DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Not Exactly Rocket Science
« Primed by expectations – why a classic psychology experiment isn’t what it seemed
Scattered reflections about ScienceOnline 2012 (#scio12) »

Male bowerbirds use forced perspective architecture to get more sex

This is an updated version of an old piece, edited to include new information. Science progresses by adding new data to an ever-growing picture. Why should science writing be different?

Right from its entrance, Disneyland is designed to cast an illusion upon its visitors. The first area –  Main Street – seems to stretch for miles towards the towering castle in the distance. All of this relies on visual trickery. The castle’s upper bricks and the upper levels of Main Street’s buildings are much smaller than their ground-level counterparts, making everything seem taller. The buildings are also angled towards the castle, which makes Main Street seem longer, building the anticipation of guests.

These techniques are examples of forced perspective, a trick of the eye that makes objects seem bigger or smaller, further or closer than they actually are. These illusions were used by classical architects to make their buildings seem grander, by filmmakers to make humans look like hobbits, and by photographers to create amusing shots. But humans aren’t the only animals to use forced perspective. In the forests of Australia, the male great bowerbird uses the same effect to woo his mate.

Bowerbirds are relatives of crows and jays that live in Australian and New Guinea. There are 20 or so species. In most of them, the male attracts mates by building an intricate structure called a bower, which he decorates with specially chosen objects. Some species favour blue trinkets; others collect a  mishmash of flowers, fruits, insect shells and more. Surrounded by these knick-knacks, the artistic male performs an elaborate display. The females judge him on his skill as a performer, builder and decorator.

The great bowerbird’s taste for interior design seems quite Spartan compared to his relatives. He creates an avenue of sticks, around 60 centimetres long, leading up to a courtyard. The courts are decorated with gesso – a collection of gray and white objects including shells, bones and pebbles.

The male performs in this messy courtyard. He struts. He sings. He tosses brightly coloured objects about. All the while, the female watches from the lined avenue. Her point of view is fixed and narrow, and according to John Endler, the male knows how to exploit that.

In 2010, Endler showed that the males place the largest objects towards the rear of the courtyard and the smallest objects in the front near the avenue. This creates forced perspective. From the female’s point of view, it looks like the bigger objects, which are further away, are the same size as the smaller objects, which are close by. If bowerbird vision is anything like humans, the courtyard as a whole looks smaller to a watching female. It’s the opposite effect to the one that Disney visitors experience.

By analysing 19 different bowers across Queensland, Endler showed that the arrangement of objects in the courtyards were far from random. When he messed up the careful gradients by reversing the large and small trinkets, the males were quick to put things right. Within three days, the illusions had been restored.

Now, Endler has shown why the bowerbirds are so fussy. With his colleague Laura Kelley, he has found that the males who create the strongest illusions get the most mates. From the female’s point of view, the courts with the strongest forced perspective and the most even patterns earned their owners the most sex. “To my knowledge no other animals make constructions which produce perspective,” says Endler.

Perspective has been a familiar element of Western art since the Renaissance, and Endler describes the great bowerbird’s courtyards as “bowerbird art”. Others would agree. In this clip David Attenborough compares the work of a Macgregor’s bowerbird to a sculpture by British artist Andy Goldsworthy and asks why one might be considered art and the other not. Defining art is a tricky business, but Endler thinks of it as one individual creating a visual pattern in the outside world to influence the behaviour of others. “Influencing behaviour can range from attraction to and voluntary viewing of the art by others to viewers mating with the artist, which is what bowerbirds do,” he says.

The bowers might be art, but are they actually illusions? It’s not clear. Despite Kelley and Endler’s new study, we’re no closer to knowing exactly why the bower gradients work. Perhaps more regular pattern on the court, as seen from the avenue, could make the male more conspicuous or easier to see. The same applies to the object that he waves about – perhaps it stands out more against such a regular background, or seems bigger.

Endler notes that from the female’s perspective, the male’s display items are often slightly larger than the ones in the gesso. This could trigger the ‘Ebbinghaus illusion’, where objects seem bigger if they’re next to smaller ones than next to larger ones.

But there are explanations that could account for the male’s habits without having to invoke any illusions. Perhaps it’s simply that the female likes a more uniform texture. Maybe she recognises that males who can produce regular patterns might be mentally sharper, better at stealing the right objects from other bowerbirds, better at resisting such acts of thievery, or better at choosing building sites with lots of varied objects to choose from.

In a related editorial, Barton Anderson from the University of Sydney writes that we still don’t know if the bowerbirds are actually crafting illusions for their mates. He says, “Kelley and Endler’s data suggest that male bowerbirds appear to consider the viewpoint of their potential mates when constructing their bower courtyards, and the ones who do this best are rewarded with a higher rate of mating success. Just what matters, and why it matters, remain open and intriguing questions.”

There’s plenty of time to answer them. After all, the bowerbird’s behaviour has only just been discovered. Back in 2010, Endler says that he still needs to do the “critical experiments” to see how much brainpower the birds need to pull off their illusions. That’s still the case in 2012.

The most extreme explanation is that they have a sense of perspective (insert joke about humans here) and know that they should put small objects near the avenue and bigger objects further away. But Endler says, “The very simplest hypothesis is that the birds make the gradients by trial and error.” They spend around 80% of their time at the bower on moving objects within the courts, checking the view from the avenue, and moving things again.

“They could just be doing that until the view of the court from inside the avenue looks ‘good’,” says Endler.  “A slightly more complex behaviour might be needed if they had an inherited or learned decision rule which made them put smaller objects closer to the avenue entrance and increasingly larger objects further away.”  Neither technique would be unexpected, given that bowerbirds are closely related to some of the smartest of all birds – crows, ravens, jays and their kin.

References: Kelley & Endler. 2012. Illusions Promote Mating Success in Great Bowerbirds. Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1212443

Endler, Endler & Doerr. 2010. Great Bowerbirds Create Theaters with Forced Perspective When Seen by Their Audience. Current Biology http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.08.033

Credits: Photos by Endler; videos by Keller

Share

January 19th, 2012 by Ed Yong in Animal behaviour, Animal intelligence, Animals, Birds, Sex and reproduction | 5 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

5 Responses to “Male bowerbirds use forced perspective architecture to get more sex”

  1. 1.   Dan Says:
    January 19th, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    Links to video lead to a “This video is private.” message. Rats.

  2. 2.   grandma shirley Says:
    January 20th, 2012 at 2:31 am

    Even if we never know why the birds do what they do, it’s still fun to speculate. I love science!

  3. 3.   IW Says:
    January 23rd, 2012 at 7:23 am

    There seems to be an implicit assumption here that the birds view these things the same way we humans do. What evidence is there, that this is the case? We have binocular vision, the birds do not; has this been taken into account?

  4. 4.   Wang-Lo Says:
    January 25th, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Looking through the bower, and trying to see like a bird, my first impression was that I was looking at a bird’s nest made of masonry. Surely this would be attractive to an oviparous househunter. It also looks a bit like a stone wall, which would also demonstrate amazing prowess in construction.

    After all, these creatures cannot shop at Home Depot, and the racket made by power tools would certainly attract predators.

    -Wang-Lo.

  5. 5.   George Says:
    February 5th, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    Andersson point out in his Nature article that the forced perspective workks opposite to what Kelly and Endler says …the way its laid out it makes the male look smaller rather than bigger. They also don’t use more than half of their data and base their conclusions on 8 bowers which seems strange for a Science article. This may all be a bunch of bunk.

Leave a Reply





    • About Not Exactly Rocket Science



      Ed Yong is an award-winning British science writer. His work has appeared in New Scientist, the Times, WIRED, the Guardian, Nature and more. Not Exactly Rocket Science is his attempt to talk about the awe-inspiring, beautiful and quirky world of science to as many people as possible.

      My personal website with biography, other writing, speaking engagements, and more

      Some interviews with me
      Some awards that I’ve won
      Who my readers are: 2008, 2009 and 2010 editions
      A complete list of posts from this blog

      Follow me on Twitter or Google+

      Contact me on edyong209[at]googlemail[dot]com

    • Support

    • What others say

      "One of the best sites for in-depth analysis of interesting scientific papers" - The Times

      "One of the smartest science bloggers I read... a prime practitioner among the new generation of scientifically authoritative bloggers" - David Rowan, editor of Wired UK

      "Engaging and jargon-free multimedia storytelling about science and the digital age" - National Academy of Sciences

      "A consistently illuminating home for long, thoughtful, and thorough explorations of science news" - National Association of Science Writers

      "Head and shoulders above many broadsheet hacks" - Ben Goldacre

      "Ed Yong... is made of pure unobtanium and rides TWO Toruks." - Frank Swain

      "Ed Yong is better than chocolate, fairy lights, and kittens chasing yarn. That is all." - Christine Ottery

    • Do you want to be a science writer?

      Read origin stories and advice from over 130 science writers from around the world.
    • Not Exactly Rocket Science content

      RSS Recent Posts

      Recent Posts

      • Neurons transplanted into mouse spines reverse chronic pain
      • Virtual resurrection shows that early four-legged animal couldn’t walk very well
      • New sense organ helps giant whales to coordinate the world’s biggest mouthfuls
      • Here’s where all the magic happens
      • Blind mice regain sight after scientists persuade their optic nerves to grow
      • I’ve got your missing links right here (19 May 2012)
      • Meet the paralysed woman who commandeered a robotic arm
      • Deep-sea bacteria redefine life in the slow lane
      Categories

      Categories

      Archives

      Archives

      • May 2012
      • April 2012
      • March 2012
      • February 2012
      • January 2012
      • December 2011
      • November 2011
      • October 2011
      • September 2011
      • August 2011
      • July 2011
      • June 2011
      • May 2011
      • April 2011
      • March 2011
      • February 2011
      • January 2011
      • December 2010
      • November 2010
      • October 2010
      • September 2010
      • August 2010
      • July 2010
      • June 2010
      • May 2010
      • April 2010
      • March 2010
      • February 2010
      • January 2010
      • December 2009
      • November 2009
      • October 2009
      • September 2009
      • August 2009
      • July 2009
      • June 2009
      • May 2009
      • April 2009
      • March 2009
      • February 2009
      • January 2009
      • December 2008
      • November 2008
      • October 2008
      • September 2008
      • August 2008
      • July 2008
      • June 2008
      • May 2008
      • April 2008
      • March 2008
      • February 2008
    • RSS Twitter

    • My wife, who makes it all possible

      Alice.jpg
    • Blogroll

      Science blogs

      Science blogs

      • 80 Beats
      • A Blog Around the Clock
      • Adventures in Ethics and Science
      • Aetiology
      • Alice Bell
      • Ars Technica
      • Arthropoda
      • Atlantic Science
      • Babel's Dawn
      • Bad Astronomy
      • Bad Science
      • BPS Research Digest Blog
      • Cancer Research UK Science Update Blog
      • Child's Play
      • Cocktail Party Physics
      • Collision Detection
      • Culture Dish
      • Culturing Science
      • Deep Sea News
      • Discoblog + NCBI ROFL
      • Dot Earth
      • Dr Petra Boynton
      • Drugmonkey
      • EarthLab
      • Embargo Watch
      • Epiphenom
      • Evolving Thoughts
      • Finite Attention Span
      • Fistful of Science
      • Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview
      • Gene Expression
      • Genetic Future
      • Genomeboy
      • Genomicron
      • Gimpy's Blog
      • Highly Allochthonous
      • Ionian Enchantment
      • JL Vernon Presents American Psico
      • Joanne Loves Science
      • John Pavlus
      • Just a Theory
      • Lab Rat
      • Laelaps
      • Last Word on Nothing
      • Lay Scientist
      • Loom
      • Mark Changizi
      • Mind Hacks
      • Myrmecos
      • Neuroanthropology
      • Neurologica
      • Neuron Culture
      • Neurophilosophy
      • Neurotic Physiology (SciCurious)
      • Neurotribes
      • Obesity Panacea
      • Observations of a Nerd
      • On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess
      • Open Minds and Parachutes
      • Political Science (Evan Harris)
      • Predictably Irrational
      • Retraction Watch
      • Save Your Breath for Running Ponies
      • Schooner of Science
      • Science Punk
      • ScienceLine
      • ScienceLush
      • Sentence First
      • Sex, Drugs and Rockin' Venom – Confessions of an Extreme Scientist
      • Skepchick
      • Speakeasy Science
      • Superbug
      • Take as Directed
      • Terra Sigillata
      • Tetrapod Zoology
      • The Artful Amoeba
      • The Chicken or the Egg
      • The Examining Room of Dr Charles
      • The Flying Trilobite
      • The Frontal Cortex
      • The Gleaming Retort
      • The Great Beyond
      • The Intersection
      • The Inverse Square Blog
      • The Millikan Daily
      • The Primate Diaries
      • The Science Project
      • Thoughtomics
      • Thus Spake Zuska
      • TYWKIWDBI
      • Vagina Dentata
      • Voyages Around my Camera
      • Weird Bug Lady
      • White Coat Underground
      • Why Evolution is True
      • Wild Muse
      • Wired Science
      • Words of Science
      • XKCD
      • Zooillogix
      Other blogs

      Other blogs

      • Cafe Philos
      • Miss Cellania
    • NetworkedBlogs
      Blog:
      Not Exactly Rocket Science
      Topics:
      science, biology, news
       
      Follow my blog


  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us