Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T21:03:39.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of the Behaviour of Solitary and Group-Housed Budgerigars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C J Nicol  and
S J Pope
C J Nicol*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, Bristol University, Langford House, Bristol BS 18 7DU, UK
S J Pope
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, Bristol University, Langford House, Bristol BS 18 7DU, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A comparison was made of the behaviour of budgerigars housed singly in commercially available cages obtained from a pet supplier, and budgerigars housed in a group of six in a small aviary. Budgerigars housed in the aviary consumed significantly more food and were more active, performing more wing stretching and flying. Caged budgerigars performed significantly more vocalizations. When tested individually, aviary birds were more active in a novel test chamber and were significantly more likely to approach an unfamiliar bird. Cage birds were generally reluctant to approach an unfamiliar bird, but showed an increasing tendency to approach when allowed a longer period of familiarization. Pet budgerigars are commonly housed in isolation from conspecifics, with little consideration of potential effects on welfare. The aim of this study was to provide some initial information about the effects of social isolation on the behaviour of budgerigars.

Keywords

animal welfareaviariesbudgerigarscageshousingsocial isolation
Type
Short Communication
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , August 1993 , pp. 269 - 277
Copyright
© 1993 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brockway, B F 1964 Ethological studies of the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus): reproductive behaviour. Behaviour 23: 295–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockway, B F 1969 Roles of budgerigar vocalisations in the integration of breeding behaviour. In Hinde, R A (ed) Bird Vocalisations pp 131–158. Cambridge University Press: CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Cheng, M F 1992 For whom does the female dove coo? A case for the role of vocal self-stimulation. Animal Behaviour 43: 1035–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council for Science and Society 1988 Companion Animals in Society. Oxford University Press: OxfordGoogle Scholar
Gramza, A F 1970 Vocal mimicry in captive budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 27: 971–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1987 Social and environmental aspects of fear in the domestic fowl. In Zayan, R and Duncan, I J H (eds) Cognitive Aspects of Social Behaviour in the Domestic Fowl pp 82–149. Elsevier: AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
Kraemcr, G W 1992 A psychobiological theory of attachment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15: 493–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruijt, J P 1964 Ontogeny of social behaviour in Burmese red junglefowl. Behaviour, Supplement 12: 1–201Google Scholar
Lehr, E 1989 Distress call reactivation in isolated chicks: a behavioural indicator with high selectivity for anti-depressants. Psychopharmacology 97: 145–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, A D and Faure, J M 1990 The treadmill test for the measurement of social motivation in Phasianidae chicks. Medical Science Research 18: 179–180Google Scholar
Nicol, C J 1987 Behavioural responses of laying hens following a period of spatial restriction. Animal Behaviour 35: 1709–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J and Guilford, T C 1990 Exploratory activity as a measure of motivation in deprived hens. Animal Behaviour 41: 333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamps, J, Clark, A, Arrowood, P and Kus, B 1985 Parent-offspring conflict in budgerigars. Behaviour 94: 1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamps, J, Clark, A, Kus, B and Arrowood, P 1987 The effects of parent and offspring gender on food allocation in budgerigars. Behaviour 101: 177–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamps, J, Kus, B, Clark, A and Arrowood, P 1990 Social relationships of fledgling budgerigars. Animal Behaviour 40: 688–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trillmich, F 1976a Learning experiments on individual recognition in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 41: 372–395Google Scholar
Trillmich, F 1976b Spatial proximity and mate-specific behaviour in a flock of budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 41: 307–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trillmich, F 1976c The influence of separation on the pair bond in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 41: 396–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willner, P 1991 Animal models of depression. In Willner, P (ed) Behavioural Models in Psychopharmacology: Theoretical, Industrial and Clinical Perspectives pp 91–125. Cambridge University Press: CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, DGM 1971 The Behaviour of the Domestic Fowl. Heinemann: LondonGoogle Scholar
Wyndham, E 1979 Diurnal cycle, behaviour and social organisation of the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus). Emu 80: 25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar