Birds on an Island Lab Video
by Miss Baker
Click here to see the video. Click here to see our data.
The Birds on an Island Lab is a simulation of Peter and Rosemary Grant’s research on the Galapagos Islands. A husband-wife team, the Grants spent over 30 years researching finches on the islands. Their research is the main focus of the Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. You can view some of the actual data collected by the Grants here. The data shows that what we experienced in our lab activity matches closely with what the Grants noticed in wild finch populations.
January 27th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
This is so cool how our class experiment and the Grants’ research go hand in hand. But for the Grants, I’m sure it took a very long time for them to collect all that data. It amazes me how people can be so determined to complete something, even when it is hard. I found out that it took them 30 years to study the finches and gather enough information to show natural selection occuring.
Source: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/09/20/news/13127.shtml
I really enjoyed this class experiment because it really showed me how natural selection occurs and how certain species are better adapted to survive to reproduce than others. Thanks Miss Baker!
January 27th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
That was a pretty interesting video Miss Baker! I’m sorry that i couldnt be there for the experiment, i had pnumonia. I read some more about the Grants’ experiences and what exactly they did in the course of their research on this site:
http://www.uctv.ucsb.edu/more/voices/m3400Cgrant.html
Im still a bit confused on how that experiment related to the tracking of birds and beak size over time. Did the amount of marshmallows or peanuts collected represent beak size? I am curious and would like to learn more.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Someone should help Jake out by explaining the lab. I’ve put our data on the web for everyone to see:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pj63loTkOSr66RU6t_yA9HQ
January 27th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
It was so cool for us to have fun while we were learning about Grant’s research. It was cool for us to see what they were looking for in such a short period of time. I took them a long time to collect all of their data. They wrote a book about their research. It is called The Beak of the Finch. It is a revolutionary work of scientific inquiry that tells the story of two evolutionary biologists engaged in an extraordinary investigation among the very species of Galapagos finches that inspired Darwin’s early musings on the origin of species.Here is a website I found that talks about them.
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/09/20/news/13127.shtml
January 27th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Jake,
The first round marshmellows were spread across the floor. There were 3 groups of birds, with different beaks. One groups of birds beak was the spoon, another birds beak was a knife, and the final group of birds had a fork as their beak. The climate in the first 3 rounds were lush and wet so we showed marshmellows. The amount of marshmellows collected by each group of birds was counted. The amount of food you got then told you if you could survive, die, or reproduce 1-2 offsprings.
Rounds 4,5, and 6 were different. The island had experienced a drought and the peanuts represented the food that was present on the island due to the drought. In rounds 1-3 the knifes and forkes were the best suited for their environment, so they could survive to reproduce. The spoons could only survive and were not able to reproduce. This caused a large number of forks and knifes. When the drought occured the spoon’s population went up while the knives dropped to only one surviver. So the birds with the spoon beaks where better off gathering the food and surviving to reproduce. So in rounds 4-6 the spoons and the forks were best suited for their environment.
Each group of birds started with only two birds. The point of the experiment was to show how natural selection chooses the organism most fit for thier environment to survive. The spoons could live in the fertile rounds 1-3, but thrived in the dry hot drought because nature selected them as most fit for their environment. The knives survived and reproduced alot during the first rounds because they were selected by nature as most well fit in their environment. In rounds 4-6 their beaks could not pick up the food in the dry climate so all but one of them died out. The forks did well in all rounds. Nature selected them to as the individuals most fit for their environment. I hope this helps Jake.
January 27th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
This experiment was really great on showing us a real life example of how some birds are able to survive when the climate and weather demands it but others are unable and unfortunately die. By actually doing the experiment and not just learning about it in class it really shows how harsh the wilderness can be and ow sometimes their is nothing you can do about it.
It is so awesome to hear about what some people dedicate their life to like the grants’ who dedicated their life to research to help us and the species.
Heres an article about all that they did:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071300953.html
January 27th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
It’s so cool how we reenacted the experiment the Grants’ did in only a class period and it took them 30 years, as Amanda said. However, I would estimate that it would take that long and they must have been very patient. I found more information about the Grants’ research on this site:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5568/707
Jake, natural selection shows how certain species are better adapted to survive and reproduce and how species evolve overtime because of their environment and that is what we discovered in out experiment. And yes Jake, some beak sizes adapted better than others to peanuts or marshmallows, as you will see in our data.
Thanks again Miss Baker for showing how natural selection occurs by relating it to a real world situation.
January 27th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I thought that the lab really helped learn about natural selection. Like Amanda said, I think that it is really neat how our results and the results from the Grants go hand in hand. They had a lot of determination and I found out that for their research and experimentation they won the 2003 Loye and Alden Miller Research Award http://www.cooper.org/COS/COS_award_miller.html
and in 2005 the Balzan Prize.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S12/62/33M18/index.xml
One question I did have though was one if there were two types of food. For instance not all the marshmellows dried up and some did (so there would be peanuts and marshmellows), what would happen with the results then? Thanks Miss Baker! It was a really fun lab.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Graham,
Thanks, that really helped. That makes perfect sense and i can see how that would very accurately represent the process of natural selection and evolution. I was also thinking about carolines question and I have a guess at what i think might happen. If there were two types of food and certain species were better fit to get that food, i think the populations would separate. In other words, birds with beaks best fit for getting a certain food would begin living in that area. Help me if I am wrong or provide a new hypothesis.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
First off the experiment was very fun. In round 1-3 the climate was very wet and had marshmellows on the ground. The knives and forks did very well. On the other hand the spoons did very badly. The spoons did not reproduce any offspring. The forks and knives produced many offspring. At the end of the wet climate the spoon population was 2 where it started. The fork population was 9 and the knive population was 10.
Then the climate changed to a very dry climate. Peanuts were know on the ground. The spoons and forks did very well. The knives did not do very well. The totals at the nend were:
spoons 3
knives 1
forks 7
To answer Caroline’s question I think the population overall wouldn’t change as much as it did. Some birds could eat their food and the other birds could eat their food. Now everybody is happy.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Like everyone said previously, this lab was really fun. At first I didn’t really understand what was going on but i later figured out it had something to do with beak sizes & natural selection. I know we’ve talked about this in class but I still am kind of confused on what natural selection is. Basically, is is just if a new physical characteristic comes along and it works better for a species, naturally will nature let that same species all aquire that same trait? Someone help me please. Also, Caroline added that the Grant’s won the Balzan prize which is a prize given to people who have had outstanding achievements. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/09/20/news/13127.shtml This website includes additional information regarding the Balzan Prize given to Peter & Rosemary Grant. This award was worth about $800,000 given to them for their research together for 30 years on the evolution of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands.
Thanks for this lab! I learned a ton!
January 29th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
The lab was very fun. To answer Mary Claire’s question. Natural selection is the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations. I found this website on natural selection:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
The explanation of the process of natural selection is toward the bottom of the page.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Natual selection sounds like it may be a supernatural force. I thought that science could not explore supernatural forces. When I see the definition it looks like it is say that a force picks and organism in the environment that is best suited for its surrundings. It seems that most people could relate God and evolution through this theory. So is Natual selection considered a supernatural force? If so why does science try to explain it?
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Wow, thirty years of studying finches is impressive. These finches are great examples of evolution. I was interested in the galapagos islands when i read this and did some research about them. I discovered that there is another great example of evolution living on these islands as well. The Galapagos Marine Iguana lives here and is a wonderful display of evolution. Normally you would think iguanas live on land and eat plants and bugs and such. But these Marine Iguanas can actually swim! Since the islands are made of rocky volcanic rock the iguanas needed an alternative food source, so they evolved to be able to swim and reach seaweed in the the water around the islands.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 am
This video is good example to me. Because i missed that class. So i didnt understand some part. Right now, i solve the my problem of evloution. Oh!sorry, i forgot the main topic. Wow 30years! they are very nice scinentists.
Some people think their stupid. Because they spent a lot of times for lab.
But i think that they are respectability person. Anyway thank you miss Baker. Nice! Blog.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:10 am
I think that its pretty awesome how a simple, fun experiment can represent accuratetely a process in nature that is soo important and powerful, natural selection. The experiment wasnt hard to understand yet it really helped explain natural selection to me which didnt make as much sense before.
Graham, i think that natural selection is not a supernatural force because science is based on natural processes. Also, it might be a supernatural force IF religion was tied up with it. But most scientists say that science and religion dont intertwine especially in evolution. Natural selection is a natural force because science explains natural processes and science explain natural selection
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Steven, I see your point. I thought that since the choices were based off of the organism best suited for its environment then it was a super natural force making the decision. My point about God and natural selection was that some people do not want to accept natural selection that are christians because they believe that it is taking the glory form God. Some people are able to relate the two in that God is the one making the decisions of natural selection and that there is no other force that is doing anything. Great points Steven.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I think we’ve all found this lab to have a bigger representation then what we thought of it the day in breakout. I understood what we were symbolizing, but I guess I wasn’t quite certain of the whole process.
In response to Graham’s statement about it being a supernatural force I agree with steven’s opinion about science is based on natural processes. Also Natural selection is based on characteristics an animal posses’s therefore helping it be better suited for its environment.
http://understandingevolution.com/evolibrary/article/evo_25
This wesbite reinforces the process with the beetle example miss baker had shown us before.