Slashdot Mirror
Bird Feeders Might Be Changing Bird Beaks (axios.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Bird beaks might be evolving to better fit bird feeders. A study of great tits in the UK, where feeders are common, found the bird's beaks have grown over the last 26 years, that British birds had longer beaks than those in the Netherlands, and that birds with genes for longer beaks were more likely to visit feeders, per Science News. Scientists have known that environmental changes, like El Nino, can influence the evolution of animals. Now, it appears something as simple as bird feeders can do the same. The scientists looked at the beaks of 2,322 great tits from the UK and the Netherlands, and also examined their genes. They tagged birds with gene variants for short and long beaks and tracked their feeding habits. What they found: The British birds had longer beaks and were more likely to have genes associated with beak length.
This is exactly how evolution is expected to work and originally documented by Darwin' study of Galapagos Finches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
u wot m8
I can imagine that conversation....
"So, you're a field researcher? What do you study?"
"Great tits!"
"Ah, you're an ornithologist?"
"What? Oh, uh... yeah, sure..."
=Smidge=
First they grab my attention...
2,322 great tits from the UK and the Netherlands
and then they show me some birds? Is the internet broken today? ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I have one of those combination bird feeder/cat feeder things. It looks like an ordinary bird feeder, but it hangs just a couple of inches off the ground. The cats love it!
There's already been two above your comment.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I've not heard of that bird species before. No worries. Google to the rescue!
Let's see here...
images.google.com
Search for... "Great tit" ...
Well, guess I should have seen that one coming.
This is a moral dilemma, and there are strong arguments both ways, but I lean towards feeding them for a number of reasons for this. Firstly, human activity is having a very negative impact on bird populations, and populations are declining rapidly. It seems morally correct to compensate for the damage by help the animals, and feeding them to maintain their population is one way of doing that.
Feeding does seem to have a beneficial effect. For example if we look at tits, a family of birds that are very adept at eating from feeders, we see their population is stable. While if we look at sparrows, which will absolutely never eat from feeders and will only ever feed from the ground, we see their population is in decline, and numbers are headed towards dangerously low levels. As human populations continue to expand, it appears as though feeding of birds is the only thing that's going to save them.
The second reason I lean towards feeding is that during the winter 50% of small birds die due to a combination of starving and freezing to death, which is an extremely unpleasant way to go. If I were starving and freezing, I know I would like somebody to give me food, and I'm certain the birds would have the same attitude. Feeding birds avoids a lot of suffering. Yes, it does interfere with nature, but humans are already interfering on a massive scale. We may as well engage in some positive interference to counter our huge negative impact.
They're not truly wild. They live in the managed ecosystems of our towns and villages.
Whilst feeding animal in the true wild is bad, feeding back garden birds that would otherwise fail to find sufficient food in bird-unfriendly gardens (lacking the correct plants and enough prey) is necessary to prevent further decline.
For example:
"House sparrow numbers were not monitored adequately before the mid-1970s. Since then, numbers in rural England have nearly halved while numbers in towns and cities have declined by 60 per cent. Because of these large population declines, the house sparrow is now red-listed as a species of high conservation concern."
https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-...
There are tits everywhere. There are yellow tits and blue tits, there are dusky tits and sombre tits, and the Philippines even have "elegant tits". There are also several species that seem somewhat meta, like the red-breasted and stripy-breasted tits.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
just selective breeding/survival and not really evolution
Ah, that made my day. Slashdot never fails to deliver.
We are part of nature.
Requiem for the American Dream
How can they evolve so quickly?
No one should be surprised that beak shape can change so quickly. Even if you want to call it "evolution" or whatever the so-called "scientists" call it, changing beak shape can't possibly take millions of years because the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
That's nothing. In New Zealand I saw black shags.
It seems we have a propensity, as a species, to name bird species after cleavage.
In the Galapagos you have several species of Boobies.
Meanwhile, in the UK, you actually have a bird called "great tits"... This is rather creepy to be honest.
"tit" (slang) dates from the 1920s, though "titty" comes from the 1700s. But the use of the word "tit" to mean "anything small" comes from the 1500s or earlier. So tits were just small birds, and tits didn't become boobs until recently-ish.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
... tits were just small birds ...
Huh, the titmouse is actually a bird.
Yeah, and they're quite perky. We have them living around here in Kelseyville, CA. They are extremely adorable little peckers. They have almost as much personality as the hummingbirds, though they're not as bold (what is?)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"A study of great tits in the UK"
Tee hee
Lady: "How interesting! What are you studying?"
Researcher: "Great Tits."
Lady: "Um, thanks, but my eyes are up here!"
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
They're not truly wild. They live in the managed ecosystems of our towns and villages.
Whilst feeding animal in the true wild is bad, feeding back garden birds that would otherwise fail to find sufficient food in bird-unfriendly gardens (lacking the correct plants and enough prey) is necessary to prevent further decline.
We feed a number of species in our back yard. Aside from educational and entertainment value, it is nice to be of some help to some of the birds. We now have a couple families of pileated woodpeckers along with downy, hairy and redheaded peckers, lots of goldfinches, cardinals, grosbeaks. and wood thrushes, winter wrens, as well as bluejays. Sparrows and we have some Cooper Hawks, one who seems to really like my wife.Those are just the regulars.
"House sparrow numbers were not monitored adequately before the mid-1970s. Since then, numbers in rural England have nearly halved while numbers in towns and cities have declined by 60 per cent.
I wonder if the numbers have declined in part because of increased competition with other birds who are becoming more common? Just conjecture - in our area the entirety of the bird population is way up. But I have noticed less of them in our back yard.
One behavioral thing about the sparrows I've noticed around here. They are clever at finding food sources. At restaurants and gas stations, when cars pull in and park, the sparrows fly under the car and up to the radiators to feast on bugs caught on them while driving.
I've noticed less of them here in the Northeast of US as well.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"The only reason to attract birds is to feed cats."
Naw, also people without cats looove great tits.
>Back in the 1980s they used "tits" and "jugs".
And melons, cantaloupes, honkers, hooters, fun-bags, ta-tas, boobs, knockers, headlights, bumpers, air bags, lungs, sweater pillows, twins, a rack... apparently guys really like breasts because we have a LOT of names for them.
Shifting of the population expression rate of genes already present in the gene pool is such weak tea, I practically have to screen for homeopathy dilution when I read a story submission like this one.
An actual evolution product worth talking about is the capacity of a population to rapidly shift composition to match local conditions.
Ideally, the number of short beaks would remain compatible with the food best exacted with short beaks, while the number of long beaks increases to optimally extract the newly available food source. Or some blended matrix of similar effect. Then, when the feeders all go away (easy come, easy go), it all shifts back again. What an awesome survival skill, that evolution might in some mysterious way have favoured over long megamillennia.
When I adjust the dial on my coffee grinder to suit a new bean, I don't go around calling it evolution. Somehow my ego never got that particular genetic memo.
The grandiose gadflies have long coexisted with the bullshit busters, in fluctuating ratio as social norms evolve. It might be true that a fool is born every minute, but it won't help the grifters much if a grifter is born every thirty seconds. There's a fancy name for a long-term phenotypic equilibrium (ever drifting) which I presently forget. But look around, there are many, all around us.
Case in point: beach weakling has the pick of the marital litter if 90% of the local population is homologous for CAD (and women have any say in the matter at all).
Thus always both types, in some ratio.
So we just need to have some feeders that spill food out onto the ground?
Evolution generally describes the changing of genes and DANA in animals which leads to changes in them. The changes are then weeded through by natural selection for the best. This article describes a process where birds already have the ability to grow longer beaks meaning that this isn't evolution it's natural selection.
Great tits acquire taste for bats. Did the beaks change for them? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8245165.stm
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Scientists paid to look at great tits all day? Where do I sign up???
Any great tits in your backyard?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
No no, I've found the squirrels love 'em even more than the birds or cats.
Andy Richter was even more confused
Any great tits in your backyard?
Occasionally. Especially when we have the hot tub going.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What kind of sparrows do you have? Ours eat from feeders all the time and are nowhere near dangerously low numbers. Certain feeder designs may foil them, but anything with a perch they will eat out of.
The left-wing dogpile on Weinstein is funny yet sad. So many people desperately trying to shit on him the hardest. And yeah, Weinstein is a total douche, make no mistake, but everyone excoriating him knew what he was doing. He got away with it for decades, and it was an open secret. They refused to believe the actresses he assaulted because he was very successful, had a lot of influence, and he knew the right people. It's like the bar owner from Casablanca who protested "I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find gambling is going on here!" All the people who looked the other way and didn't call him out are now trying to feign the most outrage out of their sense of guilt, hoping no one asked why THEY didn't speak up when women accused him of sexual harassment and rape years ago.
There are ground feeders for birds that like to scratch and forage. They're usually platforms a few inches off the ground.
Those things are an open invitation for mice, chipmunks, squirrels, skunks, and raccoons, which can otherwise be excluded by using an elevated feeder. Nevertheless, thanks for the link.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
"tit" (slang) dates from the 1920s, though "titty" comes from the 1700s. But the use of the word "tit" to mean "anything small" comes from the 1500s or earlier. So tits were just small birds, and tits didn't become boobs until recently-ish.
The word you're looking for is "teat". Its origins date back to the 12th century
We'll make great pets
How on earth you could connect longer beaks with genes for beak length, Mr Holmes!
Every bird had genes for beak length. Some have genes for short beaks, some have genes for long beaks.
What appears to be missing is any information that would exclude natural causes for longer beaks in the UK and shorter in The Netherlands. It is almost certain that there are many times as many birds in both places who eat from "the wild" and not from "bird feeders", so the evolutionary pressure to develop longer beaks may have nothing at all to do with feeders to begin with.
here's a theory. The Russians spent money on both sides? After all, AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Oil Companies, and Drug companies do it.