QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online May 24, 2004
Journal of Experimental Biology 207, 2199-2208 (2004)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2004
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01008

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JEB Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Göth, A. Articles by Evans, C. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Göth, A. Articles by Evans, C. S.

Social responses without early experience: Australian brush-turkey chicks use specific visual cues to aggregate with conspecifics

Ann Göth^* and Christopher S. Evans

Animal Behaviour Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Plan view of the experimental aviary, showing the position of the hide, the covered area in which chicks were placed at the beginning of the test, stimuli and cameras.

View larger version (114K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Robot stimuli used to test movement preferences. Representative frames are shown to depict the two types of motor patterns presented: pecking (A–C) and scanning (D–F).

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Time spent by chicks in the choice arms when presented with a simultaneous choice between a pecking robot and a static model of a conspecific (A) or between pecking and scanning robots (B). Values represent percentages of the time that chicks spent in both choice arms. The median is shown by the bold line, lower bars show 1st quartiles (in this case identical to the median) and upper bars show 3rd quartiles. Whiskers indicate smallest and largest value.

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Normalized radiance spectra for three body regions (head, wing and leg) of chick robots presented under five different types of filters (control, neutral density filter; UV, UV blocking; SW, short-wave blocking; MW, medium-wave blocking; LW, long-wave blocking). Nchicks=10; Nmeasurements=12 per filter and body region, taken under three different light conditions. Bold line is the median, grey lines represent 1st and 3rd quartiles. Spectra were calculated by first obtaining an individual median from four randomly located measurements within each body region and then calculating a median value for the group.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Time spent by chicks in the choice arms when presented with a simultaneous choice of pecking robots under coloured filters and a pecking robot under a neutral-density filter as control (A, UV; B, SW; C, MW; D, LW). Description of values and box-whisker plots as in Fig. 3.

View larger version (33K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Normalized reflectance spectra for five body regions of live chicks (N=10). Bold line shows the median, grey lines represent the 1st and 3rd quartiles. Spectra were calculated in the same way as for Fig. 4.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Behavioural responses of brush-turkey chicks to the first 10 stimulus events in choice tests that included a pecking robot. Each stimulus event consisted of 10 robot pecking movements. Behaviours represent the initial response evoked. Numbers in parentheses show sample size (N chicks) per stimulus event – sample sizes vary because some chicks only spent a short time in a choice arm containing the pecking robot and experienced only few stimulus events. See Methods for detailed descriptions of behavioural categories.