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=
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-...
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.
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.'"
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.