The living male birds were equally aggressive to Robosparrow whether its wing movements were activated or not, the researchers found. "It confirmed our hypothesis that the wing-waving behaviour is functioning male aggressive communication," said Dr Anderson.
I wish they would explain how they confirmed a hypothesis about wing waving being aggressive communication, based upon an experiment that showed no connection between wing waving and aggression...
I have seen mounted birds used in other studies before, but not mechanically animated mounted birds. I actually study pigeon behavior, among other things, I can see something like this being very useful. That being said, I wouldn't assume that because the model was attacked when it waved its wing that the wing waving behavior "functions as male aggressive communication." Birds can be nuts. Just because something causes violence doesn't mean the purpose was to be "aggressive." That is kind of an assumption on the part of the researcher that behavior has to "make sense." Often it doesn't. For example, in some of my data, preening a mate and attacking a mate appear to be on a continuum and occur in the same conditions. I can't suggest the function, but preening and attacking seem to be related. It doesn't have to make sense.
Okay, now I read the most recent paper. It looks like they measured "aggressive RESPONSE" not attacking. The aggressive response (in this case proximity to the model, wing waves and broadcast calls) has been shown to be highly correlated with attacking in this species. It looks like the authors only say the wing wave was "perceived as an aggressive signal" in the sense that it produces "aggressive responses" where a stationary mounted bird or a rotating mounted bird does not. It seems a little better to me just to say the wing wave produced closer proximity, wing waves and broad cast calls than to suggest the perception of the "aggressor." Otherwise really cool paper. They cite a bunch of other articles that used mechanically animated specimens as well. It might be a cool thing to do in the future.
The linked article may be reporting additional unpublished data. Also, these types of articles frequently missrepresent the research, unintentionally I'm sure.
Sorry for the rant, its just an interesting topic for me. Thanks for posting it.
Comments
It's a good match of electronics, scientific study and taxidermy.
Agreed. Thus here is a real "missed opportunity"!
I wish they would explain how they confirmed a hypothesis about wing waving being aggressive communication, based upon an experiment that showed no connection between wing waving and aggression...
I have seen mounted birds used in other studies before, but not mechanically animated mounted birds. I actually study pigeon behavior, among other things, I can see something like this being very useful. That being said, I wouldn't assume that because the model was attacked when it waved its wing that the wing waving behavior "functions as male aggressive communication." Birds can be nuts. Just because something causes violence doesn't mean the purpose was to be "aggressive." That is kind of an assumption on the part of the researcher that behavior has to "make sense." Often it doesn't. For example, in some of my data, preening a mate and attacking a mate appear to be on a continuum and occur in the same conditions. I can't suggest the function, but preening and attacking seem to be related. It doesn't have to make sense.
Okay, now I read the most recent paper. It looks like they measured "aggressive RESPONSE" not attacking. The aggressive response (in this case proximity to the model, wing waves and broadcast calls) has been shown to be highly correlated with attacking in this species. It looks like the authors only say the wing wave was "perceived as an aggressive signal" in the sense that it produces "aggressive responses" where a stationary mounted bird or a rotating mounted bird does not. It seems a little better to me just to say the wing wave produced closer proximity, wing waves and broad cast calls than to suggest the perception of the "aggressor." Otherwise really cool paper. They cite a bunch of other articles that used mechanically animated specimens as well. It might be a cool thing to do in the future.
The linked article may be reporting additional unpublished data. Also, these types of articles frequently missrepresent the research, unintentionally I'm sure.
Sorry for the rant, its just an interesting topic for me. Thanks for posting it.