Why is the behavior of birds different from the behavior of fish? How do they know how to fly in useful ways?
The animal world contains many behaviors that can be seen as wonderful and interesting. Sometimes the reason for this behavior is not clear, and then the researchers are forced to invent, almost by force, a model that will explain how scientific logic fits with evolution. The peacock that grows its magnificent tail burdens itself in a way that surely makes it difficult for it to escape from enemies, is a good example of this. There seems to be no apparent reason for the advantage this tail gives him, other than to impress potential mates. But if this behavior made sense we would find it more common, and this is not the case. There is the claim that the large number of "eyes", the drawings on the peacock's tail scare off predators. A brief examination reveals that the peacock's predators are mainly types of tigers, an animal that does not shy away from threatening murals. To this end, the researchers came up with the idea that the female is impressed by the fact that despite the burdensome tail the male managed to survive, and therefore has other elite features, in addition to the impressive tail. This is the 'principle of respect', which reminds me in some way of the forced explanations of scientists and astrologers of various kinds when they are slapped with their failures. From here to claiming that it is at all an advantage for marine mammals that need to come up to the surface of the water to breathe every five minutes, the road is short. The idea of the peacock example is to show that nature may choose crooked ways to bring forth the offspring of the next generation, so it is better to use several disciplines of science to provide the answers, and not be satisfied with the explanations of geologists. Regarding the large schools of fish that move as a group, the scientists claim that this is the form that protects the fish in the most obvious way. If this is the case then why do whales gather huge groups of fish and then jump and devour them by the thousands? And what about the millions of fish that don't gather in schools? What, the dolphins who circle around the schools of fish to concentrate them in a dense mass do not understand what they are doing? The dolphins understand very well, it is the humans who invent strange theories, the main thing is not to leave any question marks. Science is not about finding the truth, but about providing a model that best predicts the observations. If we got to the truth, the scientists would retire and we wouldn't hear every Monday and Thursday about changes and updates and overturning of approaches in geology, medicine, archeology, etc. There is no truth, only accurate predictions and reasoned explanations. If we return to the example of the fish that protect themselves, to explain why groups of barracudas move in groups of hundreds of individuals (a barracuda certainly does not need the protection of the group) we can use the group structure of birds. And now we return to the original question.
Birds move at high speed. Aviation in general, and fast flight in particular, consumes a lot of energy. Moving a hamster's leg at a speed of 3 cm per second and stopping for an hour to rest in a burrow is one thing, but for a migratory bird to swing its wing up and down for 5000 kilometers is a completely different story. That's why birds can't be satisfied with a little grass, they need energy-rich food (like fatty fish). For this the birds fly in groups. This has nothing to do with protection, since birds need almost no protection. The reason is completely mechanical. Similar to bicycle races, where ten people of a certain group train for a year for the race and then in the race nine of them work for the best rider among them, the birds work for the leader of the pack. Due to considerations of surface area, it is less profitable to be the leader of the pack, the driver in the front, and this is for an obvious reason - the friction is greater with the air. In fact, the birds change the lead every period of time in the same way that the cyclists change the lead. The optimal structure is a one-angled triangle, and the sharper the angle, the greater the advantage (as a vertical column for movement is of course the optimal shape). The reason the triangle formed by the birds is not very sharp is to avoid the need for the bird that is now leading to speed up a lot in an attempt to take the lead. Every car driver knows that it is acceleration that consumes most of the fuel and not traveling at a constant speed. It is also possible that a wide structure feels more thermals that help the birds rise and invest less energy in flight (the structure covers a wider area). Thermal is a metrological phenomenon, and means hot (thermal) air that rises up, thermal can also be described as wind in a vertical upward flow.
16 תגובות
From A to T one to one you are wrong, and not only in semantics
(A wise man among us said that "life and death are in the hand of the tongue")
(Since when do "fish spawn"?),
In zoology there are accepted insights,
The facts are known and accepted in the zoological community,
The reasons and causes of the facts can be explained and explained,
But only by those who know and know the facts for sure and you
You stated that "my field is not marine biology" you are not a zoologist, you do not understand and know nothing in zoology, there is nothing wrong with that (I do not understand physics much), but after we understood this, your repeated attempts to confirm errors (there is no "snake- Seas that live in groups" there are colonies of eels - but this is "semantics"... or ignorance?)
Your right (and your presumptuousness) to think differently, but between a different thought and trying to contradict accepted insights that were formed based on observations over many years on a subject that, according to your statement, you do not understand...separates in your case a baseless pretentious arrogance.
to use shrill terms ("chattering eggs, to confuse the mind")
Those who don't know otherwise will be in need... and it's a shame,
Is it possible that "your field" is physics? Leave it at that and when you try to depend on areas you don't understand and know do it carefully
Maximum after checking the facts you rely on.
Otherwise, the result, as you can see above, is a screaming argument
Pointless and useless, while demonstrating ignorance, and it's a shame.
Section A - Semantics.
Section B - not true. The flocks fly in groups. Go to the window and look.
Section C - "Dependence of the weak"? What exactly is a weak fish? For a predator any fish is weak, if it is the right size. Fish predators don't look for injured fish, the sea is not the savannah looking for skinny buffalo that can't run.
"Experienced in finding food"??? Maybe you haven't looked but a minnow mother doesn't teach her little ones to hunt. They know it from the litter.
Section D - This strange reasoning that if I'm in a group, my chances of being preyed on are smaller, mathematically incorrect, and there are no tools here to show it. Either you understand or believe me. If anything, then the predators will look for the large group and for the individual individuals.
Section E - Birds do not need protection and are limited by the amount of food available. Harini invites you to tell me who is significantly reducing their numbers.
Section F - Regarding the peacock's eyes, this is exactly what I said. But exactly. The matter of the villagers does not belong: evolution does not work in the range of 1000 years so significantly and the peacock does not change for farmers.
Section G - I have nothing to say except to say that you should read on the website of the gorillas of the Geological Institute of the USA from which I took the article.
Section H - Egg chatter. really. You really enjoy messing with the brain.
Section XNUMX - I'm a pretentious person, what's wrong with that?
The tiger is a species that branches off from the panther genus
"Types of tigers" what is this?
Birds that fly in arrow-like structures are the minority: cranes, geese, pelicans. This is not the case with most bird species: all raptors large and small, storks, ducks, all songbirds, all fly in a "mess", so the correct question is, why don't all or most of them fly in an aerodynamic structure?
Flocks: fish, birds, insects, and others gather when: all move in the same direction at the same time, all graze / look for food in the same field. The advantages of banding are: dependence of the weak / young on the strong and experienced in finding food and finding ways of migration,
Protection from crazies is one of the advantages of ganging up, since the bigger the gang, the smaller the chances of the individual's stats being preyed upon.
It is not true that "birds do not need protection", every animal in nature is a predator and is preyed on and everyone needs protection, therefore also the strangeness (to our eyes) of
The principle of respect that was defined and exists in: moose, goats, lions (the mane), hawks, lizards, hornbills and many others and not only in the peacocks,
The eyes of the peacock's tail may frighten villagers who have developed foolish traditions, certainly not wild cats, wolves, tigers, tigers and lions that prey on them and enjoy their fat meat.
Gorillas live in a family group and are therefore considered sociable, so are elephants, lions and a large part of the canine family, but it is incorrect to compare gorillas to "large predators".
Those who are not sociable are the entire cat family (except lions),
Striped hyena, species of wolves in Dar, Mez, Asia, the whole family of the wolverines.
All of them are solitary.
It's a shame to try to hang ideas or pay off based on inaccurate information,
Zoology is not physics and therefore does not have permanent insights, but rather conclusions obtained after years of observations and study,
To come and rule out such conclusions with the wave of a pen and lack of knowledge...
A little pretentious...
Answer to Aviv (Asaf asked in gibberish for some reason on my computer)
What about non-migratory birds? I am trying to understand the mechanism of those who do migrate by physical means. If you gave an example of a large majority of birds that do not fly in an arrow formation you would be right
And what about non-migratory birds? Aren't they in flocks and don't fly with arrows?
The "wisdom" is to ask correctly, in the case of flying in an arrowhead structure, the aerodynamic advantage is accepted and known, therefore the correct question is: why, out of hundreds of species that fly, only a small number of bird species use the advantage?
The peacock's tail emphasizes and confirms the "principle of respect", because if it didn't exist such tails wouldn't have developed, the "eyes" might frighten villagers who develop strange traditions, certainly not wild cats, wolves, tigers, lions and tigers all of them prey on peacocks and enjoy their meat the fertilizer
The principle of respect can be seen in stags, goats, harriers, hawks, widows, weavers and many other birds, reptiles and amphibians, certainly not only in peacocks. Fish, birds, herbivores, reptiles
And others are excited for many, different and diverse reasons, most of them familiar, well-known and understandable, the most typical enthusiasm is in search of food/pasture.
This is the case with fish, songbirds, herds of wildebeest and buffaloes. Banding for migration is simple: when all individuals of a certain species migrate at the same time in the same direction, banding of snakes for reproduction and hibernation. Grouping for food or movement/migration gives a statistical defensive advantage to each individual in the group, since the larger the group, the smaller the individual's statistical chance of being predated. In most cases when the questions are asked correctly
The answers are simple and clear, when the facts are distorted it is difficult to formulate a correct question and therefore difficult to answer,
When you ask about the peacock's tail and in the same breath write that "birds do not need protection"??? This is a distortion of facts. When you write that barracudas do not need protection??? Twisting!
When in the comments you write "different tigers"? What is? The tigers (all) are individuals, never
in the group. Gorillas exhibit behavior typical of large predators. God!
A group of sea snakes? You mean eels?
Someone like you as a marine biologist must recognize and know that the majority of species are food for other species, that is, they all need protection, foraging, reproduction, and these are only some of the reasons for cheering. It is not a shame not to know answers to all questions, it is worth asking because there may be answers, (Even if they don't fit
For your comfort) Answers that have passed a scientific test do not need your approval.
And yet to disprove it you need more information and experience and less pretension.
Jonathan, don't be angry about the style of the comments (which is very unpleasant, I admit). In the end, the responses and your reference to them enrich the understanding of the text.
So even if the responses are worded in a spiteful way, don't get angry and don't let your hands go.
Thanks for the interesting articles!
And here I am very much by your side! It's fun to read articles that are presented from a new and special point of view. We are tired of examples. that everyone will understand as much as he can understand, and agree with what his mind gives him).
Thanks.
This is indeed your problem and not mine. My problem is that I'm afraid that people will listen to the one who shouts louder, and uses verbal violence. So here I say to everyone: telling me that I'm talking nonsense and making things up doesn't deter me at all. Are you saying I'm wrong? It happens all the time, but prove it, make an effort. just to insult?
To the point: gorillas display behavior typical of large predators. Rhinos, bears, sharks and various tigers - all tend to connect in very small groups (or completely alone). They don't need protection and manage on their own. Sometimes the situation is the opposite. Lions live in groups, bears sometimes gather during salmon seasons near the river and cooperate, hammerhead sharks live in groups. But gorillas are unsociable animals and therefore the pack is actually a dominant male who centers concubines around him with their children. The males leave the group because there is always a dominant male. This is exactly what I said in the article. If sometimes a banker behaves this way and then behaves differently - there is no need to come and arbitrarily determine what motivates him.
Regarding the dynamics of the flow: it's a shame that you insist when you quote fragments of sentences that you don't understand. Prove that air friction from shear forces on the wall and drag are different. see you. You claimed that drag results from vortices - this is not true. Proving that there will be no turbulence on a body in frontal flow is not easy, but Coanda's law proved why the air continues straight on the wing and does not move anywhere. I explained to you earlier that according to the laws of conservation of angular momentum, turbulence cannot exist on a wing! Try to draw a vortex on a wing and look for its turbulent balance. You will get an absurd drawing.
Oh well.
Gorillas actually live in groups.
Drag consists of friction and pressure differences (which are created, among other things, by eddy flow). You can just open Wikipedia.
My problem is that you write articles full of "facts" that you just made up. It's fine for talkback but not for writing on a site that usually excels at a good writing level.
I am not familiar with the dynamics of gases and liquids, but I understood your explanation of the difference between negative pressure and reducing air friction.
I meant to say that as far as I understand the riders are psychologically pulling the champion and not as it might be implied that they are making it easy for him.
I disagree with the physical statement. I am deeply familiar with the movement of fighter jet turbines. For a blade with a rotational speed of 12000 rpm in the turbine it is known that there is a significant underpressure left between the wings. Air does not manage to fill the space and therefore the wing is pumped forward. If you would like to send me your email I will prove to you that air manages to be pumped in without difficulty for a speed of 50 km/h on a bicycle. There is no simpler calculation than this. There is no negative pressure in such a case, certainly not for a huge distance of two meters between one rider and another. People confuse negative pressure (subatmospheric pressure) with pressure that is lower than the high dynamic pressure in front of the cyclists. But behind The rider also has the same "underpressure", so it is not underpressure. A pressure difference between forward and backward is required, and that is not here. The rider is not pulled forward, but since a very high percentage of the friction is against the air (the rest is taken by the floor), so the first rider takes A larger part of it than the rest of the riders. And you were right, an airplane creates negative pressure - because it flies at 800 km/h (a regular Boeing can do even more) and there is little air up there.
Please do not underestimate the principle of respect practiced by the Israeli biologist Amots Zahavi and his thought is accepted by the majority of biologists and evolutionary scientists in the world.
What is the riders pedaling in favor of the best rider? To attract him - and not to make it easier to ride him, therefore it is not like birds.
Do the birds work for the flock leader?
After an airplane or a bird flies, a vacuum is created that attracts what follows.
Answer to Moses. Friction is a force, and the force exerted on a body is directly proportional to the area of the shell that receives it. In all flow equations the area is always in the first degree, so even if you meant this idea then you have confusion. The surface area of the bird is not relevant, but only that which is exposed to the flow of air. In a triangular structure, a smaller area of the body is exposed to air flow. And you get confused in the third when you claim that there is a difference between friction and drag, because there isn't. Latin doesn't confuse me. Drag is not related to turbulence at all - a vortex cannot exist on an airplane wing because of the laws of conservation of angular momentum, yet it has drag, or friction. The vortex will always appear at the rear of the wing where the two currents, lower and upper, meet. You were right about breaking the power lines, and if you contact my email I would love to hear more explanations and hear what you have to tell me, because it sounds like you understand.
Answer to Ezekiel: I will split the answer. I definitely believe (and don't know because my field is not marine biology) that schools of dolphins move together to facilitate joint movement. It is known that the whale hides the cub close to her belly and thus makes it easier for him to swim quickly. On the other hand, I claim that there is no reason for the fish to cluster, at least not that I know of. Who said everything has a reason? There are some types of sea snakes that live in huge groups, but most don't. Most monkeys live in groups, but gorillas do not. You don't have to impose laws on nature.
In the nonsense of the keyboard, you slander entire fields of science and at the same time write "explanations" that are, at best, unfounded.
Where exactly do you get the "facts" you spew everywhere?
And to the substance of the matter:
"Due to considerations of surface area, it is less profitable to be the leader of the group, the driver at the front, and this is for an obvious reason - the friction is greater with the air"
What does surface area have to do with it? Every bird has the same surface area regardless of its location. And what about the friction if the air? The friction is not affected by the position at all. You probably got confused with "drag" - a force that results from a eddy flow. The leader of the flock "breaks the wind" and creates flow lines that make it easier for the birds that fly after him. This also explains the shape of the arrowhead. In any case, the exact explanation is more complicated.
Nice, except that the article seems to be cut off. What you wanted to say is that it also helps fish to move in the water?