
The surprisingly relatable reason why some birds get cranky
In a study published in April in the journal Animal Behavior, researchers showed that Galápagos yellow warblers that live near trafficked roads in the Ecuadorian archipelago respond to intruders more aggressively than those living farther away from traffic.
They're not the only bird species affected by city life. Numerous studies have investigated the phenomenon of angry urban birds—finding that species such as great tits, European robins, song sparrows, and dark-eyed juncos show more aggression toward each other when they live near urbanized sites.
While it's clear that 'in some species of birds, urban populations are more aggressive than rural populations,' there are many different theories for why this happens, says Jeremy Hyman, a professor and department chair of biology at Western Carolina University. A song sparrow sings on a branch in California. Research suggests song sparrows may display more aggression in cities because they feel more territorial. Photograph By Marie Read/Nature Picture Library
In the last decades, the Galápagos archipelago has seen a drastic increase in the human population, with permanent residents today increasing by six percent each year. An increase that requires more infrastructure to house more people, and more cars to move them around. This makes it a perfect 'laboratory' to study how birds respond to new, busy conditions, according to study authors.
The researchers selected 38 warbler territories on two islands of the archipelago: Santa Cruz Island, and Floreana Island; both crossed by a main road used by cars. The warblers were located either near the road or at least 300 feet away. From scuba diving to set-jetting
In each territory, they played recordings of traffic noise and warblers singing, which simulated an intrusion.
'Each bird was tested once with just the warbler speaker being active, and once with the warbler speaker plus the [car] noise speaker active,' says Çağlar Akçay, a behavioral ecologist at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge and study author.
When exposed to the sounds of encroaching birds and car noise playing in the background, the warblers living close to the road responded more aggressively than when there was no noise playing. They also responded more aggressively to noise compared to their 'rural' counterparts—getting closer to the speakers and sometimes even attacking them.
Mike Webster, an ornithologist at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology who was not involved in the research, says the study is 'pretty convincing' and offers a clear look at how a single environmental change can influence behavior.
'[It] really kind of helps us focus in on what the causes of the differences in behavior might be,' he says. Why so angry?
Generally, animals that live in cities tend to be bolder and more aggressive—both characteristics that enable them to survive in such complex habitat. 'Individuals that can't deal with constant disturbance, such as noise, people, cars, etc. would be unlikely to thrive in an urban habitat,' says Hyman.
Some birds may become more aggressive because cities are rich in food sources—and so there's strong competition to establish a foothold. 'Only the most aggressive males can manage to hold a territory in this place where lots and lots of birds would like to have a territory,' says Hyman.
But food scarcity may also make some urban species more aggressive, and so 'birds have to fight an awful lot in order to maintain a large enough territory to get the resources that they need.'
High levels of stress caused by noise and other factors might also play a role in making birds more aggressive, notes Hyman.
But does being more aggressive enhance your chances of survival?
In some cases, aggression seems to be 'a worthwhile cost', says Sarah Foltz, a behavioral ecologist at Radford University. One study that looked at song sparrows living in southwest Virginia showed that aggression didn't impact how much bird parents invested in their offspring. Female birds even spent as much and sometimes more time at the nest than their less aggressive rural counterparts.
Overall, the benefits of being more aggressive seem to depend on the kind of habitat the birds are in.
For some species, like the song sparrow, some urban areas offer suitable habitats with more food and fewer predators. They might become more aggressive to defend it, and ensure a good habitat were to raise their offspring—and so have better chance of survival.
Another 'big unanswered question,' says Hyman, is whether birds learn to be aggressive during their lifetime, or if birds born in urban populations have some measure of aggression encoded in their genes. 'There's little bits of evidence on both sides,' he says.
But what scientists do know is that some birds can be highly adaptable.
'Aggression definitely has a genetic component to it,' says Foltz. 'But also, we know that when we change environmental factors, birds change their aggression'
Overall, Foltz says scientists are still trying to understand just how much urban density different species can tolerate and which characteristics of an urban environment influence aggressiveness the most.
'We've got all these little pieces,' she says, 'But it's still coming together to make a bigger picture, so it's sort of an unfinished puzzle.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base
Sean Duffy, NASA's interim administrator, proved that the U.S. is serious about establishing a lunar base when he announced the deployment of a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030. The idea, although a sound one, is not without its critics. The announcement that the first element of a lunar base will be a nuclear reactor was logical. Nuclear power, unlike solar, is available 24/7 and thus does not require backup batteries during periods when the sun is not available. That the reactor is first means that every other element of the lunar base can be hooked up and powered up immediately. As NPR notes, a 100-kilowatt reactor on Earth would be able to power 70 to 80 private homes in the United States, so it could power a decent-sized lunar base. It would have to withstand the extremes of heat and cold on the moon, not to mention the possibility of moonquakes and meteor strikes. Instead of water to cool it, the reactor would simply radiate the heat it creates into space. The cost would be about $3 billion. Space lawyer Michelle Hanlon describes some of the legal aspects of placing a nuclear reactor on the moon, especially in context of the space race with China. While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits claims of national sovereignty on the moon, the establishment of a nuclear reactor, especially with a lunar base attached to it, grants the nation-state that does it some measure of control over the surrounding territory. Its Article IX requires that states act 'with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.' The practical effect of the Article IX provision is that the first country to establish a lunar base on the moon's south pole would be able to claim control over some prime real estate, important where ice mining is likely to be an essential enterprise. Duffy is therefore correct that the U.S. and its allies should be first with a nuclear reactor and a lunar base before China can establish its own and thus exert control. The idea of a nuclear-powered lunar base is not without its critics. For example, a CBS News host opined that colonizing the moon was akin to the colonization of native peoples on Earth by European powers. Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson set him straight by pointing out that no native peoples exist on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond Earth. The exchange elicited eyerolling on the Fox News show 'The Five.' But even there, some griping occurred. Dana Perino, who used to work for President George W. Bush, expressed considerable ennui about the whole concept of space travel. From the perspective of someone who has seen a space shuttle launch in person and watched men walk on the moon live on television, the attitude seems to be bizarre and dispiriting. Tyrus, the former wrestler turned social and political commentator, trotted out the 'let's solve problems on Earth before we go into space' trope that has been around since the beginning of the space age. The obvious answer has always been, 'Do both.' Ross Marchand, writing for Real Clear Science, noted the $37 trillion national debt and then claimed that building a lunar base would be just too expensive. He undermined his argument by comparing the 100-kilowatt lunar nuclear power plant to the 1-gigawatt reactors that exist on Earth and cost $10 billion to build (largely because of permitting and environmental regulation problems). Then he increased the estimated cost by a factor of 10 'or more.' Although NASA projects often do suffer cost overruns, $3 billion to $100 billion would be a little much, even for the space agency with its history of inefficiency. Marchand also trotted out the 'robots can explore space cheaper and better than humans' claim that was soundly debunked by the late, great lunar geologist Paul Spudis. In fact, returning to the moon and going on to Mars also polls well and has bipartisan political support, even it still has its critics. No great endeavor ever undertaken since the beginning of civilization has not had people saying it can't or shouldn't be done. The International Space Station, for example, drew fierce opposition and was almost cancelled more than once. The orbiting space laboratory is currently churning out a stream of scientific discoveries and technological innovations, confounding its early critics, who are long since forgotten. The lunar base and even Elon Musk's planned Mars colony will undergo a similar process. Future generations will find it difficult to imagine a universe where humans just occupied one world. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled ' Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? ' as well as ' The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently,' Why is America Going Back to the Moon? ' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.


Los Angeles Times
3 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Ethiopian fossil Lucy leaves for her first exhibition in Europe
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — The human ancestor fossil known as Lucy left Ethiopia for display in a European museum, Ethiopian national media reported Friday, citing Tourism Minister Selamawit Kassa. Lucy's skeleton, which is 40% complete, left Ethiopia on Friday and will be displayed at the Czech National Museum in Prague for approximately two months. Lucy was recovered in Ethiopia in 1974 from what was an ancient lake near fossilized remains of crocodiles, turtle eggs and crab claws. She was a member of Australopithecus afarensis, an early human species that lived in Africa between about 4 million and 3 million years ago. This is the second time Lucy has left Ethiopia. The first was in 2013, when she toured the United States. Lucy's fragmented bones will be exhibited alongside Selam, the fossil of an Australopithecus baby that is about 100,000 years older than Lucy and was discovered in the same region 25 years later. 'As an iconic specimen, she belongs to the whole world, so sharing her with the rest of humanity is something that everyone would love to see,' said Yohannes Haile-Selassie, Director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University. While many experts believe Lucy's trip to Europe presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for people in Europe and beyond, there are safety concerns about the transportation of her fragile bones. 'The fragmented bones of Lucy are truly unique and need utmost care. Traveling to Europe has its own risks,' said Gidey Gebreegziabher, an archaeologist and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Warsaw, Poland, 'She will also be exposed to different climate conditions, which could potentially have negative impacts on her preservation.' Even in Ethiopia, the public has only occasionally seen the real Lucy fossil. At the National Museum of Ethiopia, a replica of Lucy is exhibited while the actual remains are stored in a secure vault. 'I've seen how she was packed, so I have no worries about anything happening to Lucy anymore,' Yohannes said. Lucy's quiet departure on Thursday night also raises questions about transparency as many Ethiopians —who take pride in her — were unaware of her journey to Europe. 'It's unbelievable! The government appears to be deliberately sidelining its people from the narrative of their own heritage,' Gebreegziabher said. Bekele Reta, 43, a resident who lives just 164 feet from the museum where Lucy is housed, was unaware of Lucy's departure until he saw it on social media. 'I learned this morning on Facebook that Lucy has departed for Prague. It's unfortunate that most Ethiopians only have the opportunity to see her showcased elsewhere.' he said. Early this year, the director general of the Czech National Museum, Michal Lukeš, in a statement announcing the exhibition of Lucy and Selam, expressed his appreciation of the Ethiopians for agreeing to 'lend' the remains. 'These priceless exhibits give us a unique insight into the past and deepen our understanding of humanity's roots,' said Lukeš. Birhane writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Evelyne Musambi contributed to this report from Nairobi, Kenya.

3 days ago
Ethiopian fossil Lucy leaves for her first exhibition in Europe
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia -- The human ancestor fossil known as Lucy left Ethiopia for display in a European museum, Ethiopian national media reported Friday, citing Tourism Minister Selamawit Kassa. Lucy's skeleton, which is 40% complete, left Ethiopia on Friday and will be displayed at the Czech National Museum in Prague for approximately two months. Lucy was recovered in Ethiopia in 1974 from what was an ancient lake near fossilized remains of crocodiles, turtle eggs and crab claws. She was a member of Australopithecus afarensis, an early human species that lived in Africa between about 4 million and 3 million years ago. This is the second time Lucy has left Ethiopia. The first was in 2013, when she toured the United States. Lucy's fragmented bones will be exhibited alongside Selam, the fossil of an Australopithecus baby that is about 100,000 years older than Lucy and was discovered in the same region 25 years later. 'As an iconic specimen, she belongs to the whole world, so sharing her with the rest of humanity is something that everyone would love to see,' said Yohannes Haile-Selassie, Director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University. While many experts believe Lucy's trip to Europe presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for people in Europe and beyond, there are safety concerns about the transportation of her fragile bones. 'The fragmented bones of Lucy are truly unique and need utmost care. Traveling to Europe has its own risks,' said Gidey Gebreegziabher, an archaeologist and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Warsaw, Poland, 'She will also be exposed to different climate conditions, which could potentially have negative impacts on her preservation.' Even in Ethiopia, the public has only occasionally seen the real Lucy fossil. At the National Museum of Ethiopia, a replica of Lucy is exhibited while the actual remains are stored in a secure vault. 'I've seen how she was packed, so I have no worries about anything happening to Lucy anymore,' Yohannes said. Lucy's quiet departure on Thursday night also raises questions about transparency as many Ethiopians —who take pride in her — were unaware of her journey to Europe. 'It's unbelievable! The government appears to be deliberately sidelining its people from the narrative of their own heritage,' Gebreegziabher said. Bekele Reta, 43, a resident who lives just 50 meters (164 feet) from the museum where Lucy is housed, was unaware of Lucy's departure until he saw it on social media. 'I learned this morning on Facebook that Lucy has departed for Prague. It's unfortunate that most Ethiopians only have the opportunity to see her showcased elsewhere.' he said. Early this year, the director general of the Czech National Museum, Michal Lukeš, in a statement announcing the exhibition of Lucy and Selam, expressed his appreciation of the Ethiopians for agreeing to 'lend' the remains. 'These priceless exhibits give us a unique insight into the past and deepen our understanding of humanity's roots,' said Lukeš.