A test of the Many-Eyes hypothesis in Sulphur-crested Cockatoo (Cacatua galerita)

Dourado T. S., Melo D. F., Melo S. L. R. D.

Evolution & Behaviour, Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.

ABSTRACT
Predation is a strong agent of natural selection, acting upon animals’ social behaviours and group size
choices. This effect has been studied by animal behaviourists for many years, cumin in the rise of
different hypothesis to explain the implications of it among different animals. The aim of this study is
to test the many-eyes hypothesis in Australian Sulphur-crested cockatoo as a model system. This
hypothesis has been widely investigated within mammals and birds, and suggests that the advantage of
vigilant group behaviour relies on the benefit that foragers find in one another to save time as they share
the responsibility to scan for predators, devoting less of their time to vigilance without increasing their
exposure to predation. In addition, we test the correlation between time of response and group size.
Although the results for the later refuted its’ hypothesis, the many-eyes hypothesis was supported by
the findings of this paper, showing that vigilant group behaviour might be advantageous for its’
components as group-size influences time expenditure on vigilant behaviours per individual.
Keywords: Cockatoo, animal behaviour, many-eyes hypothesis, anti-predatory behaviour.

INTRODUCTION
Evolution is a phenomenon full of agents and forces which lead all living things to what they
are and how they are, raising them towards survival. In the animal world, the fight for survival
presents itself in many ways every day. Being predation a direct and constant agent of natural
selection, animals throughout all the alimentary chain had and have to develop strategies in
order to survive this strong force. Those strategies vary widely from physical characteristics
that can be permanent or temporary (e.g. mimetisms) to behaviours which can be inherent or
learned, and can also be divided within group behaviour or lonely behaviour. Moreover,
animals will adapt their lifestyle to the most advantageous strategy for them. In birds, such as
the Sulphur-crested cockatoos, group behaviour is largely adopted for the development of
activities as foraging, and since feeding is an activity that results in predatory exposition, the
need for the development of behaviours such as vigilance to avoid predation is a natural
consequence. Although vigilance can be time consuming and, hence, expensive for individuals
(Treves, 2000), group behaviour can be one of the best answers to ease this cost, providing
individuals with time to perform other important activities. This profiting relationship is
referred to as the “group-size effect on vigilance” (Elgar and Quenette, cited in Treves, 2000).
Thereby, the many-eyes hypothesis which states that, “by taking advantage of the vigilance of
other group members, individuals can reduce their own vigilance” (Roberts, 1996), and thus,
as larger the group, less time is spent per individual in vigilance.

The Sulphur-crested cockatoo, or Cacatua galerita, is a bird found naturally inhabiting tropical
areas, widely distributed in the Southern Hemisphere – Australasian region (Christidis et al.
and Homberger, cited in White, 2011), which, as mentioned before, presents group foraging
and vigilant behaviour, and is abundant in the area of this study being, therefore, the chosen
species to test this hypothesis.

The aim of this paper is to test the many-eyes hypothesis using Australian Sulphur-crested
cockatoo as a model system, inferring two hypothesis: the influence of group size over time of
vigilance expenditure per individual – The many-eyes hypothesis; and the interference of group
size on time of defensive/aggressive response to danger exposure in cockatoos – Time of
response hypothesis.

METHODS
We conducted our study from the beginning of September to the end of October at the
University of Wollongong the Wiseman Park areas, in Wollongong, New South Wales,
Australia. Both locations are open areas where the birds are commonly found foraging. Our
experiments were made on crepuscular time, between 3-6pm, foraging time of most birds. In
order to test the two hypothesis, two types of study were done: one observational study and one
manipulative field experiment, both being video recorded with a Sony digital camera Cyber-
shot DSC-H100, for future analysis.

UOW area Wiseman Park

For the many-eyes hypothesis we used 30 replicates with duration of 60 seconds each, where
one cockatoo was randomly selected among the group to have its behaviours of scanning (head-
up posture) and foraging (head-down posture) analysed and computed with the aid of the
EthoLog - Behavioral Observation Transcription Tool program. Flock sizes varied from 2 to
16 individuals.

The second experiment (time of response) consisted of 16 replicates with different durations.
In this experiment we approached the groups of cockatoos with a remote control car as a model
predator, recording the time with a chronometer from the beginning of the car’s movement
until the first reaction of the first cockatoo, which would often include the raise of its crest, and
be always followed by the stampede of the flock. The group sizes of this study varied between
2 to 9 birds.

Both experiments’ data were analysed using JPM – Statistical Discovery program and
Microsoft Excel 2013 to perform a regression analyses, comparing the differences of the time
records of the presented behaviour and responses within the diverse group sizes for each study,
as well as to generate the graphs. The independent variables for both hypothesis were group
size, and the dependent variables were respectively: time spent on vigilance (scanning), and
time of the first response. As to interpretation of the data, the general concept of significance
was considered, with p < 0.05 representing significant results, and p values above as not
significant.

RESULTS

The data showed that group size does influence in the time expenditure on vigilant behaviours
per individual. With (F1,28) = 8.503, p= 0.007. Therefore, the result support our hypothesis
that individuals which are inserted in larger groups spend less time scanning for predators than
those in smaller groups. (Fig.1.)
However, the results of the second hypothesis refuted our expectations, showing no correlation
between flock size and time of response in Sulphur-crested cockatoos. With (F1,14) = 0.401,
p= 0.536. Suggesting that these animals do not relay on each other for aggressive/defensive
support on hazard. (Fig.2.)

80 R² = 0,233

70

60

50
Time (s)

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Group size (n)

Fig.1. Relationship between time of vigilance (y) and flock size (x) in Sulphur-crested
cockatoo.

12 R² = 0,0279

10

8
Time (s)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Group size (n)

Fig.2. Relationship between time of response (y) and flock size (x) in Sulphur-crested
cockatoo.
DISCUSSION
Our study findings add as evidence that builds correlation between flock size and vigilance, as
has been reported among different animals groups in nature, specially mammals and birds
(Blumstein et al., 2010). Other studies have pointed similar results as well, as in the study
conducted for Li and Jiang (2008), with Tibetan gazelle, showed that with the increase of
individuals in the group, a smaller quantity of individuals scan for potential dangers. Moreover,
it is known that “the negative correlation between group size and scanning rates represents
lower investment in predator surveillance in larger groups.” (Elgar, 1988). Therefore, it is
inferred that group foraging is more advantageous than lonely behaviour.

It is also important to remark that factors other than flock size alone can influence vigilance
levels among the group individuals, such as sex (Li & Jiang, 2008), and social role and age can
be inferred for animals with complex social systems/hierarchies. Although this differentiation
could not be done, and thus analysed, in this study case, studies as Li and Jiang’s report and
confirm its’ importance. In addition, the use of a remote control car as a predator model might
have contributed to the unexpected findings of the second hypothesis, being a model neither
natural predator looking, which the cockatoos would have evolved to be aware of, nor animal
mimic, thus not being identifiable for them and providing unreliable data on how the animals
would react in reality to a predator’s presence. More importantly, the diversity of distances
between animal and predator model for each trial’s time recordings might have affected the
results greatly, making its’ final outcome unreliable.

Furthermore, in regard to other models of vigilance, just as inferred by Viscido (cited in

Beauchamp, 2007), our study also discredits suggestions such as the selfish herd hypothesis,
once it can be seen that vigilance does play an important role in those animals’ system against
predation and, hence, cannot be disregarded.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the relevance of this study, which adds interesting findings to the investigations
of the many-eyes hypothesis in birds, is clear. Being stated, thus, that time of vigilance in
Sulphur-crested cockatoos is influenced by flock size, and inferred that time of response is not
influenced by flock size. Despite the study’s satisfactory results, we found some limitations to
it such as the predator model used and its’ different distances from the flocks in the trials which,
as discussed might have largely contributed to the results of the time of response hypothesis.
Furthermore, given that the main location of our work was on the surroundings of the
University campus, a factor that might have influenced the frequency of the animal’s scanning
behaviour is the lack of natural threat for them in the area. In addition, the absence of control
over individuals previously presented or not to the experiment and consequently their probable
habituation to the model predator. As for the many-eyes hypothesis, as also cited in the
discussion section, the similarity among the birds, almost not presenting external clues of
sexual dimorphism (except for the coloration around their eyes), made the analysis of the
correlation between sex and vigilance unviable for this work. It is recommended for the future
more studies to be made on the area, specially addressing other groups of animals such as
reptiles and fishes, in order to test the scope of the many-eyes hypothesis.
ACNOWLEDGMENTS
To the University of Wollongong for the provided equipment, to Dr. Phillip Byrne for the
opportunity to address and develop this work, as well as to Alice Hudson for all the solicitude
and advices, and to my dearest group fellows: Driellie Melo and Tarcisio Dourado, without
whom this work could not possibly be made. Thank you all.

REFERENCES

Beauchamp G., 2007. “Vigilance in Selfish herd”, Animal Behaviour, ELSEVIER. Issue 73,
pp. 445-451.

Blumstein D. T., Lea A. J., Olson L. E. and Martin J. G. A., 2010. “Heritability of anti-
predatory traits: vigilance and locomotor performance in marmots.” Journal of Evolutionary
Biology. Issue 23, pp. 879–887.

Cuadrado M., 1997. “Why are migrant Robins (Erithacus rubecula) territorial in winter?: the
importance of the anti-predatory behaviour”. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 9:1, pp. 77-88.

Elgar M. A., 1989. “Predator Vigilance and Group Size in Mammals and Birds: a Critical
Review of the Empirical Evidence.” School of Biological Sciences, University of New South
Wales. Biol. Rev. Issue 64, pp. 13-33.

Lima S. L., 1995. “Back to the basics of anti-predatory vigilance: the group-size effect.”
Animal Behaviour. Issue 49, pp. 11-20.

Li, Z. & Jiang, Z., 2008. “Group size effect on vigilance: Evidence form Tibetan gazelle in
Upper Buha River, Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.” Behavioural Processes. Issue 78, pp. 25-28.

Martin, P. & Bateson, P. P. G., 2007, “Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide”,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Roberts G., 1996. “Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases.” Animal
Behaviour. Issue 51, pp. 1077–1086.

Treves A., 2000. “Theory and method in studies of vigilance and aggregation.” Animal
Behaviour. Issue 60, pp. 711-722.

White N. et al., 2011, “The Evolutionary History of Cockatoos (Aves: Psittaciformes:

Cacatuidae).” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. ELSEVIER. Issue 59, pp. 615-622.