Shrinking birds

Shrinking birds Ary Hoffmann discusses a paper reporting that many kinds of birds are getting smaller as a result of global warming. Global temperatures have risen an average of 0.6 degrees Celsius in the last century. What effect that may have on the planet’s species is hard to predict, but a recent paper evaluating data from more than 100 different bird species over the past 5 decades found that many of them have shrunk in size. F1000 Faculty Member

By | October 1, 2010

Shrinking birds

Ary Hoffmann discusses a paper reporting that many kinds of birds are getting smaller as a result of global warming.

Global temperatures have risen an average of 0.6 degrees Celsius in the last century. What effect that may have on the planet’s species is hard to predict, but a recent paper evaluating data from more than 100 different bird species over the past 5 decades found that many of them have shrunk in size. F1000 Faculty Member and evolutionary biologist at the University of Melbourne, Ary Hoffmann, talked about what this may mean in the long run (Oikos, 119:1047–55, 2010).

TS: Naturalists have long observed that species tend to get smaller if they live in warmer areas. Robert Leberman and colleagues from the University of Zürich used this observation to hypothesize that as the Earth warms up, birds that either resided in or made pit stops at a bird-banding station in Pennsylvania will get smaller over time. Does their study give strong evidence to both of these theories?

“The surprise is that you’re seeing these consistent patterns across a large number of species.”

AH: Organisms are getting smaller. So it does look like there are these general patterns in size that seem to be related to conditions getting warmer in particular. I think what’s really nice about this study is the number of species that were actually showing the same patterns. Previously people had taken one or two species and shown these kinds of patterns. If you’re trying to establish patterns related to climate change, I think this study does emphasize the fact that you need to look at a large number of species—simply because we know there is a wide range of factors that can actually influence size, such as food availability. The surprise is that you’re seeing these consistent patterns across a large number of species.

Cedar Waxwing
Cephas / Wikimedia Commons

TS: The authors used measurements of the bird’s fat-free mass and wing length at different times of the year starting in the 1960s. They found that both features changed in relation to the temperatures recorded in the previous year. Why is this happening?

AH: If the summer temperature increased the previous year, there was a decrease in size. That would seem to suggest that as it gets warmer, then the smaller birds have some advantage, or at least the summer temperatures are producing smaller sizes.

They do speculate on a couple of things, but I’m not sure if the evidence is that good yet to actually say that it’s for a particular reason. We do seem to know that selection is acting in that direction but that doesn’t mean we know what the mechanism of selection actually is.

Tree Swallow
Walter Siegmund / Wikimedia Commons

TS: Is the change in size the result of evolution, of genetic change, or does it just represent a phenotypic adaptation to a changing environment?

AH: The same genotype can show different phenotypes in response to different environments. On the other hand, you can also get a situation where the shift might be genetic. To separate those two, you need to do controlled experiments and those are generally quite hard to do in birds. In this particular case, the author suggests that it might be genetic. They say that the bird populations themselves haven’t declined and the food supply doesn’t seem to obviously [be in] decline, so it may well be the case that these are genetic changes. But until you do those controlled experiments, then you won’t really know whether it’s going to be genetic or environmental.

TS: Is there any inkling as to whether these changes are good or bad for these species?

AH: The fact that this selection seems to be favoring small birds and that the birds are getting smaller both suggest that the decrease in size is an adaptive response, particularly when you can show on top of that that the size of the population is not decreasing. I think it’s good for these birds in that sense. But the problem is to what extent can you keep adapting in that way? If it keeps getting warmer, and you keep having to select for small size, then eventually you’re going to certainly expect to see the consequences of that. Eventually you might come to some sort of limit that you can’t exceed, and then you start potentially to see decline.

Hoffmann’s lab studies the ability of populations, particularly of insects, to adapt to climate change. You can access his review of the paper here.

Comments

Avatar of: DOROTHEA PENIZEK

DOROTHEA PENIZEK

Posts: 6

October 29, 2010

Someone like Bumpus is needed here!
Avatar of: Ellen Hunt

Ellen Hunt

Posts: 199

October 29, 2010

I have seen birds literally drop out of the sky and trees, dead, in severe heat waves of over 110 F. (43.3C)\n\nBirds have been around a long time, and so they have probably evolved to deal with changing temperatures in the past, sometimes very fast. \n\nA bird has two choices to either retain or lose body heat. To retain heat, it can become larger or grow more feathers. To lose heat, it can become smaller or have less feathers. \n\nSince birds will always have the heat loss challenges of cool weather and rain, the option of losing feathers is a poor one. Loss of feathers also interferes with flight. \n\nThat means that changing body size is the better choice for a bird. I predict that if calculations are done for heat loss rate in maximum temperature, that will correlate pretty precisely with the ability of the bird to maintain a tolerable temperature.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 2

October 29, 2010

I'm sorry, but barring some sort of biological assay to explain what systems are affected by temperature variation, this will remain a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
Avatar of: Jack Woodall

Jack Woodall

Posts: 13

October 30, 2010

I have seen little snow buntings hopping happily around in the snow on 5000m passes in Tibet. Are they significantly larger than lower-altitude passerines? I don't think so. Does anybody know if the average body size of high-alpine birds is greater than that of the same or co-generic species at lower altitudes?
Avatar of: Brian Jones

Brian Jones

Posts: 5

November 1, 2010

There has been a statistically significant increase in aircraft movements over the last 100 years. Perhaps the birds are smaller because all the big ones hit aircraft, removing them from the gene pool! Or perhaps its predator avoidance (to avoid all those big birds in the sky). Seriously, drawing post hoc conclusions is an undergraduate failing unworthy of a graduate scientist. The observation of smaller size is important, with many possible causes (pollutants, predation?). Methinks those magical words "climate change" are simply used to ensure citations and funding but they obscure the real issue - birds appear to be getting smaller and it probably has nothing to do with a 0.6 degree average change in temperature over 100's of generations of birds.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 7

November 25, 2010

Hypothesis: When it get hotter; perhaps more water is being drunk (I do not know about birds' cooling mechanisms). When stomachs become full with water, perhaps birds do no feel as hungry. Is it gene drift (evolutionary selection) or more immediate physiological response? . . . but from yesterday's article, lab animals are getting bigger.
Avatar of: Michael Graebner

Michael Graebner

Posts: 3

November 29, 2010

A whole 0.6C is causing all this! Just add global warming to keep the grants coming. More junk science.

Popular Now

  1. Major German Universities Cancel Elsevier Contracts
  2. Running on Empty
    Features Running on Empty

    Regularly taking breaks from eating—for hours or days—can trigger changes both expected, such as in metabolic dynamics and inflammation, and surprising, as in immune system function and cancer progression.

  3. Most of Human Genome Nonfunctional: Study
  4. Identifying Predatory Publishers
AAAS