Why Do Some Interns Fake Their Data?



Let me apologize right now for the negative tone of many recent blog posts. This past field season was my most difficult ever. In 2017 I found it difficult to motivate one of my field assistants to complete data collection at all of her assigned lakes each day, and her complaints and weak performance hurt team morale. But last year was doubly trying, because a second field assistant falsified her data. In truth, this was the third instance of falsification that I had observed during the study.

One can dismiss data falsification by one or two field workers as flukes. When we found that Laura was not going to some of the lakes on her circuit in 1996 and was faking her arrival and departure times at some others, we were horrified. Having never encountered this problem before, though, we eventually decided that something was wrong with Laura for her to have betrayed our trust. Margaret, my head field assistant that year, announced, “I always thought she was a spoiled brat”, and I quickly agreed. When Frank, another team leader, caught Chelsea faking her data in 2005, I allowed myself to reach a similar conclusion. The problem was Chelsea, not us. I assured Frank that I would be more careful in screening potential field assistants in the future.

The third instance of faking data, which occurred last year, forced me to confront an unpleasant possibility: something about the way we select student assistants or go about data collection makes our project prone to data falsification. One aspect of this problem is obvious. While we are able to cover more ground and collect more data per observer than most other studies by having each observer work independently, solitary data collection opens the door to cheating. A single weak person in a weak moment who decides to fake data has no check on their behavior, whereas neither of two observers working in a pair would likely risk discovery by proposing data falsification to their teammate.

Fortunately, the design of our data collection also makes it easy to detect  falsification. You see, we systematically rotate observer visits to lakes to limit the impact of observer bias. Observer bias — the innocent and natural tendency of each individual observer to detect and record certain events in their environment and not others — occurs in all observational studies. We limit such bias by making sure that all observers visit all study lakes and that no two consecutive visits to a given lake are by the same observer. This protocol gives us a means to detect faking of data, because any occasion when one visitor’s observations at a lake fail to match those of the previous visitor — like one observer reporting a failed nest and a different observer a week later reporting chicks — is immediately flagged for further scrutiny. Rotation of lake visits should also discourage cheating, because field assistants know that the lakes that they are assigned to visit on a certain day will be visited by a teammate in a week’s time. In effect, we are all constantly checking on each other’s observations. We are like a community of paranoiacs!

Our unintentional safeguard against data falsification is lucky, but it only makes the repeated occurrence of cheating more puzzling. Our field assistants are young people, eager to gain experience and to show their field skills to scientists who might write them strong reference letters. Their application to work with me must include names of three references and considerable information about their academic background and training. Why would such people risk fallout from a severe violation of academic integrity by falsifying data? We can fully never solve this puzzle, I suppose. Needless to say, exit interviews with data cheats are not feasible. In the three instances of falsification: 1) Laura simply denied faking data, despite having been caught red-handed doing so, 2) Chelsea admitted falsifying data and commented, “I cannot believe that I took that chance”, and 3) our faker from last year also admitted her wrongdoing, but insisted that she faked data only on the single occasion when she was caught.

I suspect that I will expose myself to ridicule with the following conclusions about cheaters’ motivations, but I will proceed. First, I think the adage that “cheaters never expect to be caught” applies here. Perhaps young people get caught up in the present and underestimate the power of rotating observer visits to detect inconsistencies in data. That is, assistants might decide that if they are not actually observed cheating in the field, they will not be found out. Second, I think young people are perhaps a bit more selfish now than they were 30 years ago, as revealed by Chelsea’s comment. If your main priority is to promote your own future rather than to safeguard the integrity of scientific data, then the bar is much lower for cheating.

What now? Can we screen research assistant applications more effectively and discard those that show signs of a defective moral compass? Is there a simple and inexpensive personality test that we can run to detect a proclivity for cheating?

Better News

It is easy to get into a funk when you are a field biologist. Our livelihood depends upon maintaining momentum. We must keep our work funded, which entails fighting with colleagues in our sub-discipline for the dwindling funds that remain at the National Science Foundation (or some other source). We must attract bright, motivated students willing to work with us and help us push our research forward. And we must publish our work in good journals, or else the entire process grinds to a halt.

Maybe I have grown fragile lately, but my most recent setback with the terminal investment paper was a substantial blow to my momentum. Thus, it was especially sweet to hear last week that a second paper — this one concerning the negative impacts of black flies on loons — was well-received by The Auk: Ornithological Advances and appears close to acceptance there. (I have mentioned certain elements of the black fly story in earlier blogs.)

Sometimes in science, as in life, a fortunate event rescues you from an unrelated unfortunate one — and gives you confidence to forge ahead. Perhaps this bit of luck with the black fly paper can help me shake off some bad news, surge forward towards a new research grant, and move towards a productive new avenue of investigation (ecological traps).

Felled by the “Russian Judge”



It is a bit unseemly, I suppose, to pile on Russia now. Having been caught meddling with our election and cheating during past Olympics, their reputation could hardly get worse. Yet the metaphor of the Russian judge — meaning a person who brings a strong bias to a process that is supposed to be marked by disinterested fairness and good judgment – is almost irresistible to me at this juncture. Indeed, the metaphor has been throbbing in my brain these past weeks as I have marveled at the scores awarded to figure skaters and Big Air snowboarders.

Let me explain. I recently completed a revision of our paper on terminal investment by male loons: the most remarkable finding we have made in 25 years of research. (This is the paper showing that males become highly aggressive and territorial at the same time that their health, survival, and territory defense is declining.) Praised by three reviewers at a prestigious journal, our paper was blocked from acceptance by a fourth reviewer who insisted that we complete a complex statistical analysis to check our results. Review of scientific articles is almost always anonymous, as in this case, so we cannot know the reviewer’s identity or the reason for his/her objection. But my study of his/her statistical point convinced me that it was mistaken. Yet, the editor disregarded my carefully-crafted refutation and chose to support the reviewer. Of course, it is immensely frustrating for an author when an editor sides with a stubborn reviewer. This outcome forced us into a difficult decision: 1) kowtow to the reviewer by reworking our statistical analysis needlessly, which would have entailed a lengthy delay in publication and cost us perhaps $2000 to hire a statistical consultant, or 2) pull the plug on the submission that seemed on the brink of acceptance, pending completion of that difficult statistical revision. I hope I made the right call by withdrawing the paper and sending it to a new journal.

Two factors played a role in my decision to withdraw the paper that, perhaps, should not have. First, I have spent many months polishing this paper and am reaching the end of my rope with it. I am certain that it is sound statistically and likely to be impactful in my field, if I can just navigate the stormy seas of reviewer opinion. Second, I must soon turn my attention to acquiring new research funding and must have this paper in print in order to demonstrate to funding agencies that the past funds they have sent to me have been well spent. Thus, I have chosen to send the paper to a solid – but not highly prestigious – journal in my field, hoping to find a fast track to publication.

I am not the first person to make a decision to publish a great paper in a low-impact journal in order to keep the wheels of research turning. Each paper, in my experience, follows its own journey. A pedestrian paper sometimes catches a wave and ends up in a lofty journal, only to be scoffed at and forgotten in short order. And cool papers sometimes fall into low‑impact journals, are discovered by many scientists, and become classics. Let’s hope the terminal investment paper falls into the latter category.

Small Lakes and Old Females Are More Prone to Nest Abandonment


, , ,

I have just completed my paper on black flies. The paper presents evidence that black flies cause nest abandonment, which was lacking in the literature before. The evidence is pretty convincing, I believe. (We shall see what my scientific colleagues think when I submit the work for publication in the next week.)

In the course of looking at black fly impacts on nesting, I stumbled into two  interesting findings. These findings were serendipitous, like much of what scientists report. That is, I was keenly focused on one topic — black flies and nest abandonment — when I made a finding related to another topic — other causes of abandonment. In fact, I analyzed statistically a whole set of factors, some seemingly unrelated to black flies, that might have predicted nest abandonment. Among these were age of the male, age of the female, duration of the pair bond between them, exposure to wind (which might have kept the flies at bay), size of breeding lake, and distance from the nest to the nearest flowing water (from which black flies emerge as adults).

I was excited, but also baffled, to discover two new predictors of nest abandonment. First, pairs on large lakes are less prone to nest abandonment than pairs on small lakes. Second, pairs containing an old female are far more likely to abandon a nest owing to black flies than are pairs containing young females.

Now, I like to think that I know everything about loons. When I am visiting a study lake and someone asks an easy one like, “Do loons mate for life?”, I puff myself up, lower my voice an octave, affect a mild British accent, and pontificate on the serially monogamous breeding system of Gavia immer. But I was wholly wrong-footed by these two new findings. I had been so laser-focused on black flies as the prime movers in nest abandonment that I had included age and lake size in the analysis almost as an afterthought. I had not even considered what it would mean to learn that age and lake size were significant predictors.

The statistical significance of lake size as a predictor of abandonment forced me to confront a complex variable. If numbers of black flies are correlated with nest abandonment (as they are), then it requires no great conceptual leap to infer that black fly harassment is causing loons to abandon their nests. But the fact that lake size predicts abandonment opens up a much broader range of explanations, because lake size is correlated with degree of human recreation, pH, wind exposure, wave action, available food, and numerous other factors. Having picked through the possibilities, an energetic explanation seems most likely to explain the lake size pattern. That is, large lakes provide more food than small lakes, so loon pairs on large lakes should be in better health and condition than those on small lakes. Well-fed, healthy adults with strong immune systems should be better able to cope with the blood loss and exposure to blood-borne pathogens (like Leucocytozoon protozoans, which cause a malaria-like disease in birds) than under-nourished individuals with weaker immune systems.

What about the higher abandonment rate of pairs that contain an old female? Here again, energetics might be the key. Old females senesce — they experience much lower survival and slightly higher vulnerability to eviction than young females. So it stands to reason that old females are in poorer body condition and are more likely to abandon nests when attacked viciously by black flies. Reproductive decline among old females is widespread in animals, and the tendency of old female loons to abandon nests more readily seems consistent with that pattern.

But what about males? As I have emphasized in recent blog posts, males senesce even more dramatically than females do. How is it possible that old males can continue to incubate eggs when being bitten mercilessly by black flies when old females cannot? Terminal investment appears to be the answer. Terminal investment — efforts to increase breeding output as death approaches — occurs only among male loons, even though both sexes senesce. As the months have passed, we have learned that male loons not only become hyper-aggressive when they reach old age (15 years) in an apparent attempt to hold their territory for another year or two of breeding, they also seem to show a more subtle willingness to try harder to hatch eggs and rear young to fledging. The new finding showing that old males do not abandon nests as readily as old females when beset by black flies is thus part of a growing pattern.

My tentative explanations for the impacts of lake size and sex on nest abandonment are not the end of the story, of course. Rather, they raise more vexing questions. Why on earth would a loon settle to breed on a small lake, when small lakes doom loons to poorer body condition, a higher rate of abandonment, and the likelihood of losing one or both chicks in the event they can hatch the eggs? And even if the higher rate abandonment of nests by old females fits a growing pattern, why do males and females differ so much in their life-history strategy? We do not know….and this is why I love my work!

Proving the Obvious


, ,

A lot of science is scut work. While I do ponder my findings, develop new hypotheses, and publish papers that might (slightly) change the way that others view the natural world, these activities are, in fact, only the most glamorous ones in the scientific profession. I spend far more time worrying that I am mistaken about a result. You see, scientists are nit-pickers who know from personal experience the difficulty of proving something is true. Scientists are skeptical of their own findings as well as those of their colleagues. We are always on the lookout for false assumptions, biased data samples, misleading correlations, and experimental results that are artifacts (false outcomes) of our methods. Thus, we spend a good deal of time poking and prodding our data, turning it this way and that, and making certain it is bullet-proof, before we try to publish or present it to colleagues. Scientists run many tedious and seemingly repetitive statistical tests aimed at testing a single hypothesis and ruling out alternative explanations for patterns we find in our data. If a flaw in our reasoning, an untested assumption, or a problem in experimental design weakens or invalidates our findings, we want to discover it ourselves in the solitude of our office — not have a listener at a talk or a reviewer of a grant proposal do so.

Scientists have a much higher threshold for accepting statements as fact than does the public at large. Indeed, flawed and misleading conclusions — which would bring harsh criticism to a scientist uttering them — are rampant in public discourse. The biased sample problem leads to many misleading conclusions. Following a political debate, TV commentators always tell us who won, based upon a sample of viewers. Unless one is very careful to control the political makeup of an audience, however, the outcome of such a poll is certain to be biased. Naturally, Fox News and CNN have audiences that differ greatly in their political leanings; in addition, people who watch debates on television or in person represent a biased sample of voters, not the population at large. Finally, viewers are more likely to see the candidate they favor as the winner of a debate, so favoritism towards one candidate will make that candidate more likely to be seen as the winner, even if their performance was worse that their opponent’s. That is, if 65% of all voters favor Ms. Sims over Mr. Peach ahead of the debate, and 55% of all voters say afterwards that Ms. Sims won the debate, Mr. Peach almost certainly performed better, because he beat his poll numbers.

I face the biased sample problem constantly in my analysis of loon behavior. For example, we have observed that loons shifting from a first to a second breeding territory tend to move a very short distance, often settling to breed on a new lake right next to their old one. It is tempting to surmise that loons that move between territories cover only a short distance in order to take advantage of their knowledge of the local area and ease their transition to the new breeding space. This sounds plausible but ignores the fact that shifters are not a random cross-section of the population. Instead, these loons are almost all old individuals with low fighting ability that have been evicted from first territories. Moreover, the new territories they shift into are not average breeding territories but new, untested ones with limited nesting habitat that seldom yield offspring. So old, worn out loons do not seem to be carefully choosing to settle in a new breeding space that they know well; rather, they are desperately setting up a new territory near their original one — and in a place that no other loon wishes to use — because it is not worthwhile trying to compete for a proven territory anywhere else.

mentions correlation

At the moment, I have turned a critical eye towards black flies and nest abandonment. I have “known” for decades that black flies cause high rates of nest abandonment in certain years, as they did in 2017. But it is one thing to know something is true, and quite another to convince other scientists of what you know. So I have gone back to field records from 1994 to 2017 and tallied occasions when field observers reported severe infestations of black flies on loons or around their nests during the early nesting period. Then I looked at the correlation between reports of severe black flies and rates of nest abandonment across years. The result, as shown in the figure above, is unsurprising. In years when black flies were reported to be abundant, nest abandonments were very common.  (By the way, that data point in the upper right corner is 2014.)

While I was certainly not on pins and needles during this latest analysis of black flies, it is a crucial piece of the puzzle. Lacking any direct data showing that black flies caused loons to abandon nests, my best evidence to support this conclusion was that cool springs lead to a high rate of nest abandonment. The strong correlation pictured above now implies a direct causal connection between flies and abandonments.

I breathed a sigh of relief at this finding. I am not sure how I would have responded if I had found that years of severe black flies were NOT correlated with rates of nest abandonment. Yet I cannot rest. I can imagine a scientific reviewer complaining that the correlation might have resulted from observer bias. For example, once an observer starts to notice that black fly population is high early in the year and possibly related to nest abandonment, he or she might be more likely to report severe black fly infestations on subsequent days. Such behavior by field observers might explain the correlation I found, at least in part.

In short, I am still uneasy about my analysis of black fly impacts on loon nesting. I am looking for additional statistical analyses that could help convince a skeptical audience of the link between flies and abandonments. That is what life is like for a scientist.


The Mystery Female and Her Tough Call


, ,

In Linda‘s last round of photos from Bear Lake, you can see the numbers clearly. At the narrow end of the metal band, a fuzzy, curling “6” followed by a clear, swooping “2”. Those two digits — either one of them, actually — identify the Mystery Female of Bear Lake as the chick we banded on July 18, 2005 on North Nokomis Lake. This photo culminates several days during which Linda patiently stalked the female with her camera lens until the bird finally pulled her metal band out of water in an orientation that permitted Linda to photograph the two digits we needed to see from the nine-digit number code.

The story of the Mystery Female concerns more than just solid detective work and crisp photography; it relates to the crucial decisions that a loon must make while attempting to settle on the best possible breeding lake and rear as many offspring as possible. The Mystery Female, Orange over Mint-burgundy — OMb for short — faced such a decision. OMb returned to the study area as a 4-year-old in 2009 and began hunting for a place to breed. She settled on Upper Kaubashine (at the end of the long arrow below) in 2012 and lost clutches of eggs to predators there in both 2012 and 2013. OMb then

N Nokomis to Bear w UK also

faced a stark choice — remain on a poor territory attempting to breed or abandon Upper K and try to move to a more promising locale.

Shifting from a poor territory to a good one might seem like an easy call to make, but female loons must cope with a shortage of potential mates owing to early senescence and frequent fatal fighting in males. Every year we see many loner females, some of which live on good breeding lakes, waiting for a mate. So it is an open question whether a female should desert a mate and breeding territory — even a poor one — to try and move to a better location. You see, in trying to secure a new territory, a female must temporarily leave her current one, risking its loss to another female on the prowl.

OMb decided to abandon Upper Kaubashine in 2013, establishing herself as the new breeding female on Bear Lake (shorter red arrow), whose female had died. This appeared to be a wise move; Bear had yielded chicks in 9 of the previous 13 seasons, while Upper K had not fledged a chick in 35 years.

Chance plays a big role breeding success of loons, as in all animals. In a curious twist of fortune, Upper Kaubashine stunned lake residents by hatching two chicks from a terribly exposed nest site. Since Bear Lake only produced a single chick this year, OMb’s choice of Bear over Upper K looks like a poor one, as of now. But chick production in these two lakes will probably return to form. If so, and if OMb can hold onto her new territory, her decision to leave a perennial failure for a proven chick-producer will have been a good one.

Are Late Chicks Doomed?



I must confess that I had mixed feelings to learn this week from Nelson that the North Nokomis pair had hatched two chicks. Despite having seen scores of newly hatched chicks, I still enjoy watching the tiny fuzzballs bob up and down next to their huge parents while the adults, in turn, move gingerly around their tiny young to avoid injuring or drowning them.

So it was, in one respect, nice to learn that the North Nokomis pair had hatched the eggs from the conspicuous nest I had inspected on 25 July, after following the simple, clear instructions from my research team. But I recall thinking, “Oh geez!” on that date, because only two other breeding pairs of the 120 that we follow were still sitting on eggs. (Both of those, we had determined, were cases of infertile eggs that the pair had incubated for six weeks or more.) I have always presumed that chicks hatching in late July or August have too little time to mature physically, develop foraging skills, and learn to fly in time to make the fall migration.

Now we have the data to look at this question robustly. In other words, having captured and marked 983 chicks since 1991, we can determine whether hatching date is a predictor of survival to adulthood. Logically, there must come a date in late summer beyond which chicks run out of time. However, pairs might face a gradual decline in the likelihood of their chicks surviving migration, or there might be a rather sudden threshold date past which chicks that hatch cannot survive.

If we look at all chicks banded from 1991 on, and calculate how many have made it back to the study area as adults, we learn what the figure

Screen Shot 2017-08-12 at 11.24.21 PM

shows. In short, hatching date does not appear to influence survival to adulthood strongly. At the very least, we can say that chicks hatching in mid-July survive at a rate no lower than those that hatch a month earlier. There is a hint of a decrease in survival from early to late hatches, but it is only a hint.

As usual, our data are not perfect. In fact, we have too few cases of very late hatches to gauge the likelihood of the two North Nokomis fuzzballs (which hatched on about 28 July) making it off the lake this November. On the plus side, 470-acre North Nokomis Lake has one of the highest rates of survival to adulthood in the study area. (The territorial males on Gilmore and Cunard were hatched there.) I would like to think that the gutsy North Nokomis pair will be rewarded this fall with two healthy fledglings. So I am keeping fingers crossed for them.

Still Feeling the Bite of Black Flies



A few months ago I wrote a post about the impact of black flies on nesting of loons. Some might recall that, after abandoning their first nesting attempt, pairs sometimes reuse the nest, leaving the two original eggs in place. This situation produces supernumerary eggs: two addled ones, two still alive. Despite some odd-looking clutches, though, the impact on reproduction seems minimal. That is, the presence of extra eggs in a new nest does not appear to impair incubation of live eggs. Chicks still hatch normally.

In fact, I had all but forgotten about black flies by the time it came to the loon capture season this year. You see, capture is an inherently cheery process. First of all, capture is only possible on lakes with chicks, so we only visit such lakes. Second we work at night and become so absorbed in the demands of creeping up on protective adults and their awkward, fuzzy offspring that the travails of the population at large do not enter our sleep-deprived brains. Between the adrenaline rush following a challenging capture and the warmth of feeling that accompanies the release of parents and their adorable young, nothing else matters.

One issue nagged me even during capture this year though. The great majority of chick broods were singleton chicks (like the one on Muskellunge Lake in Linda’s photo). So few two-chick broods did we encounter that each one seemed an oddity — an almost inconceivable reproductive bounty. 2017 was a surprise, because, based on many previous years of capture, I had come to expect roughly equal numbers of two-chick and one-chick broods.

In the days following my nocturnal boating adventures, I mulled over the abundance of singletons in 2017. It was then when black flies entered my mind. Was it possible that black flies had disrupted incubation to such a degree that many pairs had lost one of their two embryos early and hatched only one chick? This might happen if fly-bitten pairs spent enough time off of their nests that one, but not both, of their eggs became inviable. If so, years with many nest abandonments owing to black flies should also be those with many singleton chicks. In fact, this is the case, as the figure below shows.

Screen Shot 2017-08-05 at 6.34.05 PM

Thus, it seems that black flies inflict a double whammy: they cause widespread abandonment of nests, and nests not abandoned suffer from reduced hatching rate. To make matters worse, cold spring weather, which prolongs the lives of black flies, also causes hypothermia of loon embryos, endangering their survival.

Now I have somewhat simplified the factors that cause singleton chicks in loons. I certainly have to explore additional factors, looking, for example, to see if loons are more prone to laying one-egg clutches during severe black fly outbreaks (although a quick check of the data revealed no such pattern). But it seems that we have yet one more reason to hope for rapid and sustained spring warmup in the Northwoods.

Our Fragile Identification System



In a sense, our ability to identify loons as individuals hangs by a thread. As most of you know, we rely upon a unique combination of three colored leg bands — together with the mandatory numbered USGS metal band — to ID our study animals. The Upper Kaubashine female, for example, is “silver over yellow on right leg, red over green on left leg”, while the Lee Lake male is “blue with white stripe over taupe with white stripe on right, red with white stripe over silver on left”. (He is nicknamed “Stripe Hell” by my staff.)

The system seems simple enough on its face. Together with the DNR, however, we have banded over four thousand adults and chicks in northern Wisconsin since 1991. Thus, we have used a lot of color combinations over that span. Inevitably, certain individuals differ only slightly from other individuals in their band combination. While we make every effort to use contrasting band combos on mated pairs, loons move around between lakes because of natal dispersal (movement from natal lake to breeding lake) and eviction. Sometimes birds with similar band combos end up close together. For instance, the male on the southeastern end of Squash Lake, which we caught last night, is “yellow over taupe stripe, green over silver”, while the female at the northwest end of the same lake is “red over taupe stripe, green over silver”. A single band is crucial to distinguishing one bird from the other on Squash.

I describe our identification system as fragile, because the loss of only one of its four bands by a loon can throw its identity into question. In several cases, a loon with one or more missing bands could only be ID’d when it was captured and we read the number on its USGS metal band. In most years, there is at least one such “mystery loon” in our study area.


Our mystery loon of late has been the female on Bear Lake (pictured above in Linda’s photo). She has lost one band and is now “orange over mint burgundy, silver only”. A check of our banding records finds four birds that could match that combo, if they lost a single band. All are “ABJs”: adults banded as juveniles. In other words, all were marked as chicks: one in 2004, one in 2005, and two in 2007. I was excited to see that Bear Lake had a chick this year, because this gave us a reasonable chance of being able to capture Mystery Female and learning her age and natal origin from her metal band. But she is a skittish bird, and we failed to catch her.

So we left it to Linda. Linda is a great photographer and a very patient naturalist. Many times she has taken photos so crisp that one can read the numbers stamped into the metal band on birds legs. Below is an example of a photo by Linda in which one can make out several numbers on the metal band on the right leg, above the “auric with red stripe” band. I thought that Linda might pull off the same magic with

LMG 7467 Muskellunge Intruder  Fleeing-7467.jpg

the Mystery Female, which would permit us to discover her age and natal lake. Thus far, she has been able to make out three separate digits on the bird’s metal band. That information has allowed us to eliminate two of four possibilities; we now know that the Mystery Female was hatched on either North Nokomis Lake in 2005 or on Buck Lake in the same year. The tendency of young adults to settle on breeding lakes similar in size to their natal lakes makes us favor North Nokomis as the more likely natal lake. If we are lucky, Linda might get a chance to nail the numbers well enough for a certain ID.

Now you might wonder why we are so obsessed with the identity of a single loon. After all, we have identified scores of other lake settlers who held onto all four of their bands. We have come to feel that each data point is precious, because each one allows us to refine our population models and survival estimates. Females are particularly valuable to us, because most of them disperse so far from their natal lake that we cannot relocate them as breeders. (Males, in contrast, often settle within a few kilometers of their natal lake, so we have far more data on male settlement.) So please send positive vibes Linda’s way, as she hunts the skittish Mystery Female of Bear Lake.

Loons Hide Their Chicks from Strangers….Most of the Time


, ,

It is July and time to hide the chicks! That’s right; while human parents show off their progeny — perhaps partly to solicit help in caring for them — loons do the opposite. You see, intruders looking to evict territorial residents scour lakes for chicks, because the presence of chicks indicates that the lake contains good nesting habitat and abundant food. So by producing young, a breeding pair has put a giant target on their backs, providing an incentive for any intruder that discovers the chicks (like one of the six intruders shown in Linda’s photo) to return the following year and make an eviction attempt. We should expect, therefore, that parents would hide their chicks from intruders whenever possible.

Of course, breeding pairs are fighting a losing battle. On the one hand, they must feed and protect their chicks, which includes vocalizing often to warn their mate and chicks of passing eagles and other dangers. On the other hand, when intruders fly over or land, parents need to ignore the chicks altogether. Toggling between these two behavioral modes is no small task. Furthermore, while it is desirable to protect your long-term ownership of the territory by hiding your chicks from intruders, you do not want to lose them in the process!

Although chick-hiding is a tricky business, loon families do have a strategy for coping with the sudden appearance of intruders overhead, which fly over at a speed of about 70 miles per hour. We call it “dive and scatter”. At the appearance of a flying intruder in the distance, a loon pair and their chicks quickly slip under water. The chicks swim toward shore and, once there, are hidden by their brown plumage, which makes them resemble rocks or logs. Meanwhile parents swim under water to the middle of the lake, which draws the intruders to them and not the chicks. The aim of this coordinated behavior pattern by chicks and their parents seems clear: keep intruders from seeing the chicks. On its face, dive and scatter behavior clearly seems a means of helping parents’ maintain possession of their territory.

I need to pause here for a second to consider an alternative explanation for dive and scatter. In fact, the most obvious reason why a pair and chicks would dive and scatter is to protect the chicks themselves. Intruders do kill chicks commonly, so this is a viable hypothesis at first blush. But chicks are most vulnerable to being killed by intruders in their first two weeks, so dive and scatter as chick defense — if it is a viable explanation — should occur mainly among small chicks. Yet dive and scatter occurs rarely in small chicks and very commonly in those four weeks and older. So the hypothesis that dive and scatter is a behavior to protect small chicks from intruder attacks can be easily rejected by its timing.

We have known about dive and scatter behavior for some years, but yesterday on Woodcock Lake I learned that loon parents know when to call off the ruse. While feeding their single chick along the lake shore, the Woodcock pair spotted two intruders in flight. The family dove and scattered, the chick hiding near shore and parents making for the lake’s center, in stereotyped fashion. Following the script, the two intruders landed by the parents (and far from the chick), the four adults circling and diving together for several minutes. The charade abruptly fell apart when an eagle flew over the part of the lake where the chick was hiding. Both parents immediately ceased interacting with the intruders, wheeled towards the eagle, and wailed desperately for several minutes, while swimming in that direction. In a half-second, the breeding pair had morphed from cool, detached individuals with nothing to hide into into frantic worry-warts!

Some might view such a loss of composure by a breeding pair to be quite costly. If intruders are able to learn about the presence of chicks by detecting chick defense behavior such as that shown by the Woodcock pair, then the pair exposed themselves to the threat of future eviction by wailing to defend their chick in the presence of two intruders. A clear blunder….until you consider that the alternative was to lose the priceless product of their summer’s breeding efforts.