Differences in Responses of Amazona auropalliata to Noise Type

by
Jovanna Figueroa

Animal Behavior Lab Report

Thursday 1:30 - 4:15
March 21st, 2015
Owen McKenna

Introduction:
The Yellow-Naped Amazon Parrot (Amazona auropalliata) is a medium-sized green bird
with a black beak and a characteristic patch of yellow feathers on the back of its neck, found
most commonly in Mexico and Central America (Birdlife International). A. auropalliata has
been labeled as "Vulnerable" in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2012), meaning that
fewer than 50,000 individuals compose the existing populations. Although the main threat to this
species is habitat loss (Birdlife International), another problematic factor is the species' appeal as
a pet. The A. auropalliata is one of the most common pet parrots, known for it's distinct talking
ability and playful personalities (Lafeber).
A popular tactic for bird owners to entertain their parrot pets includes using certain noises
to coax talking development. During preliminary observations, it was recorded that A.
auropalliata seems to be distinctly engaged in creating noise when in the presence of radio noise.
The question, then, of whether different noises elicit different, if any, responses in A.
auropalliata is posed.
For this experiment, the effect of different types of noise on the amount of noise,
determined by syllables, produced by A. auropalliata is studied. The hypothesis was that radio
noise has a positive effect on the average amount of noise A. auropalliata makes within a set
amount of time. If A. auropalliata is exposed to radio noise, then it will make more noise
(syllables) in response. The null hypothesis is that noise, regardless of type, will not have a
positive correlation with the amount of noise A. auropalliata makes during the set amount of
time.

Materials & Methods:

For this experiment, an A. auropalliata was observed in 30-minute intervals with
exposure to distinct types of noise over a period of three days. The A. auropalliata used in this
experiment is around 20 years in age and around 1 foot tall. Because the A. auropalliata is
domestic, the experiment was conducted through the observation of the A. auropalliata in its 2 x
2 x 3 ft. cage. In the backyard of a residential home, the cage was placed in its regular location
atop a table about 3 ft. from the floor. The residence is also home to 3 other pets: 2 Chihuahuas
and 1 Australian Cattle Dog, both of which the A. auropalliata has had regular exposure to for
more than 8 years. The laptop on which sound was played on was placed about 5 feet from the
bird's cage. The observations were recorded in three 30-minute intervals, each separated with a
5-minute inactive period, all held between the hours of 11:55 a.m. and 1:40 p.m.
In order to carry out the experiment, 30-minute soundtracks of radio and static noise were
constructed using Apple's GarageBand. A 30-minute sample of radio transmission from 105.9
FM (a Mexican radio station) was recorded and used during the length of the experiment. For the
static soundtrack, static sound was downloaded through the website, YouTube.com, and was
digitally manipulated into a 30-minute soundtrack. For the "silent" section of this experiment, no
sound was played through the computer; the A. auropalliata was only exposed to the natural
sounds within the present environment. The soundtracks were played in distinct orders on the
three days (Day 1: radio-static-silent; Day 2: silent-radio-static; Day 3: static-silent-radio) so as
to minimize behavioral differences due to factors other that type of noise, such as specific time of
day.
During Day 1, the A. auropalliata was placed in the setup within its cage at 11:55 a.m.
The radio soundtrack was played promptly at 12:00 p.m. on full volume, and the bird's noise was

recorded. The bird's response to each different noise was quantified based on the number of
syllables during the bird's expressions. Some of the bird's most common expressions and their
respective quantifying markers are included in Table 1.

Table 1: A. auropalliata's Common Expressions and Respective Quantity Values

Expression (Both English and Spanish)
Syllable Quantity
"Hay que ricurriru el currirri"
10
7 kisses
7
"Oh, how pretty"
4
"Mary"
2
"Mike"
1
"Hello"
1
"Bye-bye"
2
"Vendo boletos, vendo boletos"
2
Laughing
6
Coughing
4
Table 1 displays the A. auropalliata's common expressions and their respective quantity values
depending on the number of syllables in the expression. Phrases surrounded by quotation marks
represent actual expressions, while words without quotation marks describe the type of
expression.
The number of respective syllables in the A. auropalliata's expressions remained almost
uniformly constant throughout the duration of the experiment. Regardless of values presented
above, different values were included if expressions were said with slight variations (such as 8
syllables for 8 kisses instead of 7 for the usual 7 kisses). At the conclusion of the 30-minute radio
noise interval, the bird was not subjected to any additional noise for 5 minutes. After the five
minutes, the static soundtrack was played on the computer at full volume. Again, the bird's
amount of noise was recorded and quantified using the method above. After the 30-minute static
noise interval, the bird was not observed or submitted to additional noise for 5 minutes. After the
5 minutes, the bird was observed, again, for another 30 minutes during which it was not

submitted to additional noise. The bird's expressions were quantified with the same method as
the previous trials.
The second and third days of the experiment were conducted similarly, albeit the order of
trials was changed in accordance to what was mentioned above. The execution of Day 2 included
an initiation at 11:55 a.m., with a 5-minute "pre-procedure" interval of no additional noise,
followed by a 30-minute interval of no additional noise, the pre-established 5-minute "inbetween" period, a 30-minute radio noise interval, another 5-minute period, and a final 30minute static noise interval. The bird's expressions were quantified and recorded as done
previously. Day 3 was initiated at 11:55 a.m., with the 5-minute "pre-procedure" interval, a 30minute interval of static noise, followed by a 5-minute period, a 30-minute interval of no
additional noise, another 5-minute period, and a final 30-minute interval of radio noise. Again,
the bird's expressions were quantified and recorded as before. For further sound quantity
accuracy, the bird's expressions were recorded using a recording application and listened
to/quantified for a second time.
Using this method, the environment in which the A. auropalliata was placed, the setup of
the experiment, and the time of day were all controlled variables. The type of noise A.
auropalliata was subjected to was the independent variable, while the amount of noise, in
syllables, A. auropalliata made in response was the dependent variable. The 30-minute interval
with no noise were the negative control while the 30-minute static noise and 30-minute radio
noise were the experimental controls.

Results:
The cumulative number of syllables in the A. auropalliata's phrases were counted and
averaged for the three trials on the three days (see Table 2). On Day 1 (radio-static-silent), the A.
auropalliata made 107 syllables of noise during the radio noise interval, 7 syllables of noise
during the static noise interval, and 14 syllables of noise during the no additional noise interval.
On Day 2 (silent-radio-static) the A. auropalliata made 122 syllables of noise during the radio
noise interval, 25 syllables of noise during the static noise interval, and 0 syllables of noise
during the no additional noise interval. On Day 3 (static-silent-radio), the A. auropalliata made
83 syllables of noise during the radio noise interval, 7 syllables of noise during the static noise
interval, and 32 syllables of noise during the no additional noise interval.

Table 2: Syllable Quantities Produced by A. auropalliata During Different Trials

Day 1
(in syllables)
107
7

Day 2
(in syllables)
122
25

Day 3
(in syllables)
83
4

Average
(in syllables)
104
12

Radio Noise
Static Noise
No Additional
14
0
32
15.3
Noise
Table 2 displays the quantity of syllables produced by the A. auropalliata when submitted to the
different types of noise (radio, static, none). Table 2 depicts larger quantities for noise produced
during radio noise, and similar quantities for A. auropalliata-produced noise during both static
and no additional noise.
The results displayed in Table 2 were then turned into a graph in order to provide the information
visually and compare the quantities in relation to each other. Figure 1 displays the quantities of
each A. auropalliata-produced noise over the three days while Figure 2 displays the average
quantity of A. auropalliata-produced noise over the three days.

Figure 1: Quantities of Syllables in Response to Type of Noise

Figure 1 displays the amount of produced syllables by A. auropalliata in response to different

types of noise. Radio noise has the highest values, while no additional noise has the lowest. Day
1 is shown in blue, Day 2 in green, and Day 3 in yellow.
Figure 2: Average Syllables Produced by A. auropalliata in Response to Noise Type

Figure 2 displays the average syllables produced by A. auropalliata in response to different types
of noise.

Discussion:
The hypothesis of this experiment was that radio noise has a positive effect on the
average amount of noise A. auropalliata produces within a set amount of time. The experiment
does, in fact, support the hypothesis. As displayed in Figure 2, radio noise has a greater positive
effect on the amount of syllables A. auropalliata produces than static noise and no noise.
However, a positive correlation does not confirm causation; increase in A. auropalliata-produced
noise is not necessarily a direct effect of radio noise. Yet, as the hypothesis only required a
positive correlation, the hypothesis was nonetheless supported by the data.
A main source of error for this lab was the environment in which A. auropalliata was
placed in for the procedure. The environment was not always controlled. The presence of other
domestic animals and routine movement of members of the household may have influenced A.
auropalliata's behavior throughout the experiment. However, it is important to disclose that this
environment, despite it being difficult to control, was chosen with A. auropalliata's comfort in
mind. Preliminary observations of A. auropalliata displayed abnormal reactions to new
environments; abnormal reactions included long periods of silence, inactivity, and refusal to eat
or drink even at usual feeding periods.
In a study focusing on the effects of noise and music stimuli on stress and fear levels of
laying hens, results coinciding with the idea that certain noises have different effects on avian
species. In the study of chickens, the heterophil to lymphocyte ratios, the best indicators of stress
in poultry, caused by the exposure to different sound simulations was compared for different
types of noise and music (Campo, Gil, and Dvila 75). The study found that the heterophil to
lymphocyte ratios between chickens exposed to different types of noise was significantly
different, supporting the same idea that different types of noise elicit different responses in avian

species (Campo, Gil, and Dvila 81). Another study that researched A. auropalliata's responses
to playbacks of different dialects supports the idea that avian species are capable of
distinguishing sounds, and idea that could explain the discrepancy between A. auropalliata's
noise during radio noise versus static noise. The study concluded that A. auropalliata respond to
duets from their own dialect to a greater degree than to those of other dialects (Wright and Dorin
121). Wright's data also supports the idea that different types of sound elicit different responses
in A. auropalliata.
The future implications of this experiment can relate to improving the treatment of
animal slaughter for food. With the results of this and other studies that support positive
correlations between certain types of music/noise and stress levels of animals, implementations
of specific music/noise can reduce animal stress and render the killing process more humane.
This, in turn, will help settle some of the constant battles exhibited between meat businesses and
animal rights organizations.
Based on the results of this study, further experimentation could be done to increase the
understanding of the effects distinct types of noise have on not only other species of birds, but
other species of animals as well. A hypothesis that can later be tested is, in accordance with the
humane treatment of animals theme, whether certain types of noise or music reduce stress levels
in cattle animals, such as cows or pigs. This can be tested by identifying the factors that measure
stress in cows or pigs and observing the effects different music has on those factors. This data
can be used to further study the effects of music on animal brains and can ultimately lead into the
research and identification of the most humane animal cultivation practices.

References:
Birdlife International. "Amazona auropalliata." The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
IUCN, 2012. Web. 21 Mar. 2015. <http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22686342/0>.
Campo, J. L., M. G. Gil, and S. G. Dvila. "Effects of Specific Noise and Music Stimuli on
Stress and Fear Levels of Laying Hens of Several Breeds. "Applied Animal Behavior
Science 91 (2005): 75-84. Print.
Lafeber. "Yellow-Naped Amazon Parrot." Lafeber. Lafeber Company, n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.
<http://lafeber.com/pet-birds/species/yellow-naped-amazon-parrot/>.
Wright, Timothy F., and Melinda Dorin. "Pair Duets in the Yellow-Naped Amazon
(Psittaciformes: Amazona auropalliata): Responses to Playbacks of Different Dialects."
Ethology 107 (2001): 111-24. Print.