I see a scientist using a red band tag first and later in the video a silver-blue one for a different bird. Do they control for tag color when banding birds? https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)... some birds are known for their color/visual preferences and the measurement could ostensibly be a cause for the results: a confounding variable like in those mice studies where male or female scent inadvertently affected rat behaviour.
I suspect that it would be quite difficult to control for that, since my understanding is that they specifically use different color combos on each bird in a specific area. This lets the scientists easily ID the bird by sight or in a photo, vs. all silver bands with a stamped code. The latter would require them to re-catch the bird to ID it, defeating the purpose of observing behavior and IDing individuals as it happens. I would also guess that it isn’t really a factor in the birds’ behavior, though.
Yeah, I think this is 100% it but I’m not aware of any standards. I have spent a bit of time watching wildlife ecologists do bird banding at one site and they had a log of all the rings, so they could identify them by sight. Because there are limited color combinations, they segmented by species, sex for some species to make it easier. Common CS algorithms show up everywhere in the real world :)
I wonder if different ecology/conservation groups coordinate their algorithms and databases.
I participated once, but oh my god was it terrifying. The care with which one needs to remove the bird from the net and handle it is unnerving, especially with tiny songbirds. Weighing them is really cute. Massive respect for people who do it day in and day out.
I have a friend who worked on a project here in NZ where he made bird boxes with built in scales. It had a solar panel and a LoRa to get results back to base. It had a series of calculation to work out how much feeding was going on etc. From memory the boxes are on Hauraki Gulf islands - Tiritiri Matangi is one location I think.
Since we are talking bird and mating rituals, HN member once pointed out to me the fascinating bowerbird mating rituals[1] that result in them building fairly ornate structures showcasing their resource gathering skills.
It seems, to me, a similar dynamic to human pairings (at the edges). The more dominate aggressive females go for the more nurturing males, and vice versa. Then you're left with having pairings of dominate types who fight like 'cats & dogs', and never really know much about the more subdued pairings.
One can certainly point to human pairings like this, but I don’t know of any studies that show it as a general trend or tendency. One can also point to power couples and quiet couples just as easily.
We can't expect studies to be possible with topics like this in the near future. As I mentioned in my other comments, we don't even have cultural concepts or language to capture this in a meaningful way, not alone some kind of objective test that could form the basis of a scientific study.
They could only do it in this bird because of the striking visual difference, and without it they wouldn't have been able to study this at all.
I think it can be observed firsthand if you have experience dating a lot of different people, and the dynamic becomes quite obvious... but you could not easily categorize a person that you haven't known sexually or romantically in this way. It's quite striking the intense 'chemistry' when you are paired with someone that is on the complementary end of this spectrum from you, and the lack of it when you are not.
I think words like "power couples" and "quiet couples" are looking at something different are are themselves not even opposites- I think you are looking at something like ambition/goal directedness, and introversion.
> we don't even have cultural concepts or language to capture this in a meaningful way
I was thinking the dynamic from these birds shows a more "hidden" model of relationships how I have witnessed and experienced. Obviously there is no "one way", but like the birds, the majority, that I am around, fall into this pattern. Language is such a limiting factor here. By dominate aggressive females or nurturing males, it is not meant in the females emasculating males way that the phrase could be taken in English culture. As with the birds, being the nurturing male never meant the weak male. The nurturing males simply adapted to their strengths and nested in dense forest and sang their songs in a lower pitch so it farther. It doesn't mean they were less than, they still got mates. They are very attractive to both aggressive and nurturing females, but the more aggressive females are going to go after what they want when they want more often than the more subdued females.
To bring it into one of many human examples I personally have decades of witnessing, is an aunt & uncle who would be considered the "power couple" of the family.
Wealth, education, status, all far outshines the rest of the extended family. But depending on when you witness them, they would be classed power couple, conservative-traditional couple, or egalitarian/50-50 type. At one point, both high powered careers, the female with the higher position (multinational financial VP type). Eventually she decides to take care of the house and he continues working raking in good money. At no point in time would anyone who knows them, ever in their right mind, call her nurturing and him dominate. If boundaries needed to be made with family, friends, brokers whoever she was on it and it was no-nonsense. You could find him tending to their garden, or chatting it up with neighbors in the mean time. There was nothing emasculating about it. And if I had to make a guess about which of the family couples that have been married 40+ years still has the sex life one could only dream of when they reach their late 60-70's - its them.
I agree- humans have almost exactly the same dynamic. Our language doesn’t even have accurate words for it because it is culturally unacceptable to be a more (submissive? feminine?) man or a more (dominant? masculine?) woman yet it’s actually quite common and despite stereotypes it is a totally separate thing from gender or sexual orientation. The “wrong” pairings rarely work out in relationships.
I believe many cultures and languages are more consciously aware of this- for example the Chinese concept of yin and yang being important in dating and relationships.
Huh this is news to me. My field guides all mention the color variation but don’t mention differing behavior. One guide even incorrectly says its based on age (it is worth noting they do vary in plumage depending on age, but in a different way).
Another bird that is sort of like how they describe in the article is the Ruff. It is a beautiful type of sandpiper where males are split into 3 categories with different appearance and behavior.
Anyone know what types of chicks result from tan-striped/tan-striped couplings? Are they a mixture of white-striped and tan-striped? Or are they all tan-striped? And likewise for white-stripe/white-stripe couplings? The article says the single-striped couplings are rare in nature, but I'm wondering none-the-less.
John James Audubon was a white supremacist and purchased several human beings. I worry that we are in danger of a return to scientific racism with the renewed interest in eugenics.
Two sexes (male, female), each with two variants (white throat, yellow throat), creating four genders (wM, yM, wF, yF).
Males and females need to pair or there will be no new sparrows. However opposite variants also need to pair or for behaviour reasons there will be no successful young.
For instance, wM-wF spend so much energy fighting with each other they fail to raise young.
The y variants are less aggressive but better with young and are the most popular mate choices. The y-variants are also monogomous while the w-variants are not.
The aggressive w-variants grab all the y-variants as partners. The result is that y-y pairs are rarely (never?) seen, even though they could produce young.
The article notes that yellow throats have different food strategies from white throats. This will also tend to reinforce alternate gender pairing.
An MF pair is going to bring in less food if both are going after the same sources (they might start fighting!) while if each has a different strategy the young are less vulnerable to food shortages should one strategy or another not produce at any given time.
The four gender outcome seems to be in a sustainable equilibrium. If one is favoured, say wM-yF, then these sparrows would become like most other birds, with males having one colour pattern and females another.
Instead, behaviours have somehow distributed themselves across genders so a successful couple needs to match both if they are to raise the next generation of young.
> Within each gender, white-striped birds are more aggressive while tan-striped birds are more nurturing. That seemingly simple generalization is based on a vast amount of research. For many years, Falls and his students at the University of Toronto carried out highly detailed studies of White-throated Sparrows, showing how behavioral differences between the morphs touched every aspect of these birds’ lives.
Why would you define this variation that's associated with behavior "gender"? Isn't the whole distinction between gender and sex is one is biological and the other societal? If there is a hereditary biological indicator that determines this behavior, shouldn't it fall outside of the gender concept? I don't know how useful it is to add these human constructs to the biological world when it could be easily observed and discussed without the confusion
On top of what is said in the other comment (indeed, "gender" is perfectly fine, there is no real confusion), it's also worth noting that the "more aggressive" and "more nurturing" sparrows have a different color, and color is a biological trait.
I think that the distinction between "biological" and "cultural" is a bit of a non-issue for the professionals. They don't know if it's cultural or biological, but it does not matter, and in fact, the reality is probably that untangling cultural from biological is impossible (not in the sense that the culture is a direct result of the biology, but in the sense that biological development does not care to make the distinction if the conditions that shape its direction are biological or cultural, and that a final trait is therefore the result of a complicated mix of the two).
> Why would you define this variation that's associated with behavior "gender"?
People use imperfect analogies all the time. Also words can have multiple meanings, especially across different fields. No one is complaining that their electrical 'resistors' are confusing their understanding of non-violent resistance.
> Isn't the whole distinction between gender and sex is one is biological and the other societal?
In people. These are birds. See above about words having multiple meanings.
> If there is a hereditary biological indicator that determines this behavior, shouldn't it fall outside of the gender concept?
Why would it. A, applying the "gender concept" of humans to birds is silly. B, "hereditary biological indicators" and gender can overlap in humans too.
> it could be easily observed and discussed without the confusion
I don't see at all why it would be confusing, and no one else seems confused. The English language does this literally all the time.
The "genders" analogy is a conceit of this article's author alone. It is not what any researcher uses. The remarkable feature of these birds is not the behavioral divergence but the underlying genetic factors driving dissortative mating. If any analogy is appropriate, it's "sex" not "gender."
Gender is being used here as "trait arising from genetic sex + behavior". It's not the same as the human social construct, but it is analogous. It's also not commonly used in biology in this way from what I've seen, for what that's worth.
