Kate Morgan

Bio: Kate Morgan is an academic researcher from University of St Andrews. The author has contributed to research in topics: Nest & Alarm signal. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 18 publications receiving 415 citations. Previous affiliations of Kate Morgan include University of Western Australia & University of Edinburgh.

Unpacking the exploration–exploitation tradeoff: A synthesis of human and animal literatures.

Abstract: Many decisions in the lives of animals and humans require a fine balance between the exploration of different options and the exploitation of their rewards. Do you buy the advertised car, or do you test drive different models? Do you continue feeding from the current patch of flowers, or do you fly off to another one? Do you marry your current partner, or try your luck with someone else? The balance required in these situations is commonly referred to as the exploration– exploitation tradeoff. It features prominently in a wide range of research traditions, including learning, foraging, and decision making literatures. Here, we integrate findings from these and other often-isolated literatures in order to gain a better understand- ing of the possible tradeoffs between exploration and exploitation, and we propose new theoretical insights that might guide future research. Specifically, we explore how potential tradeoffs depend on (a) the conceptualization of exploration and exploitation; (b) the influencing environmental, social, and individual factors; (c) the scale at which exploration and exploitation are considered; (d) the relationship and types of transitions between the 2 behaviors; and (e) the goals of the decision maker. We conclude that exploration and exploitation are best conceptualized as points on a continuum, and that the extent to which an agent’s behavior can be interpreted as exploratory or exploitative depends upon the level of abstraction at which it is considered.

Physical cognition: birds learn the structural efficacy of nest material

Abstract: It is generally assumed that birds’ choice of structurally suitable materials for nest building is genetically predetermined. Here, we tested that assumption by investigating whether experience affected male zebra finches’ ( Taeniopygia guttata ) choice of nest material. After a short period of building with relatively flexible string, birds preferred to build with stiffer string while those that had experienced a stiffer string were indifferent to string type. After building a complete nest with either string type, however, all birds increased their preference for stiff string. The stiffer string appeared to be the more effective building material as birds required fewer pieces of stiffer than flexible string to build a roofed nest. For birds that raised chicks successfully, there was no association between the material they used to build their nest and the type they subsequently preferred. Birds’ material preference reflected neither the preference of their father nor of their siblings but juvenile experience of either string type increased their preference for stiffer string. Our results represent two important advances: (i) birds choose nest material based on the structural properties of the material; (ii) nest material preference is not entirely genetically predetermined as both the type and amount of experience influences birds’ choices.

Birds build camouflaged nests

Abstract: It is assumed that many birds attempt to conceal their nests by using camouflage. To our knowledge, however, no previous experimental studies have explicitly tested this assumption. To explore whether birds choose materials that match the background colors of nest sites to reduce the conspicuousness of their nests, we offered nest-building male Zebra Finches (Taeniopygia guttata) a choice of nest materials that either matched or did not match the color of their nest cup and the surrounding cage walls. Males chose to nest predominantly with material that matched the background color of the cage. To our knowledge, this is the first experimental evidence that birds actively select materials that camouflage their nests.

Nest construction behaviour

Abstract: ‘I believe, in short, that birds do not build their nests by instinct’ (Wallace 1867). It may have taken some time but one of Alfred Russel Wallace’s lesser known ideas finally appears to be bearing fruit. There is increasing evidence that birds build nests that are more variable than once thought and that they will change the material they use to build their nests, depending on their experience. Therefore, birds do not rely entirely on instinct to build their nests. Not only would we argue that the accumulating evidence shows that nest building by birds is not all instinctual but also that the recent data on nest-building behaviour and decision-making are beginning to help us to answer a question that remains, perhaps surprisingly, unanswered, which is why birds build the nests they do. Birds are one of the best-studied taxa in the world, so it is not surprising that, for the approximately 9,000 species of bird worldwide, there is a plethora of descriptions of the nests they build (e.g. Ferguson-Lees et al. 2011). Although many fewer, there are also multiple descriptions of how different species go about building their nests. In Table 3.1 we provide examples of species for which there are detailed descriptions of the behaviours used by different species when building their nests (for more examples see Hansell 2000; Goodfellow 2011). Importantly, for our purposes, it is difficult to know whether descriptions of nestbuilding behaviours are typical for a species as usually they have been described only for just one or two individuals per species. In general, birds may either sculpt a nest by removing material from a site or assemble a nest by adding material to a site (Hansell 1984). During nest assembly, material may be piled up, moulded, stuck together, interlocked, sown or woven (for more detail and examples see Hansell 1984). Detailed experimentation investigating how birds know which building techniques to use is rare. Hence, we have little information on how they make choices of materials or whether birds copy the nest-building process and material choice of a parent. We know nothing about whether birds can learn how to manipulate building materials. From recent work, however, it is becoming clear that not only do birds within a species vary in their building behaviour but individuals can be flexible in that building behaviour, variation that can lead to significant variation in the nest produced. These data are increasingly showing that learning has an important role to play in both building dexterity, choice of nest materials and the making of a number of other nest-building decisions. These topics are covered in this chapter.

Citation classic - optimal foraging - a selective review of theory and tests

Abstract: Beginning with Emlen (1966) and MacArthur and Pianka (1966) and extending through the last ten years, several authors have sought to predict the foraging behavior of animals by means of mathematical models. These models are very similar,in that they all assume that the fitness of a foraging animal is a function of the efficiency of foraging measured in terms of some "currency" (Schoener, 1971) -usually energy- and that natural selection has resulted in animals that forage so as to maximize this fitness. As a result of these similarities, the models have become known as "optimal foraging models"; and the theory that embodies them, "optimal foraging theory." The situations to which optimal foraging theory has been applied, with the exception of a few recent studies, can be divided into the following four categories: (1) choice by an animal of which food types to eat (i.e., optimal diet); (2) choice of which patch type to feed in (i.e., optimal patch choice); (3) optimal allocation of time to different patches; and (4) optimal patterns and speed of movements. In this review we discuss each of these categories separately, dealing with both the theoretical developments and the data that permit tests of the predictions. The review is selective in the sense that we emphasize studies that either develop testable predictions or that attempt to test predictions in a precise quantitative manner. We also discuss what we see to be some of the future developments in the area of optimal foraging theory and how this theory can be related to other areas of biology. Our general conclusion is that the simple models so far formulated are supported are supported reasonably well by available data and that we are optimistic about the value both now and in the future of optimal foraging theory. We argue, however, that these simple models will requre much modification, espicially to deal with situations that either cannot easily be put into one or another of the above four categories or entail currencies more complicated that just energy.

Measuring variation in cognition

Abstract: Across a range of disciplines, researchers are becoming increasingly interested in studying the variation in cognitive abilities found within populations. Behavioral ecology is no exception: the pursuit to understand the evolution of cognition has lead to a rapidly expanding literature that uses various tasks to measure individuals’ cognitive abilities. While this is an exciting time, we are concerned that without being clearer as to the cognitive abilities under test it will be difficult to design appropriate experiments and the interpretation of the data may be unsound. The aim of this review is 3-fold: 1) to highlight problems with designing tasks for measuring individual variation in cognitive abilities and interpreting their outcomes; 2) to increase awareness that noncognitive factors can cause variation in performance among individuals; and 3) to question the theoretical basis for thinking that performance in any cognitive task should necessarily correlate with a measure of fitness. Our take-home message is that variability in performance in cognitive tasks does not necessarily demonstrate individual variation in cognitive ability, and that we need to both design more stringent cognitive tests and be more cautious in their interpretation.