ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2026
Functionally Relevant Feeding Enrichment: An Examination of Nectar Feeding Devices With Two Species of Parrot.
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnvironmental enrichment can promote natural behaviours and improve welfare in captive birds, but its effectiveness may depend on species-specific ecological and behavioural adaptations, particularly feeding ecology.
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of naturalistic nectar bucket feeding enrichment devices in two parrot species with contrasting feeding strategies: rainbow lorikeets (Trichoglossus moluccanus), which are primarily nectivorous, and regent parrots (Polytelis anthopeplus), which are primarily granivorous.
methodsForty-five rainbow lorikeets and 11 regent parrots were observed under two nectar-feeding conditions: bowl only, where nectar was provided in bowls alone, and bucket + bowl, where nectar was provided simultaneously in bowls and nectar buckets. Behaviour was recorded using instantaneous scan sampling for three 30-min observation periods (before, during, and after presentation of the experimental condition) and classified into four categories: ground, aerial, bowl, or bucket activity.
resultsRainbow lorikeets spent significantly more time engaged in aerial activity during both feeding conditions than during the after period. They also interacted more frequently with the nectar bucket and reduced their use of bowls when buckets were available. In contrast, regent parrots showed no significant changes in general behaviour or in their use of bowls or buckets across observation periods or feeding conditions.
conclusionsThe nectar bucket feeding devices effectively promoted species-typical foraging behaviour in rainbow lorikeets but had little effect on regent parrots, reflecting differences in feeding ecology. These findings highlight the importance of designing enrichment that is tailored to species-specific ecological and behavioural needs and evaluating enrichment based on both its biological relevance and its overall effectiveness.
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.