...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.
Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
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.
it's okay to say "I don't know"
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
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.
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.
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
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.
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.
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
Naah. It's 'cos BOAF is actually so misogynist that he even hates female birds. It's all his fault, the sexist prick.dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:18 pmI 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.
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
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.dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:18 pmI 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.
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 -
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.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.
it's okay to say "I don't know"
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7082
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
I was also wondering about this:
“Save the rainforest!” is an easier sell than “Save the arid scrubland!”.
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).”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."
“Save the rainforest!” is an easier sell than “Save the arid scrubland!”.
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
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
now I sin till ten past three
- 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
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.
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.
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.
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.tom p wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:13 pmThat'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.
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.
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.dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:18 pmI 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.
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.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:09 pmI was also wondering about this:
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).”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."
“Save the rainforest!” is an easier sell than “Save the arid scrubland!”.
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.
- 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
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.Fishnut wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:53 pmI 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.dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:18 pmI 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.
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 -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.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.
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.
- Stephanie
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2902
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
- Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
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."
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
I concur.
Seconded.
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
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"
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
When Sir David does indeed snuff it, behold next up on BBC1, Sir Bird Of a Fire, talking about Sex With Feathers.
- 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
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.
- Stephanie
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2902
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
- Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
boaf is f.cking coolBird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:40 pmI met Sir David once, and we did indeed get onto swift sex shortly after dessert was served.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."
- 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
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.
- Stephanie
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2902
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
- Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
challenge acceptedBird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:43 pmNot as cool as swift sex! They do it in freefall, while screaming. Beat that ;)
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
Thanks fishnutFishnut wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:12 pmI'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.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
I met him once too. I immediately groomed him.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:40 pmI met Sir David once, and we did indeed get onto swift sex shortly after dessert was served.
- 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
Wow! Are you a gorilla?tom p wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:09 pmI met him once too. I immediately groomed him.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:40 pmI 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.
Re: Sex bias in science, bird conservation edition
I was dressed as one at the time, which was why I groomed him.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:22 pmWow! Are you a gorilla?tom p wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:09 pmI met him once too. I immediately groomed him.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.
He had remarkably few fleas though, sadly.