Bird Beak Efficiency and Natural Selection

Introduction
There are fourteen total species of finches on the Galapagos islands that are believed to
have all evolved by means of natural selection from a common ancestor. These finches were
made popular due to their beak diversification by Charles Darwin. Darwins finches have
evolved due to natural selection, and adapted to the multiple islands within the Galapagos on
which the different species of finches live. Natural selection and hybridization between these
species has led to a large amount of diversification in the size and shape of the beaks of the
finches, though, it should be noted that not all fourteen species of finches hybridize (Grant,
2015).

Many factors, including a change in food supply, food availability, and drought have also
been known to change the size, shape, and function of the beaks of Galapagos finches. Beak
strength, bit force, and bite location have also been known to be a factor in the change in size and
shape of the beaks of the finches. Finches with large, wide beaks (seed-crushing finches) use
their beaks to crush seeds which are their main source of food. The large, wide beak is
advantageous when there is an abundance of seeds because its structure makes crushing the seeds
efficient. The large, wide beak is also safer for seed-crushing finches because a smaller or
thinner beak would be at risk of fracturing were the bird to attempt to eat seeds. It is also shown
that, structurally, tip-crushing, probe, probe and crush, and base-crushing finches eat things in
different very different ways. The size and shape of their beaks, as well as where they bite down
on the food they are eating, dictates what they eat. Finches with tip-crushing type beaks crush or
bite their food at the tip of their beaks, while base-crushing finches crush their food at the base of
their beaks. Probing finches are more suited (due to their longer narrower beaks) for probing
than a finch with a larger, wider beak (Soons, 2015).

I hypothesized that the tweezers and chip clips would increase in number, while the tongs
remained the same, and the chopsticks and hair clips decreased in number. I hypothesized this
because, having previous experience with all of these tools, I knew that tweezers allow precision,
which I thought would be advantageous. I felt similarly about the chip clips, though at first, I
thought the spring they use to close would be disadvantageous, I decided that they too would
increase in number. I decided that the tongs were efficient enough that they could pick up a
reasonable amount of seeds, but not enough to increase or decrease in number. After seeing the
response to chopsticks being mentioned as a potential tool, I decided that the average student was
not confident enough in their chopstick skills to be able to increase this tool in number. I also
decided that because this is a western country that most people might not have enough
experience using chopsticks, therefore causing them to decrease in number. Similar to how I felt
about the chopsticks, I felt that the hair clips would decrease in number due to their awkward
shape, and the many long, skinny, needle like parts that were to be used to pick up the sunflower
seeds. I felt that the seeds would fall through these parts.

Materials and Methods

In our experiment, we (15 students) were given five different beaks, with three of each
type, including tongs, chopsticks, tweezers, chip clips, and hair clips. Sunflower seeds were then
scattered around tables within the room, and we were told to use our beaks to pick up as many
of the seeds as we could, then to place them within a paper cup within a certain amount of time.
We did this same experiment 7 times, each representing a new generation. The two people that
were able to pick up the most amount of seeds, as well as the two people who were able to pick
up the least amount of seeds were asked to come to the front of the class, the rest of the class
were to remain seated. It was determined what beak each of them used. The two that picked
up the most amount of seeds passed on their beak type to those that picked up the least amount of
seeds, putting two more of the more efficient beaks into the population. The time period in
which we were allowed to pick up seeds remained constant throughout all 7 generations, the
amount of people doing the experiment did as well. The purpose of the experiment was to
determine the efficiency of the different beak types and which beak types would increase, remain
the same, or decrease in number from generation to generation because of natural selection and
beak efficiency.

Results
The number of tongs remained constant for the first two generations at 3 pairs, then
decreased to 2 pairs. The tongs then increased back to 3 pairs in generation 3 and remained
constant until generation 5 where they decreased to 2 pairs, and then decreased again to 1 pair in
generation 6. Chopsticks decreased in number after the first generation going from 3 pairs to 2
in generation 1. Chopsticks then decreased again in generation 2 to 1 pair and remained that way
until generation 6. Tweezers remained constant at 3 pairs until generation 2 where they
increased to 4 pairs. Tweezers then decreased to 3 pairs in generation 3 and remained constant
until generation 5 where they increased to 4 pairs and remained at 4 pairs until generation 6.
Chip clips increased in number by 1, going from 3 chip clips to 4 in one generation. They did
the same in the next generation, leaving them at 5 chip clips during generation 2. Chip clips then
decreased from 5 to 4 and remained that way until generation 5 where they increased in number
to 5. Chip clips then increased a last time, leaving them at 6 in number during generation 6.
Hair clips remained constant at 3 in number until they increased by 1 hair clip during generation
3. Hair clips remained at 4 in number until generation 5, where they decreased back to 3 hair
clips. Hair clips remained at 3 in number until generation 6.

Tongs and chopsticks rapidly decreased in number, leaving them both at 1 pair at the end
of the experiment. Tweezers didnt change in number very often, but did increase by one by the
end of the experiment. Chip clips had the most dramatic increase, doubling in number by the
end of the experiment. Hair clips remained relatively constant, increasing in number for 2
generations, then decreasing back to the original amount of 3.

"Beak" Begin Gen 1 Gen 2 Gen 3 Gen 4 Gen 5 Gen 6

TONGS 3 3 2 3 3 2 1
CHOPSTICKS 3 2 1 1 1 1 1
TWEEZERS 3 3 4 3 3 4 4
CHIPCLIPS 3 4 5 4 4 5 6
HAIR CLIPS 3 3 3 4 4 3 3

TOTAL 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Figure 1: Beak Efficiency Table

 16
14 "Beak" Efficiency Graph
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
TONGS CHOPSTICKS TWEEZERS CHIPCLIPS HAIR CLIPS TOTAL

Begin Gen 1 Gen 2 Gen 3 Gen 4 Gen 5 Gen 6

Figure 2: Beak Efficiency Graph

Conclusion
For the most part, my hypothesis was supported by the evidence obtained during the
experiment. Tweezers and chip clips did increase in number, with chip clips significantly
increasing in number from 3 to 6. I was correct in my prediction that chopsticks would decrease
in number, but I was incorrect in my hypothesis that hair clips would decrease as well.
Chopsticks decreased from the original amount of 3 pairs, down to 1 pair supporting my
hypothesis. However, hair clips remained relatively constant, spiking to four in number, before
returning to the original number of 3. I was also incorrect with my prediction that the number of
tongs would remain relatively unchanged. The experiment shows the number of tongs remaining
around 3 pairs until generation 5 where they sharply decreased to 2 pairs, and then decreased
again to 1 pair during generation 6.

While creating my initial hypothesis, I did not take into account that tongs have an
uneven structure around the point at which they would make contact with the sunflower seeds. I
suspect that this is likely what made tongs decrease in number rather than remain at 3 pairs. I
also did not take into account that some of the tools might be broken, or begin to malfunction.
One hairclip ended up being introduced that was broken, affecting the results of the experiment.
Willingness to participate as well as individual variation in coordination might have also been
factors that affected the outcome of the experiment.

I suspect that if this experiment were to be replicated, the results would be similar to the
results obtained during our experiment. A variation in class size might change the outcome of
the experiment, but I predict that the results would be similar, assuming the instructions of how
to conduct the experiment are explained by the professor in a similar way and other factors are
not changed.

Discussion
The scientific method is the method in which a prediction (hypothesis) is made prior to
extensive experimentation. The experimentation might support or disprove the hypothesis, but it
can never prove the hypothesis as fact. A hypothesis must always be testable in some way. A
hypothesis, after decades of research and hundreds upon hundreds of studies that support the
hypothesis may then be called a theory.

The scientific method is used in all scientific fields, and for the most part in everyday
informed decision making. Biologists, medical researchers, anthropologists, and all other
scientific fields requiring research and investigation use the scientific method.

This activity used the scientific method. I created a hypothesis before conducting an
experiment. My hypothesis remained unchanged during the experiment. After experimentation,
I reflected on my hypothesis, looking for where I might have made mistakes, or overlooked
certain factors in the experiment. I then decided whether my hypothesis was supported or not,
which I decided it was, to an extent.

The purpose of this activity was to discover how natural selection could affect a
population when the population is faced with certain environmental conditions. The theory of
evolution by natural selection has four underlying assumptions, number one is that there must be
a natural biological variation present (such as a mutation), whether it is disadvantageous, neutral,
or advantageous for evolution by natural selection to occur. Second, if this trait turns out to be
advantageous, the organisms possessing these variations will be more likely to survive,
reproduce, and pass down these traits to their offspring, this is called inheritance. Third, more
offspring are born than can survive. With some organisms now in possession of advantageous
traits, it is likely that these organisms will survive and reproduce, while the organisms without
these traits will not. Fourth, there will be differential reproductive success because of the
organisms surviving and leaving more offspring.

This activity was a demonstration of the effects of evolution by natural selection. Birds
with disadvantageous beaks (the ones that couldnt eat enough sunflower seeds to survive) died,
leaving the ones with more efficient beaks to survive. This differential reproductive success
increased the number of birds with advantageous beaks, and decreased the number of birds with
disadvantageous beaks over time.

Consider the example of chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have evolved over a very long
period of time to have long, strong arms. This likely occurred because chimpanzees were large
animals. In order to support their weight, they hung underneath branches, and for this reason,
they needed long, strong arms. While ancestors of chimpanzees were tree-dwellers, they simply
evolved to have strong, long arms to more efficiently allow them to dwell in trees. These traits
were then passed onto their offspring (Jurmain et al., 2016). Another example would be the
giraffe. The giraffe likely obtained its long neck from the need of its ancestors to access food
that is high up in trees. Short-necked giraffes were left to starve, while the ones with long
enough necks were able to survive and reproduce, passing their long-necked genes onto their
offspring.
References

Jurmain, Robert, Lynn Kilgore, Wenda Trevathan, and Eric J. Bartelink. Essentials of physical
anthropology / Robert Jurmain, Lynn Kilgore, Wenda Trevathan, and Erik J. Bartelink.
10th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2016. Print.

Peter R. Grant, B. Rosemary Grant, (2015) Introgressive Hybridization and Natural Selection in

Darwins Finches, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Soons J, Genbrugge A, Podos J, Adriaens D, Aerts P, Dirckx J, et al. (2015) Is Beak Morphology
in Darwins Finches Tuned to Loading Demands? PLoS ONE 10(6): e0129479.
doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0129479