman et al., Brain Behav Evol, 1997,
49:110-120)showed that those that cache the most may have smaller
hippocampal areas than those that don’t store at all
Leaving the correlation still open to discussion
Specifically, what else in the birds’ lives may be impacting the relative sizes of their brain
areas?
Possibly the large home ranges of the noncaching downy and hairy
woodpeckers require lots of spatial memory for finding food
sources?
Or maybe these species do cache but do so in a manner
not discovered by researchers?
Or maybe the noncaching species have more holes that they use for shelter in their large territories that need to
be remembered?
The issue is that food storing is but one metric that can be used
to examine spatial memory
And thus researchers should not be caught in a tunnel-vision
with respect to that trait
So let’s look at a task that is more similar to the birds’
natural situation…
This time they let birds cache seeds in a room with lots of
holes in the floor
each hole was actually a sand-filled dixie cup
Chamber looked something like this…
pegs and holes alternating, w; rock
landmarks
Birds were allowed to cache up to 24 seeds per session, but
usually cached fewer
and were given up to 6 caching sessions to get 12-24 caches
They weren’t allowed to use a given site more than once, and
only 62 sites were available– about ¼ of possible holes in room
They then had four recovery sessions…
Using a fourth of what the birds had cached…i.e., about
6 caches
With all other cache sites plugged
I had to go to an earlier paper to figure out the
clusters….Each good cluster had 6
contiguous holes with one seed/cluster
Bad clusters had no seeds
So birds had about 5 or 6 good and bad clusters available
So again about a quarter of the room’s holes were
available….
Except that most of the previous cache sites were now plugged
And only sites not used plus a subset of used sites were
available
In general, there was no difference in how many caches the successfully caching birds
madeSo that comparisons could be
made across species
In general, Mexican and scrub jays made about the same
number of errors at every time interval
Whether the interval was 10 days or 250 days
They were just slightly better than chance
And the individual differences were scattered all over…some birds even improving a bit w/
time
The nutcrackers and pinyon jays were particularly good at shorter intervals…10-60 days
Interestingly, they didn’t do too much better than the other birds
at the longest interval
And individual data are a bit strange…
These data contrast with other studies that showed that
nutcracker were particularly good at very long intervals…
And here nutcrackers couldn’t discriminate between good and
bad clusters
One possibility is that in reality the nutcrackers would
be recovering caches on a daily basis in the wild
Which they would have to do to survive
And that such daily recover keeps their hippocampal areas large
Whereas in these studies
they didn’t do anything for months at a time
Which may have been a real difference from the other
studies as well
Remember, when this paper was written, no one knew
that experience was necessary
in order to maintain hippocampal areas
Given what happens in the wild, these data just don’t
make major sense
So, again, we are left with issues of internal and external
validity
The need to know lots about the animals’ prior history
about their ecology, their social structure, their brains, and
more…
One big issue—from a seminar last year—is the connection
between the hippocampus and other parts of the brain
In humans, at least, many connections exist to the parietal
cortex
an area that seems to involve attention
And, of course, attention is the first step in any of the tasks
we’ve discussed
So what might be important is not just relative hippocampal size
but the type and number of connections to the avian equivalent
of the parietal cortex
or the relative size of this area
And, because parietal cortex is involved in all attentional issues
from number concepts to communication to spatial issues
a balance between parietal and hippocampal areas might explain
contrary data
We know, for example, that areas relating to general cerebral
cortexvary considerably across species
Certain areas relating to things like insight detour are relatively small in pigeons and relatively large in
crows and parrots
and success varies with size
So, if birds see
Pigeons and chicks, not crows or parrots, take a long time to figure out how to go around
And in monkeys, lesions to one part of the cortex messed up
the ability while lesions to other parts did not
Although this is a different spatial task than caching,
you can see the relationship
And possibly how it is not just size of one area but the
interrelationships
that can indeed be the critical issue
Overall, these studies provide fascinating insights as to what these creatures are
capable of doing