The pileated was working on this Virginia pine tree, scored and incised with bark beetle tunnels.
...picture here...
Ivory-bill fans note: It was quite ably scaling tightly-adhering bark. Don't underestimate those "delicate" pileateds. They're powerhouses.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Zickefoose on bark scaling
An excerpt from this post:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
The primary error you skeptics make is that you forget that there has been more than half a century for IBWO to adapt to a changing environment and that period of intense selection would have resulted in many traits that make it difficult for humans to observe them in the wild. Clearly they are much more elusive than they were in the past. The lack of a convincing photo is proof of this. Even simple observations have gotten harder as there has been selection for being on the other side of the tree.
But as the observations by Zickefoose show, the main way they are avoiding detection is by looking and acting like PIWO. By reducing their size a bit, dropping the bill color that brought them too much attention, undergoing a niche drift that allowed them to use forests other than old growth, they have been able to survive under the radar by having people think they are PIWO. If the peppered moth could change color and developing “industrial melanin” then certainly IBWO could do something similar in response to the destruction of their habitat and increasing interest of collectors. The Luneau bird was probably just one of the slackers that had kept a few of the old IBWO traits – and the resulting human incursions into his habitat show why that isn’t a smart thing for an IBWO to do.
I also believe that the trouble in finding nests may be because the IBWO developed ovoviviparity in the recent past but will save that for a later post.
Well.....duh.....
I had a Downy drill a hole right through the door of a brand new wooden mailbox. The plastic on the inside is the only thing that stopped him. It then proceeded to pull the same stunt on my neighbor's mailbox. If a Downy can bore two 1-1/2" holes into properly dried lumber in a matter of a few days, why do TBs find it so hard to believe that a Pileated can peel away some tight bark? What's the logic?
"If the peppered moth could change color and developing “industrial melanin”..."
You mean the "peppered myth" hoax? Indeed it changed color, but apparently not due to bird predation. Google the subject if you wonder why it's no longer being perpetuated in biology textbooks.
Sounds like a good project and an easy way to check on Auburns's scientific accumen........there adhesion data/report has been out for 16 weeks...112 days.
Are you guys having a problem finding woods.........its a group of trees or plural of one tree.
You also should have at least Pileated Woodpeckers in those woods...they are much larger than other species....darn.... I forgot size is not a good way to distinguish species.
I can now see why you are having trouble getting any data...ya have to be able to find woods and know what a Pileated is.
Better just let that substantial study by Julie stand tall.
good luck
You mean the "peppered myth" hoax?
You are right. I meant to reference the peppered ahi increase. Used to never see it at all but now it is all over the country. They may even serve it at the Harrison IBWO gala.
Better just let that substantial study by Julie stand tall.
Julie's study is substantial when compared to the bulk of the rediscovery observations. At least she has figure out that focus thingy on the camera.
The so-called "peppered moth hoax" exists mainly in the imaginations of creationists who believe that the "hoax" is part of widespread conspiracy by scientists to foist "materialist dogma" on schoolchildren.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/03/why_the_peppered_moth_remains_an_icon_of_evolution.html
If anyone doubts that predation can act as a force of natural selection, then he/she clearly has been spending too much time at AnswersInGenesis and other notorious sources of misinformation on the Internets.
Omigod, did everyone see pd's comment at Julie's site?
It would be productive if you had spent an hour to get some minimal adhesion data....your post could have included that data. As such your post is meaningless in relation to the empirical data generated by Auburn and not countered anywhere now after several months of being out and completely available for duplication or refute.
Uh, pd, Auburn's "data" was countered and refuted here. It's meaninglessness was explained quite plainly.
That nobody has attempted to duplicate the "data" is likely a result of a profound lack of interest in creating meaningless sets of data.
Seriously, what's next? What's going to be the next "distinctive" feature of the IBWO that nobody cared to discuss before but is now going to be used to justify characterizing some mundane observation in the field as "interesting"?
How about the diameter of woodpecker droppings? Isn't it the case that pileated droppings are "usually" smaller than IBWO droppings? Get Tyler Hicks out there to measure the diameter of woodpecker scat. Find some "unusually large" scat within a mile of where one of those "mysterious" "interesting" calls were found and voila!!! you'll have the believers in the palm of your hand.
Take a look at this entry on Julie's blog that shows the kind of damage a Pileated can inflict. The fact is that many of us in the reality based community who have seen what Pileateds can do simply don't understand how the statement can be made that they are incapable of flaking bark if it sticks too tightly.
Just for fun, though, I did look at the Auburn data on adhesion. The results are:
Choctawhatchee River (6.9 ± 1.0 kg of force to lift bark, n = 23 trees)
Choctafaula Creek: 2.1 ± 2.7 kg, n = 3 trees
Sougahatchee Creek: 1.1 ± 1.9 kg, n = 6 trees
Uphapee Creek: 2.2 ± 2.7 kg; n = 2 trees
At the "control sites", they measure the bark on 11 trees. JUST 11 trees.
There is no data stating that there were dead trees in the control sites that had similar bark adhesion and similar insect infestations, but were untouched by Pileateds. Maybe these trees didn't even exist at these sites at this time?
Pileateds occur at all sites but there appears to be no matching data points in the Choctawhatchee. Why would that be? Shouldn't Pileated data points show up in all the sites? Do trees in the Choctawhatchee always have tigher bark?
And there is no data on how long any of the trees at any site were dead, a major variable in bark adhesion.
At this point, this data is crap. It has no controls that would make it remotely interesting.
I don't know who posted as PD on the Zickfoose site, but it was not the pd who has posted on this site.
The imposter language lacks brevity, style, and charm.
Just for clarity in the future... I can safely say that I have no plans to use pd elsewhere.
pd
Post a Comment