Researchers discover unusual factor influencing bird divorce rate: 'Complex, non-linear relationship'
A study published in the Journal of Animal Ecology — and summarized by Sydney's Macquarie University — has found that pair bonds among Seychelles warblers might be affected by environmental factors, with rainfall noted as one of the main reasons that mates "divorce."
The research, conducted by a team of international academics, focused on birds found on Cousin Island in the Seychelles. The findings detailed how shifting global weather conditions are altering reproductive activity and harming conservation efforts.
"We analyzed 16 years of data and found a complex, nonlinear relationship between rainfall patterns and divorce rates, with divorce being more likely during years of both low and high rainfall," the university's Frigg Speelman, who was involved in the research, said. "This relationship was notably influenced by an extreme climatic event — the 1997 El Niño-induced rainfall spike."
According to Speelman, the study provides evidence that environmental conditions can impact the "stability of socially monogamous species."
The Seychelles warbler is endemic to the Seychelles islands, and conservation efforts for the bird have already proved challenging. Increasingly unpredictable weather conditions could further impact the species' survival and reduce breeding activity.
"This research not only enhances our understanding of animal behavior in the face of climate variability, but it also provides valuable insights that could inform conservation efforts for species vulnerable to the effects of climate change," Speelman said.
Human-caused pollution is dramatically shifting global weather patterns. Heat-trapping gases cause temperatures to rise, and this increases the strength, length, and regularity of extreme weather events and also leads to large fluctuations in rainfall.
According to the U.N. Development Programme, climate projections for the Seychelles indicate further irregular rainfall patterns.
Do you think America has a plastic waste problem?
Definitely
Only in some areas
Not really
I'm not sure
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
"Much of the precipitation is falling in sharp bursts, creating heavy flooding in the wet season, while imposing extended period of drought during the dry season," the organization said.
BirdLife International lists the Seychelles warbler as "near threatened," with habitat destruction and the presence of introduced predators among the major risks it faces. The warblers can now add rising divorce rates because of unusual rainfall to the list of complications impacting their future survival.
While monitoring and research of the species continues, there are things we can do to make a difference in the warblers' prospects, such as reducing the production of pollution that exacerbates fluctuating temperatures.
No matter where you are in the world, taking steps to be more sustainable can be felt all over the globe. Whether it's investing in renewable energy or ditching your gas-guzzling car, these changes can have a profound impact on our planet — and help the Seychelles warbler thrive.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Common farm chemicals may be heralding an ‘insect apocalypse'
If you purchase an independently reviewed product or service through a link on our website, BGR may receive an affiliate commission. Fruits and vegetables are often sprayed with fungicides to keep mold at bay. However, new research suggests one of these chemicals could be quietly harming insects that are critical to healthy ecosystems and could lead to an insect apocalypse. According to a study from Macquarie University, one of the world's most widely used fungicides, chlorothalonil, drastically reduces insect fertility. It does so even at the lowest levels commonly found on produce. Today's Top Deals XGIMI Prime Day deals feature the new MoGo 4 and up to 42% off smart projectors Best deals: Tech, laptops, TVs, and more sales Best Ring Video Doorbell deals During testing and research, scientists exposed fruit flies to real-world doses of the chemical and found that their egg production dropped by over a third. The effect wasn't something that happened slowly over time, either. Instead, it was immediate and significant, the statement says, affecting both male and female fertility. And this isn't an effect like when researchers got fruit flies hooked on cocaine, either. This is actually life threatening for the population. And while that might sound useful, especially considering how annoying fruit flies can be when they settle down a plant in your home, it's a big deal for more than just flies. Insects like bees, flies, and other pollinators are crucial for growing the food we eat. If their populations decline, it could disrupt pollination and harm crops in the long run. This study is just the latest in a growing list of research documenting steep drops in insect populations around the world, which some scientists have heralded as an impending insect apocalypse. What's especially concerning is that this fungicide isn't just used when there's a risk of infection. It's often applied preventatively, when no disease is present in the crops. While it's true that chlorothalonil is banned in the European Union, it remains widely used in places like Australia, where it's applied to everything from vineyards to farms that harvest berries. Despite its popularity, chlorothalonil hasn't been studied under the microscope all that much. Fewer than 25 published studies have explored its impact on insects, so this new study could be a massive piece of a case against the future usage of this chemical. This also points to a major gap in how we evaluate the environmental effects of common pesticides we rely on. The researchers behind the study suggest rethinking how often chlorothalonil is applied. By spacing out treatments, farmers could give insect populations time to recover between sprays. While not the best outcome by any means, it would at least mitigate some of the damage we're doing to the insect populations, though how long it will take for them to recover between sprays would need to be determined, too. More Top Deals Memorial Day security camera deals: Reolink's unbeatable sale has prices from $29.98 See the
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Miami Herald
Divers make ‘monumental' rediscovery of Galápagos species not seen in 24 years
Divers have rediscovered a rare marine species believed to have been extinct for 24 years. Last seen in 2000, Rhizopsammia wellingtoni — a 'unique and well-known' black stony coral species known only from the Galápagos — was found thriving, according to a June 26 news release from the California Academy of Sciences. 'Finding something that was previously thought to be extinct is one of the most exciting discoveries a biologist can make,' Terry Gosliner, academy curator of invertebrate zoology and geology, said in the release. The coral, known to prefer cool shallow waters like those found in the Galápagos, was first discovered in 1975, then 'abruptly disappeared' from the region when an El Niño event warmed the waters between 1982 and 1983, according to the release. In January 2024, the team discovered more than 250 colonies near Isabela Island's Tagus Cove, including some in deeper waters than had ever been recorded, according to the release. Experts said the 'monumental' discovery provides 'evidence that the species isn't merely clinging to survival, but thriving at multiple localities and depths.' It is plausible that the coral species survived in 'deeper, cooler or more sheltered environments, avoiding detection during previous surveys,' according to a study published June 23 in the journal Marine Biology. Experts said cooler La Niña conditions between 2020 and 2023 may have offered a 'reprieve from thermal stress, allowing the coral to reemerge in shallower water.' Researchers plan to use genetic analysis to learn more about the new colonies, according to the release. The research team included Inti Keith, Terry Gosliner and Rebecca Albright.
Scientific American
3 days ago
- Scientific American
A Thought Experiment Reveals the Fingerprints of Climate Change Came Early
Physicists are fond of Gedankenexperimente — thought experiments that are difficult or impossible to perform in the real world. Schrödinger's cat is a well-known example of a thought experiment, used to illustrate the complexities of quantum mechanics. This puzzle occupied some of the best and brightest physicists of the early 20th century. We tried the same thing recently, only with climate change. Given today's network of satellites and temperature sensors, when could scientists have first known, beyond a reasonable doubt, that increases in atmospheric CO 2 from fossil fuel burning and land use change were altering our global climate? The results might surprise you, and they help to illustrate why it's critically important to continue long-term monitoring of Earth's climate. Our thought experiment used simulations of historical climate change from nine different state-of-the-art computer models. We made three key assumptions. The first was that back in 1860, scientists in our 'Gedanken world' had the technology to monitor global temperature changes in both the troposphere (the atmospheric layer extending from the surface up to about 15 kilometers) and the stratosphere (ranging from roughly 15 km to 50 km). Historically, global monitoring didn't happen until the 1940s using early weather balloon networks. More recently, since the late 1970s, we've monitored global atmospheric temperature changes with satellites. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Second, we assumed that over the period 1860 to 2024, the model simulations used reliable estimates of human-caused changes in greenhouse gases, particulate pollution and land use, as well as accurate estimates of natural changes in external factors like volcanic activity and the sun's energy output. All of these inputs to the model simulations are primarily derived from observational data. Third, we assumed the model-simulated responses to human and natural factors were realistic, and that the size of modeled 'climate noise' associated with natural phenomena like El Niño and La Niña was in reasonable agreement with observations. We tested the third assumption by comparing modeled and observed climate change and variability and found no evidence of model errors that would negate our bottom-line findings. The work of Syukuro ('Suki') Manabe helped inspire this investigation. Back in 1967, Manabe—who would later go on to receive the 2021 Nobel Prize for Physics—published one of the most famous papers in climate science. Together with his colleague Richard Wetherald at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) in Princeton, N.J., Manabe used a simple climate model to show that increasing levels of atmospheric CO 2 would lead to more efficient trapping of heat in the troposphere. The consequence? Warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. The former has captivated most of the world's attention for good reason—it is where we humans live—but the latter turns out to be particularly useful in our thought experiment. The 1967 Manabe and Wetherald paper made a testable prediction: if humans continue to burn fossil fuels and ramp up levels of CO 2 in the atmosphere, the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature will change not only in the troposphere but also in the stratosphere. But back in 1967, scientists lacked the long-term records necessary to test this prediction, particularly for the mid- to upper stratosphere, between approximately 25 and 50 km above Earth's surface. Decades after 1967, weather balloon and satellite temperature records revealed that Manabe and Wetherald were right. Their predicted pattern of change in the thermal structure of the atmosphere was observable. Importantly, this pattern of human influence—showing long-term, global-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere—couldn't be confused with natural patterns of temperature change. The human 'fingerprint' on atmospheric temperature was distinctly different from the natural temperature fingerprints caused by the sun, volcanoes and internal climate noise. When climate scientists say we know people cause climate change, this fingerprint is one defining reason why. Which brings us back to our 'When could we have known?' thought experiment. Although the question is simple, the answer isn't obvious. The first 40 years of the thought experiment (from 1860 until 1899) were a time when large-scale fossil fuel burning and deforestation were just beginning to ratchet up during the industrial revolution. The resulting increase in atmospheric CO 2 over this time, which we can estimate from Antarctic ice cores, was only 10 parts per million. This is small relative to the recent CO 2 increase of roughly 54 parts per million over the 25 years from 2000 to 2024. Nevertheless, this modest 10 parts per million early CO 2 increase is still large enough to lead to significant cooling of the stratosphere over 1860 to 1899. The size and pattern of this stratospheric cooling is very different than what we would expect from natural forces affecting temperature: the solar variability at the time, the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, and internal climate noise. Because of these differences between signal and noise, our thought experiment shows that even the relatively small human-caused signal of stratospheric cooling could have been identified in 1885. Put differently, given today's measurement capabilities, humans could have known that our actions were significantly changing global climate even before Carl Benz patented the first gasoline-powered car. The human-caused signal of tropospheric warming emerges later, in the second half of the 20th century, partly because human and natural patterns of climate change are more similar in the troposphere than in the stratosphere. Would this advance knowledge have made a difference? Would humanity have followed a different energy use pathway given the understanding that fossil fuel burning eventually leads to large, global-scale changes in climate? That's outside of our sandbox as climate scientists—it's a question for philosophers, social scientists, and historians of science. But in our opinion, based on the history of other global environmental problems, it's certainly conceivable that early knowledge of the reality and seriousness of climate change could have spurred earlier global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's worth noting that our identification of the atmospheric 'fingerprints' predicted by Manabe and Wetherald was enabled by NOAA and NASA satellite remote sensing. The work of these agencies is an essential part of our research, and of the national and international climate science enterprise. But in the United States in 2025, federally funded climate science, including observation and modeling work, is being systematically dismantled. This is not a thought experiment. It is all too real. We are now observing what happens when decades of work to understand the nature and causes of climate changes are rejected, and are replaced by ideology, conspiracy theories and disinformation. Stopping climate work will lead to a data vacuum that could last years or even decades. This experiment in willful ignorance can only end poorly. This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are solely their own and not those of any organization they are affiliated with or necessarily those of Scientific American.
