Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
Post Reply
User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Fishnut » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:13 pm

It seems that everywhere we look, we see sex bias. The latest case is in bird conservation - males and females of some bird species overwinter in different areas and, in a surprise to no-one who pays attention to this stuff, it seems that the wintering grounds of the male birds get far more conservation attention than those of the females. The research was published earlier this month in Biological Conservation though it's behind a paywall. Science Daily has the press release.
...the study found that in conservation plans for 66 declining migratory species, only 3 made any mention of his-and-her-habitats... Using declining Golden-winged Warblers as their case study, the researchers also found that the habitats where female birds spend the winter are being lost more rapidly than those inhabited by males... Male golden-wings lost 4% of their habitat during that time span. Females lost twice as much, at 8%. Despite the higher threat faced by females, the study found that habitats for the males got all the conservation attention.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by tom p » Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:13 pm

That's just ridiculous.
If memory serves, in many species (apart from those that pair up for life), isn't it the females we would most need to protect, since a male can fertilise many females in a season, but each female can usually only be fertilised once a season?
In which case, were there to be a bias for conservation, it should be in the other direction.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7524
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by dyqik » Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:18 pm

I can form a quick guess at how such a bias starts or is maintained, even with the best intentions.

Male birds are usually much more recognizable than female ones, with lots of female birds being LBBs, while the males are distinctive. A fair number of identification guides only prominently show the males as well (e.g. Audubon guide) Although looking at Wikipedia, which has male and female images prominent, the golden wing warblers aren't as disparate in appearance as many species (c.f. male and female northern cardinals, for example)

That may well lead to sites where females overwinter not being identified as readily, and so not attracting attention, both for conservation and description.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by tom p » Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm

dyqik wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:18 pm
I can form a quick guess at how such a bias starts or is maintained, even with the best intentions.

Male birds are usually much more recognizable than female ones, with lots of female birds being LBBs, while the males are distinctive. A fair number of identification guides only prominently show the males as well (e.g. Audubon guide) Although looking at Wikipedia, which has male and female images prominent, the golden wing warblers aren't as disparate in appearance as many species (c.f. male and female northern cardinals, for example)

That may well lead to sites where females overwinter not being identified as readily, and so not attracting attention, both for conservation and description.
Naah. It's 'cos BOAF is actually so misogynist that he even hates female birds. It's all his fault, the sexist prick.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Fishnut » Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:53 pm

dyqik wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:18 pm
I can form a quick guess at how such a bias starts or is maintained, even with the best intentions.

Male birds are usually much more recognizable than female ones, with lots of female birds being LBBs, while the males are distinctive. A fair number of identification guides only prominently show the males as well (e.g. Audubon guide) Although looking at Wikipedia, which has male and female images prominent, the golden wing warblers aren't as disparate in appearance as many species (c.f. male and female northern cardinals, for example)

That may well lead to sites where females overwinter not being identified as readily, and so not attracting attention, both for conservation and description.
I was at Ada Lovelace Day Live this year and there was a great talk by Dr Sally Le Page (they were all great talks!) about, among other things, this very problem. She took the blackbird as an example. It's called the blackbird, yet only the adult males are black. The females and juveniles are brown.

Same with butterflies. Look at this Butterfly Conservation page on the common blue butterfly. It's illustrated with a male, the description begins with the male, and yet the female has much more interesting and variable colouration -
the upperwings of females varies from almost completely brown in southern England to predominantly blue in western Ireland and Scotland, but the colour is variable within local populations with some striking examples.
So we are primed as soon as we get an interest in wildlife to think the males are the more interesting subjects and from there it's not much of a leap to only study male over-wintering grounds.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:09 pm

I was also wondering about this:
”Among the small songbird species that have been studied, the general rule seems to be that females occupy lower elevation, shrubbier, drier sites," says lead author Ruth Bennett. "Mid-elevation and high-elevation sites that are more humid and have better quality forest are occupied by males."
The forest inhabited by the male birds might have higher status among politicians and activists who call for conservation sites (and the people who donate to them).

“Save the rainforest!” is an easier sell than “Save the arid scrubland!”.

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4746
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Grumble » Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:55 pm

It wouldn’t have occurred to me, not being any kind of ornithologist, that males and females of the same species wouldn’t live in the same habitats.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:44 pm

This is really interesting! And the study had passed me by - thanks Fishnut!

I scihubbed the paper - seems like solid work on a first read-through. They are really talking about two things:
1) Are conservation planners paying attention to sex-specific distributions? This is assessed through a literature review, focussed on North American landbirds.
2) What implications might this have for conservation? This is assessed through a case study, the Golden-winged Warbler.

The winter distributions of migratory species are generally very poorly known, as is winter ecology in general. There is a lack of data (very few birdwatchers in tropical regions) and a lack of research (very few universities in tropical regions), so even just mapping out where a species occurs can be difficult, especially as they have stopped singing. Females are even more inconspicuous and so are more likely to get missed by surveys that aren't designed to pick them up.

In terms of sex-specific distributions, there are often ecological differences between males and females that can manifest at various scales. For example, Chaffinches split up into sex-specific flocks during winter (hence the scientific name Fringilla coelebs - the bachelor finch), though they typically use the same kinds of habitats. In Blue Tits, the decision to migrate or not can depend on climate and food availability, but females (and young birds) are more likely to migrate than males.

In general in Passeriformes (your typical songbirds, like warblers and thrushes and sparrows) the males tend to be a bit bigger, and a bit more aggressive. In migratory species, males also tend to arrive earlier in spring in order to scrap over territories, so they also have higher food requirements during late winter to fuel a faster migration. The consequence of this can be that males will outcompete females and occupy higher-quality habitat, which is what is seen in the Golden-winged Warbler. However, according to the article, this has led some authors to argue that male-dominated habitats should be prioritised as they are of higher quality.

It would be interesting to compare these results with other groups of birds. There are quite a lot of species which aren't sexually dimorphic, so you wouldn't necessarily expect this pattern to arise. On the other hands, in a lot of wader species the females are larger and have longer beaks, which means they can access more food than males.
tom p wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:13 pm
That's just ridiculous.
If memory serves, in many species (apart from those that pair up for life), isn't it the females we would most need to protect, since a male can fertilise many females in a season, but each female can usually only be fertilised once a season?
In which case, were there to be a bias for conservation, it should be in the other direction.
Female birds tend to be fertilised once per egg, so up to perhaps a dozen times per season, but pedantry aside yes - a female-biased sex ratio in most cases would be better for productivity than a male bias. The article points out, however, that in species of conservation concern male-biased sex ratios are more common.

BTW, even in species that pair for life, they (a) are normally cheating bastards at a genetic level, and (b) will readily re-pair if their mate cops it or moves on or whatever. They don't just pine to death when there's shagging to be done.
dyqik wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:18 pm
I can form a quick guess at how such a bias starts or is maintained, even with the best intentions.

Male birds are usually much more recognizable than female ones, with lots of female birds being LBBs, while the males are distinctive. A fair number of identification guides only prominently show the males as well (e.g. Audubon guide) Although looking at Wikipedia, which has male and female images prominent, the golden wing warblers aren't as disparate in appearance as many species (c.f. male and female northern cardinals, for example)

That may well lead to sites where females overwinter not being identified as readily, and so not attracting attention, both for conservation and description.
Dimorphism is part of it; however, the article points out that sex-specific distributions are better documented in more dimorphic species, and that there are probably also research biases at play in terms of what questions are asked. By looking just for 'individuals of species X' without specifically considering where females of that species might be, researchers appear to be systematically under-documenting female distributions and thus leaving them out of conservation planning.
Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:09 pm
I was also wondering about this:
”Among the small songbird species that have been studied, the general rule seems to be that females occupy lower elevation, shrubbier, drier sites," says lead author Ruth Bennett. "Mid-elevation and high-elevation sites that are more humid and have better quality forest are occupied by males."
The forest inhabited by the male birds might have higher status among politicians and activists who call for conservation sites (and the people who donate to them).

“Save the rainforest!” is an easier sell than “Save the arid scrubland!”.
Equally, it's easier to convince politicians in developing countries to declare some high-elevation cloud forest as a reserve - remote, inaccessible sites that would be difficult to farm and have no commercially-valuable timber - than to implement (and crucially enforce) management changes in a working agricultural landscape. Even in rich areas like Europe that piss spend millions a year on "agri-environment schemes" have farmland birds declining at a faster rate than any other group.
Grumble wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:55 pm
It wouldn’t have occurred to me, not being any kind of ornithologist, that males and females of the same species wouldn’t live in the same habitats.
During the breeding season they generally do, for obvious reasons - though if one sex isn't so involved in tending the nest/chicks they may range more widely out of suitable breeding habitat. Parental care is hugely variable in birds, even within species.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:50 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:53 pm
dyqik wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:18 pm
I can form a quick guess at how such a bias starts or is maintained, even with the best intentions.

Male birds are usually much more recognizable than female ones, with lots of female birds being LBBs, while the males are distinctive. A fair number of identification guides only prominently show the males as well (e.g. Audubon guide) Although looking at Wikipedia, which has male and female images prominent, the golden wing warblers aren't as disparate in appearance as many species (c.f. male and female northern cardinals, for example)

That may well lead to sites where females overwinter not being identified as readily, and so not attracting attention, both for conservation and description.
I was at Ada Lovelace Day Live this year and there was a great talk by Dr Sally Le Page (they were all great talks!) about, among other things, this very problem. She took the blackbird as an example. It's called the blackbird, yet only the adult males are black. The females and juveniles are brown.

Same with butterflies. Look at this Butterfly Conservation page on the common blue butterfly. It's illustrated with a male, the description begins with the male, and yet the female has much more interesting and variable colouration -
the upperwings of females varies from almost completely brown in southern England to predominantly blue in western Ireland and Scotland, but the colour is variable within local populations with some striking examples.
So we are primed as soon as we get an interest in wildlife to think the males are the more interesting subjects and from there it's not much of a leap to only study male over-wintering grounds.
I've noticed this tendency too, especially with tropical birds. Often all the females do look basically the same (at least so far as anyone has studied them!) so they are all named after the attention-seeking males.

A nice counter-example, is the group of waders known as phalaropes, where the females are more colourful than the males and so the species is named after the female colouration. Unsurprisingly that is a species with unusual sex roles in the breeding season, with the females fighting each other over males, laying the eggs and then buggering off leaving the bloke to bring up the babies. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Red ... e/overview

ETA btw now following Sally Le Page on twitter.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Stephanie » Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:27 pm

Thanks for some excellent additional information, boaf, very interesting!
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

mikeh
Fuzzable
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:48 pm

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by mikeh » Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:18 pm

Grumble wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:55 pm
It wouldn’t have occurred to me, not being any kind of ornithologist, that males and females of the same species wouldn’t live in the same habitats.
I concur.
Stephanie wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:27 pm
Thanks for some excellent additional information, boaf, very interesting!
Seconded.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Fishnut » Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:12 pm

Grumble wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:55 pm
It wouldn’t have occurred to me, not being any kind of ornithologist, that males and females of the same species wouldn’t live in the same habitats.
I'm not sure if the reason for this has been directly addressed, so I thought I'd add that it's partly down to reducing competition for food. The coolest example, imo, is the huia. Though the males and females did live in the same habitat, they had different shaped bills in order to access different food items. This review article goes into more detail in why vertebrates segregate by sex.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

mikeh
Fuzzable
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:48 pm

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by mikeh » Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:50 pm

When Sir David does indeed snuff it, behold next up on BBC1, Sir Bird Of a Fire, talking about Sex With Feathers.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:40 pm

mikeh wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:50 pm
When Sir David does indeed snuff it, behold next up on BBC1, Sir Bird Of a Fire, talking about Sex With Feathers.
I met Sir David once, and we did indeed get onto swift sex shortly after dessert was served.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Stephanie » Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:41 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:40 pm
mikeh wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:50 pm
When Sir David does indeed snuff it, behold next up on BBC1, Sir Bird Of a Fire, talking about Sex With Feathers.
I met Sir David once, and we did indeed get onto swift sex shortly after dessert was served.
boaf is f.cking cool
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:43 pm

Not as cool as swift sex! They do it in freefall, while screaming. Beat that ;)
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Stephanie » Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:43 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:43 pm
Not as cool as swift sex! They do it in freefall, while screaming. Beat that ;)
challenge accepted
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4746
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Grumble » Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:45 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:12 pm
Grumble wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:55 pm
It wouldn’t have occurred to me, not being any kind of ornithologist, that males and females of the same species wouldn’t live in the same habitats.
I'm not sure if the reason for this has been directly addressed, so I thought I'd add that it's partly down to reducing competition for food. The coolest example, imo, is the huia. Though the males and females did live in the same habitat, they had different shaped bills in order to access different food items. This review article goes into more detail in why vertebrates segregate by sex.
Thanks fishnut
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by tom p » Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:09 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:40 pm
mikeh wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:50 pm
When Sir David does indeed snuff it, behold next up on BBC1, Sir Bird Of a Fire, talking about Sex With Feathers.
I met Sir David once, and we did indeed get onto swift sex shortly after dessert was served.
I met him once too. I immediately groomed him.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:22 pm

tom p wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:09 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:40 pm
mikeh wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:50 pm
When Sir David does indeed snuff it, behold next up on BBC1, Sir Bird Of a Fire, talking about Sex With Feathers.
I met Sir David once, and we did indeed get onto swift sex shortly after dessert was served.
I met him once too. I immediately groomed him.
Wow! Are you a gorilla?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

mikeh
Fuzzable
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:48 pm

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by mikeh » Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:52 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:22 pm
Wow! Are you a gorilla?
Yes.

Yes he is.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition

Post by tom p » Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:28 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:22 pm
tom p wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:09 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:40 pm

I met Sir David once, and we did indeed get onto swift sex shortly after dessert was served.
I met him once too. I immediately groomed him.
Wow! Are you a gorilla?
I was dressed as one at the time, which was why I groomed him.
He had remarkably few fleas though, sadly.

Post Reply