View from the Summer Conference 2011 - ASAB Summer Meeting: Understanding Animal Intelligence

Christine Schwab, KLI for Evolution and Cognition Research, Austria

21 oral and 75 poster presentations tackled their understanding of animal intelligence from various directions, addressing topics that ranged from problem-solving and innovation, to concept learning, inequity aversion and teaching, all starting with two exceptional plenaries by Louis Lefebvre and Susanne Shultz about brain evolution and encephalization and the questions of how they are linked with cognition and how to gain operational definitions of intelligence to measure (social) cognition.
One of the famous examples about sophisticated cognitive skills was given by Elisabetta Visalberghi in her plenary about tool-use in bearded capuchin monkeys and how much the animals understand about physical properties of the stone tools to make functional selective choices. The fraction of researchers working on social learning in animals was well represented by Elli Leadbeater who gave an excellent example of how bumblebees can use social information in a foraging context by using location cues and raising the notion that the use and spread of social information can be based on “simple” mechanisms. Alex Thornton followed a similar line when he gave an overview about his work on meerkats that show high amounts of social learning but he used it to raise the probably most provocative question of the conference: does culture really make you smart? Maybe not, when we consider how eager individuals may be to actively seek information conspecifics would rather conceal (Uri Grodzinski on western scrub-jays in a caching context), or to seek (physical) explanations for properties such as solidity in the absence of causal visual cues (Amanda Seed on chimpanzees in modified trap tube tasks). But how can individual information go on? How may it be transferred into collective information? Here, work on small organisms can give big answers as was shown in Elva Robinson`s talk, based on an awesome micro-tech experimental set-up, about how rock ants would turn information about nest site quality into individual decisions to accept or decline even in the absence of comparing alternatives, and even more so in the intriguing plenary by Tom Seeley about swarm intelligence in honey bees in which he further investigated questions of how and when groups reach collective decisions. Although naturally not sufficiently exhaustive, this short overview could hopefully foreshadow the variety of the contributions and seed curiousity about future work on some rather newly raised questions, such as the relationship between cognition and sexual selection by Neeltje Boogert, which were lively discussed during the generous breaks.

And finally, the inauguration into the secrets of ceilidh dance! A long awaited but more than expected strenuous, nevertheless rewarding, event that made a grand final in the dignified buildings of Lower College Hall. Before heading back home a couple of people took the opportunity to visit the living links center at Edinburgh Zoo and enjoyed the great pleasure to be showed around by Andrew Whiten through these amazing facilities. What a nice farewell present!                

View from the Winter Conference 2009: Individual Specialization

Vincent Careau
Département de Biologie, Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

The 2009 winter meeting of the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB) was held on 3rd - 4th December at the Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London, UK. The meeting, wisely organized by Sasha Dall (University of Exeter, UK), was framed around the theme of “individual specialisation”. Individual specialisation within populations is a key mechanism of evolution. Indeed, when individuals consistently behave differently, occupy different habitats or feed on different diets, it can result in reproductive specialisation within lineages which, in turn, can lead to speciation. Not surprising then that much scientific attention is given to factors promoting specialisation within populations.

The meeting brought together scientists from three distinct fields of research: individual niche specialisation, animal personality differences, and the divisions of labour within animal societies. Even though they all work on different facets of individual specialisation, it is surprising how little these fields overlap. Not only did this ASAB 2009 winter meeting enhance scientific creativity by fostering the exchange of ideas and collaboration among these different sub-disciplines, it also served to increase everyone’s perception of how their own work might be relevant relative to science in general.

The conference opened with a great plenary by Francis Ratnieks (University of Sussex, UK) on specialization and optimization of reproduction and work in insect societies. On the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth, this plenary could not have been timelier. Indeed, many observations arising from insects living in societies present challenging questions from an evolutionary point of view, on which he presented us with perspectives and detailed answers. This presentation kick-started the conference and effectively introduced the other talks given under the “task specialisation” theme. These were surprisingly diverse, ranging from “elitism” viewed as a social behavioural syndrome, to cerebral lateralisation vs. learning ability, and sex roles in parental care.

Alison Bell (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA) opened the “animal personality” theme by presenting a lovely plenary on the causes and consequences of individual differences in behaviour in three-spined sticklebacks. After she summarised the lessons we have learned about behavioural syndromes – in which she was very influential – she highlighted a few unexplored but promising areas for future investigation. The presentation also showed one way of developing a conceptual framework for understanding personality, that is, by taking advantage of the existing literature on repeatability of behaviour, which allows detection of generalisations and patterns. Many other talks and posters presented under the “animal personality” theme were highly interesting as they showed the presence (or absence) of linkages between personality and life-histories, energy metabolism, subjective well-being and sexual selection in both model and non-model organisms.

The study of personality in non-human animals has a long but relatively low-profile history. In the last few years, however, there has been a huge boost of research activity in this field. During the meeting I realised that there are consistent individual differences in the use and application of the animal personality concept… To this effect, Sergey Budaev (University of Sussex, UK) stimulated discussion by a poster on the definition and measurement of animal personality. It is notable that 3 talks under the “animal personality” theme were entirely dedicated to giving statistical advice about the (proper) study of animal personality. Niels Dingemanse (Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany) presented the behavioural reaction norm approach to simultaneously evaluate personality and plasticity. Denis Réale (Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada) presented a new and promising power analysis of random regression models. Alexander Weiss (University of Edinburgh, UK) showed us how animal ratings by humans are not anthropomorphic projections by using two new forms of principal components analysis. Clearly, the standardisation of the personality concept and its application represent a major upcoming challenge in this field of research.

From my own perspective, during the meeting I wondered how long these consistent individual differences in the use of the personality concept will persist. Different visions could be maintained through time and among sub-disciplines because each vision is adaptive in a particular situation (i.e. they help us understand some – but not all – aspects of personality). An alternative scenario is that each vision will struggle against the others for scientific existence and time will naturally optimise towards the most effective definition. If the latter scenario turns out to be the case could we say, ironically then, that animal personality researchers will have lost their personality?

Daniel Bolnick (University of Texas at Austin, USA) gave a plenary on the seminal research he is conducting on the ecological and evolutionary forces maintaining niche variation within populations. To my mind, this was the very best talk of the conference. Dr. Bolnick took us by the hand from the beginning of his talk and magically led us through tons of interesting experiments and interpretations without loss of either interest or comprehension en route. Basically, he used a good blend of theory and case studies to show how proximate and ultimate mechanisms are at play in determining niche specialisation. This highlights how the study of behaviour is crucial to understanding the role of individuality in ecology and evolution.

The conference also featured the annual Tinbergen lecture, which has been awarded in every Winter Meeting since 1974. This year the Tinbergen lecturer was Kate Lessells (Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Heteren) on parental investment and biparental care, which broadened the overall scope of the conference. At the conference Corina Logan (University of Cambridge, UK) was presented with the 2009 ASAB/New Scientist Science Writing Prize, while Helene Muller (Queen Mary College, University of London, UK) won the prize for the best student poster.

Overall, 20 talks and 15 posters were presented by scientists from all around Europe and North America. This was the first meeting to specifically bring together researchers from individual niche specialisation, animal personality differences, and the divisions of labour within animal societies. It generated substantial and novel insights into the causes and consequences of individuality in behavioural ecology. I thank ASAB, the Zoological Society of London, and Sasha Dall for making this scientific event a great success.

View from the Summer Conference 2009

John L. Fitzpatrick
Centre for Evolutionary Biology, University of Western Australia

On the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth, the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB) Summer Conference convened at the University of Oxford, UK (September 2nd–4th, 2009) to reflect on a cornerstone of Darwinian theory: sexual selection. In framing his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859, Darwin argued convincingly that evolutionary descent with modification formed the basis of the origin and maintenance of the tremendous diversity of species observed in nature. Yet, a striking paradox remained – how could seemingly non-adaptive traits, like the elaborate tail of the peacock, be maintained by natural selection? Darwin’s frustration with this paradox was evident in a correspondence with Asa Gray in 1860 where he wrote, "The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" However, 11 years later, with the publication of The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex in 1871, Darwin outlined the conceptual framework of sexual selection, proposing that the peacock’s tail, and all exaggerated sexual traits for that matter, could be explained by incorporating competition over access to reproduction and mate choice into evolutionary thinking.</

Following in Darwin’s footsteps, the 60 talks and posters presented at ASAB’s Summer Conference illustrated the evolutionary significance of sexual selection in humans and other animals. Moreover, with conference participants hailing from institutions in Europe, the Americas, Australia, Africa, and Asia, the meeting itself served to highlight the breadth and scope of Darwin’s enduring global influence.

The conference began with an expansive plenary delivered by David Hosken (University of Exeter, UK) who provided an overview of the triumphs and tribulations of sexual selection theory. Hosken introduced the past and present champions and critics of sexual selection, beautifully weaving an historical perspective into a plenary packed with textbook examples (many from his own extensive work) of sperm competition and sexual conflict in action. After this refresher course in sexual selection the conference kicked off.

Following the legacy of linking mathematics with evolutionary biology and sexual selection from giants in the field like Fisher, Maynard Smith and Parker, conference participants were introduced to a host of exciting new theories. In an exquisite example of research that straddles the line between theory and empirical investigation, Suzanne Alonzo’s (Yale University, USA) research on the beautiful ocellated wrasse challenged the audience to think holistically as she argued that an integrative approach to studying sexual selection is required. With insights from mathematics, evolutionary biology and an impressive amount of fieldwork, Alonzo’s call to simultaneously study male and female competition, mate choice, and parental care when assessing reproductive patterns resonated clearly. Similarly exciting models spanning an impressive breadth of topics were also introduced, from Samuel Tazzyman’s (University College London, UK) prediction that unattractive males will inseminate more sperm in matings because they have fewer chances to reproduce, to Lutz Fromhage’s (University of Hamburg, Germany) argument that selection for individuals who choose genetically diverse mates may offer a resolution to the long-debated lek paradox. Together these exciting models promise to guide empiricists in the coming years.

Birds have often been at the centre of progress in studying sexual selection, as evident from Darwin’s own insights gained from pigeons, finches and rhea. In keeping with this tradition, Clive Catchpole’s (Royal Holloway University, London, UK) plenary in which he described the evolution of bird songs in sedge warblers, zebra finches and canaries made the job of linking the fields of sexual selection, animal behaviour, and neurobiology together with state-of-the-art acoustic techniques seem easy (although it was undoubtedly not!). After illustrating the many functions of bird song, Catchpole demonstrated that songs have a strong genetic basis that allows selection to act on song characteristics as it would on any other genetically determined trait. Emily Mockford (Aberystwyth University, UK) secured a prize for the best student talk by highlighting that urban noise has dramatic effects on great tit behaviour, while Michael Cherry (University of Stellenbosch, South Africa), trekking through the same areas in South Africa that Darwin visited during his voyage on the HMS Beagle, demonstrated the importance of long tails in the Cape sugarbird: males with longer tails sired the greatest number of chicks.

Broadening the scope of the conference, Tristram Wyatt (University of Oxford, UK) reminded us that sexual selection not only influences conspicuous visual and acoustic displays, but also chemical signals between the sexes via pheromones. From moths to elephants, Wyatt’s overview of the dizzying array of pheromones in animals and their importance in sexual selection made me wonder if the musk associated with my awkward adolescence was a good thing after all.

Like Darwin, delegates at the ASAB Summer Conference did not shy away from discussing human evolution and sexual selection. Notably, Geoffrey Miller (University of New Mexico, USA) passionately argued that sexual selection influences the evolution of human mental capacities, such as intelligence, humour and art, which, he argued, might explain the unexpected link between sperm quality and intelligence found in human males.

It was also clear from the conference proceedings that sexual selection is not sexist. Lukas Schärer’s (University of Basel, Switzerland) illustration of the incredible diversity of sperm morphology in hermaphroditic flat worms and Steve Ramm’s (University of Liverpool, UK) demonstration of strategic investment of ejaculates in mice emphasized how sexual selection influences males, while Tim Clutton-Brock (University of Cambridge, UK) and Nicola Watson (University of Western Australia) reminded the audience of the importance of accounting for sexual selection in females as well.

One of the most memorable moments of the conference was Pat Monaghan (University of Glasgow, UK) and Tim Birkhead’s (University of Sheffield, UK) brilliant re-enactment of the famous 1860 Oxford evolution debate between “Darwin’s bulldog”, Thomas Henry Huxley, and the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, albeit with a modern twist. Monaghan and Birkhead’s duelling presentations contrasted the view of the female-centred ‘ovists’ with the male-dominated view of the ‘spermists’. Although the debate was carried out in a more congenial manner than was reported in the original 1860 debate, similarities between the two events were undeniable, with both sides using the occasional dirty trick and claiming victory for their own point of view.

In closing I would like to thank ASAB and the conference organizers (Tom Pizzari, Julie Collet, Becky Dean, Claire Harvey, Stuart Wigby, and Tobias Uller) for their efforts in putting together a truly stimulating and enjoyable meeting. As Darwin remarked about evolution in the conclusion of The Origin of Species, “There is grandeur in this view of life…from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved”. As the ASAB Summer Conference made clear, the incorporation of sexual selection into evolutionary theory has made Darwin’s vision of life all the more grand.