ArticleScientific reports2025
Palaeognath birds innovate to solve a novel foraging problem.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Task affordances shape hornbills' problem-solving strategies.Biology letters · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to innovate implies flexible cognition, and is used as a broad metric of intelligence. Innovation in birds has been intensively studied in the larger and more taxonomically diverse Neognathae clade (particularly crows and parrots) and overlooked in the smaller and more ancestral Palaeognathae clade. The current study provides the first known evidence of technical innovation in palaeognath birds. We tested the ability of nine individuals of three species to move a hole towards a chamber to access a food reward. This problem was different to traditional innovation puzzle-boxes where an obstacle is moved away from a food chamber. Three emus and one rhea produced a wheel-turning innovation, moving the hole in the most efficient direction (closer to the nearest food item) in 90% of cases. One rhea dismantled the task twice by removing the central bolt, which we suggest is a second type of innovation, and it did not persist once they innovated the wheel turning solution. Ostriches did not innovate. We classify innovation in palaeognaths as low level/simplistic, relying on general exploration and asocial trial and error learning. Our research suggests that technical innovation may have evolved far earlier in birds than previously thought, and palaeognath birds are a compelling taxonomic group for further cognitive research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.