
Starlings form ‘friendships' to help each other with breeding, study finds
Birds of a feather flock together, so the saying goes. But scientists studying the behaviour of starlings have found their ability to give and take makes their relationships closer to human friendships than previously thought.
About 10% of bird species and 5% of mammal species breed 'cooperatively', meaning some individuals refrain from breeding to help others care for their offspring. Some species even help those they are unrelated to.
Now researchers studying superb starlings have found the support cuts both ways, with birds that received help in feeding or guarding their chicks returning the favour when the 'helper' bird has offspring of its own.
Prof Dustin Rubenstein, a co-author of the study from the University of Colombia, said such behaviour was probably necessary for superb starlings as they live in a harsh environment where drought is common and food is limited.
'Two birds probably can't feed their offspring on their own, so they need these helpers to help them,' he said, adding that as each breeding pair produces few offspring, birds must be recruited from outside the family group to help the young survive.
'What happens is the non-relatives come into the group, and they breed pretty quickly, usually in the first year, maybe the second year, and then they take some time off and some of the other birds breed – and we never understood why,' said Rubenstein. 'But they're forming these pairwise reciprocal relationships, in the sense that I might help you this year, and then you'll help me in the future.'
The results chime with previous work from Rubenstein and colleagues that found superb starlings living in larger groups have a greater chance of survival and of producing offspring, with the new work suggesting the give-and-take approach helps to stabilise these groups.
Writing in the journal Nature, Rubenstein and colleagues report how they studied superb starlings at 410 nests in Kenya spanning nine social groups, recording data over a 20-year period from 2002 that covered more than 40 breeding seasons. The team also collected DNA from 1,175 birds to explore their relationships to each other.
The results reveal that rather than helping birds at random, starlings preferentially helped breeding birds that were related to them, particularly if they were born in the same nest. However, they also helped unrelated breeding birds, even when there were opportunities to help relatives.
The team found helpers tended to aid specific breeding birds. Crucially, these pairs of breeders and helpers often switched roles from one breeding season to the next – particularly if they were immigrants to the group.
'You can think of them as friendships, in the sense that they're not relatives,' said Rubenstein.
However, Rubenstein said questions remained. 'Why don't they just get the help and then not reciprocate the help in the future?' he said, adding the team was collecting further data to explore the conundrum.
The team said that while studies often focused on how helping a family member promoted the chance of the helpers' genes being passed due to shared ancestry, the new work showed helping– including between non-relatives – could bring other benefits.
Dr Julia Schroeder, an expert in behavioural ecology at Imperial College London who was not involved in the work, said the research supported the idea that birds could recognise each other individually, and confirmed previous suspicions that they engaged in this give-and-take behaviour.
'It helps us better understand altruism and the evolution of altruism, because it's still a bit of a mystery,' she said.
Hashtags

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


The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Drinking a soda could be worse than eating a candy bar, researchers find
Could cracking open a can of soda be worse for you than unwrapping a candy bar? Researchers at Utah's Brigham Young University and institutions in Germany say that drinking your sugar could have a greater negative impact than eating it. They found that drinking sugar was consistently linked to a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Of the 38 million Americans with diabetes, between 90 and 95 percent have type 2. Other sugar sources have a lower risk. 'This is the first study to draw clear dose-response relationships between different sugar sources and type 2 diabetes risk,' BYU nutritional science professor Karen Della Corte said in a statement. 'It highlights why drinking your sugar — whether from soda or juice — is more problematic for health than eating it.' Della Corte was the lead author of the research which was recently published in the journal Advances in Nutrition. The reason for this difference may be linked to metabolic effects. The sweetened beverages contain what are known as isolated sugars, or sugars extracted from fruits and other sources and then added to processed foods. Added sugars are found in energy drinks, lemonade, sports drinks, soda, breads, cereals, yogurt, canned food, and other products. Because of that, there is a greater glycemic impact — an impact on blood sugar — that would overwhelm and disrupt metabolism in the liver, increasing liver fat and resistance to insulin. Insulin is the hormone that helps regulate blood sugar levels, and injections are often given to people with diabetes who need it to help their blood sugar levels in a normal range. Whereas, dietary sugars in nutrient-rich foods including fruits and whole grains do not cause metabolic overload in the liver. Instead, they lead to slower responses due to the accompanying fiber, fats, proteins and other beneficial nutrients. To reach these conclusions, the researchers studied data from over half a million people across multiple continents. An analysis of that data found that each addition 12-ounce serving of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages a day increased the risk for type 2 diabetes by a quarter. 'This strong relationship showed that the increased relative risk began from the very first daily serving with no minimum threshold below which intake appeared to be safe,' the authors said. Furthermore, each additional eight-ounce serving of fruit juice per day led to a 5 percent increased relative risk. However, 20 grams in the same time frame of table sugar and total sugar showed an inverse effect. Generally, a high sugar intake is linked to an increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer. But, sugar helps to provide the body with energy and has an 'important role in nutrition,' according to Harvard Medical School.' 'This study underscores the need for even more stringent recommendations for liquid sugars such as those in sugar-sweetened beverages and fruit juice, as they appear to harmfully associate with metabolic health," Della Corte said. "Rather than condemning all added sugars, future dietary guidelines might consider the differential effects of sugar based on its source and form."


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Terrifying map reveals dementia explosion that'll make you consider moving
People living in the Rocky Mountains and Northwest US are among those with the highest risk of dementia, a study suggests. Researchers in California split the US into 10 regions and compared dementia rates in each. They used the Mid-Atlantic region, which includes states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey and West Virginia, as a baseline for comparison because it had the lowest rates overall. Results revealed people living in the Southeast - which includes Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi - were most likely to get dementia with a 25 percent increased risk. They were followed closely by northwest states like Alaska and Idaho and around the Rocky Mountains were at a 23 percent increased risk. Southwestern states like California were 13 percent more likely to develop the condition, meanwhile those in northeast states like New York were the least likely - a seven percent increased risk. The researchers, from the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), said the disparities are most likely due to socioeconomic factors like quality of education and exposure to environmental toxins. They said while more research is needed, the findings show which areas of the country are most vulnerable to dementia and where efforts should be targeted for education, prevention and therapies. Dr Kristine Yaffe, senior study author, said: 'The study underscores the need to understand regional differences in dementia and the importance of region-specific prevention and intervention efforts.' Around 8million adults in the US have some form of dementia and 500,000 are diagnosed every year. Experts estimate cases will grow by 1million per year by 2060, while some research suggests 12.7million patients could be diagnosed by 2050. This could be due to cases being underreported, a growing aging population and surging rates of diseases like heart disease and obesity, which can weaken blood vessels in the brain and lead to dementia. Alzheimer's is the most common form with about 6million cases. The new study, published Monday in JAMA Neurology, evaluated records from 1.2million veterans over 65 who sought care at a Veterans Affairs (VA) health system between 1999 and 2021. The researchers used VA data to compare dementia rates among veterans in 10 regions in the US. On average, participants were followed for 13 years. The average participant age was 74, and 98 percent were men. About 86 percent were white. The average age of dementia diagnosis overall in the US is 83. The team divided participants by 10 geographic regions defined by the CDC: the Northeast, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southeast, South, Midwest, Rocky Mountains, Southwest and Northwest. The Mid-Atlantic - which includes Delaware, Washington DC, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, New Jersey - was used as a baseline because it had the lowest dementia rate of 11 per 1,000 people. The researchers found 14 in every 1,000 participants in the Southeast had dementia, a 25 percent increased risk over the Mid-Atlantic. The Northwest - Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington state - and Rocky Mountain - Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming - both had dementia rates of 13 per 1,000. This put those areas at a 23 percent increased risk over the Mid-Atlantic. People living in Arizona, California, Hawaii and Nevada - the Southwest region - were at a 13 percent increased risk, with a rate of 12 per 1,000. The Midwest and Great Lakes regions were also around 13 percent. The Northeast region had the smallest increase compared to the Mid-Atlantic with a dementia rate of 12 per 1,000 people and a seven percent greater risk. The researchers pointed to socioeconomic factors influencing regional risks, especially in southeastern states. Dr Christina Dintica, first study author and postdoctoral scholar of psychiatry at UCSF, said: 'Quality of education, early life conditions, and environmental exposures may be among those factors.' States like Kentucky and Mississippi also have high rates of conditions like diabetes, heart disease and obesity, all of which can damage blood vessels in the brain and trigger full-body inflammation that can kill brain cells. They also have high concentrations of industrial factories releasing chemicals like heavy metals and gases linked to dementia. Military veterans in general are also at a higher risk of dementia overall due to higher rates of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), which can damage brain cells and blood vessels in the brain. Some TBIs may also increase amounts of tau and amyloid proteins in the brain, which are known to cause Alzheimer's disease. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is also most common in veterans. The condition is thought to trigger inflammation in the brain and damage the brain's memory structures. Veterans over 70, such as those in the study, were also more likely to have been exposed to Agent Orange, a mixture of herbicides used by the US military during the Vietnam War. Previous research suggests people exposed to Agent Orange were twice as likely to develop dementia as those who were not exposed due to inflammation and brain cell death. The study had several limitations, including only focusing on veterans and the vast majority of participants being men.


The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Study offers surprising insights into vegetarians' psyches
A study of more than 3,500 adults in Poland and the US found that vegetarians are more likely to value social status and personal ambition than meat -eaters. Vegetarians showed a greater appetite for novelty and challenge, aligning with values that improve their social standing. Meat-eaters were found to prioritise tradition, conformity, benevolence, and security. Professor John Nezlek noted the common association between meat and masculinity, saying that vegetarians are often perceived as more benevolent, but the study found the opposite. The study suggests vegetarians are independent thinkers who strongly hold their beliefs, willing to stand by their principles as a social minority.