scholarly journals The smell of cooperation: rats increase helpful behaviour when receiving odour cues of a conspecific performing a cooperative task

2020 ◽  
Vol 287 (1939) ◽  
pp. 20202327
Author(s):  
Nina Gerber ◽  
Manon K. Schweinfurth ◽  
Michael Taborsky

Reciprocity can explain cooperative behaviour among non-kin, where individuals help others depending on their experience in previous interactions. Norway rats ( Rattus norvegicus ) cooperate reciprocally according to direct and generalized reciprocity. In a sequence of four consecutive experiments, we show that odour cues from a cooperating conspecific are sufficient to induce the altruistic help of rats in a food-exchange task. When rats were enabled to help a non-cooperative partner while receiving olfactory information from a rat helping a conspecific in a different room, they helped their non-cooperative partner as if it was a cooperative one. We further show that the cues inducing altruistic behaviour are released during the act of cooperation and do not depend on the identity of the cue provider. Remarkably, olfactory cues seem to be more important for cooperation decisions than experiencing a cooperative act per se . This suggests that rats may signal their cooperation propensity to social partners, which increases their chances to receive help in return.

2016 ◽  
Vol 130 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annegret Börner ◽  
Rebecca Hjemdahl ◽  
Thomas Götz ◽  
Gillian R. Brown

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niklas I. Paulsson ◽  
Michael Taborsky

Begging is widespread in juvenile animals. It typically induces helpful behaviours in parents and brood care helpers. However, begging is sometimes also shown by adults towards unrelated social partners. Adult Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) display a sequence of different behaviours in a reciprocal food provisioning task that have been interpreted as such signals of need. The first behaviour in this sequence represents reaching out for a food item the animal cannot obtain independently. This may reflect either an attempt to grasp the food object by itself, or a signal to the social partner communicating the need for help. To distinguish between these two possibilities, we tested in female wild-type Norway rats if the amount of reaching performed by a food-deprived rat changes with the presence/absence of food and a social partner. Focal rats displayed significantly more reaching behaviour, both in terms of number and total duration of events, when food and a potentially helpful partner were present compared to when either was missing. Our findings hence support the hypothesis that rats use reaching behaviour to signal need to social partners that can help them to obtain food.


2018 ◽  
Vol 285 (1874) ◽  
pp. 20180035 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manon K. Schweinfurth ◽  
Michael Taborsky

Kin selection and reciprocity are two mechanisms underlying the evolution of cooperation, but the relative importance of kinship and reciprocity for decisions to cooperate are yet unclear for most cases of cooperation. Here, we experimentally tested the relative importance of relatedness and received cooperation for decisions to help a conspecific in wild-type Norway rats ( Rattus norvegicus ). Test rats provided more food to non-kin than to siblings, and they generally donated more food to previously helpful social partners than to those that had refused help. The rats thus applied reciprocal cooperation rules irrespective of relatedness, highlighting the importance of reciprocal help for cooperative interactions among both related and unrelated conspecifics.


1986 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 467-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. P. Buckle

SUMMARYThe anticoagulant rodenticide flocoumafen was tested against warfarin-resistant Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus Berk.) infesting farm buildings. Complete control was obtained in 10–21 days (mean 14·2 days) in six treatments in which baits poisoned with 0·005% flocoumafen were maintained, in surplus, until rats ceased to feed from them. A further six treatments, in which the application of poisoned bait was restricted to periodic placements of 50 g, were also completely successful in 15–30 days (mean 21·0 days). Less poisoned bait was used in the restricted flocoumafen treatments than in the unrestricted treatments but the time taken to control the rat infestations was significantly longer.


1963 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 1147-1153
Author(s):  
J. S. Willmer ◽  
O. Héroux

The in vitro adrenal steroid secretion of wild Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) captured during the winter differed in quantity, but not in quality, from that of similar rats captured during the summer. Whereas there was no evident seasonal effect on adrenal weight either in males or in females, adrenals of both sexes secreted at a faster rate during the winter than during the summer, this increase involving the four groups of steroids characterized chromatographically during both seasons and in both sexes; the predominant steroid secreted was corticosterone. This seasonal adjustment in adrenal activity is similar to that observed in white rats kept in group cages exposed outdoors to the natural summer and winter environmental conditions, but it differs from that found in white rats cold-acclimated in the laboratory, in which adrenal activity is lower than normal after cold acclimation.


2003 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Rouys ◽  
Jörn Theuerkauf

We studied the distribution of introduced mammals in six nature reserves of New Caledonia's southern province. Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans) were common in both rainforest and shrubland but their abundance decreased with increasing altitude. Ship rats (Rattus rattus) were abundant in rainforest but less numerous in shrubland and their abundance did not increase with altitude. We found no Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) or house mice (Mus musculus domesticus) in reserves. Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) used mainly rainforest but also shrubland and preferred foraging in valleys with alluvial soils. Rusa deer (Cervus timorensis) selected shrubland over rainforest. Feral cats (Felis catus) were widely distributed in the reserves, whereas dogs (Canis familiaris) strayed into reserves but did not form feral populations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document