Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on April 13, 2005
Behavioral Ecology 2005 16(4):702-707; doi:10.1093/beheco/ari044
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/4/702    most recent
ari044v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (14)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Martin, L. B.
Right arrow Articles by Fitzgerald, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Martin, L. B., II
Right arrow Articles by Fitzgerald, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

A taste for novelty in invading house sparrows, Passer domesticus

Lynn B. Martin, II and Lisa Fitzgerald

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544, USA

Address correspondence to L. Martin, who is now at the Department of Psychology, Townshend Hall, Ohio State University, Columbus OH 43210, USA. E-mail: lmartin{at}mail.psy.ohio-state.edu.

One of the central questions in invasion biology involves why some introductions succeed and others fail. Although several correlates of invasion success have been identified, patterns alone cannot identify the mechanisms underlying the invasion process. Here, we test the hypothesis that one predictor of invasion success, behavioral flexibility, is different between invading and established populations of the same species of bird. We predicted that neophobia (fear of novelty), a surrogate of behavioral flexibility, would be weaker in an actively invading population (28 years resident; Colon, Republic of Panama) of house sparrows (Passer domesticus) compared to a population that had been resident for more than 150 years (Princeton, New Jersey, USA). To test this hypothesis, we compared latency to consume novel foods and phobia of novel objects between populations when both were kept under similar environmental conditions in captivity. As predicted, birds from the 150-year-old population took significantly longer to approach and consume novel foods than birds from the 28-year-old population. Responses to novel objects were not different between populations however; both populations fed more readily near some novel objects, which to our knowledge is the first such occurrence in a wild vertebrate species. Overall, a predilection for trying new foods and being attracted to novel objects may in part explain how this species has so successfully invaded new areas.

Key words: foraging, invasive species, neophobia, range expansion.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
A. Liker and V. Bokony
Larger groups are more successful in innovative problem solving in house sparrows
PNAS, May 12, 2009; 106(19): 7893 - 7898.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
R. A. Duckworth and A. V. Badyaev
From the Cover: Coupling of dispersal and aggression facilitates the rapid range expansion of a passerine bird
PNAS, September 18, 2007; 104(38): 15017 - 15022.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
N. M. Marples, M. Quinlan, R. J. Thomas, and D. J. Kelly
Deactivation of dietary wariness through experience of novel food
Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2007; 18(5): 803 - 810.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.