Science Shots: Smart Farms, Warm Nests, the Perils of an Ugly Mate

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

A new paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society B finds that female Gouldian finches get seriously stressed out if they end up with mates they find unattractive. Experiments were conducted with the two color morphs of this species—the red-headed variant (below) and a black-headed version. Females who were forced by limited availability to partner with the color morph other than their own suffered. The authors note:

In socially monogamous animals, mate choice is constrained by the availability of unpaired individuals in the local population. Here, we experimentally investigate the physiological stress endured by a female (the choosy sex) when pairing with a non-preferred social partner. In two experimental contexts, female Gouldian finches (Erythrura gouldiae) socially paired with poor-quality mates had levels of circulating corticosterone that were three to four times higher than those observed in females that were paired with preferred mates. The elevated level of this stress hormone in response to partner quality was observed within 12 h[ours] of the experimental introduction and maintained over a period of several weeks.

Females paired with “ugly” males were also slower to reproduce, laying eggs a month later than females who paired with preferred males.

 

Male Gouldian finch. Credit: Martybugs, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.Male Gouldian finch. Credit: Martybugs, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

 

An interesting paper in PNAS assesses the global phosphorus (P) cycle. Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plants and animals, is used heavily in agricultural fertilizers, and is also a bycatch, so to speak, of livestock production (manure). And it’s a limiting nutrient for aquatic organisms. Which means that fertilizer and manure runoff can overfertilize waterways, leading to hypoxic conditions known as dead zones and dwindling fish catches. In a perfect world, we’d use only enough of it and no more.

The new study examined the P cycle for 123 crops around the world. Highlights:

  • On a global scale we put more phosphorus into the global cycle than croplands removed (overfertilized)
  • Yet there’s strong regional variation, with 30 percent of croplands phosphorus deficient, often in areas producing forage crops used as livestock feed
  • Croplands with P surpluses were fertilized, so to speak, more by fertilizer use than by manure production

Obviously, balancing the global phosphorus imbalance will improve both economies and ecologies—a worthy task as we navigate a world of ever higher food prices.

 Satellite image of Kansas crop fields. Credit: NASA.Satellite image of Kansas crop fields. Credit: NASA.

 

A new study in Environmental Biology of Fishes finds that warming water temperatures bode poorly for some cold-blooded species—notably for three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus)—anadromous fish that can spawn in freshwater and migrate to saltwater. They’re found in all the circumpolar waters of the world.

Sticklebacks invest heavily in parental care. The males are nest guarders and spend much time fanning their clutches of eggs with their fins. When their waters get warmer, they fan a whole lot more, with poor results. The authors note:

In two separate experiments with temperatures raised by 2°C [3.6°F] to 6°C [11°F] above 16–17°C [61-63°F] ambient over a whole breeding season, we quantified changes to parental-care behaviour and the resultant reproductive success of G. aculeatus. As temperature increased, male parental-care behaviour was altered, particularly the fanning of the fertilised eggs… [A]ll egg incubating fish consistently fanned at a faster rate in higher temperatures… The consequence was that these fish had a higher rate of incubation failure and an increased likelihood of mortality. The pattern of alteration to parental care behaviour and decreased reproductive success with higher temperature was remarkably consistent across the individual fish, which suggests consequences at the population level of increased ambient temperatures.

 Three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Credit: Piet Spaans, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.Three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Credit: Piet Spaans, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

 

Finally, for those of you who’ve been snowed in or iced under or flooded out this week, here’s a blissfully dry desert meditation: Demoiselle cranes (Grus virgo) overwintering in Rajasthan, India.

 


CRANES OF KHICHAN from warmeye on Vimeo.

 

 The papers:

  • Graham K. MacDonaldElena M. BennettPhilip A. Potter, and Navin Ramankutty. Agronomic phosphorus imbalances across the world’s croplands. PNAS. 2011. 
  • Kathryn Hopkins, Brian R. Moss and Andrew B. Gill. Increased ambient temperature alters the parental care behaviour and reproductive success of the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus).Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2011. DOI: 10.1007/s10641-010-9724-8.

  • Simon C. Griffith, Sarah R. Pryke, and William A. Buttemer. Constrained mate choice in social monogamy and the stress of having an unattractive partner.

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate