[HN Gopher] Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Com...
___________________________________________________________________
Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All
Around to Watch
Author : pseudolus
Score : 245 points
Date : 2020-09-22 11:57 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.atlasobscura.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.atlasobscura.com)
| ycombinete wrote:
| At first I didn't understand what the motivation for such complex
| social behaviour, and risk taking. But then they explained the
| acorn larders. Large static depositories of food wealth.
|
| This makes me think of humanity and the organisation of large
| societies, and war, that appears to be associated with the
| development of agriculture.
| lallysingh wrote:
| I think one motivation for the onlookers is to learn tactics for
| future fights.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| > "... when a bird's death creates a vacancy in prime
| territory, the battle to fill it breaks out within minutes, and
| faraway onlookers can arrive in less than an hour."
|
| makes it seem to me that they wish to be the close onlookers.
| but
|
| > "Acorn woodpeckers are known to recognize relationships
| outside their own groups"
|
| agrees with the idea that they're learning, if not actual
| tactics, at least what the potential oppositional coalitions
| may be, and likely gauging their strengths.
|
| I wonder if they're sophisticated enough to manage the
| Stanleys' deferred approach to ensuring one is a member of the
| winning coalition?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bosworth_Field
|
| > "Lord Thomas Stanley and Sir William Stanley also brought a
| force to the battlefield, but held back while they decided
| which side it would be most advantageous to support."
| qwertygnu wrote:
| I enjoy being reminded that we don't know everything. This isn't
| like dark matter/gravitational waves/relativity level stuff but
| it shows me that there are still many many layers of things
| happening that no one notices. It just takes careful observation.
| ceedan wrote:
| Author has broken the first rule of Woodpecker Fight Club
| spodek wrote:
| Not a gamer, but sounds like the makings of a game that might
| teach some biology too. I wonder how they'd render the fighting.
| comeonseriously wrote:
| Serious trypophobia from that one image on the linked article.
| Indirector wrote:
| Trypophobia Trigger warning!
| hirundo wrote:
| Around twenty years ago my dearly departed father had a multi-
| year war with an acorn woodpecker. The little pecker liked to
| hide its nuts under my dad's roof shingles. Those birds are
| outstandingly persistent and after a while and enough nuts they
| would pry up the shingles. Maybe a quarter of the shingles on one
| side were affected at most. About once a year my dad would go out
| on the steep roof and repair it.
|
| After a few years of that he got fed up and shot the bird with a
| bb gun. He didn't find a corpse but didn't see it again. And that
| shot apparently solved the problem. It must've been just that one
| bird.
|
| He may have broken state or federal law though.
| dmoy wrote:
| > He may have broken state or federal law though.
|
| Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, yes
|
| It was probably federally illegal
| [deleted]
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Unlikely. AS I understand it, most woodpeckers are not
| migratory.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > "dearly departed father" ... "shot the bird with a bb gun"
| ... "He didn't find a corpse"
|
| Somewhere, a stash of acorns rests upon on a grave.
| ManBlanket wrote:
| Two days ago I heard a loud, "SQUEE! Bock bock bock bock." from
| our back yard. Two (Flicker) woodpeckers were fighting in the
| branches of a maple, our chickens standing around foot of the
| tree seemingly captivated by the spectacle. I assume the cause of
| the commotion was the tussle finding its way to the ground,
| startling the chickens.
|
| When I realized what was going on my daughter and I crept outside
| to watch. The woodpeckers and chickens ignored us as we sat down
| at the tree. The contenders hopping from branch to branch, diving
| at each other, dodging, and trying to get an angle on the other.
| They landed together on the roof of the nearby coop jumped up in
| the air and locked together in a flurry of feathers. Again the
| loud, "SQUEEE!" right before they hit the ground, both of them
| alighting on their feet, one with two of the other's breast
| feathers in its beak. The apparent victor of the clash
| exaggeratedly held the feathers above its head and gently placed
| them on the ground before the two of them zipped away to a power
| line where they remained for a while, seemingly calm. My daughter
| recovered the two feathers, both a downy orange quill extending
| up to a stark black dot, and shared her experience the next
| morning with her class mates.
|
| Funny I came across this article now, I'll have to share it with
| her when she returns from school.
| gkolli wrote:
| love this story! you also have a very nice and descriptive
| writing style.
| soupfordummies wrote:
| Nice writing! That was fun to read.
| bsanr2 wrote:
| One has to wonder if they were fighting over the Rose Bird. You
| didn't hear any rock music, did you?
| dnautics wrote:
| I was hoping the parent article would talk about _other species
| of bird_ as onlookers, but that wasn 't the case. Got my fix
| from your story. Thank you!
| herodotus wrote:
| I have a bird feeder in my small back garden. Sometimes there is
| a lot of activity - mainly chickadees, finches and goldfinches
| competing for the feeder perches. When this happens, a
| hummingbird often shows up and seems to just be watching the
| activity. (I don't have a hummingbird feeder). I have no idea why
| it does this.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Possibly for the same reason you watch it. It's interesting.
| nradov wrote:
| It must be _really_ interesting for the hummingbirds
| considering the metabolic cost. Unlike some other birds they
| have to eat almost constantly to maintain body weight.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Gotta make time for some recreation no matter who you are.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| If you attract enough hummingbirds they will go after each
| other, trying to spear their competition.
| mikorym wrote:
| From what I can tell, this is intraspecies competition.
|
| In Southern Africa, we have a situation whereby not all
| woodpecker species can peck the holes from start to end.
|
| The ones who start the holes look similar to the ones in the
| article, but they are black, white and yellow with red flecks
| [1]. Then there is a smaller orange, white and black one that
| either steals the former's nest or uses an old hole, after which
| it proceeds to do some interior decoration and expansion. This
| rather fashionable bird is also the emblem of the University of
| Johannesburg. [2] [3]
|
| There are some other woodpecker species, but these two are quite
| common in places where I have lived and although I am not an
| ethologist, I believe the comment about their interaction is
| accurate. The Crested Barbet is somewhat bigger than the Hoopoe,
| so it would be interesting to know the full picture behind their
| symbiosis.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crested_barbet [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_hoopoe [3]
| https://www.uj.ac.za/
| ycombinete wrote:
| I've always love seeing both of those birds in my garden. The
| barbet, with his squat sturdy frame and bright colours,
| especially.
|
| I've never read about their interaction though, and neither of
| links that you've provided appear to explicitly connect the two
| species. All I know, and can find, is that they both like to
| nest in holes in trees. Do you have any info to backup this
| story?
|
| Also neither of those birds are woodpeckers.
| tempytempy1 wrote:
| I could find that the Bennet's Woodpecker does have the
| behaviour of re-using or stealing holes. On Wikipedia it's
| only very briefly mentioned, but the large _Robertson 's_
| book may have something on it. [1]
|
| Still looking for more information on what kind of holes the
| Hoopoe uses or makes; perhaps I was rather thinking of the
| Bennet's.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett%27s_woodpecker
| ycombinete wrote:
| Ah okay. Thanks :)
| lalos wrote:
| Reminds me of this comic
| https://goneintorapture.com/post/183584817776 and other
| variations I've seen of it.
| petemir wrote:
| For those of us curious about the range of animal behavior (and
| possibly cognition), I recommend "Are We Smart Enough to Know How
| Smart Animals Are?" from Frans de Waal. Beautiful read.
| dalbasal wrote:
| I find these animal behavioural studies fascinating.
|
| There is always the risk of personification clouding our
| understanding, when we observe similarities to human behaviour.
| But another angle is de-personification of our own behaviour.
| That seems insightful in all sorts of way.
|
| Certain behaviours, like "war," almost certainly predate
| cognitive modernity... modern human consciousness. Gwynne Dyer, a
| historian of war, had some interesting comparisons of humans and
| chimps. Many interesting similarities.
|
| In any case, the ways that we rationalize our warfare, tribalism
| and such cannot actually be the _reason_ for war. The warfare
| predates even our ability to formulate such rationalizations.
| This has a lot of applicability in our personal lives. Is the
| reason I did X really Y, or is Y a post fact rationalization?
| DFHippie wrote:
| This comment presupposes that we know more about consciousness
| and what beings are conscious than I think is justified. Also
| what beings are capable of rationalizations.
| clairity wrote:
| while you make an interesting point at the end, that framing
| seems to be jumping the gun (something you rightfully warned
| against in relation to deterministic vs random, downthread).
|
| political conflict is much more complex and has many more
| gradations than just peace or war. on the "elephant queen"
| documentary, the narrator noted that the bulls rarely ever
| fight, but rather, upon meeting have a quick "discussion"
| whereby the lower status bull defers to the higher status bull
| and then they share some food to cement the relationship (not
| unlike a lot of human interactions). war is rare because it's
| so costly, no matter the pre- or post-hoc justification.
|
| just yesterday, i watch 3 hawks in the skies over my LA
| neighborhood (where hawks are rarely seen in the middle of the
| day). it seemed like 2 of them were chasing an interloper away,
| but it could just as well have been them hanging out for awhile
| on the prevailing winds and then deciding to go somewhere else
| after a bit. it's hard to know what's going on with a few
| minutes of observation. it was quite interesting to watch
| nevertheless!
|
| also, the issue with personification (which we tend to be
| overly concerned about) is not that we see our own behaviors in
| other animals, but that we become certain about the cause and
| effect for those other animals.
| dalbasal wrote:
| What's the frame you find premature?
| watwut wrote:
| Not him but:
|
| > the ways that we rationalize our warfare, tribalism and
| such cannot actually be the reason for war
|
| It can. War is just using violence to get what you want or
| need. It is not something special. Animals being violent do
| not prove anything about our reasons for war.
| dalbasal wrote:
| War is a specific behaviour, more complex than just
| violence. It has all sorts of characteristics.
| watwut wrote:
| Like coordination to commit that violence and large
| scale. But the whole point is to use violence to get what
| you want.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| _The warfare predates even our ability to formulate such
| rationalizations. This has a lot of applicability in our
| personal lives. Is the reason I did X really Y, or is Y a post
| fact rationalization_
|
| A hypothesis that I find very fascinating is that all
| consciousness is a post fact process, and that free will and
| control are illusory.
| eternalban wrote:
| You are ruling out the possibility of _unconscious_ (in the
| Jungian sense) and _subconscious_ components of human will.
| HenryKissinger wrote:
| Are you saying that humans are partially automatons pre-
| programmed to behave in certain specific ways in certain
| situations?
|
| What are the implications of a theory like that for free will?
| vczf wrote:
| Not GP, but my understanding is that free will is weak, not
| strong. You can suppress a desire to eat a donut (requires
| willpower) but can't prevent the thought/desire from arising
| on its own when presented with the stimulus.
|
| Similarly, we can suppress the desire to go to war after a
| provocation. However, we can't choose to not feel furious, at
| least for an instant.
|
| Thoughts and feeling tend to arise on their own, and free
| will is about whether we accept or reject them.
| laumars wrote:
| What makes you decide you want to surprise the desire to
| eat the donut? Is that free will or was that impulse also
| determined from other stimulus such as body shaming,
| underlying health problems or financial hardship preventing
| one from impulse buying?
|
| I do think if you unravel how every decision is made and
| the origins behind those opinions then you ultimately end
| up with every reaction being a result of either biology or
| circumstance.
| vczf wrote:
| Emotions, typically.
|
| Most decisions are made with emotional compute,
| influenced by biology, past experience, and present
| psychological state.
|
| At the same time, being mindful and observing those
| emotions (predicted pleasure from the flavor, predicted
| guilt...) does interrupt that emotional processing and
| allow a "decision" to be reached in a completely
| different way.
|
| Free will may only exist subjectively, but mindfulness
| does free the self from the emotional decision-making of
| the monkey brain.
| laumars wrote:
| But you've also cited that emotions are the result of
| stimulus. Both hunger and anger (in the examples you've
| given) are the result of conditions external to ones free
| will.
|
| The positive spin on this is if we are going to apply a
| software development mindset to free will then you can
| also argue that the value of software isn't its sentience
| but it's usefulness. For example computer games don't
| need sophisticated AI to be enjoyable. So however we
| argue the definition of free will, that shouldn't take
| anything away from the experience of life.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Free will is itself still just an electrochemical process
| running in a physical brain. It's subjectively real, but
| the inputs that drive that subjective feeling are still
| either deterministic or random.
| dalbasal wrote:
| " _either deterministic or random_ " is a possibly
| dangerous dichotomy.
|
| Some things are neither determined nor random, in the
| "arbitrary" sense of the term. A child that grows up in a
| musical household is more likely to become a musician.
| That's neither random nor determined.
|
| In populations, or over repeated instances, these can
| resolve to near deterministic results. At the individual
| level, they are more random seeming.
| ses1984 wrote:
| In populations, children who grow up in musical
| households are more likely to become musicians. That is
| neither random nor determined.
|
| A particular child growing up to be a musician, is either
| random or determined.
|
| Maybe each child in a population is determined, or
| random, but at least you can analyze things at the
| population level.
| _0ffh wrote:
| Don't know about the danger in there, but what else would
| you want to add to the mix besides determinism and
| randomness? I don't know of anything else that could
| possibly have any influence, unless you want to go
| supernatural.
| AgentMatt wrote:
| I share the sentiment of the parent with regards to
| "either deterministic or random" sounding off to me.
|
| I wanted to propose "stochastic" as a better term, but
| apparently "random" and "stochastic" are synonyms. [1]
|
| What it comes down to is that "random" to me has a
| connotation of arbitrary, unpredictable. Whereas
| "stochastic" to me suggests a deterministic process with
| random influences.
|
| So maybe the sentiment is better expressed as making sure
| it is clear that deterministic and random are the two
| extremes of a continuum, rather than an either/or
| distinction.
|
| [1]
| https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/114373/whats-
| the-di...
| dalbasal wrote:
| That is what I meant, which is why I said "in the
| arbitrary sense."
|
| I think our language is lacking here. In technical terms,
| neither random nor stochastic imply evenly distributed.
| In casual conversation, "random" does.
|
| "Emergent" may be a better term for what I meant.
| Randomness (in the casual sense) is an ingredient in a
| stochastic process leading to non-random, even
| effectively deterministic results.
|
| The comment I was replying to:
|
| " _the inputs that drive that subjective feeling are
| still either deterministic or random._ "
|
| The ingredients which lead someone to suddenly sing a son
| apropos of nothing (seemingly random/arbitrary) are the
| same as those leading someone to pull their finger away
| from a flame... seemingly deterministic.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Is evolution by natural selection deterministic or
| random?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Both. Evolution by natural selection is composed of
| several processes and events, some of which are random,
| some of which are deterministic.
| vczf wrote:
| Why not reduce it further? Everything is matter or
| energy, and the entire universe can be reduced to
| quantum/chemical/kinetic processes.
|
| I don't disagree with you, but I find more subjective
| meaning in the difference between normal cognition and
| metacognition, compared to viewing the system up close.
| dalbasal wrote:
| That's some feisty old philosophical language....
|
| To put it in more poetic terms (Leonard Cohen's), I think
| free will is overrated. We very often act because because we
| are compelled to act, or not to act.
|
| Back to the original topic or bird warfare... What I mean is
| that whatever compels (or maybe convinces) woodpeckers to
| warfare may be similar to what compels or convinces humans to
| do the same thing. If not birds, chimps.
|
| The debate about free will are poetic in nature, imo. It's a
| matter of what we call things and how feel about them. Less
| so about what things are.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Hum...
|
| I can't tell if you are sarcastic. The internet really sucks
| this way.
|
| But if not, well, have you really never noticed? And yeah,
| theories of free will better support only partial freedom,
| otherwise they have no chance.
| air7 wrote:
| I always feel like the gloomy conclusion that we humans have
| no free will is always just two logical jumps away and we
| just prefer not to take them.
| yetihehe wrote:
| I like the idea of hitting people who say we have no free
| will. I tried it once, but it's counter-productive for
| discussion. Subject was more occupied with the fact of
| hitting him than with continuing discusussion if my action
| should have consequences or not (no free will = I didn't do
| it out of my own will, so why should I suffer
| consequences).
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think your problem is that you assume free will is a
| prerequisite for accountability, consequences, or
| justice.
|
| When my computer breaks, I either fix it or replace it. I
| don't ask if the computer actively chose to break.
|
| Assume there is a robot programmed to walk around
| punching people, do you ignore it because it isn't making
| choices?
|
| Similarly, if a person is walking around punching people
| due to a combination of random and deterministic factors
| (no free will), do you ignore them?
| watwut wrote:
| Possibly the subject war preprogrammed to seek punishment
| after being hit?
| jasperry wrote:
| All meaningful choices are driven by motives. What makes
| life interesting is that, pressured by unpredictable
| stimuli from the outside world, we can understand ourselves
| better and find new ways to move toward our goals. The
| control we have over our destiny comes from our ability to
| adapt and grow that way, not from the fact that our brain
| can somehow flip random coins.
|
| The answer to this possibly ill-posed question about "free
| will" doesn't need to make us gloomy; it doesn't need to
| have any bearing on how we feel about our life.
| celim307 wrote:
| We are just the biological process whose end result is the
| singularity. We are the stepping stone for the final
| consciousness
| dalbasal wrote:
| Perhaps for the first consciousness.
| naringas wrote:
| i'd go as far as saying that most (even all?) rationalization
| is post-fact.
|
| If you can reason a plan and then follow it is because of past
| experience, you've done similar things before.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-22 23:00 UTC)