LOS ANGELES, CA—Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles found some unexpected results from their Annual Survey of Aves (birds). Professors Lin Yagasaki and Terrence Holmes, along with a team of graduate students, spent from February to November of 2017 gathering data on the world’s population of feathered organisms. “We like to keep good data on these beautiful creatures, not only to learn more about them, but to ensure that our conservation efforts are well-informed,” explains Dr. Yagasaki, 41, who holds a Ph.D. in ornithology.
The survey has been conducted each year since 2014. “Normally, we find some shifts in the population numbers, some good and some bad. There are usually a few surprises about migration and mating, but nothing too terribly interesting for the layman,” says Dr. Holmes, 37, the ecologist who cowrote the report.
This year was quite different from years past, in that it included a questionnaire for the individual birds. Yagasaki says, “With the new grant money available for the project, we’ve been able to take this research to new and unprecedented levels—things our predecessors would never have dreamed of.” The team’s methods normally involve the use of tagging, motion-activated cameras, drone footage, and on-foot surveys. For this year’s survey, the team gathered information from individual birds across the globe through the use of social media and some paper-and-pencil surveys.
“We were basically hoping to get data from the Aves that would not only confirm our observations—you know, stuff like diet and reproduction—but also to get a better sense of what these animals experience, their quality of life, dreams, and goals,” says Holmes. “That’s where we really found out some interesting things.
“For example,” Holmes explains, “18% of the Trochilidae [hummingbirds] we surveyed said that they eat nothing but human-manufactured nectar from feeders. That’s really interesting.”
The survey also asked the 32,046 birds who completed at least a portion of the survey about what they do in their spare time, their political views, and their current satisfaction with life, among other topics. “That’s where the really interesting stuff emerged,” says Yagasaki.
“We humans daydream about flying. We fantasize about how glorious it would be. Poems have been written about it—heck, a lot of the best superheroes can fly. So we were really surprised to find that 22% disagreed somewhat with the statement ‘Flying is an exhilarating experience.’ Another 6% strongly disagreed with the statement.”
The researchers were intrigued by this finding, as they had at one point considered leaving the question out of the survey entirely. Graduate student Tamara Giles, 26, who is seeking her Ph.D. in ornithology, with an emphasis in conservation, says, “When we were brainstorming questions for the survey, someone said that one, and we all just sort of laughed. Like, of course they would all agree with that, right?”
Drs. Yagasaki and Holmes reviewed the data repeatedly after the finding. “Obviously, this was a big shock. The first thing we thought was that it has to be a mistake. So we excluded responses from all birds who were in captivity at the time, and all flightless birds, just to make sure we were not getting biased responses,” says Holmes. “To our surprise, of the birds with the ability to fly, nearly a third don’t think that flying is all that it’s cracked up to be.”
Seeking further explanation for this surprise finding, the research team formed a series of focus groups to learn more about the reasons. “We needed to get at why this was occurring. It’s just too counterintuitive to let slide.” The team held 4 focus groups with birds of various species.
The focus groups proved to be enlightening. Dr. Yagasaki explains, “right in line with what we expected, most of the birds in the focus groups started out in praise of the ability to fly. They noted that it was a fast method of travel, and that they could do it at any time. However, about a third of the group also expressed frustrations with things like stressful landings, the energy it takes to beat one’s wings often enough to stay in the air, and the overall speed with which flying occurs.”
Indeed, one bird, Tweetleeeteet, a house sparrow from the Midwest, explained that “Don’t get me wrong, flying is fun a lot of the time. It’s just that, sometimes I would rather slow things down a bit, you know? Smell the roses. With flying, it’s all rush rush, and dash past the walkers.”
CakAAaawww, a raven from the Great Lakes area, seemed focused more on the energy flying takes. “Do you know what it’s like to flap your limbs over and over and over to get anywhere? It’s exhausting! Man, give me a Segway or some roller skates or something. You can have the wings!”
The researchers explain that the focus groups were very helpful in learning more about the quality of life. “This is really what we were hoping to get from the study, so we are just thrilled. Often, the most important scientific findings are the ones you don’t expect,” says Yagasaki.
Their research has faced some criticism from other scientists, however. Dr. Holmes explains, “We’ve tried to be very forthcoming about the study’s limitations, but still, a lot of our colleagues and even the public have some pretty strong views. Most of the critiques stem from the fact that virtually no birds can read or write, let alone access the internet, so that’s probably been the biggest challenge to this project. It’s not easy to explain how we got our data, given the fact that birds do not generally have a grasp of the English language, cannot use writing utensils, and only in the rarest of cases own devices that could access our survey.”
“Still,” Dr. Yagasaki added, “these limitations aside, I think our research as a whole will forever change the way we think of the ability to fly, and we may look upon these magnificent creatures with a little less envy, and a little more understanding.”
As for the 2018 study, the team has already made plans to increase the survey portion, now to ask the Aves their television viewing activity, suggestions for how to solve the North Korean nuclear situation, and what the meaning of life is. The budget for that study is $45,300,000.