Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Small Bird Astounds Scientists With 11,200km Flight

Posted by timothy on from the yeah-but-in-miles-it's-much-shorter dept.

Zeb writes "Scientists are marveling over a small female bar-tailed godwit somewhere in New Zealand who has a world record for non-stop flying — an epic 11,200 kilometers. A major international study into the birds has been published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B and it offers an explanation as to why the godwits fly so far from Alaska to New Zealand in a single bound. The birds flew non-stop for up to and covered more than 11,200km. The flight path shows the birds did not feed en route and would be unlikely to sleep." The linked Wikipedia entry claims an even longer trip record, of 11,570 kilometers.

63 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. I think the question really is... by Laebshade · · Score: 5, Funny

    African or european?

    1. Re:I think the question really is... by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

      And could it make such a long journey with a coconut clutched in its claws?

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
    2. Re:I think the question really is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not true. The Limosa lapponica lapponica migrates to Europe and Africa.

    3. Re:I think the question really is... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Huh? I-- I don't know that. Auuuuuuuugh!

    4. Re:I think the question really is... by Kamokazi · · Score: 1, Funny

      It could grip it by the husks!

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    5. Re:I think the question really is... by schon · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not a question of where it grips it, it's a simple matter of weight-ratio!

  2. Efficiency by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 1

    How do they store enough energy?
    br>Anyone qualified to offer guesses for the amount of energy required?

    --
    "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    1. Re:Efficiency by maxume · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The upper limit would be their weight in calories of fat (unless you count energy that they capture from the wind or whatever as 'required'). Apparently, a large female weighs about 1.4 pounds, which is about 4,900 Calories (kcals...).

      Figure in that they are made out of stuff that they won't use up and it seems likely that it is some fraction of that.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Efficiency by JustOK · · Score: 1

      teeny little batteries?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:Efficiency by fractoid · · Score: 1

      (-1, Pedantic), I know, but hybrid drive systems are only more efficient in very specific conditions (wildly fluctuating load, power source that is substantially more efficient when running at full throttle than at part throttle). In any other situation they're a net loss, and even in ideal circumstances the gains available directly from non-plugin hybrid systems aren't that impressive.

      For an endurance flight a well tuned Diesel cycle engine would probably be the pick of choice. Well, that or one powered by bugs and breadcrumbs.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    4. Re:Efficiency by reverseengineer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Long-distance migratory birds can stock up for flights by putting on fat roughly up to their lean weight, so a 630g godwit may only weigh about 315g at the end of its migration. Roughly, you're looking at about 2500kcals burned during the eight day flight, which is astonishing for an animal with about 1% of the weight of a human. This is about 0.0036kcal/second, or approximately 15 watts. Elite human athletes can produce about 6 watts per kg of body mass, while this bird can sustain 30 watts/kg for over a week.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    5. Re:Efficiency by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Either that or solar power.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    6. Re:Efficiency by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Hardly surprising; an elite human is barely comparable to the most out-of-shape bird..

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    7. Re:Efficiency by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I imagine they spend a lot of that energy staying warm. Overheating is apparently a key issue for human athletes (so dumping a bunch of heat to the environment lets the birds work harder):

      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/bemore.html

      Still pretty impressive.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Efficiency by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Funny

      those are only in bunnies.

    9. Re:Efficiency by retchdog · · Score: 2, Informative

      No kidding. See this reference about engineering human-powered flight: http://www.mech.ubc.ca/~hph/faq.htm#14

      "We have built our own test rig that measures power output of a pilot over a minute duration. We have plotted the results of numerous potential pilots against their weight. A successful candidate is one that falls above a power requirement curve (power vs. weight). ... We have had people vomit after these one-minute tests. In similar tests in the United States they have had one person have a mild heart attack."

      And that's for one minute of (theoretical) flight... incredible.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    10. Re:Efficiency by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are familiar with that whole square-cube thing, right?

      Birds are amazing athletes, but there's a reason why the largest flying species is around 20 kilos.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    11. Re:Efficiency by retchdog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, and allometric scaling too. I was not suggesting that birds and humans are directly comparable.

      I was blown away simultaneously by two awesome facts; 1. that human-powered flight is achievable at all; 2. that it is just-barely achievable and attempting it is dangerous for even a top-notch athlete. These facts are simultaneously a signature of our human limitations and technological progress, and deserve imho to be mentioned.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    12. Re:Efficiency by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NB: As the same FAQ page you linked earlier points out, helicopter flight, as the project is attempting, is much more inefficient than winged flight. Human-powered flight with winged craft had already been achieved with fairly good results 20 years ago - almost 4 hours of flight covering 74 miles.

    13. Re:Efficiency by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Birds are amazing athletes, but there's a reason why the largest flying species is around 20 kilos.

      Now imagine how impressive the largest pterosaurs must have been...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:Efficiency by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      FTS:
      When training for Ironman Canada, he had a professional nutritionist tell him he would never be able to train hard enough on a low protein vegetarian diet. The race went really well, so he took the advice with a grain of salt.

      Very funny.

      --
      What?
  3. It's the guy's fault by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's because the male birds refused to stop and ask directions, of course. Then, when they arrived at their destinations thousands of kilometers off course, they simply claimed it was where they *wanted* to go in the first place. Now, they have to fly back there every year, or admit they were wrong in the first place. Much easier to fly 11,200 kilometers twice a year.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    1. Re:It's the guy's fault by KagatoLNX · · Score: 1

      We don't need stereotypes. They're an excuse not to think. We do not need excuses not to think.

      Isn't a stereotype in direct contradiction with standing out? You seem to support people standing out. That pretty much breaks the stereotypes--oh, wait, you say that we need them for something.

      Save your city versus country wedge for politics--exactly where they are used for exactly the wrong reasons. I was born in Missouri, spent twenty-five years there, and have spent plenty of time in big coastal cities and small Midwestern towns. People like you just can't take criticism. Tap into some of that cowboy bravado, grow a spine, and stop bitching at people for fitting your "politically correct" stereotype.

      You claim that "politically correct" people are trying to "tear people down". No, they're just telling you that you're an asshole.

      --
      I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
    2. Re:It's the guy's fault by kramulous · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily agree with stereotypes, but I acknowledge that we need them. See, the nerds make sure that the Internet works and that our computers can connect to it. The engineers build the electronics that make the stuff work. All of it stereotype, and all of them are individuals that are standing out from the pack. I fail to see the contradiction. You or I may not see that as a stereotype, but I'd bet you that people that have little to do with computers see it that way. The political correctness has gotten to the point that governments are starting to censor what we are and are not exposed to. It started with the little things. I'd prefer to adhere to a common decency, where common sense is applied. Now, that's going to vary from culture to culture and even subcultures, and that's good. The great, great grandparent made a joke. It was funny. Now, I don't know the sex of the person that made it, but it shouldn't matter. It was posted for the amusement of others and probably the poster as well. They don't deserve to be shot down. One person finds it offensive so we should all suffer? So much for democratic way. I see more and more examples of the minority dictating terms to the majority. On a long enough timescale, that path will converge to a pond with no ripples ... how boring.

      --
      .
    3. Re:It's the guy's fault by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Ahhh yes the good 'ol days.....are overatted.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:It's the guy's fault by Down8 · · Score: 1

      Being an asshole is an inalienable right.

      A right which I make constant use of.

      -bZj

      --
      .sig
  4. Wait... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They were "unlikely to sleep?"

    So Joe Scientist thinks there's a remote possibility that the birds napped en route during a "nonstop, over-water route?" WTF? Mind you, I'd pay good money to see it happen, but I really can't figure out how that would work.

    1. Re:Wait... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      It's within the realm of possibility that they do sleep but some automatic functioning of wing-beating still occurs. Kind of like sleep-walking, except sleep-flying.

    2. Re:Wait... by Aranykai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the animal kingdom, its quite common for creatures to go without what we would consider restful sleep. Cows sleep standing, sharks sleep while swimming, why couldn't these birds manage some form of rest while flying?

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    3. Re:Wait... by daveb · · Score: 2, Interesting
      >So Joe Scientist thinks there's a remote possibility that the birds napped en route during a "nonstop, over-water route?" WTF?

      I guess it depends on how you define sleep. We all can do some stuff in our sleep (breathing for e.g.). I'm no biologist but I *guess* an animal could sleep and have wings set to the same automatic response as breathing, waking up when it got tricky (turbulance etc).

      But this does look interesting in terms of data delivery over avian carriers. Tiny birds ... I guess we'd be talking small MTU.

    4. Re:Wait... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Dude, that makes too much sense. We need a car analogy!

    5. Re:Wait... by n3tcat · · Score: 1

      I tried telling the cop that when he asked me why I had turned my car off and was drafting off an 18-wheeler. I don't think he saw the correlation.

    6. Re:Wait... by Detritus · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've seen birds (sooty terns) that can spend years in the air. I've been told that they can let one part of their brain sleep while they use the other part to fly. They only need to land when they build a nest and lay eggs. You can go outside at night and see them soaring in the air currents.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    7. Re:Wait... by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the animal kingdom, its quite common for creatures to go without what we would consider restful sleep. Cows sleep standing, sharks sleep while swimming, why couldn't these birds manage some form of rest while flying?

      That's because they sleep differently.
      Sharks' swim center is in their spinal cord, meaning they can sleep while swimming. Birds (as it seems to be understood) can put half their brain to sleep while flying, but are unable to enter REM sleep since that entails a loss of muscle tone. Birds can sleep standing up because their tendons lock their claws into position, even while asleep. Cows & horses nap while standing, but do not enter full REM sleep unless lying down, since they need muscle tone to stand.

      Cows, horses and birds all need REM sleep at some point or they show signs of sleep deprivation.

      All this is AFAIK and YMMV

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:Wait... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1

      Fascinating. I never thought about it that way. And now I just can't get stop thinking about never-sleeping, never-stopping, Michael Myers-esque sharks that never stop coming towards you.

      You can just rock me to sleep tonight, mister!

    9. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some birds can indeed sleep while flying, most famously swifts and albatrosses. Some birds also have the capacity to go half-asleep: they close one eye and let that half of the brain rest (Google "unilateral eye closure birds sleep").

    10. Re:Wait... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      The dolphin is the one that fascinates me. While they can enter something similar to regular sleep as we understand it, they usually shut down one brain hemisphere at a time, keeping one eye open watching for predators.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    11. Re:Wait... by Jorophose · · Score: 1

      I remember hearing that it was the (Japanese was what I heard but maybe Koreans or PLA?) army trained its soldiers to "put their minds to sleep" while doing routine drills. From what I recall only parts of the mind need to "go to sleep", the only parts remaining awake are the ones responsible for basic movement and watching out for stuff, I guess just enough to make him go into something like REM without the REM...

      Of course I only have one source and I doubt the Slashdot crowd would accept it. But it does help rest the mind and allows you to keep going, even though the body is still worked (and I guess they do it to build resistance? poor bird probably naps a week when it gets there, or eats a fat load...)

    12. Re:Wait... by mikael · · Score: 1

      There would always be the hazard that they would end up flying in circles or crash into the ground. If birds really do have 'magnetic vision' then that would prevent the first problem. If they can accurately determine changes in velocity, then that would avoid the second problem.
      But then, how would they avoid flying into each other? Someone has to keep their eyes open.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    13. Re:Wait... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Birds can sleep standing up because their tendons lock their claws into position, even while asleep.

      That's nothing!!! The Norwegian Blue Parrot can remain standing whilst asleep, pining for the fjords, or even dead. A truly remarkable bird. Beautiful plumage.

    14. Re:Wait... by tsa · · Score: 1

      These birds (gierzwaluw in Dutch; I don't know the English name but it's a kind of swallow) sleep every night, but they fly almost for a year each year. They only land to lay eggs and raise their young. They feed and even mate in the air. I've been told that in the evening they fly to extreme heights and then sleep for a few minutes, falling down. They wake up before there is even a remote chance they will hit the ground, and fly up again.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    15. Re:Wait... by caluml · · Score: 1

      Sort of like us carrying on breathing or our heart beating while we sleep. In fact, perhaps these birds hook their wing muscles up to their hearts, and dream of lovey things.
      I think I've hit on it. Someone, give me a grant. A mill or two (GBP preferred but EUR or even USD accepted)

      --
      Get your own free personal location tracker
  5. Swifts by n0rr1s · · Score: 5, Informative

    The record is actually for flying the furthest in eight days across the Pacific, not the furthest non-stop flight ever as implied by the headline. Which is not surprising - the common swift, for example, can spend years in the air without landing. http://www.commonswift.org/records_english.html

    Nonetheless, these birds are still impressive.

    1. Re:Swifts by SnowZero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The distinction seems to be feeding; swifts can feed while they continue flying, whereas these birds are waders and can't feed until they stop. It's like the furthest airplane flight record distinction of refueling or not.

  6. That's ~6959 miles for the metric impaired by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Admit it... you had to look it up (unless you're in physics or live outside the USA)

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:That's ~6959 miles for the metric impaired by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      I think to most people 7000 miles says as little as 11000 km. THey are so big that you stop imagening how big it is.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:That's ~6959 miles for the metric impaired by gardyloo · · Score: 4, Funny

      THey are so big that you stop imagening how big it is.

      That's right, ladies.

    3. Re:That's ~6959 miles for the metric impaired by tsalmark · · Score: 1

      Check out which countries don't use Metric, you'll find the US keeps good company.

    4. Re:That's ~6959 miles for the metric impaired by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed. There are two natural, common units when talking about distances of that scale. Kilometers (~10,000 of them takes you from pole to equator) and Nautical Miles (1 minute of arc each)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:That's ~6959 miles for the metric impaired by Deimos24601 · · Score: 1

      THey are so big that you stop imagening how big it is.

      That's what she said.

  7. I must say by rarel · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's the first time I see the Godwit law apply right from the summary.

    Oh wait...

  8. Re:Lance Armstrong by fractoid · · Score: 1

    The comparison's stupid in the first place. We're talking about a human weighing close to 100kg, vs a bird weighting a few hundred grams at most. It's like saying that a 1/8th scale Tamiya R/C truck has a power-to-weight ratio and fuel economy 100x better than that of a Jeep. Of course it does, it's a foot and a friggin' half long. ><

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  9. Re:Where's all the enablers at??? by fractoid · · Score: 1

    Yeah, like those bumblebees that actually can't fly, and wouldn't if anyone would be so kind as to tell them what they do every day is impossible... ;)

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  10. Maybe they eat insects as they go... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Some birds can do that - it's like fly through McDonalds for them.

    --
    No sig today...
  11. Random thoughts inspired by this bird by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    Quite humbling, I think. The other day I was thinking about how I don't have those dreams about flying anymore. I guess it's part of coming of age? In any case, sometimes I wish I was able to fly like a bird - and imagine being able to do so for thousands of kilometers (though the godwit does land, from time to time, I think).

    And the other thing that came to my mind: the world is full of wonderful creatures that would be a shame if disappeared because of the changes in the environment - mostly destructive - that are happening.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  12. The birds flew non-stop for up to and... by colourmyeyes · · Score: 1

    "The birds flew non-stop for up to and..."

    Up to what? I assume this is supposed to be a time. Also, these birds are awesome.

    --
    My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
  13. Yay I get to say it! by Hojima · · Score: 1

    *whooooosh* (btw dominator, that was a monty python reference you responded to)

    --
    Help fight spam
  14. Re:Where's all the enablers at??? by argee · · Score: 1

    So 60's. I remember this. Some scholarly scientists published a study that proved that bumblebees can't fly. Of course, nobody could tell the bumblebees, so they continued flying.

  15. When you're king, you've got to know these things. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    *whooooosh* (btw Hojima, that was also a monty python reference you responded to)

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  16. And what of its ground speed, unladen? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Scientists. Always ignoring the important questions.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  17. Re:When you're king, you've got to know these thin by PachmanP · · Score: 2, Funny

    *Whoooosh* (btw zippthorne, no one expects the Spanish inquisition)

    --
    You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
  18. In order to maintain air speed velocity... by mlenord · · Score: 1

    ...the bird will need to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?

  19. Double check the tracker by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

    Are they sure that the bird made the 11.2km flight-- and not a 0.1 km flight to the nearest airport, and into the intake port of a plan making a 11.2km flight?

    --
    UTF-8: There and Back Again