• 首页关于本刊期刊订阅编委会作者指南过刊浏览
赵雪琪,于江萍,王翌,吴剑锋,董春光,王海涛①.2022.不同气味对虎皮鹦鹉取食行为影响.动物学杂志,57(4):579-584.
不同气味对虎皮鹦鹉取食行为影响
Effects of Different Odors on Feeding Behavior of Budgerigar
投稿时间:2021-11-12  修订日期:2022-05-05
DOI:10.13859/j.cjz.202204011
中文关键词:  虎皮鹦鹉  觅食行为  捕食者躲避  嗅觉
英文关键词:Budgerigar  Foraging behavior  Predator avoidance  Olfactory
基金项目:吉林省教育厅科学技术研究项目(No. JJKH20190281KJ)
作者单位E-mail
赵雪琪 东北师范大学生命科学学院 长春 130000 zhaoxq590@nenu.edu.cn 
于江萍 东北师范大学生命科学学院 长春 130000 yujp539@nenu.edu.cn 
王翌 北华大学理学院 吉林 132013 wangnuf@126.com 
吴剑锋 吉林市野生动物保护站 吉林 132011 453338052@qq.com 
董春光 东北师范大学生命科学学院 长春 130000 dongcg237@nenu.edu.cn 
王海涛① 东北师范大学生命科学学院 长春 130000 wanght402@nenu.edu.cn 
摘要点击次数: 7
全文下载次数: 137
中文摘要:
      研究发现许多鸟类具有发育良好的嗅觉系统,但气味是否影响鸟类取食行为的研究报道较少。本研究开展了长尾林鸮(Strix uralensis)、金雕(Aquila chrysaetos)、家犬和家猫的粪便气味以及香水和香烟的气味对虎皮鹦鹉(Melopsittacus undulates)取食行为影响的比较研究。研究发现,虎皮鹦鹉在香水气味下的取食意图显著低于长尾林鸮粪便气味和无气味对照;在金雕粪便、猫粪便、香水及香烟气味下的取食频次显著低于无气味对照,同时香水及香烟气味下的取食频次显著低于长尾林鸮粪便气味,说明虎皮鹦鹉可能通过气味识别潜在的风险,进而调整取食行为。
英文摘要:
      [Objective] The sense of smell of most birds has been considered to be degraded, although some bird species have well-developed olfactory organs. While, a few studies reported whether odors can affect the feeding behavior of birds. Here, we aimed to test whether feeding behavior of Budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulates) can be affected by six odors, including feces of Ural Owl (Strix uralensis), feces of Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), feces of domestic dog and feces of domestic cat, as well as perfume and cigarettes. [Method] Before the experiment, one of those six odor sources was placed on the lower layer of the double-layer food box (custom-made, with 225 air vents between the layers), and seeds were placed on the upper layer. A Budgerigar (starvation treatment for 4 hours) was individually transferred to an observation cage. After a 5 minutes, a double-layer food box was placed in the observation cage, and then we observed the behaviors of the target Budgerigar for 15 minutes. In addition, an odorless control group was established at the same time. Each bird received all 7 types of odor experiments, while the order of treatments was random. During observation period, we recorded the distance between the Budgerigar and the food box, and counted the number of feeding times of Budgerigar. The cumulative link mixed model with logit-link function was used to analyze the feeding willingness (whether closed to the food box) (Fig. 1) and feeding level of Budgerigars (low level, the feeding frequency was 0; medium level, the feeding frequency was between 1﹣10; high level, the feeding frequency was > 10) under different odors. In the models, treatment and sex were treated as fixed terms and ID was a random term. If there was a significant effect of treatment, we further performed post hoc pairwise comparisons and used false discovery rate control to adjust P values. [Results] There were significant differences in the feeding intentions and feeding level of Budgerigars under different odor exposures. Except the feeding intention under the odor of perfume was significantly lower than that of the odorless control and the odor of Ural Owl feces, there was no difference in feeding intention between any other two treatments (Fig. 2). The feeding level of Budgerigars under the odor of Golden Eagle feces, cat feces, perfume, and cigarette was significantly lower than that of the odorless control, and the feeding level under the odor of perfume or cigarette was significantly lower than that of odor of Ural Owl feces (Fig. 3). In addition, there was no difference in feeding level between any other two treatments. [Conclusion] Our results showed that the Budgerigars performed different feeding behaviors under different odors. Here, we suggested that the Budgerigars might be able to assess the potential predation risks in the environment by odors and then adjust their feeding behaviors.
查看全文  查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器