can birds be gay budgies

In budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus), a social parrot in which females are socially dominant, males of all ages engage in a set of behaviors with other males that closely resembles the repertoire used in heterosexual courtship. One adaptive hypothesis for this tendency, the “courtship practice hypothesis,” posits that males with greater experience in same-sex activities develop superior skills that increase their courtship success with females. To test this hypothesis, we measured individual variation in tendency of subadult males to engage in such behaviors and asked whether birds relative participation in same-sex activities predicted adult pairing success in competitive pairing trials conducted after birds reached adulthood. Males tendency to participate in same-sex activities was correlated across samples collected a month apart. Directly contrary to the courtship practice hypothesis, however, males that participated in same-sex interactions more often were less likely to obtain mates. Pairing success was also predicted by 2 sexually dimorphic facial traits, namely iris prominence and cere color. We hypothesize that the tendency of males to engage in same-sex interactions may represent a mechanism of mutual assessment of male abilities, especially those involved in group foraging efforts (the “leader assessment hypothesis”) and suggest that increased investigation of allopreening and other seemingly affiliative behaviors that occur outside the heterosexual pair bond may advance understanding of social organization in flocking birds.

Same-sex sexual behavior consists of actions, directed by an individual toward a conspecific of the same sex, which would be classified as courtship or pairing behaviors if displayed toward an opposite-sex conspecific (Bailey and Zuk 2009). While such same-sex interactions have been documented in a wide range of species, including over 90 species of birds (MacFarlane et al. 2010), their causes, functions, and consequences have been little studied by evolutionary biologists, perhaps as a result of the tendency to view such behaviors as mistakes (Bagemihl 1999). Nevertheless, several categories of adaptive hypotheses have been posed that may explain many of the more striking examples of well-documented same-sex sexual behavior (reviewed in Bailey and Zuk 2009). “Social glue” hypotheses posit that same-sex interactions, promote alliances, or reduce tensions that develop in group-living species. “Intrasexual conflict” hypotheses predict that same-sex interactions reduce mating success of competitors or function to establish dominance hierarchies. “Courtship practice” hypotheses posit that same-sex activities improve courtship or copulatory skills of their participants. Even where same-sex activities do not confer a reproductive benefit to individuals that initiate them, expression of such behaviors may result from constraints emerging from evolved genetic mechanisms such as overdominance (Gavrilets and Rice 2006), sexually antagonistic selection (Camperio-Ciani et al. 2004), or common genetic bases underlying tendencies to court individuals of the same and opposite sex (Logue et al. 2009).

Here, we report results of an inquiry into the possible function of the tendency of subadult male budgerigars to interact with one another using behaviors that are major components of the heterosexual courtship repertoire of adult males. An important step toward understanding the likely significance of such behaviors involves ascertaining whether a trait under study has variable expression within a population and, if so, whether trait expression displayed by individuals is consistent over some period of time (Bell et al. 2009 and references therein). Accordingly, we ask here whether individuals show consistent differences in tendency to engage in behaviors with same-sex individuals. We also investigate whether relative tendency to engage in same-sex sexual behaviors as subadults predicts, along with several other phenotypic attributes, the ability of adult males to acquire mates when mating opportunities are constrained by limited availability of females.

Consideration of the social behavior of budgerigars, briefly summarized below, led us to expect that “courtship practice” is the most promising hypothesis to explain apparently affiliative same-sex activities observed (Stamps et al. 1990) in captive colonies of budgerigars. Previous researchers have focused on the possibility that repetition of motor functions involved in courtship and copulation during same-sex practice results in polished motor skills that are attractive to females (e.g., Drosophila—McRobert and Tompkins 1988 and bison—Vervaecke and Roden 2006). Another possibility is that practice with same-sex conspecifics helps individuals overcome any tendency to avoid making courtship overtures to potential mates, perhaps through fear of approaching females. We term this the “confidence” variant of the courtship hypothesis, in keeping with literature recognizing fearfulness/confidence as a common behavioral axis in nonhuman animals (e.g., Gosling 2001). Both variants of the courtship practice are considered in our investigation.

I currently have two budgies: a male that is two years old and a female that I recently adopted and don’t yet know the sex of. Their cere has been looking more and more blue as the days pass, so I’m pretty sure the older one has been courting the younger, who I’m pretty sure is a male at this point. And I was just curious if this could be interpreted as homosexual behavior or if they are just acting in a social manner.

Edit: I should have mentioned that the older ones’ cere has been a deeper blue lately, which, if I’m not mistaken, indicates that they’re in the mood for mating. Archived post New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.

Social behavior of budgerigars

Small Australian parrots known as budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) inhabit flocks of varying sizes. Due to their erratic movements over great distances, they are not well studied in the wild, but the behavior repertoire found there (Wyndham 1980, 1981) is similar to that found in lab settings (see below). Budgerigars generally exhibit social monogamy and biparental care, similar to most known habits of parrots (Forshaw 2002). Additionally, at least in captivity, their pair bonds frequently persist through multiple attempts at reproduction (Brockway 1964a). Finding and guarding nesting cavities, incubation, and brooding are primarily the responsibilities of females. Males frequently share food with their mate in the nest and occasionally feed their dependent young on their own (Wyndham 1980; Stamps et al. 1985).

Behaviors used in budgerigar courtship and during male–male affiliative interactions

Behaviors used in budgerigar courtship and during male–male affiliative interactions

In conclusion, female budgerigars are socially dominant and far less gregarious than males—at least when they’re adults. Both young and adult men spend a lot of time socializing with other men of the same sex and may not have many opportunities to court less gregarious women. Our decision to investigate the courtship practice hypothesis, which explains why young male budgerigars often engage in activities that closely mimic heterosexual, adult courtship in this species, was based on these observations.

We conducted competitive mating trials, releasing groups of adult males into an aviary with fewer unmated adult females, after their subadult tendencies to engage in same-sex sexual behaviors had been measured. To guarantee that some males would not mate, the test population had a male-biased sex ratio. Instead of using dyadic mate choice trials, which are more widely used, competitive mating trials were selected because they severely restrict the amount of time that choosers and stimuli can physically interact, which could provide choosers information about significant aspects of the stimuli’s courtship abilities acquired through same-sex practice. One unfavorable feature of competitive mating trials is that, although they show relative mate-getting ability, the tendency of individuals of the more numerous sex to compete among themselves can make it difficult to interpret the results. This raises the question of how much pairing patterns are the product of intersexual selection or intrasexual agonistic interactions. But in this species, female dominance ensures that they have “the final say” when it comes to selecting a social partner. Competitive mating trials also have the drawback of requiring participants to differ in a wide range of characteristics that could affect their capacity to find a mate. As a result, we examined a number of additional adult male phenotypic features in our analyses to assess how competitive mating trials turned out.

We created 2 indices to quantify same-sex interactions among subadults. The “initiation index” shows the percentage of all interactions in which a person participated that he initiated, while the “participation index” shows each male’s relative propensity to engage in same-sex sexual behaviors. We hypothesized that males with high participation index scores would have the greatest success in finding partners during competitive mating trials, if the practice hypothesis’ motor skills variant is the main purpose of same-sex activities. We predicted that men who were successful in finding partners would have scored highly on both indices, meaning they would have engaged in same-sex sexual activities regularly and tended to be the ones to initiate such interactions if practice helps men feel more confident in making courtship approaches.

Twenty male and 23 female budgerigars participated in these experiments. The birds were either acquired as juveniles from a wholesale distributor or bred in our laboratory. The study only included birds that seemed to be in excellent health. When they were first introduced to Experiment 1, males were 4-5 months old; when they started Experiment 2, they were 13–19 months old; females, meanwhile, were 12–18 months old. Age was ascertained by iris color and forehead plumage (for birds purchased as juveniles—Forshaw 1981) or by banding records (for birds raised in laboratories). Cere color, which in three-month-old birds is purplish-pink in males and pink or tan in females, was used to determine sex; additionally, females at this age typically had white outlines around their nares. Male adult birds’ cere is blue, while female breeding birds’ cere is reddish brown (Brockway 1964a). No later than five months of age, all of the male participants in this study attained bright blue ceres. In both trials, birds were outfitted with distinct sets of colored plastic bands to aid in their individual identification.

By choosing birds from different families (lab-reared birds) whenever possible and by buying young birds from the wholesale distributor at different times, we were able to reduce the number of sibling relationships among the birds. (Our distributor turns over approximately 500 budgerigars per week. There were originally two sets of lab-reared sibs among the male test subjects, but one of these birds passed away during the investigation; no males were identified as first cousins. Before the second experiment began, all birds had never been in a reproductive situation, and relatives of the other sex were not allowed to mate.

We discovered early on in Experiment 1 that one bird had been mislabeled. We replaced this bird with the only available male of the same age who had been raised in the same conditions in order to maintain the cohort size. This male, with blue plumage, took part in the rest of the research. His behavior scores were modified to account for his abbreviated involvement. Other birds in the study had green wild-type plumage.

Experiments were conducted in an indoor (2. 8 m × 4. 4 m × 2. 9 m) flight, which contained numerous perch sites. The majority of perches were made from naturally occurring branches that had been cleared of their leaves; some branches were potted upright in cement buckets, while others were hung horizontally. In Experiment 1, birds were allowed to perch alone by mounting short dowels on the flight’s walls. In Experiment 2, nest boxes were available, and birds were also allowed to sit alone because of the short dowels at the entrances. Because there were so many different types of perches, birds could engage in all of the social behaviors that have been identified for this species, as well as avoid social interaction when they so desired.

Ad libitum supplies included a commercial budgerigar seed mix, water, oyster shell, and cuttlebone; extra supplements were given on a regular basis. Large trays filled with seed allowed six to eight birds to eat at once. Seed was refreshed and water changed daily. All food resources and water were provided at ground level.

Full-spectrum fluorescent lights were used to provide lighting, which was kept on a 14:10 light:dark cycle. The temperature during the flight fluctuated between 20 °C at night and 27 °C during the day.

Using a large one-way mirror in the adjacent room, observations were made of the birds participating in the experimental flight. Observers could see every perching spot, nest box (for Experiment 2 only), and resource. A team of two to four experienced observers used all-accounts sampling techniques (Altmann 1974) to score behaviors during each observation session. Overtly agonistic behaviors were uncommon among males in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, agonistic exchanges were more frequent but also more fleeting, and participant identity was unclear. As such, we restricted our data analysis to actions that fall under the category of the heterosexual courtship repertoire indicated in Table 1. This species exhibits highly variable song and call traits, which are also utilized in courtship activities (Moravec et al. 2010) and could not be studied using this methodology.

Experiment 1: same-sex sexual behaviors

In order to measure individual differences in the propensity of male budgerigars to engage in and initiate same-sex sexual behaviors, juvenile males were set free into the flight and behavioral observations were made. Males were divided into 2 sets, based on age. Set A (mean age at start = 3. Set B (mean age = 3) and eight birds made up the 25-month sample. 33) had 12 birds.

Every set was sampled twice, with the second sample taken a month apart, to evaluate the consistency of each individual’s behavior. Each sampling interval began with the simultaneous release of the birds to be observed into flight. Observations started the next morning. Usually, two observers identified participants and behaviors as they happened, and a third person captured the action on camera in real time. Even though mornings are when budgerigars are most active, activity levels differed significantly from day to day. When there was little activity on the sampled days, observations were stopped after one 5 hours; on days with a lot of activity, 3 hours were spent observing birds. (Total observation hours: Set A—18 hours; Set B—21 hours. ).

The behaviors were noted in groups called bouts, where a single male’s behavior toward another male was considered a bout (e g. , a bout of allopreening) at a single location. Bouts were scored as having ended when two minutes or more had passed between interactions, when a third bird broke up an interaction, when the interactants changed where they were flying, or when they started acting in a different way. For each of the two sampling intervals, the total number of behaviors each bird displayed with every other bird was added up, and that amount represented the total number of interactions between birds for that interval.

A small number of birds in Set A developed relationships with a single person, or “buddy,” so that the majority of same-sex interactions involved the same partner. For the second observation sample, the birds of Set B were divided into two groups of six, and birds described as buddies in the first sample were assigned to different groups in order to ascertain whether participation and initiation tendencies would be similar across sampling intervals if flock composition prevented birds that had been buddies in the first sample from interacting in the second.

Test males were maintained in groups of two to three birds in spacious cages during the time between samples. Any birds deemed buddies were separated at this time.

In order to achieve equal weighting of parameters, participation scores for each sample’s individual members were calculated as (H? 2E), with the mean E score being roughly half that of the mean H? score. In order to calculate each male’s participation index, the sum of his participation scores across samples was used. Birds were ranked according to their participation index in order to reassign males for the second experiment. The male with the lowest index was given a rank of 1.

The participation index does not distinguish between a bird’s propensity to approach others or to initiate interactions. We determined the percentage of all interactions that an individual initiated in each sample in order to obtain a straightforward comparative measure of these relative tendencies that is independent of cohort size. We then averaged these two values across samples to calculate the initiation index. People with low initiation indices were more likely to be the recipients of interactions than the initiators.

FAQ

Can birds be Lgbtq?

Do male budgies groom each other?

Do budgie birds mate?

Can same gender budgies live together?