• Welcome to Avian Avenue! To view our forum with less advertisments please register with us.
    Memberships are free and it will just take a moment. Click here

Interesting Article on Mental Health in Parrots

Sparkles99

Biking along the boulevard
Celebirdy of the Month
Mayor of the Avenue
Avenue Spotlight Award
Joined
8/9/20
Messages
6,315
Location
Ontario, Canada
Just read it. Well worth reading, though it might ruffle a few human feathers. Thanks for posting!
 

camelotshadow

Joyriding the Neighborhood
Avenue Veteran
Celebirdy of the Month
Joined
11/9/11
Messages
21,494
Location
S California
Real Name
Christine
Extremely flawed & non statistical article. Deduction from a human brain from some observation & speculation.

I agree all parrots will benefit from stimulation & activity. Boredom & inactivity for all of us has negative consequences.

I don't think the categorization of species as deduced by the author has been proven at all.

Brain size does not always mean more intelligence. Not amongst humans & from what I can see was not proven
according to species in a statistically meaningful way by this article.

Intelligence for a bird would mean being able to excel in activities that afforded it the best survival.
Trying to equate human concepts of intelligence to animals & birds is always a difficult challenge.

Manipulating the environment to get what one needs or wants does play a part in intelligence.

I have not had many birds in my life but I can see a difference in the smarts of Penny & Rio.
Can I say its because Penny is bigger? Penny is much older too. Penny was cherished since she was a baby while Rio was left alone in a bird room & then given up before he came to me so he did not get much human enrichment.


There is always nurture vs nature to be considered & to just single out by size or species leaves out alot of important variables.


not considered.
 

GreenThing

Jogging around the block
Joined
5/24/21
Messages
722
Location
South Florida
Real Name
Kat
I wouldn't expect the article to bear any burden of proof until I'd read the actual study-- most popular magazines don't do a great job of scientific reporting, and their impulse is to find the narrative in things (they also rarely account for soundness of methods or sample size).

I do appreciate you sharing this! And I definitely plan to read the study if I can access it. The article is framing the results of the study by basically reiterating one of the older principles of animal behaviorism: Yes, an animal's ability to thrive in captivity is in some ways linked to their evolved adaptations and behavior in the wild, but maybe not in the ways we'd expect. There isn't a tremendous amount of research comparing how specific traits (brain size, flock size) relate to captive behavior, so I can see why someone thought this doctoral work was article-worthy.

Brain size isn't everything (all my degrees are in the soft, squishy sciences :roflmao: and command no hard science respect, so I don't know if there are better measures), but I think I'm right to say it is an objective measure with some useful, well-studied correlations, and so studies will continue to use it. If someone knows whether this marker is outdated in evolutionary biology any what has replaced it, I'd genuinely love to learn more.

“But these days, we have neat statistical tools for identifying why it’s in the nature of some species to be resilient, even thrive, when captive, while others are more at risk of poor well-being”, Professor Mason explained in email. This statistical method, known as phylogenetic comparative methods (PCMs), uses information from the historical
This is the meat-- the way scientists are continuing to refine these statistical tools used to evaluate zoos and captive environments. I wouldn't call PCMs speculative.

"I suspected these birds might be so superbly adaptable that they’d be thriving in captivity too — turns out I was wrong, though.”
This is something I have a LOT of curiosity about-- and I think the speaker is actually agreeing with all of your points, @camelotshadow. The main point the article extracts from the study is that behavior that we would term "flexible" or "highly adaptive" in the wild does not directly translate to thriving in captivity, and assuming it does is an example of human error and assumptions about the nature of "intelligence".

Although previous studies found that 10–15% of pet parrots show some form of feather-damaging behavior (i. e.; ref), the percentage in some parrot species can be much higher. This is the situation for pet African grey parrots, Psittacus erithacus, a species where 40% of the captive population damages or destroys its feathers, whereas other species, such as pet Senegal parrots, Poicephalus senegalus, rarely display such destructive behaviors, even when living in similar conditions. Why this difference?
I don't know if these statistics take quality of captive environment into account (the biggest bit of info missing from the article, which assumes-- sadly, maybe correctly-- that most pet parrots are living in sub-optimal environments with sub-optimal diets), but I also think it is important to have studies that don't just look at ideal environments. I am very curious to know whether some species thrive in sub-optimal (think humane but uninformed caretakers) environments, whether some can ONLY thrive in the most optimal environments, and how that failure to thrive related to the species' behavior in the wild. We can't really understand how individual parrot personalities play a role here without also studying species as a whole. It sounds like this study (like so many studies) is opening up the opportunity for further research. We need LOTS of studies comparing things like species flock dynamics to captive behavior to support studies looking at the impact of individual personality on captive behavior (and there are lots of those two-- I've read a few on budgies that mainly focus on typing neophobic vs. less neophobic budgies and looking for how that does or does not correlate to problem-solving skills).

But we can’t tell whether it’s natural foraging actions that are important to these parrots (spending hours crunching, tearing, pulling), or whether it’s that specific nutrients in their lignin-/chitin-rich natural diets are missing in captivity.
Understanding correlations like this is also EXTREMELY INTERESTING an VITAL to improving animal husbandry! If we could actually establish a more accurate link between wild behavior and diet and maladaptive captive behavior, we can improve husbandry in homes and zoos. I think the article is just introducing this idea to the layperson.

Second, the study also indicated, for the first time, that parrot species with relatively large brains are more likely to exhibit a variety of stereotypic behaviors, particularly repetitively biting at cage bars; head-throwing or head-twirling; or swaying, bouncing or pacing in their cages.
"For the first time" makes it sound like this is the first study to attempt to establish an objective correlation between these two observable traits. I'd have to read the study itself (especially sample size and criteria) before I could dismiss this!

“We think our measure of sociality (flock size) was just too crude to capture the value of the relationships birds have with each other.”
For example, flock size as a statistical measure overlooks the details and nuances of individual interactions and relationships between highly social parrots — relationships that may have been established when these parrots were quite young.
This is just science continuing to refine its markers and tools. This is obviously true of budgies: massive flocks, but different brain size and different kind of social structure to macaws or Quakers.

"Success in captivity" is a quality humans have designated and that evolutionary biology does not account for-- so I always find it interesting to read about the ways our expectations are thwarted and why that might be.
 

Sparkles99

Biking along the boulevard
Celebirdy of the Month
Mayor of the Avenue
Avenue Spotlight Award
Joined
8/9/20
Messages
6,315
Location
Ontario, Canada
Good points, GreenThing! We really can't judge a study based on a magazine article. I haven't read the study & certainly not the thesis, but the magazine article raises some valid points and things to consider.

Sadly, I got the impression they thought aviaries were more common than they actually are. Out of cage time will never make up for the lack of one, unfortunately, and what counts as one, as opposed to a very large cage, would have to take into account species size and number of birds too. I once saw an escaped budgie at Petsmart. The aerial acrobatics it was performing wouldn't be possible in any private dwelling, except perhaps some castles. But in the huge, cavernous, high ceilinged store, it was possible.

Like all good studies, this one, as reported by the magazine, appears to raise more questions than it provides answers.
 

GreenThing

Jogging around the block
Joined
5/24/21
Messages
722
Location
South Florida
Real Name
Kat
I'm on my way out to an appt, but I now I'll forget if I wait 'til I get back. I did find a link to the underlying study here.

Not at all a scientist, just passing on something that looked interesting. :)
Thank you, I will definitely be reading this if it gets slow at work today. I love seeing all the footnotes because it means I have even more studies to read. >8] I am a layperson, but it is by no means slapdash, so far:

A larger relative brain size reflects a larger pallium, which is associated with general cognition [84] (and homologous with the neocortex, critical for general intelligence in primates [81]). It predicts greater behavioural flexibility in the wild (e.g. [53]) and thence improved establishment success, even invasiveness, in bird populations translocated to novel wild environments [53,54]. Being placed in a novel captive environment clearly poses a very different challenge for parrots: one where intelligence is a harm rather than a benefit. Species particularly prone to these SBs thus included monk parakeets, Myiopsitta monachus, highly successful invaders in the wild [100102], and blue-and-yellow macaws, Ara ararauna, whose forebrains are more neuron-rich than those of rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatta [51].
-- would have to read the studies in footnotes to learn how well this predictive link has been demonstrated, but the study is already better establishing the physical markers used and why than the article's more colloquial "brain size". Science journalism is hard and rarely done well. Always read the study. ;)
 
Top