logo
This Hawk Figured Out Traffic Signals to Ambush Its Prey

This Hawk Figured Out Traffic Signals to Ambush Its Prey

Gizmodo23-05-2025

Birds continue to be amazing. Crows can use tools and hold grudges against specific people. Magpies can recognize themselves in mirrors. And now, hawks are using traffic signals to hunt down prey, according to a study published today in the journal Frontiers in Ethology.
The story starts with Vladimir Dinets, a zoologist at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and the study's author, and an intersection in West Orange, New Jersey, near his home. As a zoologist, he had long been interested in animals' perspective on and understanding of urban environments—and in birds' relationship with cars, in particular. Scientists have previously observed ravens patrol American highways waiting for roadkill and songbirds using cars to hide from predators.
Dinets was on the lookout for these interesting interactions when a young Cooper's hawk migrated into his neighborhood and started doing something brilliant.
The intersection wasn't particularly busy, even during rush hour, Dinets wrote in a guest editorial for Frontiers in Ethology. But sometimes, a pedestrian would cross the street, causing cars to pile up all the way to a small, bushy tree down the block. The pedestrian 'walk' signal would also make a sound that indicated it was time to walk.
One morning, Dinets saw the hawk emerge from the tree, fly very low above the line of cars, cross the street between the cars, and then dive to get something near one of the houses.
Then the same thing happened again. And again.
It turns out that the family that lived in that house near the bushy tree liked to have dinner in their front yard. In response, birds—like sparrows and doves—would flock there to claim the leftover crumbs.
That made for easy pickings for the hawk, who would swoop down into the yard to catch said sparrows and doves. But, curiously, the hawk only did this when cars were lined up along the block all the way to the tree.
Dinets eventually figured out that the line of cars provided cover for the hawk, and that the hawk had learned to recognize the sound of the pedestrian 'walk' signal. As soon as a pedestrian pressed the button, the hawk would fly from wherever it had been hanging out and into the small, bushy tree. It would then wait for cars to pile up before using the line of cars as cover to sneak up on its prey.
The hawk had, apparently, learned to use the pedestrian signal as a cue to start heading over to the house crowded with defenseless birds, according to Dinets.
'That meant that the hawk understood the connection between the sound and the eventual car queue length,' Dinets explained. The hawk also apparently had a good mental map of the neighborhood.
The hawk (or what Dinets thinks was the same hawk) returned the next year and used the same strategy to hunt. Eventually, though, the family moved away and the signal stopped working, so Dinets hasn't seen any super smart hawks hunting near his home since.
Life is tough for birds in cities—they have to avoid windows, weave through cars, and deal with noise. But this study shows at least one way that they've adapted to urban living.
'I think my observations show that Cooper's hawks manage to survive and thrive there, at least in part, by being very smart,' Dinets wrote.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Wildfire Smoke Linked to Respiratory Admissions in Seniors
Wildfire Smoke Linked to Respiratory Admissions in Seniors

Medscape

time28 minutes ago

  • Medscape

Wildfire Smoke Linked to Respiratory Admissions in Seniors

Among older adults in the western United States, exposure to high concentrations of smoke-related fine particulate matter (PM2.5) was associated with increased rates of hospitalizations for respiratory diseases, with weaker but suggestive ties to cardiovascular hospitalizations. METHODOLOGY: Researchers carried out a retrospective cohort study to analyze the association between exposure to smoke-specific PM2.5 and cause-specific hospitalizations in older adults in the United States. They used inpatient claims data of 10,369,361 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age, 74.7 years; 53.1% women) across 11 western United States during wildfire seasons from 2006 to 2016, with 57,974,120 person-months of follow-up. The causes of unscheduled hospitalizations were inferred from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes and classified into various disease categories. codes and classified into various disease categories. Daily concentrations of surface-level smoke-specific PM2.5 were estimated through machine learning models that utilized ground measurements, satellite data, and reanalysis data sources. The associations between causes of hospitalization and smoke-specific PM2.5 were characterized by examining daily county-level rates of unscheduled hospitalization by disease category, modeling hospitalization rates according to same-day and prior-week smoke-specific PM2.5 exposure. TAKEAWAY: The leading cause of unscheduled hospitalizations was cardiovascular disease, with a mean daily rate of 7.92 per 100,000 persons, followed by digestive system disease at 3.62 and respiratory disease at 3.53 per 100,000 persons. Respiratory hospitalizations increased as smoke-specific PM2.5 exceeded 25 μg/m 3 , with average daily rates increasing by 2.40 (95% CI, 0.17-4.63) per 100,000 persons when PM2.5 levels rose from 0 to 40 μg/m 3 over a week. , with average daily rates increasing by 2.40 (95% CI, 0.17-4.63) per 100,000 persons when PM2.5 levels rose from 0 to 40 μg/m over a week. Hospitalizations due to cardiovascular diseases were unrelated to smoke-specific PM2.5 at exposure levels < 20 μg/m 3 but showed an increasing trend at higher concentrations. but showed an increasing trend at higher concentrations. No significant associations were seen for hospitalizations related to injuries, digestive issues, neuropsychiatric conditions, or endocrine disorders. IN PRACTICE: 'This information can be used by both policymakers and clinicians to design policies and guidelines to protect vulnerable older adults from the escalating health threats posed by wildfire smoke,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Sofia L. Vega, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online on April 30, 2025, in JAMA Network Open . LIMITATIONS: Estimating concentrations of smoke-specific PM2.5 proved challenging due to the lack of direct measurements. County-level exposure measures may not have accurately reflected the exposures experienced by individual residents. This study did not include information on wildfires from recent years when their intensity increased. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by the Harvard Climate Change Solutions Fund and grants from the National Institutes of Health. One author reported receiving support through an environmental fellowship at the Harvard University Center. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

Systemic Psoriasis Therapy Linked to Less Dementia
Systemic Psoriasis Therapy Linked to Less Dementia

Medscape

time33 minutes ago

  • Medscape

Systemic Psoriasis Therapy Linked to Less Dementia

SAN DIEGO — While psoriasis is linked to higher rates of dementia, a new study suggested that older patients with psoriasis on systemic treatments may have a much lower risk than those not treated systemically. In fact, the research hints — but doesn't prove — that the medications could lower the dementia risk even below that of the general population. The study, which retrospectively evaluated US medical records of people aged 65-95 years from 2004 to 2024, found that patients with psoriasis on systemic therapies (n = 14,679) had a lower risk of developing dementia than those not on systemic treatment (n = 39,601) and lower than a matched general population group (5.77 million). The adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for the treated psoriasis group vs the untreated group were 0.49 (0.39-0.61) for Alzheimer's disease, 0.65 (0.51-0.83) for vascular dementia, and 0.60 (0.53-0.68) for nonvascular dementia. For the treated group vs the matched general population, the aORs were 0.69 (0.54-0.86), 0.85 (0.65-1.10), and 0.85 (0.75-0.97), respectively. The findings, presented at the Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID) 2025 Annual Meeting, are too preliminary to affect clinical practice. But the study does add to 'a growing body of evidence linking chronic inflammation to neurodegeneration,' study lead author Madison Olexson, a dermatology research fellow at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, told Medscape Medical News . 'It reinforces [how] treating systemic diseases like psoriasis may not only improve cutaneous symptoms but may have extra-cutaneous benefits as well,' she said. Sparse Data on Systemic Treatments and Psoriasis Several international reports have linked psoriasis with dementia, including a 2019 study that found an elevated risk associated with the skin disease and vascular dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.73; 95% CI, 1.21-2.47) and a 2023 study that identified an increased risk for dementia (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.35). Also, a 2019 study linked dementia to a higher risk for psoriasis (OR, 1.46). Other autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease have also been linked to higher incidence and risk for cognitive impairment and dementia, Olexson said. 'This is believed to be linked to systemic inflammation and the sustained activity of proinflammatory cytokines such as [tumor necrosis factor] TNF alpha and [interleukin 17] IL-17, which can affect the brain and potentially lead to neurodegeneration. However, the exact mechanisms remain unclear.' She added that 'it's still a mystery whether psoriasis alone drives the development of dementia or if the increased likelihood is due to shared comorbidities or overlapping inflammatory pathways. Furthermore, we don't yet fully understand whether treatments provide direct cognitive protection or how long treatment needs to continue for maximal benefit.' Biologics and Non-Biologics Both Linked to Benefit The researchers launched the new study 'to address the limited and inconsistent data on whether psoriasis associates with dementia outcomes and systemic treatments for psoriasis could influence the likelihood of developing dementia,' Olexson said. The study retrospectively tracked patients via the TriNetX research network database. Before propensity score matching, the mean age was 66.6 ± 8.9 years for non-treated patients and 67.8 ± 9.0 years for the general population. Respectively, the groups were 42.8% and 51.7% women and 65.9% and 72.6% White. Data for the treated psoriasis group were not provided, but Olexson said their characteristics were similar. The study included both biologic medications, which target specific immune pathways, and non-biologic systemic treatments. Patients were treated for a median of 4 years (for both). The biologics were adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab. The non-biologic treatments were methotrexate, apremilast, acitretin, and ultraviolet phototherapy. Both drug classes were linked to lower risks for dementia at roughly the same rates, but it was not clear if specific medications may have greater effects. Less Inflammation May Protect Against Dementia The adjusted incidence rates of Alzheimer's disease were 1.9% vs 1.2% in the non-psoriasis group vs the treated psoriasis group. For vascular dementia, the rates were 1.2% vs 0.74%, respectively. For nonvascular dementia, they were 5.4% vs 3.7%, respectively. For untreated patients with psoriasis vs treated patients with psoriasis, the adjusted incident rates were 1.7% and 0.84% for Alzheimer's disease, 1.1% and 0.72% for vascular dementia, and 5.1% and 3.1% for nonvascular dementia, respectively, which Olexson reported were statistically significant differences. 'Systemic therapies likely reduce neuroinflammation by suppressing inflammatory cytokines like TNF alpha and IL-17, both of which have been implicated in neurodegenerative processes,' Olexson said. 'These cytokines can disrupt the blood-brain barrier, promote amyloid beta accumulation, and impair neuronal function. By modulating this inflammatory cascade, systemic treatments may protect against or slow the onset of dementia.' Findings Are 'Intriguing' but Not Definitive Asked to comment on the results, Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, who was not involved in the study, noted that while the findings are 'intriguing,' they come with caveats because of the observational study design. 'If patients with dementia aren't bothered by their psoriasis or aren't given biologics for that or some other reason, getting a biologic might be associated with less dementia,' he said in an interview. 'It may be that having or not having dementia determines to some degree who gets a biologic, not that taking a biologic determines who gets dementia.' Olexson agreed that the observational design has limitations. While cohorts were matched by demographics, body mass index, and several comorbidities, she said other factors such as disease severity, socioeconomic status, and access to care could play a role in the findings. What's next? Moving forward, Olexson said, 'We have plans to conduct prospective studies related to psoriasis and cognitive health at our institution.'

Will Federal Cuts Affect mRNA Cancer Vaccine Research?
Will Federal Cuts Affect mRNA Cancer Vaccine Research?

Medscape

timean hour ago

  • Medscape

Will Federal Cuts Affect mRNA Cancer Vaccine Research?

If you've ever administered or received a COVID-19 vaccine, chances are it was based on messenger RNA (mRNA) technology — a medical breakthrough decades in the making and finally achieved thanks to the coordinated effort and enormous funding mobilized by the pandemic. The promise of mRNA vaccines is immense, researchers said. Several vaccines, including for influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, have been approved or are in the approval pipeline. Now the same technology is being tested in hundreds of clinical trials for conditions that include not only infectious diseases but also many kinds of cancer. And with the mRNA therapeutics market expected to grow to $30 billion by 2030, research momentum is strong — for now. But recent cuts in federal research grants and the current administration's skepticism about mRNA vaccines have raised concerns that mRNA studies, including for cancer vaccines, could stall just as these treatments are starting to reach patients. The Promise of mRNA Medicine for Cancer Every gene in your body encodes an mRNA. It sends genetic information from the cell nucleus to the cytoplasm, where proteins are created to carry out the cell's work. The lab-made mRNA used in vaccines tells the cell to make proteins that activate the desired response. The COVID-19 vaccine expresses COVID-19 genes, for instance, so the immune system learns to recognize and fight the virus. In cancer cases, immune cells (T-cells) must be activated against a tumor. Checkpoint modulators allow the T-cell to penetrate the tumor and destroy it. The first of these immunologic drugs was approved in 2011, and since then, they have revolutionized treatment for '20% of all advanced, deadly cancers,' effectively turning them into chronic diseases, said Elizabeth Jaffee, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore. But in the other 80% of cases, she said, the immune system fails to generate the T-cells needed because it doesn't recognize the tumor cells as abnormal. That's where mRNA could make a big impact. Researchers at Johns Hopkins and elsewhere have developed a personalized approach. First, they biopsy the tumor and sequence the sample's genome. Based on that, they design an mRNA vaccine, which is then injected into the patient to trigger T-cells that recognize the tumor as abnormal. With the help of a checkpoint modulator, the T-cells can then attack and destroy the tumor. The approach was tested at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in an early clinical trial involving 16 patients with pancreatic cancer, which had a 5-year survival rate of 13%. Half of the participants received personalized mRNA vaccines, and the other half did not. '3 years later, the eight patients who got the vaccine appear to have disease-free survival,' Jaffee said. 'If we can push this vaccine method forward, we'll definitely have an effect on cancer.' Jaffee's team at Johns Hopkins is now conducting promising clinical trials on various gastrointestinal cancers — including colon cancer, gastric cancer, and a rare type of liver cancer. But Jaffee fears she could get an email saying her National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant will be cutoff within 24 hours. 'We'll have to tell the patients that day, 'Sorry, we no longer have the money to treat you.' That would be devastating.' She says her team stands to lose $20 million in NIH funding — a gap they can't replace with private grants. While the NIH hasn't officially pulled funding from mRNA research, scientists worry that it could be the next target in this year's wave of NIH cuts — concerns prompted in part by reports of funding cuts for vaccine hesitancy research and of NIH officials instructing scientists to scrub mRNA references from their grant applications. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, 'has been a strong critic of mRNA, and under his leadership, there have been emails asking for names of scientists working on mRNA research,' said Jeff Coller, PhD, professor of RNA biology and therapeutics at Johns Hopkins. 'This has been a pattern over the last few months. So we're concerned, and the industry is concerned.' The Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary has publicly expressed skepticism about vaccines, particularly the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. In 2021, he described them as'the deadliest vaccine ever made.' That same year, the Children's Health Defense — a nonprofit organization that Kennedy founded and led before joining the Trump Administration — petitioned the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to rescind its authorization for the vaccines. Recently, the group has suggested a link between mRNA vaccines and cancer. Last week, the HHS canceled a nearly $600 million contract with mRNA vaccine maker Moderna for the development of its bird flu vaccine for humans. The FDA has not yet approved any cancer vaccines, but one for late-stage melanoma, currently in a phase 3 clinical trial, is getting closer. Some expect a successful trial will lead to FDA approval of the melanoma vaccine. But Drew Weissman, MD, PhD — who shared a Nobel Prize with Katalin Kariko, PhD, for the discoveries behind the COVID-19 vaccine — is less confident. As a vaccine researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, leading a team of 80 scientists through dozens of trials, he worried that government skepticism could make FDA approval an uphill battle for his and others' mRNA research. Who Will Pay for Cancer Vaccines? The explosion in mRNA research has been funded by a mix of federal grants and private investment, with the government money aimed at basic research. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency had invested about $1 billion in mRNA research starting in 2012, said Andrew Geall, PhD, co-founder and chief development officer of Replicate Bioscience, an mRNA startup in San Diego. 'Most major pharmaceutical companies have made investments in mRNA technology,' said Geall. So have many venture capital firms. His own company, which was started in 2020, has received $53 million in private funding. This year, he said, Replicate Bioscience published phase 1 clinical trial data on its mRNA vaccine for rabies. Moderna, one of the two major makers of COVID-19 vaccines, has conducted clinical trials on mRNA treatments for solid tumors. BioNTech, which codeveloped the other leading COVID-19 vaccine with Pfizer, is working on melanoma research. And Roche and Genentech are supporting Memorial Sloan Kettering's research on pancreatic cancer. If NIH terminates mRNA grants, pharma companies and other US investors 'will probably pull back,' Geall said. That's because they rely on publicly funded research to share the costs — and risks — of their developments, he said. In fact, private investment is already slowing down, as companies hedge their bets against an expected cutoff of mRNA research funding, Geall said. 'If we need to do clinical trials, we're probably going to go abroad.' While most mRNA research is based in the United States, other countries are advancing studies of their own, poised to take the lead if the United States drops the ball. A recent poll showed that 75% of the US scientists will move abroad if their funding here is cutoff. Foreign regulators like the European Medicines Agency are gearing up to approve mRNA vaccines being developed in their countries. If scientists in other nations develop new mRNA vaccines before our scientists do, their people would likely have access to mRNA vaccines sooner than Americans. Whether any of this could delay US mRNA studies — and if so, for how long — remains unknown. After all, mRNA research is still happening in the United States, and with fruitful results. If federal support for mRNA studies is cutoff, the research won't stop — at least, not 'in Europe or China' or elsewhere, Weissman said. 'But it's going to stop in the US'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store