Results and Discussion

I. Bird Beak Buffet

In order to determine whether or not there is a connection between the type of beak a

bird has and its ability to access sources of food, four materials were used to stand as

beaks in the experiment and three different foods were used. Chopsticks, scissors,

tweezers and binder clips were used as the different beak types in this experiment.

Mung beans, rice grains, and macaroni were the food sources used. Three trials were

conducted for each food source using each of the four beak types. The following tables

show the summary of the result of the experiment:

Beak/Trial Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Total

Chopsticks 80 91 73 244

Scissors 145 136 140 421

Tweezers 53 49 42 144

Binder Clip 608 653 632 1,893

Table 1 Mung beans

Table 1 shows the amount of mung beans each of the types of beaks got. Binder clip

consistently got the most mung beans in the three rounds. This is followed by scissors and

chopsticks, respectively. Tweezers consistently got the least amount of mung beans in the three

rounds.

Beak/Trial Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Total

Chopsticks 134 115 152 401

Scissors 181 167 201 549

Tweezers 92 87 114 293

Binder Clip 1,045 1,018 1,032 3,095

Table 2 Rice grains

Table 2 shows the amount of rice grains each of the types of beaks got. Similar to the result

shown in table 1, binder clip consistently got the most rice grains in the three rounds. This is

followed by scissors and chopsticks, respectively. Tweezers consistently got the least amount of

rice grains in the three rounds.

Beak/Trial Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Total

Chopsticks 61 63 43 167

Scissors 47 56 39 142

Tweezers 57 46 48 151

Binder Clip 75 82 79 236

Table 3 Macaroni

Table 1 shows the amount of macaroni each of the types of beaks got. Binder clip consistently

got the most macaroni in the three rounds. This is followed by chopsticks and tweezers,

respectively. Scissors consistently got the least amount of mung beans in the three rounds.
 Beak Food Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4

Mung Bean 6 - - -

Chopsticks Rice Grain 12 - - -

Macaroni 16 - - -

TOTAL 34 - - -

Mung Bean 7 2 - -

Scissors Rice Grain 20 34 - -

Macaroni 17 10 - -

TOTAL 44 46 - -

Mung Bean 30 31 32 30

Tweezers Rice Grain 54 58 72 32

Macaroni 14 20 23 28

TOTAL 98 109 127 90

Mung Bean 48 31 37 -

Binder Rice Grain 61 28 41 -

Clip Macaroni 28 22 22 -

TOTAL 137 81 100 -

Table 4 Challenge

Table 4 shows the result of the challenge done between the four types of beaks used which are

chopsticks, scissors, tweezers and binder clip. During the first round, all four beak types were

used. For one minute, the four beak types were used to get as much food as they can with the

allotted time. The gathered food of each beak type were counted and the beak type with the

least amount of food gathered was removed from the challenge and will no longer be used for
the second round. In the first round, chopsticks got the least amount of food and was therefore

no longer used in the second round. During the second round, scissors got the least amount of

food and was therefore no longer used in the third round. Binder clip got the least amount of

food during the third round which left only tweezers to be used in the fourth round. Tweezers got

30 mung beans, 32 rice grains, and 28 macaroni during the fourth round.

The challenge part of the experiment shows how much food each of the beak types can get

once put into the wild together with the other beak types. The beak type that is least adapted to

get the different foods might go extinct because the more adapted beak types would get most of

the available food leaving very little to none for the lesser adapted beak types. Over the course

of many generations, the individuals that cannot adjust will die out and those that can survive

will continue to pass on the beneficial traits, eventually creating a species adapted to the

environment (Laying the Generation, 2012).

SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

80 3 806 268.6667 88476.33

91 3 838 279.3333 106612.3

73 3 814 271.3333 99961.33

244 3 2458 819.3333 883752.3

ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups 671492 3 223830.7 0.759519 0.54757 4.066180551

Within Groups 2357605 8 294700.6

Total 3029097 11

Table 5 Result of one way ANOVA for mung beans

Table 5 shows the result of the one way ANOVA conducted on table 1wherein mung beans was

used as food source. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in order to know

whether there are any statistically significant differences between the means of two or more

independent groups. A larger F value is strong evidence that the null hypothesis is not true.

Looking at the value of F which is 0.759519, one can clearly see that it did not reach the value

of 1. Therefore, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference between

the amount of food the different beaks will be rejected. There is significant difference between

the amount of mung beans the different beak types were able to get.

SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

134 3 1318 439.3333 277104.3

115 3 1272 424 266227

152 3 1347 449 256809

401 3 3937 1312.333 2399809

ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups 1723172 3 574390.8 0.718 0.568589 4.066181

Within Groups 6399899 8 799987.4

 Total 8123072 11

Table 6 Result of one way ANOVA for rice grains

Table 6 shows the result of the one way ANOVA conducted on table 2 wherein rice grains was

used as food source. Looking at the value of F which is 0.718, one can clearly see that it did not

reach the value of 1. Therefore, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant

difference between the amount of food the different beaks can get will be rejected. There is

significant difference between the amount of rice grains the different beak types were able to

get.

SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

61 3 179 59.66667 201.3333

63 3 184 61.33333 345.3333

43 3 166 55.33333 440.3333

167 3 529 176.3333 2690.333

ANOVA

Source of

Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups 31151 3 10383.67 11.29478 0.003014 4.066181

Within Groups 7354.667 8 919.3333

Total 38505.67 11
 Table 7 Result of one way ANOVA for macaroni

Table 7 shows the result of the one way ANOVA conducted on table 3 wherein macaroni was

used as food source. Looking at the value of F which is 11.29478, one can clearly see that it is

more than the value of 1. Therefore, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant

difference between the amount of food the different beaks can get will not be rejected. There is

no significant difference between the amount of macaroni the different beak types were able to

get.

Mung Beans
16000
14000
12000
10000
Round 3
8000
Round 2
6000
Round 1
4000
2000
0
Scissors Choptsticks Binder Clip Tweezers

Figure 1 Mung beans

Figure 1 graphically shows the result of the data gathered from all ten groups in the class. The

bottommost line shows the result during the first round of the beak types getting mung beans as

their food source. The line above it shows the result during the second round while the

uppermost line shows the result during the third round. All the three rounds the ten groups made

show that the binder clip was able to get the most mung beans followed by tweezers and

chopsticks. Scissors was the beak type that got the least number of mung beans.
 Rice Grains
50000
45000
40000
35000
30000 Round 3
25000
Round 2
20000
15000 Round 1
10000
5000
0
Scissors Choptsticks Binder Clip Tweezers

Figure 2 Rice grains

Figure 2 graphically shows the amount of rice grains each beak type was able to get during the

three rounds conducted by all ten groups in the class. Like the result seen in figure 1, all the

three rounds the ten groups made show that the binder clip was able to get the most rice grains

followed by tweezers and chopsticks. Scissors was the beak type that got the least number of

rice grains.
 Macaroni
1600
1400
1200
1000
Round 3
800
Round 2
600
Round 1
400
200
0
Scissors Choptsticks Binder Clip Tweezers

Figure 3 Macaroni

Figure 3 graphically shows the amount of macaroni each beak type was able to get during the

three rounds conducted by all ten groups in the class. All the three rounds the ten groups made

show that the binder clip was able to get the most macaroni followed by tweezers and

chopsticks. Scissors was the beak type that got the least number of macaroni.

The type of beak a bird has affects the amount of food a bird can get. The shape of a bird’s

beak adapts depending on its chosen food source that is available in its habitat. The beaks of

birds that eat fishes contain hooks, pouches, and spears which are used to fetch and transport

their food. Birds that eat invertebrates have bills that resemble spatulas used for scanning the

water or thin bills that are long and thin used for dipping in the mud to eat worms. Birds that eat

meat have bills that resemble hooks which are used to rip their prey open. Birds that eat nuts

have bills that are heavy with whose bottommost part are heavy. This type of bill is useful in to

cracking the nuts open. Birds that eat insects have bills that resemble tweezers in order to look
for and pick up prey. Birds that eat nectars have thin and long bills with long tongues to gather

nectar from flowers. There are birds, such as crows, chickens, and gulls whose beak do not

have a particular shape. This allows the birds to eat a variety of food. These birds are called

generalists and are more probably able to survive if its shelter is destroyed (Laying the

Foundation, 2012).

Some birds like hawks have beaks that are evolved which allow them to rip and eat the prey

found in their habitat. The variations of bird beaks and the ability of each beak to eat a specific

type of food is cause by adaptation and natural selection. Natural selection and evolution

gradually happen. In hawks, birds with sharp beaks were better able to get and eat adequate

food to live and reproduce in their environment. After some time, this characteristic became

common in the environment where hawks thrive. The same scenario happens for hummingbirds

trying to reach deep into flowers to get nectar.

At deeper levels in the phylogeny of the finches Darwin studies, niche differences are commonly

big and do not change through time and space. The binder clip in the experiment can be

compared to birds with wide beaks such as the large ground finch (Geospiza magnirostris).

Birds with wider beaks such as the large ground finch typically feed on seeds because their

beaks have the ability to crush and grind even the hardest seeds available (Hendry et. al, 2014).

Some species of birds rely on insects for sustenance. The tweezers used in the experiment can

be compared to warblers, wrens and orioles that are well-known examples of insectivorous birds

with this type of beak. These typically have relatively tweezer-like beaks that are thin and can

therefore easily pick up and grab onto insects (Mohrman, n.d). The chopsticks in the experiment

can also be compared to insect eaters that’s have thin, pointed beaks that are useful for getting
insects from leaves (Vanstone, 2020). Birds with chopstick-like beaks such as hummingbirds

have evolved beaks that are long, thin and well adapted to reach into flowering plants and

extract nectar (Ketz-Riley & Sanchez, 2015). Scissors in the experiment can be compared to the

scissors Beak or Crooked Beak or Lateral Beak Deviation that some parrots have. This is a

condition where the upper beak is not straight and does not meet correctly over the lower beak.

This can most commonly be observed in cockatoos and macaws, but can be observed in any

species. It is rare in a parent raised bird. It is therefore hypothesized that parents may assist

beak development by locking onto the rhinotheca when feeding the chicks (James, 2011).

Conclusion

Different beaks present in birds happen as a result of adaptation and natural selection.

Adaptation is the change wherein a species or organism becomes suited to its environment

better (Simonet, 2010). From the data gathered in the experiment made by the researchers and

by utilizing one way ANOVA, it can be concluded that there is a significant relationship between

the type of beak a bird has and the amount of food it can get. Some bird beaks are better suited

in some habitats. Once compromised, a bird with a beak not suited to a particular habitat may

die off because better suited bird beaks will be able to get more food than them. Bird beak that

resembles the binder clip was able to get the most amount of food followed by tweezers-like bird

beak and chopstick-like bird beak. Bird beak that resembles scissors was the beak type that got

the least amount of food and is therefore the least adapted and most probably be able to die in

the environment compared to other birds with different beak types.

 References:

COMMUNITY RESOURCES FOR SCIENCE. (n.d.). Best Adapted Beak.

DE LEÓN, L.F., PODOS, J., GARDEZI, T., HERREL, A. AND HENDRY, A.P. (2014), Darwin's

finches and their diet niches: the sympatric coexistence of imperfect generalists. J. Evol. Biol.,

27: 1093-1104. doi:10.1111/jeb.12383

GLATZ, P. C. (2003). The Effect of Beak Length and Condition on Food Intake and Feeding

Behaviour of Hens. International Journal of Poultry Science, 2, 53–57. Retrieved from

http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/ansinet/ijps/2003/53-

57.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1yG7hfjPN_XkAe_N4YW4W114LHkAFkzNxt9Ky5Lt7bGCKMvk-

LX2x7-hk

JEN A. BRIGHT, JESÚS MARUGÁN-LOBÓN, SAMUEL N. COBB, EMILY J. RAYFIELD

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2016, 113 (19) 5352-5357; DOI:

10.1073/pnas.1602683113

KETZ-RILEY, C., & SANCHEZ, C. R. (2014). Chapter 26 - Trochiliformes

(Hummingbirds). Fowler's Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine, 8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-

1-4557-7397-8.00026-8

KLAMATH BIRD OBSERVATORY. (2012). Bird Beak Buffet. Retrieved from

https://klamathbird.org/images/stories/kbo/pdfs_k12_library/bird_beak_buffet.pdf

LAYING THE FOUNDATION. (2012). Beak vs. Food Investigating Bird Beak Adaptations , 8.

Retrieved from
 https://mrsnichollssupersciencesite.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/9/7/11973208/beak_vs_food_sp.pdf

?fbclid=IwAR3vIa2Z7VOBDAQLImCe289Rf9-rtyHmag4Fkc1edfPAOG-iMCHsaCXDgyU

MATIAS, R. S., GREGORY, S., CEIA, F. R., BAETA, A., SECO, J., ROCHA, M. S., RAMOS, J.

A. (2019). Show your beaks and we tell you what you eat: Different ecology in sympatric

Antarctic benthic octopods under a climate change context. Marine Environmental

Research, 150. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2019.104757

SIMONET, G. (2003). The concept of adaptation : interdisciplinary scope and involvement in climate

change. Sapiens, 3. Retrieved from https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/997

SUNDSTROM, B. (2016). Beak Meets Sunflower Seed. Retrieved from

https://www.birdnote.org/show/beak-meets-seed