logo
Sydney's sulphur-crested cockatoos spotted using drinking fountains

Sydney's sulphur-crested cockatoos spotted using drinking fountains

First they opened bins, now crackles of Sydney's sulphur-crested cockatoos (Cacatua galerita) have been recorded by scientists waiting their turn to use drinking fountains.
The birds, which roost around the Western Sydney Parklands, have figured out how to operate twist-handled bubblers, according to a new study.
The behaviour was observed in a group of up to 200 birds, scientists report in The Royal Society Biology Letters.
Study co-author Lucy Aplin, a behavioural and cognitive ecologist from the Australian National University, said it took coordinated actions for the birds to access water from the spring-loaded fountains.
"It's just one of your bog-standard old-fashioned drinking fountains that you find all across sports fields in Australia," she said.
"They [cockatoos] hold on to the stem and they twist with their foot but then they have to lean their weight while they twist as well.
Dr Aplin said the whole process looked a "bit funny".
"It's a bit of an awkward body position they have to hold, but it's pretty impressive," she said.
Sulphur-crested cockatoos are well-known for their urban antics causing havoc on bin night in more than 60 suburbs in Sydney's south.
But the population in Western Sydney is a different mob.
After the study's lead author, the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior's Barbara Klump, saw the drinking behaviour first-hand, she set up a study to track the behaviour of cockatoos around a well-used drinking fountain.
First the researchers identified 24 individual birds by painting them with dots, then they used wildlife cameras to monitor attempts to use the bubblers by these and other birds in the local area.
Over 44 days, the cameras recorded 525 attempts and collectively the birds were successful 41 per cent of the time they tried to drink, with the marked birds being slightly more successful.
Dr Aplin said about 70 per cent of the local birds, which roosted close by, were using the drinking fountain.
"They use them as a preferred place to drink no matter whether it's hot or if there's other water sources available," she said.
All ages and sexes participated too, unlike with the bin opening behaviour, which is mostly done by males.
"Something about the bin opening requires strength, and that's why it's male biased," Dr Aplin said.
"[Drinking from bubblers is] a very complex behaviour that requires lots of different fine scale motor actions, but not brute force."
Cockatoos are able to work out something tricky like turning a handle because they have brains that are relatively large for their bodies.
Their forebrain, which deals with advanced cognitive abilities like tool use, is packed full of neurons like chimpanzees, which also excel at complex problems.
Alex Taylor, who studies biological intelligence at the the Autonomous University of Barcelona, said it was clearly tricky to get a tap to work when you had the body of a bird.
"Which explains why birds are only successful 50 per cent of the time when trying to use the tap," Dr Taylor, who was not involved with the research, said.
"Still this is a pretty good success rate on a hot day when you are thirsty."
Dr Taylor said the study begged the question of why only a single species was exploiting human water taps and not others.
The exact reason the cockatoos use the bubbler instead of other water sources like a lake or creek is not understood.
But there are several hypotheses that researchers want to test.
"One possibility is the water just tastes better," Dr Aplin said.
That's a theory Irene Pepperberg, an animal behaviourist from Boston University who was not involved in the study, also thought was possible.
"The resource is unlimited, so it is probably worth it to keep trying until they figure out the successful behaviour and, if they fail, they seem to have other water sources.
"The birds do seem to learn about the source from one another; whether they learn the specific technique from each other is a bit less clear."
Another idea is the birds like how the bubblers sit about 1 metre off the ground.
Alice Auersperg, a cognitive biologist from the University of Veterinary Medicine who was not part of the study, said this was because drinking from a ground source was risky and left them exposed to predators.
But she said another reason they might use the bubblers was because the birds liked to undertake an activity even if there was no food reward.
Dr Pepperberg said she recently did a study with umbrella cockatoos where 40 per cent of the time they chose to shell nuts rather than eat ones that were already shelled.
The team behind the new bubbler research hopes to drill down into the reasons behind the behaviour as well as other cockatoo innovations in future studies.
Dr Aplin said she had received other reports of cockatoos using bubblers with levers and unzipping bags to access lunch boxes.
She encouraged people who saw these kinds of behaviour to report it through the Big City Birds App.
Gisela Kaplan, an emeritus professor of animal behaviour from the University of New England, said several bird species seemed to exploit taps in the outback in different ways to cockatoos.
"The moment [the taps] are used, the birds now fly in and take the drops that fall down and then, once the person has left, also lick out the last drops that are in the tap," Professor Kaplan, who was not involved with the study, said.
She said she had witnessed a great bowerbird in Larrimah, Northern Territory, work with its beak at a tap nozzle attachment until water drops were generated.
Dr Aplin said ultimately there was an important message behind all these observed behaviours beyond just funny anecdotes.
"Urban animals that are adaptable and have expressed behavioural flexibility and have large brains are going to try and use the habitats that we provide them with," she said.
"So if we want to increase biodiversity in cities, we need to think about increasing the sort of habitat requirements for species that might not be so adaptable."
On the other hand, Dr Aplin added, we could also use urban design to manage those species that are more adaptable.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Erin Patterson's responses to five prosecution accusations in mushroom murder trial
Erin Patterson's responses to five prosecution accusations in mushroom murder trial

ABC News

timean hour ago

  • ABC News

Erin Patterson's responses to five prosecution accusations in mushroom murder trial

On Thursday, crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC launched her cross-examination of Erin Patterson, who is accused of murdering three of her relatives after they ate a beef Wellington she prepared and served. During her questioning, Dr Rogers put several propositions to Ms Patterson, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and attempted murder and maintains the deaths were a tragic accident. Here are some of those accusations and how Ms Patterson responded. During her cross-examination, Dr Rogers targeted Ms Patterson's health, particularly a cancer diagnosis the court has previously heard was fake. Ms Patterson agreed she had wanted the lunch guests to believe she was having treatment for cancer, but disagreed she had told them she had been diagnosed with cancer. "Did you tell people at the lunch that you had cancer?" Dr Rogers asked. "No," Ms Patterson responded. Dr Rogers continued to question Ms Patterson about whether she had told her guests she had cancer, which Ms Patterson continued to deny. The prosecution said the sole surviving guest of the lunch, Ian Wilkinson, had earlier testified that Ms Patterson told the group she had cancer. Dr Rogers then brought Ms Patterson back to her evidence on Wednesday, where she had been questioned by her own defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, about a conversation she had with her guests about cancer. This is part of the transcript: Colin Mandy: And what happened with that conversation about cancer, did it move on to other topics? Erin Patterson: Um, it stayed at that topic at that point. Um, I … Colin Mandy: What did you say about your health? Erin Patterson: So, it was right at the end of the meal and I mentioned that I'd had a - maybe not 'scare' is the right word, but I had an issue a year or two earlier where I thought I had ovarian cancer and had various scans about and related to that. And then, um, I'm not proud of this, but I led them to believe that I might be needing some treatment in regards to that in the next few weeks or months. When asked by Dr Rogers if she told her guests she had upcoming treatment for cancer, Ms Patterson said she could not remember the precise words. "But I do know what I was trying to communicate was that … that I was undergoing investigations around ovarian cancer and might need treatment in that regard in the future," she said. Dr Rogers also put to the accused that she had researched different types of cancer on the internet to "tell a more convincing lie about having cancer". "I mean, theoretically, that's true, but that's not what I did," Ms Patterson said. During the questioning, Dr Rogers put the following statement to Ms Patterson: "I suggest that you never thought you would have to account for this lie of having cancer, because you thought that the lunch guests would die and your lie would never be found out." Ms Patterson denied this accusation, saying "that's not true". Ms Patterson admitted she did not have a lump on her elbow or an appointment at St Vincent's hospital in the weeks before the July lunch in 2023, despite telling her mother-in-law Gail Patterson both of those things. "You didn't have any medical issues to discuss with Gail Patterson at the lunch, did you?" Dr Rogers asked. "I didn't have a legitimate medical reason, no, that's true," Ms Patterson said. When she was asked why she told Gail about these things, Ms Patterson said she didn't want the care Don and Gail had been showing her to stop. "I had initially thought I had an issue with my elbow, I'd had a lot of pain for a number of weeks," she said. "I probably whinged a bit too much to Don and Gail about it, and felt a bit embarrassed by that. "I suggest that you told Gail Patterson that you had a lump in your elbow and had to go to St Vincent's Hospital to plant the seed of you having a serious health issue," Dr Rogers said to Ms Patterson during the hearing. "I'd say no, I don't think that's right, no," Ms Patterson responded. On Thursday, the court was again shown a series of Facebook messages between Ms Patterson and her online friends. In the messages, Ms Patterson vented to her friends about her parents-in-law being reluctant to take sides in a financial disagreement she was having with their son, Simon. In her messages, she recounted her in-laws suggesting prayer and conversation between Ms Patterson and her husband to resolve the matters. Dr Rogers referred to "eye-roll emojis" used in one of the messages and another emoji that Ms Patterson said showed a straight-line smile underneath. Dr Rogers noted that emojis were a deliberate choice made by a user, and asked Ms Patterson what she would call the emojis. "All I can say about it, it's a face with a straight line for a mouth," she replied. "I don't know what I'd call it." "Even though you used it?" Dr Rogers asked. "Yeah," Ms Patterson replied. Dr Rogers takes her to another emoji after a reference to prayer again in the message. They disagreed about whether it was an eye-roll emoji. "There's a better eye-roll emoji than these … I can't see anything about eyes rolling in there," Ms Patterson said. Dr Rogers suggested Ms Patterson was "mocking" the advice from her in-laws in some of these messages, including the religious aspects of that advice. "I wasn't mocking, I was frustrated," Ms Patterson said. Dr Rogers took Ms Patterson to evidence given by one of her Facebook friends, who told the court the accused had told them she was an atheist and found her husband's religious background difficult. Ms Patterson denied this. "So, your evidence is that you did not say or post that you were an atheist?" Dr Rogers asked. "No, I didn't do that," Ms Patterson replied. During the prosecution's cross-examination on Thursday, Ms Patterson was shown several photos of mushrooms sitting on a dehydrator rack, including some balanced on scales. When asked about the images, Ms Patterson said she "probably" took them but had no memory of doing so. Dr Rogers told the court fungi expert Tom May's evidence was that the mushrooms depicted on a tray in one of the photos were "consistent with Amanita phalloides [death cap mushrooms]". "I suggest that you were weighing these death cap mushrooms so that you could calculate the weight required for the administration of a fatal dose for one person. Agree or disagree?" Dr Rogers asked Ms Patterson. "Disagree," Ms Patterson replied. Dr Rogers suggested to Ms Patterson that the mushrooms depicted in the photo were death cap mushrooms that the accused had foraged in Loch after seeing a post on iNaturalist. Ms Patterson replied, "that's not correct". Nanette Rogers: You deny that these are death cap mushrooms? Erin Patterson: That's correct, I don't think they are. Dr Rogers also put to Ms Patterson that the reason she had lied to police about never owning a dehydrator was because she knew she had used it to prepare death cap mushrooms for the lunch. Ms Patterson denied this. Dr Rogers then suggested that Ms Patterson was "very keen to dispose of any evidence that might connect you with the possession of death cap mushrooms". "No, I didn't know they'd been in it," Ms Patterson said. Dr Rogers put to Ms Patterson that she had deliberately used foraged mushrooms in the beef Wellington and that those foraged mushrooms were death cap mushrooms. "I did not deliberately put death cap mushrooms in the meal," Ms Patterson said. During the questioning, the prosecution put to Ms Patterson a suggested reason for her lying to police about owning a dehydrator. "You lied, because you knew if you'd told the police the truth, it would implicate you in the deliberate poisoning of your four lunch guests," Dr Rogers said. "No, no, it's not true," Ms Patterson responded. Dr Rogers also put to the accused that she had lied about owning a food dehydrator because "you knew you had used the dehydrator to prepare death cap mushrooms to include in the lunch". Ms Patterson also denied that, saying "I didn't know that". She was then asked if she agreed or disagreed that she lied about dehydrating mushrooms because she knew if she "told police the truth then that would implicate you in the poisoned lunch". "I agree that I lied because I was afraid I would be held responsible," Ms Patterson replied. Ms Patterson later agreed if she had told the truth to police she would have been a suspect. "You knew that if you told police the truth then you would be immediately suspected by police of being involved in a poisoning event?" Dr Rogers asked. "That's probably true, yes," Ms Patterson said. The trial continues.

Pathways Melbourne, a silver lining for vulnerable Jewish youth and those leaving ultra-orthodoxy
Pathways Melbourne, a silver lining for vulnerable Jewish youth and those leaving ultra-orthodoxy

SBS Australia

time5 hours ago

  • SBS Australia

Pathways Melbourne, a silver lining for vulnerable Jewish youth and those leaving ultra-orthodoxy

In their conversation with SBS Hebrew Leah Boulton and Dassi Erlich also revealed Pathway's expansion and partnership with the Lighthouse Foundation in new initiatives to deliver culturally sensitive, trauma-informed support to vulnerable Jewish youth facing homelessness, abuse, or family estrangement. Through this collaboration they are establishing Orly House, a safe haven for children and teenagers at crisis points. Dassi Erlich (Author and justice campaigner)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store