Siskins at Lackford Lakes

A cold and grey day at Lackford Lakes (Suffolk Wildlife Trust) a few miles north-ish of Bury St Edmunds turned wet and properly cold while we were stalking a flock of 100+ Siskin (Carduelis spinus also known as Spinus spinus). I got a few shots in between showers, but as we were leaving the sun came out, so went back around the short walk at the site and snapped a few birds we’d seen in low light earlier in the day, including a solitary female Siskin on a nijer seed feeder. Pictured immediately below, female.

Siskins used to be known as Black-headed Goldfinch, because of the male’s black cap and their close resemblance to Carduelis carduelis, the Goldfinch. Male Siskins pictured below.

Cottenham-upon-Sea

The Cambridgeshire village of Cottenham lies partly on an ancient (early Cretaceous) lower greensand ridge just 8 metres above sea level and until the draining of the Fens in the 17th century it was essentially the only dry land between the city of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely almost 20 km northeast of the village. Regardless, the nearest stretch of seaside is about 60 km away (as the crow flies) and so you don’t necessarily expect to see seabirds in this village…unless, of course, you head northeast out of the village on Long Drove until you reach the gravel pits.

There you enter a world of wonder visible from the passing places along the drove: Gulls of many kinds, including recently an Iceland Gull, but more commonly Lesser Black-backed, Greater Black-backed, Herring, Black-headed Gull,
Gadwall, Shoveler, Tufted Duck, Teal, Coot, Mallard, Wigeon. It’s like having a waterfowl bird reserve in our back garden. Of course, strolling around such a site would be dangerous and as it’s private property, I did not venture beyond their boundaries, snapping from the safe side of the gate.

What have the bees ever done for us?

First, I should state up front, I don’t like honey. It makes my throat tingle and itch if I eat it raw, it’s fine if it’s a small amount blended into a marinade or in Crunchy Nut Cornflakes (always two bowls). I suspect I’m allergic to it. I remember eating honey on toast as a student, it was a friend’s favourite lunch between lectures and practical sessions (of which, back in the day we had four, 3-hour sessions a week, all paid for by the taxpayer, thank you very much). That honey on toast always made me feel sick, but perhaps not as sick as taxing higher education as they do now through the incredibly exploitative student loan system. Anyway, the bees…what about the bees?

Well, in the wake of beekeepers and others noticing a condition known as bee colony collapse disorder, environmentalists latched on to a group of insecticides known as neonicotinoids (neonics), that were blamed for this problem. The neonics were developed as an alternative to organophosphate and carbamate insecticides and have a much, much lower toxicity to birds and mammals, but are, by definition toxic to insects including those that would otherwise eat our food crops. Whether or not they or their breakdown products are toxic to bees remains an open question. It seems that colony collapse was rife even in areas that had banned neonics and it is possible that the underlying cause is a pathogen carried by mites that infest hives.

Anyway, one of the big problems with the campaign against neonics is that it is often claimed that without the bees we’d starve. Bees pollinate plants, we need that action to grow crops…well, yes, we do. But bees are actually not greatly efficient pollinators, they are quite promiscuous and will visit lots of different species of plant and catch pollen from lots of different flowers and leave behind some of that mixed bag of pollen on subsequent flowers they visit, this is especially true for plants that are non-native to the local bees.

But, more importantly, bees don’t pollinate the crops on which we mostly rely for our daily bread, rice, and roots. Think back to first-year high school biology lessons and you’ll recall that while some plants are pollinated by animals, the birds and the bees, and others, the plants that we call our staple food crops – rice, wheat, corn, sorghums, millet, rye, barley, tomatoes, potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava – are wind or self-pollinated. Bananas and coconuts are artificially propagated. They don’t need an invertebrate third party to spread their seed, as it were. Other crop plants including root vegetables and rabbit food salad crops do not require pollination at all to produce a crop, although obviously, they do for seed production (which can be done manually en masse or by non-bees, including midges and other flies. Don’t forget the flies! That claim from the 1970s, long before neonics, when bees were on the decline suggested that a third of our food relied on bees was bogus, to say the least.

Bees are seen as the superstar pollinators but a quick search reveals that they are modest pollinators of most other crop plants that need an insect in their sex life, with the exception of kiwi and passion fruit, Brazil and macadamia nuts, melon and squash, and a few others.

Now, I am not suggesting that we should deliberately kill the bees. We should look after our ecosystems. We have ruined and human activity in this area is nothing to be proud of in so many ways. Yet the hyperbole surrounding the bee beggars belief. Oh, and one more thing, since large-scale colony collapse disorder (up from 15% 20 30%) was first reported by commercial beekeepers in 2006, there has been a massive increase in the total number of bee colonies, in the US for instance, where beekeepers compensate for losses over the winter by actively splitting and propagating colonies. In the meantime, those neonics continue to protect crops from pests, without affecting birds and mammals in the way with which Rachel Carson was so concerned in The Silent Spring.

RE: Cycling and the use of anti-inflammatory triamcinolone

A certain well-known cyclist has been accused of crossing an ethical line, not of breaking any rules, just of not being as moralistic as politicians would expect. In the words of Mick Jagger back in the 1960s: “We do have morals, they’re just not the same as yours”.

The cyclist has been accused of being dosing up on triamcinolone. It’s a corticosteroid (which is an anti-inflammatory agent). This compound does not work like anabolic steroids which are more usually talked about as the bodybuilding drugs in the context of sport).

So, what is the supposed enhancement to sporting performance of this drug? It’s commonly used to damp down inflammation in asthma, eczema, and other inflammatory conditions. It can be injected into painful, arthritic joints too, and there’s a rectally administered version, which is presumably for colitis. I can see that if you’re training hard as an athlete, then you’re going to have a lot of inflammation, damping this down might allow you to get back on the proverbial treadmill sooner rather than later. However, that doesn’t seem to me to be a non-medical use, and it’s definitely not performance enhancing, it’s simply recovery-time shortening. Unless you have an actual medical inflammatory condition, such as asthma, in which case that is actually a medical use and would be allowed and ethical.

Either way, it’s an allowed prescription drug, so is anyone in the wrong if they’re using it in sport, if everyone is allowed to use it, then it’s a moral decision or I would suggest a misguided use, and not gamesmanship nor cheating, until the sports authorities actually ban it, surely?

For those interested in the chemical side, triamcinolone is

(11β,16α)-9-Fluoro-11,16,17,21-tetrahydroxypregna-1,4-diene-3,20-dione

Also known as: Aristocort (Sandoz, now Novartis), Kenacort (Bristol-Myers Squibb), Kenalog (Bristol-Myers Squibb), Tricort (Cadila), Triaderm (Schering-Plough), Azmacort (KOS), Trilone, Volon A, Tristoject, Tricortone, Ratio-Triacomb, and Trianex.

Going for a song (thrush)

It’s been a week of Turdidae, what with the Fieldfares (Turdus pilaris) arriving in our gardens and the Blackbirds (Turdus merula) chasing off Redwings (Turdus iliacus). Then, a quick stop at Wimpole Hall to check in on the Hawfinches (none seen, this time) led to my witnessing and recording a tussle between two Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos), I assume with all this aggression it was a fight rather than courtship.

Funny-looking Thrushes

What are all these funny-looking thrushes that have turned up in our gardens looking fed-up and fluffed up. Well, regular readers will know they’re Fieldfares (Turdus pilaris). I’ve put together a very short and simple documentary based on some footage of the Fieldfare that is using our firethorn like Airbnb with benefits. It’s hardly Attenborough’s Life of Birds, but hey…this is Sciencebase not BBC America!

Sound recording of Fieldfare by Mikael Litsgård, XC375213. Accessible at http://www.xeno-canto.org/375213.

Why feed the birds?

A friend asked me why we should feed wild birds, especially given the harsh weather conditions, wouldn’t it just be natural to let them fend for themselves, he suggested.

Well, isn’t it kinder to help? But, more to the point, it’s human behaviour (intensive farming practices, pollution, industrialisation) that has meant that so many species face extinction, surely we have an obligation to assist where we can? I spoke to an experienced birdwatcher not too long ago who told me of the flocks of birds that he used to see as a child, species that rarely make an appearance these days. And, yes, while there have been increases in numbers and some species have bounced back from extinction, the figures are not pretty overall.

For a nation of bird/animal lovers, we don’t have a good record. (Perhaps not as bad as nations that trap birds illegally in nets or on limed trees like so many aerial fish nor those places where shooting birds for sport or out of sheer malice (which also includes this country) is regarded as acceptable.

So, I will continue to break the ice on our birdbath, fill the feeders with expensive nijer seeds and sunflower hearts (as opposed to the cheap mixed bags of seed that are mostly filler that the birds discard anyway). I will keep adding suet pellets to other feeders and scatter meal worm on to a tray under a refuge that small ground feeders, but not rats nor corvids can enter.

This week, we have had a small influx of Fieldfares coming in from the cold fields, there is a pair of Pied Wagtails flitting about and seeking shelter under our lean-to, and a Song Thrush turned up recently, not seen one of those in the garden for a while. There are also the dozen or so Goldfinches that enjoy the nijer seeds, one Redpoll, the usual Blackbirds, Robin, Starlings, overwintering Blackcaps, Greenfinches, and Tits – Blue, Great, and Coal – in the garden on and off, as well as the Collared Doves and Wood Pigeons.

What else? Oh, yes, a few Jackdaws, Magpies, and Rooks. And, hopefully, any time soon, seeking out our berry bushes (Firethorn, pyracantha) Waxwings (I can only hope). No Bramblings nor Hawfinches yet, although they’re not far away according to bird reports.

Many bird species have gone extinct in recent decades, you are very unlikely to see a Bluethroat in the UK ever again, but there are many others. Most of the decline is our fault, it’s not a natural decline, it is farming, industry, and transport that have removed the natural world the birds previously inhabited, so, yes, we should feed the birds, even it is no longer “tuppence a bag”.

How did the Moon form?

Conventional astronomical wisdom (as cribbed from Wikipedia) suggests that the Moon formed from the debris left behind when an object the size of Mars collided with the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago in the Hadean aeon, just a few dozen million years after the solar system itself first coalesced. This is the known as giant-impact hypothesis, the Big Splash, or the Theia Impact.

A new theory suggests that this may not be quite right. Instead, it seems there is evidence to suggest that the Moon actually formed within a spinning cloud of vaporized Earth following a collision, this spinning object is known as a synestia which would have been in orbit around the early Earth.

Sarah Stewart of the University of California Davis, USA points out that, “The Moon is chemically almost the same as the Earth, but with some differences.” It is those differences that have led to various hypotheses about the Moon’s formation. Now, Stewart and her colleagues have developed a new picture that meshes more closely with the differences in composition of the Moon and the Earth.

More here.

Look into my eyes Columba

I’ve taken a few fairly close snaps of Wood Pigeons (Columba palumbus) and noticed that the pupils of their eyes do not seem to be perfectly round. Same with a few other birds, I assumed it was just an aberration, however, I wanted to be sure.

It didn’t take much web searching to discover that other people have noticed this too. Someone asked about it recently on the RSPB website and got a reply from Hein van Grouw, who is apparently Senior Curator, Bird Group at the Natural History Museum:

“Yes, wood pigeons seem to have non-circular pupils. The pupil, however, is circular but due to a spot of dark pigment in the iris the pupil seems to be non-circular. I have no idea what the reason (advantage) is for this. What I do know is that several other (tropical) species, mainly Fruit Doves, have it too.”

I must say though, it doesn’t look like pigmentation in the iris, it looks like a distortion of the edge of the pupil itself, at least in the photos I’ve taken. Oystercatchers have a pigment fleck too and you can tell what sex they are from this, apparently.

Wood Pigeons do seem to have really good eyesight regardless of the shape of their pupils, and perhaps partly because of them, they will veer off their flight path if they spot you walking below their course even through trees and can definitely see you from trees in the garden when you’re inside the house. That said, they will also completely ignore you if you don’t look at them and then take flight when they catch your eye. The eyes have it. (Hat tip to my Ladybird Farmer friend Simon for pointing that out).

Fieldfare on the firethorn

Having invited the Waxwings to feast on our firethorn (pyracantha) berries, it turns out that a solitary Fieldfare (Turdus pilaris) has found the supply and a snow sanctuary in our front garden. Looking rather fed-up it has fluffed up its feathers against the cold and is rapidly working its way through the fruit of the firethorn.

Presumably, driven into more sheltered area because of the chills and snow out in the fields, those downy feathers are as fluffed as they can be.

Those nictating membranes (protective eyelids) are down much of the time in between snacks to protect its eyes from the snow flurries and the wind.

Fieldfares are true Thrushes along with Blackbirds, Song Thrush, Mistle Thrush, Redwing, and Ring Ouzel (the ones you’re quite likely to see in the British Isles, there are dozens of other Turdus species around the world. Turdus is Latin for Thrush as is the other half of the Fieldfare’s scientific binomial, pilaris. So its name is basically Thrush thrush. At least its compatriate the Redwing gets “flank” as the second half of its name Turdus iliacus, to indicate the prominent red markings on its flanks when it is perched with wings folded back.

Here’s my video about the Fieldfare.