Feed aggregator
This shoe is made entirely from mushroom ‘brains’
The fashion industry is ecologically tacky, to put it mildly. Textile manufacturers guzzle around 200 million liters of water every year, while animal leather generates its own immense environmental burdens. But out of everything we wear on any given day, shoes are some of the most unsustainable accessories. As much as 95 percent of all footwear ends up in landfills, where all that rubber, plastic, and foam takes generations to decompose.
While there is no easy recipe for crafting a greener shoe, researchers at Belgium’s Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) hope to find a solution in fungi. Together with La Monnaie/De Munt opera house’s head shoemaker, Marie De Ryck, the team unveiled a new experiment ahead of Milan Design Week: the world’s first boot crafted entirely from mycelium.
Fungi is most recognizable above ground in the form of spongy mushrooms, but they’re only a fraction of the organisms’ larger story. Below the soil, fungi are frequently connected by miles of fibrous webs of mycelium. These networks transport vital environmental information between fungi on precipitation, soil health, sunlight access, and more. The communications are so detailed that many mycologists consider these webs a form of intelligence.
Fungi and their mycelial networks are now being applied in some exciting spaces, including organic computing and even mushroom-powered toilets. But according to VUB microbiologists, those fungal roots can also be engineered to form every necessary component in a shoe. This goes beyond previous experiments that utilized mushrooms only for surface materials or leather substitutes.
There is a reason such a project hasn’t succeeded in the past—mycelium simply isn’t easy to utilize. It took over two years of trial-and-error to find a balance between natural growth and resilience. Ultimately, the biggest issue was figuring out a way to take mycelia grown as flat sheets and transform them into a three-dimensional, supportive sole of a shoe. In the end, designers settled on two types of fungi—one to supply the foamlike, malleable sole, and another for the shoe’s leathery upper section.
“This is a conceptual object intended to frame what is currently possible with the material,” VUB designer Lars Dittrich explained in a statement. “It reflects…addressing how we grow and craft this material, made from a microorganism, into a functional three-dimensional form.”
“While the initial material samples posed a real challenge and did not immediately meet the technical requirements of a complex shoe construction, the progress we have made is truly inspiring,” added De Ryck.
While the early prototype may not exactly be ready for a haute couture runway show, it’s a certainly promising step forward towards truly sustainable footwear.
The post This shoe is made entirely from mushroom ‘brains’ appeared first on Popular Science.
SpaceX Will Buy Cursor
My Class And Goals
I just went to my mom’s funeral, and so was reminded about my family, and of the question of what exactly one wants to do with one’s life.
For money, my dad was a programmer, and my mom made presentation graphics for a finance firm. On the side they were missionaries, a pastor, and a writer. When she could retire from making money, my mom became a writer full-time, contributing to 30 of the 275 Chicken Soup books; ~20M people have probably read one of her essays there.
My two bothers were most recently a court bailiff and a pool cleaner for money, and on the side a musician and pastor. Their wives were a sales clerk and a legal secretary. My wife was a clinical social worker and her brother was a govt lawyer. ChatGPT (5.4) and Claude (4.7) estimate ~45-55, 50-60 as percentile ranks for this family overall in terms of job prestige.
I’m now a university professor, and my two sons are a programmer and an investment banker, so the three of us together get ~75,90 percentile estimates. Making my family solidly middle class, and me and my sons upper middle.
Workers often face a conflict between how their job has been define by the world and their training, and what their managers tell them to do on that job. Usually people succeed more when they accept boss framings, and higher class folks more tend to have this and other more successful habits.
Both LLMs say that this also happens more specifically in academia, where there’s a conflict between the job defined as intellectual process, i.e., helping the world better understand key abstract topics, and the job defined as what it takes to get prestige and resources. Lower class folks tend more to pursue that first definition. My class background is substantially lower than that of most academics, and I fit this pattern, as I see my job more in terms of intellectual progress, less in terms of resources and prestige.
At my mom’s funeral, I was reminded that such events involve much praising of the dead on various metrics. Which raises the question: what do you aspire to be praised on at your funeral, and in future historical mentions? It also a meta question: why don’t we write periodic essays on what we are trying to achieve in our lives, so that at our funerals folks can discuss how well we achieved our stated goals? Yes of course they could also discuss how well we achieved their other goals for us, but our own goals also seem quite relevant.
I would of course prefer that, at my death and after, and even well before, people praise me for all the usual virtues. But compared to others, I put a much bigger weight on intellectual progress. I want people to say, because it’s true, that I helped the world gain insight on important neglected potent topics. Important because that’s what matters, neglected because it is far easier to find big insights on those topics, and potent because the big win is when others build on my insights, and integrate them into larger shared systems, as part of a long process of civilization accumulating insight. And myself having insights isn’t that valuable compared to communicating them in ways so let others see and build on them.
At my funeral, please do ask yourselves how well I did at this.
SpaceX Has Option to Buy Cursor for $60 Billion – XAI and Cursor Try to Catch Athropic Claude Code
Elon Replied to My New Glenn, ULA, Space Force Post
Anthropic and Status of AI Data Centers
BreachLock Named Representative Vendor in the 2026 Gartner Market Guide for Adversarial Exposure Validation
Power Futarchy
A simple way to apply futarchy to for-profit firms is profit-futarchy: make markets that estimate total firm market value given key firm choices, like who is CEO, what are key acquisitions, or what are key firm policies. Then do what such markets advise. But a big problem with this approach is that top people, like the CEO, often do not see their personal success as maxed by firm success. For example, they tend to be wary of losing control over key firm choices, even if that would make such choices more profitable.
So CEOs block the application of futarchy to firms. You might think that investors could just force CEOs to use futarchy, if that would max investor gains. But investors also can’t seem to prevent the adoption of poison pills, which also cut investor gains. It seems we must accept that top managers have power sufficient to induce firm outcomes that don’t max profits. Investors do not in fact fully control firms.
Okay, then what if we flip this script, and set decision markets to the task of directly achieving the selfish managerial ends that likely drive managerial power politics? Create a metric of the total success of an individual manager over their future career, and then make advisory power-futarchy markets that estimate this personal success given key choices under that manager’s power. And to discourage sabotage, give everyone who that might be able to act to greatly hurt this success a positive stake in that success, a stake they aren’t allowed to trade to below zero.
Would this supercharge power politics, via better informing political strategies? Plausibly this would improve both offensive and defense political choices, and also make political info more symmetric. Managers could less often win via strategies that rely on rivals not noticing their plans until too late. So might power-futarchy actually cut harms from firm politics? Maybe, relative to the alternative of no markets at all, helping managers have successful careers also on average helps firms to max profits.
Of course such markets may advise top managers to not create power-futarchy markets to aid their subordinates several levels below them. Such markets might even say to instead give such subordinates futarchy markets tied to key firm or division outcomes. If so, that might usefully limit the scope of power-futarchy. Yes, this might over time undermine support for power-futarchy, but maybe not before current managers achieved great success from it.
Some kinds of power politics strategies may be hindered by open markets estimating their power effectiveness. But we needn’t have such markets regarding all possible managerial choices. Though, yes, the choice to not create such a market on some key choice might be taken as a bad sign about the politics behind that choice. No doubt there would be many new tricks to be found when playing power-futarchy.
Tesla Fab Chip Partners are Critical for the Next Few Years
Remake or Replace Tribes
Tribes contain factions. Tribe members mostly interact with and emulate other members of their same tribe, while faction members do these things more often with members of other factions. Tribes tend to have distinct moral norms and status markers, while factions tend to share the norms and status markers of their tribe. Factions often differ on status, income, professions, and on symbolic markers like food, clothes, languages, holidays, and artistic styles. Factions also often disagree on directions to change shared tribe policies and norms. The distinction between tribes and factions is a matter of degree.
Our dominant world culture hates tribes, but loves factions, especially factions who we see as “down”. We hate groups who disagree with world elite consensus on school, medicine, democracy, gender equality, sexual freedom, legal due process, rules of just war, and norms of good parenting. And we hate tribe supporters for their self-favoritism and habitual hostility toward outsiders. About these things we see our dominant world tribe as just right, and the others evil.
But we love factions within this main tribe who embrace distinct symbols, and who fight for tribe norm reforms. We call this love “tolerance”. At least we love factions who we can plausibly see as “down” relative to “up” rivals. (We presume “up” illicitly hurts “down”.) We hate “up” faction members who promote their factions, and accuse them of actually representing hated tribes. We moderns tend to channel our instinctive human tendencies to be tribal into our factional conflicts. Not noticing how we need tribes far more than factions.
The big problem is that in history our moral norms and status markers came mostly from cultural group selection acting on tribes, not factions. By crushing all but one dominant tribe, we now mostly block such evolution from preventing the decay of shared norms, or their adaption to changing context. We now see this most clearly in the decay of norms supporting fertility, but such decay is plausibly also happening across all our key norms. Selection acting instead on factions can’t do this remotely as well. If such decay continues long, our civilization will fall, to be replaced by others.
Unfortunately, we find it hard to see this problem, as our moral norms and status markers seem to us as just obviously true, and thus good bases for any analysis. In contrast, we can see and appreciate fights among factions, as we can frame these in terms of our “obvious” shared norms. But that doesn’t help much to ensure that the winners of faction fights are more adaptive.
Instead of trying to repress competing tribes, as we usually do, we might try to instead promote them. But even that seems quite insufficient, as the main underlying reason that the world has over centuries been merging toward one big tribe is the increasing ease of distant trade, travel, and talk. Such merging has achieved great scale economies of production and innovation, and a great reduction in conflict harms, such as via war, due to increasingly shared norms. Most people really like having a world community with shared norms..
There are a few today, like the Amish and Haredim, who care enough to treat themselves as distinct tribes, and are willing to forgo many gains of world cultural integration to achieve this. Such folks insulate themselves culturally from the large world, and so are the folks today whose descendants are mostly likely to replace our dominant world culture. But few groups today are this devoted to becoming tribes. Most of the folks today interested in cultural variety, like “network state” folks, are not remotely this devoted, and so have little chance of creating new tribes.
I can see only three ways for our main world civ, which I treasure in many ways, to avoid being replaced like this. The first solution is to somehow greatly raise the status of tribes, relative to factions. Convince the world to fragment into far more tribes, not just factions. Tolerate and even encourage groups having quite deviant views on democracy, gender equality, etc. to favor themselves and isolate from outsiders.
The second solution is to leave the world mostly integrated into one big tribe, but to find new ways to control and govern how key moral norms and status markers are changed to become more adaptive. Such as via competent governments held strongly accountable to increase adaption futures estimates, or via using a competent futarchy to pursue sacred adaption-achieving goals like when a million people live in space.
The third solution is to vastly increase the role of for-profit orgs in setting our moral norms and status markers. The evolution of firm cultures has long been quite healthy, as firms form quite distinct groups facing strong capitalists selection pressures. And for-profit orgs competing to give customers key numbers and observable outcomes have quite consistently improved on such outcomes. Each area they came to control, such as buying and running governments, or paying parents to make kids they could in effect sell, would likely become more adaptive.
As you can plainly see, these are all big long-shots. Our situation is quite desperate. And not likely to get better until a lot more people start to think about it.
AST Spacemobile BB7 Is Not Recoverable Per ASTS
Blue Origin Launches and Recovers Booster, Orbit of AST Space Mobile Satellite Too Low. BB7 Lost
New megafauna looked like spiky, 30-pound hamster
In the latest episode of old museum collections revealing new discoveries, two researchers in Australia have solved a paleontological mystery with an Ice Age fossil first discovered over 100 years ago.
The fossil was found in the underground Foul Air Cave in Buchan, Victoria, Australia. It’s the partial skull of an Owen’s giant echidna (Megalibgwilia owenii), a now-extinct giant echidna that weighed 33.1 pounds and grew up to 3.3 feet-long. The genus name, Megalibgwilia, consists of “mega” (great or mighty in Ancient Greek) and “libgwil” (the Wemba Wemba word for echidna).
“The apparent absence of the extinct large-bodied Owen’s Giant Echidna Megalibgwilia owenii from Victoria is unusual in light of its wide distribution across the continent’s southeast including Tasmania,” the researchers write in a paper recently published in the journal Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of Palaeontology. “It is the first example of Megalibgwilia identified from Victoria, and reconciles the taxon’s otherwise disjunct southern distribution across mainland Australia.”
Though the fossil was retrieved from a cave in Buchan, researchers identified it in Museums Victoria’s Palaeontology Collection. Tim Ziegler—collection manager of vertebrate palaeontology at Museums Victoria Research Institute—initially spotted it in 2021, and found it came from a 1907 expedition by Frank Spry, a naturalist and museum officer.
The Megalibgwilia owenii fossil. Image: Museums Victoria“Museum collections preserve the link between science, heritage and people,” Ziegler, lead author of the study, said in a statement. “Over a century ago, Spry along with scientists and locals investigated Buchan’s caves with little more than ropes and kerosene lamps, and they inspired us to carry on their work.”
Ziegler and his co-author Jeremy Lockett, a Deakin University vertebrate palaeontology student, investigated modern and fossil echidnas in other Australian museum collections, presumably comparing them to the one from the Museums Victoria. Its characteristic straight-beaked snout, with which it would have crushed big insects and dug into Ice Age Australian soils, verified it to be an Owen’s giant echidna.
“Previous research by Museums Victoria has shown the Buchan Caves preserve an exceptional record of Australia’s unique megafauna,” Ziegler said. “The next amazing discovery could come from inside the museum, from continued fieldwork, or the keen eyes of a citizen scientist.”
Today, echidnas are egg-laying, spiky-looking, long-nosed mammals that live in places including Australia and Indonesia. They grow 14 to 30 inches long, weigh 5.5 to 22 pounds, and are endangered. And sometimes, these hedgehog-like creatures end up in shark vomit.
The post New megafauna looked like spiky, 30-pound hamster appeared first on Popular Science.
The best brownie recipe, according to science
Who doesn’t love a brownie? It’s the ultimate comfort food—beloved around the world and even beyond it. Astronauts aboard the International Space Station have brownies on their menu too.
But what makes a perfect brownie? That depends on who you ask. Some like a light, cake-like crumb. Others want a dense, fudgy center or a chewy bite.
To tailor your brownies to your taste, you need to understand the science behind them. “Each ingredient has a specific role, and the ratios between them determine whether the brownie turns out fudgy, cakey, or chewy,” explains Dr. Lesa Tran, a chemistry professor at Rice University.
What each ingredient really does FlourFlour is the backbone of your brownie. When mixed with water, its proteins (gliadin and glutenin) link up to form gluten, a network that gives structure, explains Tran.
The more flour you add—and the more you mix it—the stronger that network becomes. The result? A lighter, more cake-like texture. Use less flour and mix minimally, and you’ll keep your brownies dense and fudgy.
SugarSugar does far more than sweeten.
In the oven, it breaks down (or “caramelizes”) and reacts with proteins, a process known as the Maillard reaction. These processes create deep, complex flavors and aromas, says Tran.
Sugar also locks in moisture by binding to water, keeping brownies soft.
And that shiny, crackly crust? That’s sugar too. In the oven, sugar dissolved in the brownie mixture rises to the surface and re-forms into crystals, which create that signature crust, explains Tran.
If you use less flour in your brownie batter, you’ll end up with fudgier brownies. Image: Getty Images / Mint ImagesFor chewier brownies, use more brown than white sugar, Tran suggests. This adds more chew because it has more molasses (thick, dark brown syrup obtained from sugar beet and sugar cane plants).
If you want to cut back on sugar without sacrificing taste and texture, try using a finer sugar like caster sugar instead of granulated sugar. Scientists studied the effect of different sugar particle sizes on chocolate brownies and found that brownies made with smaller sugar particles tasted sweeter, and were also softer and moister than those made with larger sugar crystals. So if you want a fudgy brownie with less sugar, go for caster sugar.
FatShould you use butter or oil? Science has the answer.
A study comparing butter to nut oils (like almond, pistachio, or walnut oil) found that, compared to butter-based brownies, oil-based versions are softer, more elastic, and moister—and often preferred in taste tests. They’re also higher in heart-healthy unsaturated fats, and lower in unhealthy, saturated fat.
Whether you use butter or oil, more fat means a richer, fudgier brownie, says Tran.
EggsEggs pull double duty, adding structure and richness. Like flour, they contain proteins that set when heated, giving structure to the brownie, explains Tran.
Egg yolks also contribute fat, making brownies richer and fudgier.
“Adding more egg whites provides more proteins to create a lighter, cakier texture,” says Tran, “while more egg yolks provide more fat to give a richer, denser result.”
ChocolateWhat’s best: melted chocolate or cocoa powder? It depends on what texture you’re after.
Melted chocolate contains cocoa butter, which solidifies as it cools—giving brownies a dense, fudgy bite. Cocoa powder, with less fat, produces a lighter, drier crumb.
If you use cocoa powder, choose wisely: natural cocoa is more acidic and sharp in flavor, while Dutch-processed cocoa, which is chemically treated to reduce its acidity, is smoother and mellower, says Tran.
Some people like to add chocolate chips to their brownies. The chips’ fat-crystal structure helps them hold their shape somewhat so you get little melty pockets inside the brownie, similar to what happens in chocolate chip cookies.
Related 'Ask Us Anything' StoriesThe best chocolate chip cookie recipe, according to science
Are induction stoves better? These chefs think so.
Can one big meal really make you gain weight?
Is microwave cooking nuking all the nutrients?
What are ultra-processed foods and are they bad for me?
Does eating spicy food help you lose weight? Science has a clear answer.
SaltA pinch of salt doesn’t make brownies salty—it actually makes them taste sweeter by helping your taste receptors detect sugar more effectively.
Leavening agentBaking soda or powder introduces air into the brownie batter, creating lift and a cakier texture, says Tran. Skip them entirely if you want dense, fudgy brownies.
Science-backed baking tipsThe kind of baking pan you use matters. Metal pans heat quickly, resulting in faster bake times and firmer brownie edges, says Tran. Glass and ceramic conduct heat more slowly and retain heat longer, which can lead to uneven baking.
How long you leave the brownies in the oven also affects the end result. Brownies continue to cook when removed from the oven—a phenomenon known as carry-over cooking—because of the heat held within the food itself.
“For a fudgy center, remove them when a toothpick inserted into the center of the brownie comes out with a few moist crumbs,” says Tran. “For a cakier center, remove them when a toothpick comes out clean.”
The bottom lineTo create your perfect brownies, follow one of these formulas:
- Fudgy: less flour, more fat, more egg yolks, use melted chocolate, no leavening agents. Mix lightly and slightly underbake.
- Cakey: more flour, less fat, more egg whites, use cocoa powder, plus a leavening agent. Bake until fully set.
- Chewy: don’t skimp on sugar (brown not white!) and fat.
In Ask Us Anything, Popular Science answers your most outlandish, mind-burning questions, from the everyday things you’ve always wondered to the bizarre things you never thought to ask. Have something you’ve always wanted to know? Ask us.
The post The best brownie recipe, according to science appeared first on Popular Science.
Combined Sightings of 100+ Possible Tesla Robotaxi Fleet
Cultural Network Structure
How did our society decide how much to count things like education and artistic taste when evaluating prestige and status? How did we pick key moral norms and values, such as democracy, gender equality, legal due process, rules of just war, and norms of good parenting? Yes, such choices are weakly influenced by our DNA, and also by cultural evolution selection pressures on individuals. But mostly these things came from cultural evolution of groups.
You may have heard that such *group selection* never happens, but that’s wrong. Not only do most cultural evolution scholars see group selection as a key force, group selection also seems to important in DNA evolution, where species are groups. The fact that more species today descended from fragmented habits like rivers, coral reefs, and rainforests, where habitats were smaller, suggests that group selection of species has actually mattered more for DNA than individual selection within species.
I’ve said previously that healthy cultural evolution for stuff like norms status markers depends on four key parameters: enough cultural variety, strong enough selection pressures on cultures, slow enough internal cultural drift, and slow enough rates of environmental change. But I have to admit that this first “variety” parameter is a sloppy way to talk about it. Counting the number of cultures would make sense if, as with species for DNA, there was only one clear scale at which people are joined into cultural groups. But in fact cultural behaviors cluster together at many different scales.
However, I’ve been doing some reading, and have found that for decades cultural evolution scholars have had a less-sloppy substitute concept: “network structure”. If you look at the details of who people interact with, and who they are likely to copy their behaviors from, the shape of the network of such ties matters a lot for cultural group selection.
For example, the network feature that most promotes group selection seems to be “modularity”, roughly how many more ties there are within clusters, compared to between clusters. It also matters how similar are people within clusters, how much overlap there is between interaction and emulation networks, how well prestige tracks adaptiveness, how much conformity pressure there is for a behavior, and how much that behavior effects visible outcomes that people care about.
Each different type of behavior can have its own different network, and its own different coordination scale, requiring group selection at that cluster scale or above in order to select adaptive versions of that behavior. But it seems clear that relevant scales for many kinds of behaviors have greatly increased over the last few centuries, greatly reducing the effective “variety” for the purposes of cultural evolution. And this is plausibly cutting the effect strength of group selection, likely enough to cause net maladaptive change to our norms and status markers.
Tesla Unsupervised Robotaxi with Paying Passengers in Dallas and Houston
One man’s obsessive quest to weigh the human soul
Can you measure the weight of a human soul? No, but that didn’t stop Duncan MacDougall from trying.
In the early 20th century, MacDougall put dying patients on a scale to try and prove the existence of a soul. One of MacDougall’s first test subjects was a tuberculosis patient. He was placed on the bed as he neared death. With doctors watching over, the man died, and MacDougall noticed the scale’s counterweight dropped with surprising quickness. The scales displayed the weight that had been lost upon death: ¾ of an ounce, or 21 grams.
Had MacDougall solved a mystery that had plagued philosophers, theologians, and medical professionals for millennia? Not exactly.
The “21 Grams Experiment,” as it’s come to be known, is the fascinating topic for our latest Popular Science video. While MacDougall’s experiment was deeply flawed, the idea behind it remains so appealing, more than a century later. We keep coming back to the 21 grams experiment because we’re still looking for the answer to his original question: Does any part of us continue after death?
If you’d like to see more Popular Science videos, subscribe on YouTube. We’ll be bringing you explainers and explorations of our weird world.
The post One man’s obsessive quest to weigh the human soul appeared first on Popular Science.
Stocks Are Winners Take Most – and Who are the Top 30 Stock Winners from 2017-2025
Hawaiian forest birds are stealing each other’s twigs
Birds in Hawaii are stealing from each other, and this bird-on-bird crime even extends to members of the same species. It’s an example of kleptoparasitism, or when an animal steals things from another. Specifically, these colorful, winged kleptoparasites are pilferring nest-material, sometimes causing the demise of the depleted nest.
Researchers documented this behavior while observing over 200 native canopy-nesting birds nests on the island of Hawaii—aka the Big Island. The birds included the apapane (Himatione sanguinea), the i‘iwi (Drepanis coccinea), and the Hawai‘i amakihi (Chlorodrepanis virens).
Though there has been anecdotal evidence of such theft, a study recently published in The American Naturalist represents the first instance of it being tracked and quantified in nature.
“People working in the field have seen this behavior for years, but it’s never been documented at this level,” Erin Wilson Rankin, lead-author of the study and an entomologist at University of California, Riverside (UCR), said in a statement. “Now we can say who’s doing it, who they’re stealing from, and what happens to the nests afterward.” Wilson Rankin’s husband, UCR biologist David Rankin, is also a co-author.
The Hawai‘i amakihi. Image: Jessie Knowlton/UCR.Most of these birdy crimes took place between nests sitting at similar heights from the ground, aligning with the so-called “height overlap hypothesis”—that birds might be stealing from nests they come upon as they forage. Both the thieves and the victims were most commonly the apapane, and this is probably because of its significant numbers in the forest.
“What’s fascinating is that this behavior is happening within species as well,” Wilson Rankin said. “Apapane were stealing from other Apapane.”
This kleptoparasitism is risky behavior. While snagging nesting material might make it faster and easier to construct a nest, the material could also bring disease or parasites along with it. Stealing could also lead to violent confrontations with the wronged bird, though Hawaiian birds are usually non aggressive.
While most of the thievery was carried out on abandoned nests, around 10 percent of cases involved nests that were either being built, or already carrying eggs or chicks. Around five percent of the nests in the study“failed” in the wake of a theft because the bird parents left or damage was done to the nest structure.
These outcomes are new warning bells for species already suffering from disease, habitat loss, and climate change. Sprinkle in risks like avian malaria, and understated threats of this kind could accelerate population decline. The birds in the study aren’t endangered, but they are members of a diminishing group of native birds retreating to higher elevations because of human-introduced mosquito-borne diseases. These kinds of forests might be becoming more and more packed and competitive for birds.
“This kind of behavior could be more common if nesting materials or safe nesting sites become scarce,” Wilson Rankin explained. “It’s something we should measure.”
Identifying the most at-risk birds and figuring out when kleptoparasitism is most likely might contribute to better conservation strategies as habitat continuously breaks up.
“If we can predict when and where this behavior happens, we might not be able to stop it, but we can intervene in other ways to support at-risk species,” she added. “That’s a benefit of this work.”
The post Hawaiian forest birds are stealing each other’s twigs appeared first on Popular Science.
Pages
