Search

The ability to unlearn a previously established association is an important component of behavioural flexibility and may vary according to species ecology. Previously, two closely related sympatric Darwin’s finches were found to differ in their learning abilities. Small tree finches (Camarhynchus parvulus) outperformed woodpecker finches (Cactospiza pallida) in reversal learning but performed worse in an operant task. We attributed this difference to the habit of woodpecker finches to engage in long bouts of energetic pecking during extractive foraging. Persistently repeating one action without reward could favour performance in operant tasks but also limit behavioural flexibility. Here, we tested whether perseverance is the reason for woodpecker finches’ depressed reversal learning performance. Two new reversal conditions allowed the disentanglement of two sources of error in reversal learning: perseverant choice of the previously rewarded stimulus and failure to respond to the previously non-rewarded stimulus. For the within-species comparison, we predicted that woodpecker finches should find it more difficult to learn to avoid the previously rewarded stimulus than learning to choose the previously non-rewarded stimulus. For the species comparison, we predicted the woodpecker finches should make more errors of perseverance than small tree finches. As performance could also be influenced by reaction to novelty, we compared neophobic responses between species and related them to reversal learning proficiency. We found no significant difference in reversal learning in the predicted direction, but found a negative correlation between neophobia and reversal learning at the inter- and the intraspecific level, which points towards a general relationship between reaction to novelty and flexibility.

The use and manufacture of tools has been considered to be cognitively demanding and thus a possible evolutionary driving factor of intelligence. Animal tool use provides the opportunity to investigate whether the use of tools evolved in conjunction with enhanced physical cognitive abilities. However, success in physical tasks may simply reflect enhanced general learning abilities and not cognitive adaptations to tool use. To distinguish between these possibilities, we compared general learning and physical cognitive abilities between the tool-using woodpecker finch, Cactospiza pallida, and its close relative, the small tree finch, Camarhynchus parvulus. Since not all woodpecker finches use tools, we also compared tool-using and nontool-using individuals, predicting that domain-specific experience should lead tool-using woodpecker finches to outperform nontool-users in a task that is similar to their natural tool use. Contrary to our predictions, woodpecker finches did not outperform small tree finches in either of the physical tasks and excelled in only one of the general learning tasks, and tool-using woodpecker finches did not outperform nontool-using woodpecker finches in the physical task closely resembling tool use. Our results provide no evidence that tool use in woodpecker finches has evolved in conjunction with enhanced physical cognition or that domain-specific experience hones domain-specific skills. This is an important contribution to a growing body of evidence indicating that animal tool use, even that which seems complex, does not necessitate specialized cognitive adaptations.

The trap tube is a classic test of causal reasoning abilities in animals in the physical domain. Recently, a modified version of this task improved its diagnostic capacity and allowed testing of non-tool-using animals. We used this modified two-trap tube task to compare the cognition of two Darwin’s finch species: the woodpecker finch, Cactospiza pallida, a tool-using species, and the small tree finch, Camarhynchus parvulus, a closely related non-tool-using species. Not all woodpecker finches use tools in nature, and we therefore also tested non-tool-using individuals to assess the effect of experience on trap tube performance. No small tree finches and only two non-tool-using woodpecker finches solved the initial task which was operated using a pre-inserted piston. One tool-using woodpecker finch solved the task when allowed to use its own tool instead of the pre-inserted piston. The fact that none of these subjects transferred their knowledge when the features of the task changed, suggests that in this species, neither experience using tools nor the genetic composition of a tool-user are associated with the general physical cognitive skills required to solve the trap tube task.

Darwin's finches are a classic example of adaptive radiation. The ecological diversity of the Galápagos in part explains that radiation, but the fact that other founder species did not radiate suggests that other factors are also important. One hypothesis attempting to identify the extra factor is the flexible stem hypothesis, connecting individual adaptability to species richness. According to this hypothesis, the ancestral finches were flexible and therefore able to adapt to the new and harsh environment they encountered by exploiting new food types and developing new foraging techniques. Phenotypic variation was initially mediated by learning, but genetic accommodation entrenched differences and supplemented them with morphological adaptations. This process subsequently led to diversification and speciation of the Darwin's finches. Their current behaviour is consistent with this hypothesis as these birds use unusual resources by extraordinary means. In this paper, we identify cognitive capacities on which flexibility and innovation depend. The flexible stem hypothesis predicts that we will find high levels of these capacities in all species of Darwin's finches (not just those using innovative techniques). Here, we test that prediction, and find that while most of our data are in line with the flexible stem hypothesis, some are in tension with it.