Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.

The beak, bill, or rostrum is an external anatomical structure found mostly in birds, but also in turtles, non-avian dinosaurs and a few mammals. A beak is used for pecking, grasping, and holding (in probing for food, eating, manipulating and carrying objects, killing prey, or fighting), preening, courtship, and feeding young. The terms beak and rostrum are also used to refer to a similar mouth part in some ornithischians, pterosaurs, cetaceans, dicynodonts, rhynchosaurs, anuran tadpoles, monotremes (i.e. echidnas and platypuses, which have a bill-like structure), sirens, pufferfish, billfishes, and cephalopods.
Although beaks vary significantly in size, shape, color and texture, they share a similar underlying structure. Two bony projections–the upper and lower mandibles–are covered with a thin keratinized layer of epidermis known as the rhamphotheca. In most species, two holes called nares lead to the respiratory system.
Etymology
[edit]Although the word "beak" was, in the past, generally restricted to the sharpened bills of birds of prey,[1] in modern ornithology, the terms beak and bill are generally considered to be synonymous.[2] The word, which dates from the 13th century, comes from the Middle English bec (via Anglo-French), which itself comes from the Latin beccus.[3]
Anatomy
[edit]
Although beaks vary significantly in size and shape from species to species, their underlying structures have a similar pattern. All beaks are composed of two jaws, generally known as the maxilla (upper) and mandible (lower).[4](p147) The upper, and in some cases the lower, mandibles are strengthened internally by a complex three-dimensional network of bony spicules (or trabeculae) seated in soft connective tissue and surrounded by the hard outer layers of the beak.[5](p149)[6] The avian jaw apparatus is made up of two units: one four-bar linkage mechanism and one five-bar linkage mechanism.[7]
Mandibles
[edit]The upper mandible is supported by a three-pronged bone called the intermaxillary. The upper prong of this bone is embedded into the forehead, while the two lower prongs attach to the sides of the skull. At the base of the upper mandible a thin sheet of nasal bones is attached to the skull at the nasofrontal hinge, which gives mobility to the upper mandible, allowing it to move upward and downward.[2]

The base of the upper mandible, or the roof when seen from the mouth, is the palate; the palate's structure differs greatly in the ratites. Here, the vomer is large and connects with premaxillae and maxillopalatine bones in a condition termed as a "paleognathous palate". All other extant birds have a narrow forked vomer that does not connect with other bones and is then termed as neognathous. The shape of these bones varies across the bird families.[a]
The lower mandible is supported by a bone known as the inferior maxillary bone—a compound bone composed of two distinct ossified pieces. These ossified plates (or rami), which can be U-shaped or V-shaped,[4](p147) join distally (the exact location of the joint depends on the species) but are separated proximally, attaching on either side of the head to the quadrate bone. The jaw muscles, which allow the bird to close its beak, attach to the proximal end of the lower mandible and to the bird's skull.[5](p148) The muscles that depress the lower mandible are usually weak, except in a few birds such as the starlings and the extinct huia, which have well-developed digastric muscles that aid in foraging by prying or gaping actions.[8] In most birds, these muscles are relatively small as compared to the jaw muscles of similarly sized mammals.[9]
Rhamphotheca
[edit]
The outer surface of the beak consists of a thin sheath of keratin called the rhamphotheca,[2][5](p148) which can be subdivided into the rhinotheca of the upper mandible and the gnathotheca of the lower mandible.[10](p47) The covering arises from the Malpighian layer of the bird's epidermis,[10](p47) growing from plates at the base of each mandible.[11] There is a vascular layer between the rhamphotheca and the deeper layers of the dermis, which is attached directly to the periosteum of the bones of the beak.[12] The rhamphotheca grows continuously in most birds, and in some species, the color varies seasonally.[13] In some alcids, such as the puffins, parts of the rhamphotheca are shed each year after the breeding season, while some pelicans shed a part of the bill called a "bill horn" that develops in the breeding season.[14][15][16]
While most extant birds have a single seamless rhamphotheca, species in a few families, including the albatrosses[10](p47) and the emu, have compound rhamphothecae that consist of several pieces separated and defined by softer keratinous grooves.[17] Studies have shown that this was the primitive ancestral state of the rhamphotheca, and that the modern simple rhamphotheca resulted from the gradual loss of the defining grooves through evolution.[18]
Tomia
[edit]
The tomia (singular tomium) are the cutting edges of the two mandibles.[10](p598) In most birds, they range from being rounded to slightly sharp, but some species have evolved structural modifications that allow them to handle their typical food sources better.[19] Granivorous (seed-eating) birds, for example, have ridges in their tomia, which help the bird to slice through a seed's outer hull.[20] Most falcons have a sharp projection along the upper mandible, with a corresponding notch on the lower mandible. They use this "tooth" to sever their prey's vertebrae fatally or to rip insects apart. Some kites, principally those that prey on insects or lizards, also have one or more of these sharp projections,[21] as do the shrikes.[22] The tomial teeth of falcons are underlain by bone, while the shrike tomial teeth are entirely keratinous.[23] Some fish-eating species, e.g., the mergansers, have sawtooth serrations along their tomia, which help them to keep hold of their slippery, wriggling prey.[10](p48)
Birds in roughly 30 families have tomia lined with tight bunches of very short bristles along their entire length. Most of these species are either insectivores (preferring hard-shelled prey) or snail eaters, and the brush-like projections may help to increase the coefficient of friction between the mandibles, thereby improving the bird's ability to hold hard prey items.[24] Serrations on hummingbird bills, found in 23% of all hummingbird genera, may perform a similar function, allowing the birds to effectively hold insect prey. They may also allow shorter-billed hummingbirds to function as nectar thieves, as they can more effectively hold and cut through long or waxy flower corollas.[25] In some cases, the color of a bird's tomia can help to distinguish between similar species. The snow goose, for example, has a reddish-pink bill with black tomia, while the whole beak of the similar Ross's goose is pinkish-red, without darker tomia.[26]
Culmen
[edit]
The culmen is the dorsal ridge of the upper mandible.[10](p127) Likened by ornithologist E. Coues[4] to the ridge line of a roof, it is the "highest middle lengthwise line of the bill" and runs from the point where the upper mandible emerges from the forehead's feathers to its tip.[4](p152) The bill's length along the culmen is one of the regular measurements made during bird banding (ringing)[27] and is particularly useful in feeding studies.[28] There are several standard measurements which can be made—from the beak's tip to the point where feathering starts on the forehead, from the tip to the anterior edge of the nostrils, from the tip to the base of the skull, or from the tip to the cere (for raptors and owls)[10](p342)—and scientists from various parts of the world generally favor one method over another.[28] In all cases, these are chord measurements (measured in a straight line from point to point, ignoring any curve in the culmen) taken with calipers.[27]
The shape or color of the culmen can also help with the identification of birds in the field. For example, the culmen of the parrot crossbill is strongly decurved, while that of the very similar red crossbill is more moderately curved.[29] The culmen of a juvenile common loon is all dark, while that of the very similarly plumaged juvenile yellow-billed loon is pale towards the tip.[30]
Gonys
[edit]The gonys is the ventral ridge of the lower mandible, created by the junction of the bone's two rami, or lateral plates.[10](p254) The proximal end of that junction—where the two plates separate—is known as the gonydeal angle or gonydeal expansion. In some gull species, the plates expand slightly at that point, creating a noticeable bulge; the size and shape of the gonydeal angle can be useful in identifying between otherwise similar species. Adults of many species of large gulls have a reddish or orangish gonydeal spot near the gonydeal expansion.[31] This spot triggers begging behavior in gull chicks. The chick pecks at the spot on its parent's bill, which in turn stimulates the parent to regurgitate food.[32]
Commissure
[edit]Depending on its use, commissure may refer to the junction of the upper and lower mandibles,[4](p155) or alternately, to the full-length apposition of the closed mandibles, from the corners of the mouth to the tip of the beak.[10](p105)
Gape
[edit]
In bird anatomy, the gape is the interior of the open mouth of a bird, and the gape flange is the region where the two mandibles join together at the base of the beak.[33] The width of the gape can be a factor in the choice of food.[34]

Gapes of juvenile altricial birds are often brightly coloured, sometimes with contrasting spots or other patterns, and these are believed to be an indication of their health, fitness and competitive ability. Based on that, the parents decide how to distribute food among the chicks in the nest.[35] Some species, especially in the families Viduidae and Estrildidae, have bright spots on the gape known as gape tubercles or gape papillae. These nodular spots are conspicuous even in low light.[36] A study examining the nestling gapes of eight passerine species found that the gapes were conspicuous in the ultraviolet spectrum (visible to birds but not to humans).[37] Parents may, however, not rely solely on the gape coloration, and other factors influencing their decision remain unknown.[38]
Red gape color has been shown in several experiments to induce feeding. An experiment in manipulating brood size and immune system with barn swallow nestlings showed the vividness of the gape was positively correlated with T-cell–mediated immunocompetence, and that larger brood size and injection with an antigen led to a less vivid gape.[39] Conversely, the red gape of the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) did not induce extra feeding in host parents.[40] Some brood parasites, such as the Hodgson's hawk-cuckoo (C. fugax), have colored patches on the wing that mimic the gape color of the parasitized species.[41]
When born, the chick's gape flanges are fleshy. As it grows into a fledgling, the gape flanges remain somewhat swollen and can thus be used to recognize that a particular bird is young.[42] By the time it reaches adulthood, the gape flanges will no longer be visible.
Nares
[edit]
Most species of birds have external nares (nostrils) located somewhere on their beak. The nares are two holes—circular, oval or slit-like in shape—which lead to the nasal cavities within the bird's skull, and thus to the rest of the respiratory system.[10](p375) In most bird species, the nares are located in the basal third of the upper mandible. Kiwis are a notable exception; their nares are located at the tip of their bills.[19] A handful of species have no external nares. Cormorants and darters have primitive external nares as nestlings, but these close soon after the birds fledge; adults of these species (and gannets and boobies of all ages, which also lack external nostrils) breathe through their mouths.[10](p47) There is typically a septum made of bone or cartilage that separates the two nares, but in some families (including gulls, cranes, and New World vultures), the septum is missing.[10](p47) While the nares are uncovered in most species, they are covered with feathers in a few groups of birds, including grouse and ptarmigans, crows, and some woodpeckers.[10](p375) The feathers over a ptarmigan's nostrils help to warm the air it inhales,[44] while those over a woodpecker's nares help to keep wood particles from clogging its nasal passages.[45]
Species in the bird order Procellariformes have nostrils enclosed in double tubes which sit atop or along the sides of the upper mandible.[10](p375) These species, which include the albatrosses, petrels, diving petrels, storm petrels, fulmars and shearwaters, are widely known as "tubenoses".[46] A number of species, including the falcons, have a small bony tubercule which projects from their nares. The function of the tubercule is unknown. Some scientists suggest it acts as a baffle, slowing down or diffusing airflow into the nares (thus allowing the bird to continue breathing without damaging its respiratory system) during high-speed dives, but this theory has not been proved experimentally. Not all species which fly at high speeds have these tubercules, while some species which fly at low speeds have them.[43]
Operculum
[edit]
The nares of some birds are covered by an operculum (plural opercula), a membraneous, horny or cartilaginous flap.[5](p117)[47] In diving birds, the operculum keeps water out of the nasal cavity;[5](p117) when the birds dive, the impact force of the water closes the operculum.[48] Some species which feed on flowers have opercula to help to keep pollen from clogging their nasal passages,[5](p117) while the opercula of the two species of Attagis seedsnipe help to keep dust out.[49] The nares of nestling tawny frogmouths are covered with large dome-shaped opercula, which help to reduce the rapid evaporation of water vapor, and may also help to increase condensation within the nostrils themselves—both critical functions, since the nestlings get fluids only from the food their parents bring them. The opercula shrink as the birds age, disappearing completely by the time they reach adulthood.[50] In pigeons, the operculum has evolved into a soft swollen mass that sits at the base of the bill, above the nares;[10](p84) though it is sometimes referred to as the cere, this is a different structure.[4](p151) Tapaculos are the only birds known to have the ability to move their opercula.[10](p375)
Rosette
[edit]Some species like the puffin, have a fleshy rosette, sometimes called a "gape rosette"[51] at the corners of the beak. In the puffin, it is grown as part of its display plumage.[52]
Cere
[edit]Birds from a handful of families—including raptors, owls, skuas, parrots, pigeons, turkeys and curassows—have a waxy structure called a cere (from the Latin cera, which means "wax") or ceroma[53][54] which covers the base of their bill. This structure typically contains the nares, except in the owls, where the nares are distal to the cere. Although it is sometimes feathered in parrots,[55] the cere is typically bare and often brightly colored.[19] In raptors, the cere is a sexual signal which indicates the "quality" of a bird; the orangeness of a Montagu's harrier's cere, for example, correlates to its body mass and physical condition.[56] The cere color of young Eurasian scops-owls has an ultraviolet (UV) component, with a UV peak that correlates to the bird's mass. A chick with a lower body mass has a UV peak at a higher wavelength than a chick with a higher body mass does. Studies have shown that parent owls preferentially feed chicks with ceres that show higher wavelength UV peaks, that is, lighter-weight chicks.[57]
The color or appearance of the cere can be used to distinguish between males and females in some species. For example, the male great curassow has a yellow cere, which the female (and young males) lack.[58] The male budgerigar's cere is royal blue, while the female's is a very pale blue, white, or brown.[59]
Nail
[edit]
All birds of the family Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans) have a nail, a plate of hard horny tissue at the tip of the beak.[60] The shield-shaped structure, which sometimes spans the entire width of the beak, is often bent at the tip to form a hook.[61] It serves different purposes depending on the bird's primary food source. Most species use their nails to dig seeds out of mud or vegetation,[62] while diving ducks use theirs to pry molluscs from rocks.[63] There is evidence that the nail may help a bird to grasp objects. Species which use strong grasping motions to secure their food (such as when catching and holding onto a large squirming frog) have very wide nails.[64] Certain types of mechanoreceptors, nerve cells that are sensitive to pressure, vibration, or touch, are located under the nail.[65]
The shape or color of the nail can sometimes be used to help distinguish between similar-looking species or between various ages of waterfowl. For example, the greater scaup has a wider black nail than does the very similar lesser scaup.[66] Juvenile "grey geese" have dark nails, while most adults have pale nails.[67] The nail gave the wildfowl family one of its former names: "Unguirostres" comes from the Latin ungus, meaning "nail" and rostrum, meaning "beak".[61]
Rictal bristles
[edit]Rictal bristles are stiff hair-like feathers that arise around the base of the beak.[68] They are common among insectivorous birds, but are also found in some non-insectivorous species.[69] Their function is uncertain, although several possibilities have been proposed.[68] They may function as a "net", helping in the capture of flying prey, although to date, there has been no empirical evidence to support this idea.[70] There is some experimental evidence to suggest that they may prevent particles from striking the eyes if, for example, a prey item is missed or broken apart on contact.[69] They may also help to protect the eyes from particles encountered in flight, or from casual contact from vegetation.[70] There is also evidence that the rictal bristles of some species may function tactilely, in a manner similar to that of mammalian whiskers (vibrissae). Studies have shown that Herbst corpuscles, mechanoreceptors sensitive to pressure and vibration, are found in association with rictal bristles. They may help with prey detection, with navigation in darkened nest cavities, with the gathering of information during flight or with prey handling.[70]
Egg tooth
[edit]
Full-term chicks of most bird species have a small sharp, calcified projection on their beak, which they use to chip their way out of their egg.[10](p178) Commonly known as an egg tooth, this white spike is generally near the tip of the upper mandible, though some species have one near the tip of their lower mandible instead, and a few species have one on each mandible.[71] Despite its name, the projection is not an actual tooth, as the similarly-named projections of some reptiles are; instead, it is part of the integumentary system, as are claws and scales.[72] The hatching chick first uses its egg tooth to break the membrane around an air chamber at the wide end of the egg. Then it pecks at the eggshell while turning slowly within the egg, eventually (over a period of hours or days) creating a series of small circular fractures in the shell.[5](p427) Once it has breached the egg's surface, the chick continues to chip at it until it has made a large hole. The weakened egg eventually shatters under the pressure of the bird's movements.[5](p428)
The egg tooth is so critical to a successful escape from the egg that chicks of most species will perish unhatched if they fail to develop one.[71] However, there are a few species which do not have egg teeth. Megapode chicks have an egg tooth while still in the egg but lose it before hatching,[5](p427) while kiwi chicks never develop one; chicks of both families escape their eggs by kicking their way out.[73] Most chicks lose their egg teeth within a few days of hatching,[10](p178) although petrels keep theirs for nearly three weeks[5](p428) and marbled murrelets have theirs for up to a month.[74] Generally, the egg tooth drops off, though in songbirds it is resorbed.[5](p428)
Color
[edit]The color of a bird's beak results from concentrations of pigments—primarily melanins and carotenoids—in the epidermal layers, including the rhamphotheca.[75] Eumelanin, which is found in the bare parts of many bird species, is responsible for all shades of gray and black; the denser the deposits of pigment found in the epidermis, the darker the resulting color. Phaeomelanin produces "earth tones" ranging from gold and rufous to various shades of brown.[76]: 62 Although it is thought to occur in combination with eumelanin in beaks which are buff, tan, or horn-colored, researchers have yet to isolate phaeomelanin from any beak structure.[76]: 63 More than a dozen types of carotenoids are responsible for the coloration of most red, orange, and yellow beaks.[76]: 64
The hue of the color is determined by the precise mix of red and yellow pigments, while the saturation is determined by the density of the deposited pigments. For example, bright red is created by dense deposits of mostly red pigments, while dull yellow is created by diffuse deposits of mostly yellow pigments. Bright orange is created by dense deposits of both red and yellow pigments, in roughly equal concentrations.[76]: 66 Beak coloration helps to make displays using those beaks more obvious.[77](p155) In general, beak color depends on a combination of the bird's hormonal state and diet. Colors are typically brightest as the breeding season approaches, and palest after breeding.[31]
Birds are capable of seeing colors in the ultraviolet range, and some species are known to have ultraviolet peaks of reflectance (indicating the presence of ultraviolet color) on their beaks.[78] The presence and intensity of these peaks may indicate a bird's fitness,[56] sexual maturity or pair bond status.[78] King and emperor penguins, for example, show spots of ultraviolet reflectance only as adults. These spots are brighter on paired birds than on courting birds. The position of such spots on the beak may be important in allowing birds to identify conspecifics. For instance, the very similarly-plumaged king and emperor penguins have UV-reflective spots in different positions on their beaks.[78]
Dimorphism
[edit]
The size and shape of the beak can vary across species as well as between them; in some species, the size and proportions of the beak vary between males and females. That allows the sexes to utilize different ecological niches, thereby reducing intraspecific competition.[79] For example, females of nearly all shorebirds have longer bills than males of the same species,[80] and female American avocets have beaks which are slightly more upturned than those of males.[81] Males of the larger gull species have bigger, stouter beaks than those of females of the same species, and immatures can have smaller, more slender beaks than those of adults.[82] Many hornbills show sexual dimorphism in the size and shape of both beaks and casques, and the female huia's slim, decurved bill was nearly twice as long as the male's straight, thicker one.[10](p48)
Color can also differ between sexes or ages within a species. Typically, such a color difference is due to the presence of androgens. For example, in house sparrows, melanins are produced only in the presence of testosterone; castrated male house sparrows—like female house sparrows—have brown beaks. Castration also prevents the normal seasonal color change in the beaks of male black-headed gulls and indigo buntings.[83]
Development
[edit]The beak of modern birds has a fused premaxillary bone, which is modulated by the expression of Fgf8 gene in the frontonasal ectodermal zone during embryonic development.[84]
The shape of the beak is determined by two modules: the prenasal cartilage during early embryonic stage and the premaxillary bone during later stages. Development of the prenasal cartilage is regulated by genes Bmp4 and CaM, while that of the premaxillary bone is controlled by TGFβllr, β-catenin, and Dickkopf-3.[85][86] TGFβllr codes for a serine/threonine protein kinase that regulates gene transcription upon ligand binding; previous work has highlighted its role in mammalian craniofacial skeletal development.[87] β-catenin is involved in the differentiation of terminal bone cells. Dickkopf-3 codes for a secreted protein also known to be expressed in mammalian craniofacial development. The combination of these signals determines beak growth along the length, depth, and width axes. Reduced expression of TGFβllr significantly decreased the depth and length of chicken embryonic beak due to the underdevelopment of the premaxillary bone.[88] Contrarily, an increase in Bmp4 signaling would result in a reduced premaxillary bone due to the overdevelopment of the prenasal cartilage, which takes up more mesenchymal cells for cartilage, instead of bone, formation.[85][86]
Functions
[edit]
Eating
[edit]Different species' beaks have evolved according to their diet; for example, raptors have sharp-pointed beaks that facilitate dissection and biting off of prey animals' tissue, whereas passerine birds that specialize in eating seeds with especially tough shells (such as grosbeaks and cardinals) have large, stout beaks with high compressive power. Diving or fishing birds have beaks adapted for those pursuits; for example, kingfishers have long, pointed beaks adapted for diving into water, while pelicans' beaks are adapted for scooping up and swallowing fish whole. Woodpeckers have thick, pointed beaks adapted for pecking apart wood while hunting for arthropods and insect larvae.
Self-defensive pecking
[edit]Birds may bite or stab with their beaks to defend themselves.[89]
Displays (for courtship, territoriality, or deterrence)
[edit]Some species use their beaks in displays of various sorts. As part of his courtship, for example, the male garganey touches his beak to the blue speculum feathers on his wings in a fake preening display, and the male mandarin duck does the same with his orange sail feathers.[77](p20) A number of species use a gaping, open beak in their fear and/or threat displays. Some augment the display by hissing or breathing heavily, while others clap their beaks. Red-bellied woodpeckers at bird feeders are known to wave their beaks at competing birds who get too close.
Sensory detection
[edit]The platypus uses its bill to navigate underwater, detect food, and dig. The bill contains electroreceptors and mechanoreceptors, causing muscular contractions to help detect prey. It is one of the few species of mammals to use electroreception.[90][91] The beaks of Kiwis, Ibises, and sandpipers have sensory pits in their beaks that allow them to sense vibrations.[92]
The beaks of aquatic birds contain Grandry corpuscles, which assist in velocity detection while filter feeding.
Preening
[edit]The beak of birds plays a role in removing skin parasites (ectoparasites) such as lice. It is mainly the tip of the beak that does this. Studies have shown that inserting a bit to stop birds from using the tip results in increased parasite loads in pigeons.[93] Birds that have naturally deformed beaks have also been noted to have higher levels of parasites.[94][95][96][97] It is thought that the overhang at the end of the top portion of the beak (that is the portion that begins to curve downwards) slides against the lower beak to crush parasites.[93]
This overhang of the beak is thought to be under stabilising natural selection. Very long beaks are thought to be selected against because they are prone to a higher number of breaks, as has been demonstrated in rock pigeons.[98] Beaks with no overhang would be unable to effectively remove and kill ectoparasites as mentioned above. Studies have supported there is a selection pressure for an intermediate amount of overhang. Western scrub jays who had more symmetrical bills (i.e. those with less of an overhang), were found to have higher amounts of lice when tested.[99] The same pattern has been found in surveys of Peruvian birds.[100]
Additionally because of the role beaks play in preening, this is evidence for coevolution of the beak overhang morphology and body morphology of parasites. Artificially removing the ability to preen in birds, followed by readdition of preening ability was shown to result in changes in body size in lice. Once the ability of the birds to preen was reintroduced, the lice were found to show declines in body size suggesting they may evolve in response to preening pressures from birds[93] who could respond in turn with changes in beak morphology.[93]
Communicative percussion
[edit]A number of species, including storks, some owls, frogmouths and the noisy miner, use bill clapping as a form of communication.[77](p83) Some woodpecker species are known to use percussion as a courtship activity, whereas males get the (aural) attention of females from a distance and then impress them with the sound volume and pattern. This explains why humans are sometimes inconvenienced by pecking that clearly has no feeding purpose (such as when the bird pecks on chimneys or sheet metal).
Heat exchange
[edit]Studies have shown that some birds use their beaks to rid themselves of excess heat. The toco toucan, which has the largest beak relative to the size of its body of any bird species, is capable of modifying the blood flow to its beak. This process allows the beak to work as a "transient thermal radiator", reportedly rivaling an elephant's ears in its ability to radiate body heat.[101]
Measurements of the bill sizes of several species of American sparrows found in salt marshes along the North American coastlines show a strong correlation with summer temperatures recorded in the locations where the sparrows breed; latitude alone showed a much weaker correlation. By dumping excess heat through their bills, the sparrows are able to avoid the water loss which would be required by evaporative cooling—an important benefit in a windy habitat where freshwater is scarce.[102] Several ratites, including the common ostrich, the emu and the southern cassowary, use various bare parts of their bodies (including their beaks) to dissipate as much as 40% of their metabolic heat production.[103] Alternately, studies have shown that birds from colder climates (higher altitudes or latitudes and lower environmental temperatures) have smaller beaks, lessening heat loss from that structure.[104]
Billing
[edit]
During courtship, mated pairs of many bird species touch or clasp each other's bills. Termed billing (also nebbing in British English),[105] this behavior appears to strengthen pair bonding.[106] The amount of contact involved varies among species. Some gently touch only a part of their partner's beak while others clash their beaks vigorously together.[107]
Gannets raise their bills high and repeatedly clatter them, the male puffin nibbles at the female's beak, the male waxwing puts his bill in the female's mouth and ravens hold each other's beaks in a prolonged "kiss".[108] Billing can also be used as a gesture of appeasement or subordination. Subordinate Canada jay routinely bill more dominant birds, lowering their body and quivering their wings in the manner of a young bird begging for food as they do so.[109] A number of parasites, including rhinonyssids and Trichomonas gallinae are known to be transferred between birds during episodes of billing.[110][111]
Use of the term extends beyond avian behavior; "billing and cooing" in reference to human courtship (particularly kissing) has been in use since Shakespeare's time,[112] and derives from the courtship of doves.[113]
Beak trimming
[edit]Because the beak is a sensitive organ with many sensory receptors, beak trimming (sometimes referred to as 'debeaking') is "acutely painful"[114] to the birds it is performed on. It is nonetheless routinely done to intensively farmed poultry flocks, particularly laying and broiler breeder flocks, because it helps reduce the damage the flocks inflict on themselves due to a number of stress-induced behaviors, including cannibalism, vent pecking and feather pecking. A cauterizing blade or infrared beam is used to cut off about half of the upper beak and about a third of the lower beak. Pain and sensitivity can persist for weeks or months after the procedure, and neuromas can form along the cut edges. Food intake typically decreases for some period after the beak is trimmed. However, studies show that trimmed poultry's adrenal glands weigh less, and their plasma corticosterone levels are lower than those found in untrimmed poultry, indicating that they are less stressed overall.[114]
A similar but separate practice, usually performed by an avian veterinarian or an experienced birdkeeper, involves clipping, filing or sanding the beaks of captive birds for health purposes–in order to correct or temporarily alleviate overgrowths or deformities and better allow the bird to go about its normal feeding and preening activities.[115]
Among raptor keepers, the practice is commonly known as "coping".[116]
Bill tip organ
[edit]
The bill tip organ is a region found near the tip of the bill in several types of birds that forage particularly by probing. The region has a high density of nerve endings known as the corpuscles of Herbst. This consists of pits in the bill surface which in the living bird is occupied by cells that sense pressure changes. The assumption is that this allows the bird to perform 'remote touch', which means that it can detect movements of animals which the bird does not directly touch. Bird species known to have a 'bill-tip organ' include ibises, shorebirds of the family Scolopacidae, and kiwi.[117]
There is a suggestion that across these species, the bill tip organ is better-developed among species foraging in wet habitats (water column, or soft mud) than in species using a more terrestrial foraging. However, it has been described in terrestrial birds too, including parrots, who are known for their dextrous extractive foraging techniques. Unlike probing foragers, the tactile pits in parrots are embedded in the hard keratin (or rhamphotheca) of the bill, rather than the bone, and along the inner edges of the curved bill, rather than being on the outside of the bill.[118]
See also
[edit]- Bird anatomy – Anatomy of birds
- Rostrum (anatomy) – Anatomy term
- Snout – Extended part of an animal's mouth
- Proboscis – Elongated mouth part
Footnotes
[edit]- ^ For an explanation of desmognathous, aegithognathous, etc. with images see "Catalogue of Species". 1891 – via Archive.org..
References
[edit]- ^ Partington, Charles Frederick (1835). The British cyclopæedia of natural history: Combining a scientific classification of animals, plants, and minerals. Orr & Smith. p. 417.
- ^ a b c Proctor, Noble S.; Lynch, Patrick J. (1998). Manual of Ornithology: Avian structure and function. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-300-07619-6.
- ^ "Beak". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 1 July 2016.
- ^ a b c d e f
Coues, Elliott (1890). Handbook of Field and General Ornithology. London, UK: Macmillan and Co. pp. 1, 147, 151–152, 155. OCLC 263166207. - ^ a b c d e f g h i j k
Gill, Frank B. (1995). Ornithology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company. pp. 149, 427–428. ISBN 978-0-7167-2415-5. - ^ Seki, Yasuaki; Bodde, Sara G.; Meyers, Marc A. (2009). "Toucan and hornbill beaks: A comparative study" (PDF). Acta Biomaterialia. 6 (2): 331–343. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2009.08.026. PMID 19699818. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-02.
- ^ Olsen, A.M. (3–7 Jan 2012). Beyond the beak: Modeling avian cranial kinesis and the evolution of bird skull shapes. Society for Integrative & Comparative Biology. Charleston, South Carolina. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 27 July 2015.
- ^ Mayr, Gerald (2005). "A new eocene Chascacocolius-like mousebird (Aves: Coliiformes) with a remarkable gaping adaptation" (PDF). Organisms, Diversity & Evolution. 5 (3): 167–171. Bibcode:2005ODivE...5..167M. doi:10.1016/j.ode.2004.10.013.
- ^ Kaiser, Gary W. (2007). The Inner Bird: Anatomy and Evolution. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-7748-1343-3.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
Campbell, Bruce; Lack, Elizabeth, eds. (1985). A Dictionary of Birds. Carlton, England: T and A.D. Poyser. ISBN 978-0-85661-039-4. - ^ Girling (2003), p. 4.
- ^ Samour (2000), p. 296.
- ^ Bonser, R.H. & Witter, M.S. (1993). "Indentation hardness of the bill keratin of the European starling" (PDF). The Condor. 95 (3): 736–738. doi:10.2307/1369622. JSTOR 1369622.
- ^ Beddard, Frank E. (1898). The structure and classification of birds. London, UK: Longmans, Green and Co. p. 5.
- ^ Pitocchelli, Jay; John F. Piatt; Harry R. Carter (2003). "Variation in plumage, molt, and morphology of the Whiskered Auklet (Aethia pygmaea) in Alaska". Journal of Field Ornithology. 74 (1): 90–98. Bibcode:2003JFOrn..74...90P. doi:10.1648/0273-8570-74.1.90. S2CID 85982302.
- ^ Knopf, F.L. (1974). "Schedule of presupplemental molt of white pelicans with notes on the bill horn" (PDF). Condor. 77 (3): 356–359. doi:10.2307/1366249. JSTOR 1366249.
- ^ Chernova, O.F.; Fadeeva, E.O. (2009). "The peculiar architectonics of contour feathers of the emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae, Struthioniformes)". Doklady Biological Sciences. 425: 175–179. doi:10.1134/S0012496609020264. S2CID 38791844.
- ^ Hieronymus, Tobin L.; Witmer, Lawrence M. (2010). "Homology and evolution of avian compound rhamphothecae". The Auk. 127 (3): 590–604. doi:10.1525/auk.2010.09122. S2CID 18430834.
- ^ a b c Stettenheim, Peter R. (2000). "The Integumentary Morphology of Modern Birds—An Overview". Integrative and Comparative Biology. 40 (4): 461–477. doi:10.1093/icb/40.4.461.
- ^ Klasing, Kirk C. (1999). "Avian gastrointestinal anatomy and physiology". Seminars in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine. 8 (2): 42–50. doi:10.1016/S1055-937X(99)80036-X.
- ^ Ferguson-Lees, James; Christie, David A. (2001-01-01). Raptors of the World. London, UK: Christopher Helm. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-7136-8026-3.
- ^ Harris, Tony; Franklin, Kim (2000). Shrikes and Bush-Shrikes. London, UK: Christopher Helm. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7136-3861-5.
- ^ V. L. Bels; Ian Q. Whishaw, eds. (2019). Feeding in vertebrates: evolution, morphology, behavior, biomechanics. Cham, Switzerland. ISBN 978-3-030-13739-7. OCLC 1099968357.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Gosner, Kenneth L. (June 1993). "Scopate tomia: An adaptation for handling hard-shelled prey?" (PDF). The Wilson Bulletin. 105 (2): 316–324.
- ^ Ornelas, Juan Francisco. "Serrate Tomia: An Adaptation for Nectar Robbing in Hummingbirds?" (PDF). The Auk. 111 (3): 703–710.
- ^ Madge, Steve; Burn, Hilary (1988). Wildfowl. London, UK: Christopher Helm. pp. 143–144. ISBN 978-0-7470-2201-5.
- ^ a b c Pyle, Peter; Howell, Steve N. G.; Yunick, Robert P.; DeSante, David F. (1987). Identification Guide to North America Passerines. Bolinas, CA: Slate Creek Press. pp. 6–7. ISBN 978-0-9618940-0-9.
- ^ a b Borras, A.; Pascual, J.; Senar, J. C. (Autumn 2000). "What Do Different Bill Measures Measure and What Is the Best Method to Use in Granivorous Birds?" (PDF). Journal of Field Ornithology. 71 (4): 606–611. doi:10.1648/0273-8570-71.4.606. JSTOR 4514529. S2CID 86597085.
- ^ Mullarney, Svensson, Zetterström & Grant (1999) p. 357
- ^ Mullarney, Svensson, Zetterström & Grant (1999) p. 15
- ^ a b Howell (2007), p. 23.
- ^ Russell, Peter J.; Wolfe, Stephen L.; Hertz, Paul E.; Starr, Cecie (2008). Biology: The Dynamic Science. Vol. 2. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks / Cole. p. 1255. ISBN 978-0-495-01033-3.
- ^ Newman, Kenneth B. (2000). Newman's birds by colour. Struik. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-86872-448-2.[permanent dead link]
- ^ Wheelwright, N.T. (1985). "Fruit size, gape width and the diets of fruit-eating birds" (PDF). Ecology. 66 (3): 808–818. Bibcode:1985Ecol...66..808W. doi:10.2307/1940542. JSTOR 1940542. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-04-08. Retrieved 2013-10-31.
- ^ Soler, J.J.; Avilés, J.M. (2010). Halsey, Lewis George (ed.). "Sibling competition and conspicuousness of nestling gapes in altricial birds: A comparative study". PLoS ONE. 5 (5) e10509. Bibcode:2010PLoSO...510509S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010509. PMC 2865545. PMID 20463902.
- ^ Hauber, Mark & Rebecca M. Kilner (2007). "Coevolution, communication, and host-chick mimicry in parasitic finches: who mimics whom?" (PDF). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61 (4): 497–503. Bibcode:2007BEcoS..61..497H. doi:10.1007/s00265-006-0291-0. S2CID 44030487. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-03-20.
- ^ Hunt, Sarah; Kilner, Rebecca M.; Langmore, Naomi E.; Bennett, Andrew T.D. (2003). "Conspicuous, ultravioletrich mouth colours in begging chicks". Biology Letters. 270 (Suppl 1): S‑25–S‑28. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0009. PMC 1698012. PMID 12952627.
- ^ Schuetz, Justin G. (October 2005). "Reduced growth but not survival of chicks with altered gape patterns". Animal Behaviour. 70 (4): 839–848. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.007. ISSN 0003-3472. S2CID 53170955.
- ^ Nicola, Saino; Roberto, Ambrosini; Roberta, Martinelli; Paola, Ninni; Anders Pape, Møller (2003). "Gape coloration reliably reflects immunocompetence of barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) nestlings" (PDF). Behavioral Ecology. 14 (1): 16–22. doi:10.1093/beheco/14.1.16. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 July 2011. Retrieved 27 June 2010.
- ^ Noble, D.G.; Davies, N.B.; Hartley, I.R.; McRae, S.B. (July 1999). "The Red Gape of the Nestling Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) is not a supernormal stimulus for three common hosts". Behaviour. 136 (9): 759–777. doi:10.1163/156853999501559. JSTOR 4535638.
- ^ Tanaka, Keita D.; Morimoto, Gen; Ueda, Keisuke (2005). "Yellow wing-patch of a nestling Horsfield's hawk cuckoo Cuculus fugax induces miscognition by hosts: Mimicking a gape?". Journal of Avian Biology. 36 (5): 461–64. doi:10.1111/j.2005.0908-8857.03439.x. Archived from the original on 2012-10-21.
- ^ Zickefoose, Julie. "Backyard Mystery Birds". Bird Watcher's Digest. Retrieved 2010-06-25.
- ^ a b Capainolo, Peter; Butler, Carol (2010). How Fast Can a Falcon Dive?. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-8135-4790-9.
- ^ Gellhorn, Joyce (2007). White-tailed ptarmigan: Ghosts of the alpine tundra. Boulder, CO: Johnson Books. p. 110. ISBN 978-1-55566-397-1.
- ^ Ehrlich, Paul R.; Dobkin, David S.; Wheye, Darryl (1998). The Birder's Handbook: A field guide to the natural history of North American birds. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-671-65989-9.
- ^ Carboneras, Carlos (1992). "Family Diomedeidae (Albatrosses)". In del Hoyo, Josep; Elliott, Andrew; Sargatal, Jordi (eds.). Handbook of Birds of the World. Vol. 1: Ostrich to Ducks. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. p. 199. ISBN 978-84-87334-10-8.
- ^ Whitney, William Dwight; Smith, Benjamin Eli (1911). The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia. Vol. 6. New York: The Century Company. p. 4123. LCCN 11031934.
- ^ Bock, Walter J. (1989). "Organisms as functional machines: A connectivity explanation". American Zoologist. 29 (3): 1119–1132. doi:10.1093/icb/29.3.1119. JSTOR 3883510.
- ^ Tudge, Colin (2009). The Bird: A natural history of who birds are, where they came from, and how they live. New York, NY: Crown Publishers. p. 140. ISBN 978-0-307-34204-1.
- ^ Kaplan, Gisela T. (2007). Tawny Frogmouth. Collingwood, Victoria: Csiro Publishing. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-0-643-09239-6.
- ^ Harris, Mike P. (2014). "Aging Atlantic puffins Fratercula arctica in summer and winter" (PDF). Seabird. 27. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology: 22–40. doi:10.61350/sbj.27.21. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 11, 2016.
- ^ "Skomer Island Puffin" (PDF). www.welshwildlife.org (factsheet). May 2011.
- ^ Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language
- ^ Eleanor Lawrence (2008). Henderson's Dictionary of Biology (14th ed.). Pearson Benjamin Cummings Prentice Hall. p. 111. ISBN 978-0-321-50579-8.
- ^ Jupiter, Tony; Parr, Mike (2010). Parrots: A Guide to Parrots of the World. A&C Black. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-4081-3575-4.
- ^ a b Mougeo, François; Arroyo, Beatriz E. (22 June 2006). "Ultraviolet reflectance by the cere of raptors". Biology Letters. 2 (2): 173–176. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2005.0434. PMC 1618910. PMID 17148356.
- ^ Parejo, Deseada; Avilés, Jesús M.; Rodriguez, Juan (23 April 2010). "Visual cues and parental favouritism in a nocturnal bird". Biology Letters. 6 (2): 171–173. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0769. PMC 2865047. PMID 19864276.
- ^ Leopold, Aldo Starker (1972). Wildlife of Mexico: The Game Birds and Mammals. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p. 202. ISBN 978-0-520-00724-6.
- ^ Alderton, David (1996). A Birdkeeper's Guide to Budgies. Tetra Press. p. 12.
- ^ King & McLelland (1985) p. 376
- ^ a b Elliot, Daniel Giraud (1898). The Wild Fowl of the United States and British Possessions. New York, NY: F. P. Harper. p. xviii. LCCN 98001121.
- ^ Perrins, Christopher M. (1974). Birds. London, UK: Collins. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-00-212173-6.
- ^ Petrie, Chuck (2006). Why Ducks Do That: 40 distinctive duck behaviors explained and photographed. Minocqua, WI: Willow Creek Press. p. 31. ISBN 978-1-59543-050-2.
- ^ Goodman, Donald Charles; Fisher, Harvey I. (1962). Functional Anatomy of the Feeding Apparatus in Waterfowl (Aves: Anatidae). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. p. 179. OCLC 646859135.
- ^ King & McLelland (1985) p. 421
- ^ Dunn, Jon L.; Alderfer, Jonathan, eds. (2006). Field Guide to the Birds of North America (5 ed.). Washington, DC: National Geographic. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-7922-5314-3.
- ^ Mullarney, Svensson, Zetterström & Grant (1999) p. 40
- ^ a b Lederer, Roger J. "The Role of Avian Rictal Bristles" (PDF). The Wilson Bulletin. 84 (2): 193–197.
- ^ a b Conover, Michael R.; Miller, Don E. (November 1980). "Rictal Bristle Function in Willow Flycatcher" (PDF). The Condor. 82 (4): 469–471. doi:10.2307/1367580. JSTOR 1367580.
- ^ a b c Cunningham, Susan J.; Alley, Maurice R.; Castro, Isabel (January 2011). "Facial Bristle Feather Histology and Morphology in New Zealand Birds: Implications for Function". Journal of Morphology (PDF). 272 (1): 118–128. Bibcode:2011JMorp.272..118C. doi:10.1002/jmor.10908. PMID 21069752. S2CID 20407444.
- ^ a b Perrins, Christopher M.; Attenborough, David; Arlott, Norman (1987). New Generation Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. p. 205. ISBN 978-0-292-75532-1.
- ^ Clark, George A. Jr. (September 1961). "Occurrence and timing of egg teeth in birds" (PDF). The Wilson Bulletin. 73 (3): 268–278.
- ^ Harris, Tim, ed. (2009). National Geographic Complete Birds of the World. Washington, DC: National Geographic. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-4262-0403-6.
- ^ Kaiser, Gary W. (2007). The Inner Bird: Anatomy and evolution. Vancouver, BC: University of Washington Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-7748-1344-0.
- ^ Ralph, Charles L. (May 1969). "The Control of Color in Birds". American Zoologist. 9 (2): 521–530. doi:10.1093/icb/9.2.521. JSTOR 3881820. PMID 5362278.
- ^ a b c d
Hill, Geoffrey E. (2010). National Geographic Bird Coloration. Washington, DC: National Geographic. pp. 62–66. ISBN 978-1-4262-0571-2. - ^ a b c Rogers, Lesley J.; Kaplan, Gisela T. (2000). Songs, Roars and Rituals: Communication in birds, mammals and other animals. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 20, 83, 155. ISBN 978-0-674-00827-4.
- ^ a b c Jouventin, Pierre; Nolan, Paul M.; Örnborg, Jonas; Dobson, F. Stephen (February 2005). "Ultraviolet spots in king and emperor penguins". The Condor. 113 (3): 144–150. doi:10.1650/7512. S2CID 85776106.
- ^ Campbell, Bernard Grant, ed. (1972). Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: The Darwinian pivot. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-202-02005-1.
- ^ Thompson, Bill; Blom, Eirik A.T.; Gordon, Jeffrey A. (2005). Identify Yourself: The 50 most common birding identification challenges. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-618-51469-4.
- ^ O'Brien, Michael; Crossley, Richard; Karlson, Kevin (2006). The Shorebird Guide. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-618-43294-3.
- ^ Howell (2007) p. 21
- ^
Parkes, A.S.; Emmens, C.W. (1944). "Effect of androgens and estrogens on birds". In Harris, Richard S.; Thimann, Kenneth Vivian (eds.). Vitamins and hormones. Vol. 2. New York, NY: Academic Press. p. 371. ISBN 978-0-12-709802-9.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) - ^ Bhullar, Bhart-Anjan S.; Morris, Zachary S.; Sefton, Elizabeth M.; Tok, Atalay; Tokita, Masayoshi; Namkoong, Bumjin; Camacho, Jasmin; Burnham, David A.; Abzhanov, Arhat (July 2015). "A molecular mechanism for the origin of a key evolutionary innovation, the bird beak and palate, revealed by an integrative approach to major transitions in vertebrate history: DEVELOPMENTAL MECHANISM FOR ORIGIN OF BIRD BEAK". Evolution. 69 (7): 1665–1677. doi:10.1111/evo.12684. PMID 25964090. S2CID 205124061.
- ^ a b Abzhanov, Arhat; Protas, Meredith; Grant, B. Rosemary; Grant, Peter R.; Tabin, Clifford J. (2004-09-03). "Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches". Science. 305 (5689): 1462–1465. Bibcode:2004Sci...305.1462A. doi:10.1126/science.1098095. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 15353802. S2CID 17226774.
- ^ a b Abzhanov, Arhat; Kuo, Winston P.; Hartmann, Christine; Grant, B. Rosemary; Grant, Peter R.; Tabin, Clifford J. (August 2006). "The calmodulin pathway and evolution of elongated beak morphology in Darwin's finches". Nature. 442 (7102): 563–567. Bibcode:2006Natur.442..563A. doi:10.1038/nature04843. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 16885984. S2CID 2416057.
- ^ Ito, Yoshihiro; Yeo, Jae Yong; Chytil, Anna; Han, Jun; Bringas, Pablo; Nakajima, Akira; Shuler, Charles F.; Moses, Harold L.; Chai, Yang (2003-11-01). "Conditional inactivation of Tgfbr2 in cranial neural crest causes cleft palate and calvaria defects". Development. 130 (21): 5269–5280. doi:10.1242/dev.00708. ISSN 1477-9129. PMID 12975342. S2CID 10925294.
- ^ Mallarino, R.; Grant, P. R.; Grant, B. R.; Herrel, A.; Kuo, W. P.; Abzhanov, A. (2011-03-08). "Two developmental modules establish 3D beak-shape variation in Darwin's finches". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (10): 4057–4062. Bibcode:2011PNAS..108.4057M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1011480108. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 3053969. PMID 21368127.
- ^ Samour (2000) p. 7
- ^ Patel, Meera (Fall 2007). "Platypus electroreception". Biology 342: Animal Behavior. Portland, OR: Reed College.
- ^ "Platypus". LiveScience. 4 August 2014. 27572.
- ^ "Vibration-sensing beak organ found in ibises, kiwi birds, and sandpipers". 2021. doi:10.1036/1097-8542.BR0105211.
{{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires|magazine=(help) - ^ a b c d
Clayton, [deficient citation]; Lee, [deficient citation]; Tompkins, [deficient citation]; Brodie, [deficient citation] (September 1999). "Reciprocal Natural Selection on Host-Parasite Phenotypes" (PDF). The American Naturalist. 154 (3): 261–270. Bibcode:1999ANat..154..261C. doi:10.1086/303237. hdl:10536/DRO/DU:30056229. ISSN 1537-5323. PMID 10506542. S2CID 4369897. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-09-12. Retrieved 2019-09-05.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)[full citation needed] - ^ Pomeroy, D.E. (February 1962). "Birds with abnormal bills" (PDF). British Birds. 55 (2): 49–72. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-02-19. Retrieved 2018-02-18.
- ^
Boyd, [deficient citation] (1951). "A survey of parasitism of the Staling Sturnus vulgaris L. in North America". Journal of Parasitology. 37 (1): 56–84. doi:10.2307/3273522. JSTOR 3273522. PMID 14825028.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)[full citation needed] - ^
Worth, [deficient citation] (1940). "A note on the dissemination of Mallophage". Bird-Banding. 11: 23, 24.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)[full citation needed] - ^
Ash, [deficient citation] (1960). "A study of the mallophaga of birds with particular reference to their ecology". Ibis. 102: 93–110. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1960.tb05095.x.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)[full citation needed] - ^ Clayton, Dale H.; Moyer, Brett R.; Bush, Sarah E.; Jones, Tony G.; Gardiner, David W.; Rhodes, Barry B.; Goller, Franz (2005-04-22). "Adaptive significance of avian beak morphology for ectoparasite control". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 272 (1565): 811–817. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.3036. ISSN 0962-8452. PMC 1599863. PMID 15888414.
- ^ Moyer, Brett R.; Peterson, A. Townsend; Clayton, Dale H. (2002). "Influence of bill shape on ectoparasite load in western scrub-jays" (PDF). The Condor. 104 (3): 675–678. doi:10.1650/0010-5422(2002)104[0675:iobsoe]2.0.co;2. hdl:1808/16618. ISSN 0010-5422. S2CID 32708877.
- ^ Clayton, D.H.; Walther, B.A. (2001-09-01). "Influence of host ecology and morphology on the diversity of Neotropical bird lice". Oikos. 94 (3): 455–467. Bibcode:2001Oikos..94..455C. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.940308.x. ISSN 1600-0706.
- ^ Tattersall, Glenn J.; Andrade, Denis V.; Abe, Augusto S. (24 July 2009). "Heat Exchange from the Toucan Bill Reveals a Controllable Vascular Thermal Radiator". Science. 325 (5949): 468–470. Bibcode:2009Sci...325..468T. doi:10.1126/science.1175553. PMID 19628866. S2CID 42756257.
- ^ Greenbert, Russell; Danner, Raymond; Olsen, Brian; Luther, David (14 July 2011). "High summer temperature explains bill size variation in salt marsh sparrows". Ecography. online first (2): 146–152. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.07002.x.
- ^ Phillips, Polly K.; Sanborn, Allen F. (December 1994). "An infrared, thermographic study of surface temperature in three ratites: Ostrich, emu and double-wattled cassowary". Journal of Thermal Biology. 19 (6): 423–430. Bibcode:1994JTBio..19..423P. doi:10.1016/0306-4565(94)90042-6.
- ^ "Evolution of bird bills: Birds reduce their 'heating bills' in cold climates". Science Daily. 23 June 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2012.
- ^ Bierma, Nathan (12 August 2004). "Add this to life list: 'Birding' has inspired flock of words". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 6 June 2011.
- ^ Terres, John K. (1980). The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-394-46651-4.
- ^ Schreiber, Elizabeth Anne; Burger, Joanna, eds. (2002). Biology of Marine Birds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p. 325. ISBN 978-0-8493-9882-7.
- ^ Armstrong (1965) p. 7
- ^ Wilson, Edward O. (1980). Sociobiology. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 227. ISBN 978-0-674-81624-4.
- ^ Amerson, A. Binion (May 1967). "Incidence and Transfer of Rhinonyssidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) in Sooty Terns (Sterna fuscata)". Journal of Medical Entomology. 4 (2): 197–9. doi:10.1093/jmedent/4.2.197. PMID 6052126.
- ^ Park, F. J. (March 2011). "Avian trichomoniasis: A study of lesions and relative prevalence in a variety of captive and free-living bird species as seen in an Australian avian practice". The Journal of the Australia Veterinary Association. 89 (3): 82–88. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2010.00681.x. PMID 21323655.
- ^ Partridge, Eric (2001). Shakespeare's bawdy (4 ed.). London, UK: Routledge Classics 2001. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-415-25553-0.
- ^ Burton, Maurice; Burton, Robert (1980). The International Wildlife Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York, NY: Marshall Cavendish Corp. p. 1680.
- ^ a b Grandin, Temple (2010). Improving Animal Welfare: A practical approach. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI. p. 110. ISBN 978-1-84593-541-2.
- ^ Race Foster; Marty Smith. "Bird Beaks: Anatomy, care, and diseases". Pet Education. Archived from the original on 4 June 2012. Retrieved 16 April 2012.[self-published source?]
- ^ Ash, Lydia (2020) [2004]. "Coping your Raptor". The Modern Apprentice. Archived from the original on 2005-04-06. Retrieved 16 April 2012.
- ^ Cunningham, Susan J.; Alley, M.R.; Castro, I.; Potter, M.A.; Cunningham, M.; Pyne, M.J. (2010). "Bill morphology or Ibises suggests a remote-tactile sensory system for prey detection". The Auk. 127 (2): 308–316. doi:10.1525/auk.2009.09117. S2CID 85254980.
- ^ Demery, Zoe P.; Chappell, J.; Martin, G.R. (2011). "Vision, touch and object manipulation in Senegal parrots Poicephalus senegalus". Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 278 (1725): 3687–3693. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0374. PMC 3203496. PMID 21525059.
Bibliography
[edit]- Armstrong, Edward Allworthy (1965). Bird Display and Behaviour: An introduction to the study of bird psychology. New York, NY: Dover Publications. LCCN 64013457.
- Campbell, Bruce; Lack, Elizabeth, eds. (1985). A Dictionary of Birds. Carlton, England: T and A.D. Poyser. ISBN 978-0-85661-039-4.
- Coues, Elliott (1890). Handbook of Field and General Ornithology. London, UK: Macmillan and Co. p. 1. OCLC 263166207.
- Gilbertson, Lance (1999). Zoology Lab Manual (4 ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Companies. ISBN 978-0-07-237716-3.
- Gill, Frank B. (1995). Ornithology (2 ed.). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 978-0-7167-2415-5.
- Girling, Simon (2003). Veterinary Nursing of Exotic Pets. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-0747-1.
- Hill, Geoffrey E. (2010). National Geographic Bird Coloration. Washington, DC: National Geographic. ISBN 978-1-4262-0571-2.
- Howell, Steve N. G. (2007). Gulls of the Americas. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 978-0-618-72641-7.
- King, Anthony Stuart; McLelland, John, eds. (1985). Form and Function in Birds. Vol. 3. London, UK: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-407503-0.
- Mullarney, Killian; Svensson, Lars; Zetterström, Dan; Grant, Peter J. (1999). Collins Bird Guide: The Most Complete Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe. London, UK: Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0-00-711332-3.
- Proctor, Noble S.; Lynch, Patrick J. (1998). Manual of Ornithology: Avian Structure and Function. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-07619-6.
- Rogers, Lesley J.; Kaplan, Gisela T. (2000). Songs, Roars and Rituals: Communication in birds, mammals and other animals. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-00827-4.
- Samour, Jaime, ed. (2000). Avian Medicine. London, UK: Mosby. ISBN 978-0-7234-2960-9.
Etymology
Linguistic Origins and Usage
The term "beak" derives from Middle English bec, adopted around the mid-13th century from Old French bec (meaning "beak" or "bird's bill"), which stems from Late Latin beccus, likely of Gaulish or Proto-Celtic origin (bekkos, denoting "beak" or "small beak").[5][6] The earliest recorded use in English appears circa 1220 in a bestiary text, initially describing a bird's bill or projecting tip, often with figurative extensions to noses or prows.[7] In ornithology, "beak" originally emphasized the sharpened, hooked bills of birds of prey, distinguishing it from the broader term "bill," which derives from Old English bile or bill (meaning "bird's beak" or "blade").[8] Over time, particularly by the 19th century, the distinction blurred, with modern scientific literature employing "beak" and "bill" interchangeably to refer to the keratin-covered jaws of birds, reflecting no substantive anatomical difference.[9] This evolution aligns with expanded anatomical studies, where "beak" now encompasses diverse avian forms, from probing shorebird bills to crushing parrot structures, while avoiding restriction to predatory species.[10] Beyond birds, English usage extends "beak" to analogous structures in non-avian taxa, such as the chitinous mouthparts of insects (e.g., hemipteran "beaks" for piercing) or the leathery jaws of cephalopods like squid, rooted in the term's core connotation of a projecting, functional appendage.[6] Colloquial applications, including British slang for a magistrate (from the 16th century, evoking authoritative "pecking" or nasal imagery), persist but remain peripheral to primary zoological meanings.[5]Evolutionary History
Origins in Theropod Dinosaurs
The beak of modern birds originated as a keratinous rhamphotheca covering the rostral portions of the jaws in theropod dinosaurs, representing an evolutionary innovation that paralleled edentulism and enhanced cranial biomechanics. Fossil evidence from derived theropods, including coelurosaurs, demonstrates that toothless beaks evolved convergently at least six times within Theropoda, often associated with dietary shifts toward herbivory or omnivory rather than solely flight-related reductions in weight.[11][12] This development occurred as early as the Late Jurassic, with ontogenetic tooth loss and beak formation documented in the ceratosaurian Limusaurus inextricabilis from the Shishugou Formation in China, dated to approximately 161–155 million years ago.[13] In Limusaurus, juveniles exhibited dentigerous jaws with up to 12 maxillary teeth per side, but adults developed edentulous snouts with a beak-like structure inferred from the deepened, edentulous premaxillae and dentaries, marking the only known instance of postnatal tooth loss and beak acquisition in a reptile.[13] Similar precursors appeared in maniraptoriform theropods, such as the therizinosaur Erlikosaurus andrewsi from the Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian–Turonian stages, ~95–90 million years ago) of Mongolia, where CT scans reveal edentulous premaxillae and dentary tips consistent with a keratinous rhamphotheca.[12] Oviraptorosaurians, closer to the avian lineage, also possessed robust, toothless rostra with minute mandibular foramina suggesting keratin sheathing, as seen in specimens from Early Cretaceous formations.[14] Biomechanical analyses indicate that these early beaks provided structural advantages, reducing von Mises stress and strain during feeding by distributing loads more evenly across the cranium compared to toothed snouts.[12] Rostral keratin evolution in theropods typically followed partial toothrow reduction, with phylogenetic models showing no direct causation of complete edentulism but facilitation of dietary specialization through lighter, more stable jaws.[15] Developmental conservation, evidenced by a shared "power cascade" growth pattern in rostral bone radius across theropod snouts spanning over 200 million years, underscores how beak shapes arose from modular, scalable mechanisms rather than radical innovations.[11] These theropod origins laid the groundwork for the full avian rhamphotheca, which further diversified post-Cretaceous extinction among neornithine birds.[11]Tooth Loss and Beak Emergence
The loss of teeth in the avian lineage occurred in the common ancestor of all modern birds (Neornithes) approximately 116 million years ago during the Early Cretaceous period, as evidenced by shared inactivating mutations in multiple genes responsible for tooth enamel formation across 48 sequenced bird genomes.[16][17] These mutations, affecting at least six key genes including those for enamel proteins, prevented the development of mineralized tooth caps, rendering the jaws edentulous while preserving underlying odontogenic signaling pathways that could theoretically support tooth formation if reactivated.[18][19] Unlike earlier Mesozoic birds such as Archaeopteryx (circa 150 million years ago), which retained conical teeth suited for grasping prey, and diverse enantiornithine and ornithurine taxa with variable dentition and tooth replacement cycles akin to reptiles, crown-group birds underwent this singular loss without evidence of long-term directional selection toward toothlessness across broader Mesozoic avialan evolution.[20][21][22] Concurrent with tooth loss, the beak emerged as a keratinous rhamphotheca—a horny sheath covering the bony mandibles—providing mechanical advantages for food processing and egg hatching without the metabolic costs of continuous tooth regeneration. Fossil evidence from Early Cretaceous species like Confuciusornis reveals disassociated rhamphotheca fragments, indicating early development of this sheath alongside reducing dentition, which likely facilitated stress distribution during feeding and pipping.[2][23] This transition reduced skull weight, enabling more efficient flight, and supported faster embryonic development by allowing precise eggshell penetration with the beak's tip rather than cumbersome teeth, potentially shortening incubation periods as a selective driver in lineages adapting to diverse ecological niches.[2] Some extinct neornithine groups, such as Odontopterygiformes, secondarily evolved bony pseudoteeth along the beak edges for enhanced prey capture, underscoring the beak's versatility as a post-dental innovation rather than a direct replacement.[24] Overall, these changes reflect opportunistic adaptations to lightweight cranial architecture and reproductive efficiency, rather than a uniform progression from teeth to beak dictated by feeding ecology alone.[25]Adaptive Radiation and Natural Selection
Adaptive radiation in bird beaks refers to the rapid diversification of beak morphologies from a common ancestor, enabling exploitation of varied ecological niches through natural selection. Following the emergence of toothless beaks in early avialans, this process accelerated in isolated environments like islands, where reduced competition allowed beak shapes to specialize for specific food sources such as seeds, insects, nectar, or fish. Natural selection acted on heritable variations in beak size, depth, and curvature, favoring traits that improved foraging efficiency and survival during environmental shifts.[26][27] The Galápagos finches exemplify this phenomenon, descending from a single South American ancestor that arrived approximately 2 million years ago and radiated into at least 15 species with distinct beak forms. Ground finches evolved robust, deep beaks for cracking large seeds, while warbler finches developed slender beaks for insectivory, and vegetarian finches acquired notched beaks for tearing cactus. Long-term field studies by Peter and Rosemary Grant on Daphne Major island documented natural selection in action: during a 1977 drought, medium ground finches with deeper beaks (averaging 0.5 mm deeper) survived better by accessing harder seeds, shifting the population mean beak depth by 4-5% in one generation, with heritability estimates around 0.65-0.85. Subsequent wet periods and parasite outbreaks reversed or reinforced these shifts, demonstrating beak traits' responsiveness to fluctuating selection pressures tied to food availability and competition.[28][29][30] Similarly, Hawaiian honeycreepers underwent adaptive radiation from a single finch-like ancestor around 5-7 million years ago, producing over 50 species with beaks ranging from long, curved nectar-probing tubes to stout seed-crackers and insect-spearing bills. This diversification correlated with volcanic island formation, providing sequential colonization opportunities and niche vacancies, with natural selection optimizing beak geometry for pollen, fruits, or arthropods amid low mammalian predation. Fossil and genetic evidence confirms that ecological specialization, rather than sexual selection alone, drove these beak evolutions, though many species now face extinction from introduced diseases and habitat loss.[31][26] In both cases, genetic underpinnings, such as variants in the ALX1 and BMP4 genes regulating beak depth and width, facilitated rapid evolutionary responses to selection, underscoring how modular beak development enables adaptive radiation without compromising overall cranial integrity. While microevolutionary changes in small clades like these finches are clearly driven by natural selection on ecological traits, broader avian radiations may incorporate additional factors like key innovations or mass extinctions, yet beak adaptability remains a primary axis of diversification across Aves.[32][33]Recent Evolutionary Adaptations
One prominent example of recent evolutionary adaptation in bird beaks is observed in Darwin's finches of the Galápagos Islands, where beak morphology has demonstrably shifted in response to environmental pressures over decades. Long-term field studies on Daphne Major island, spanning from 1973 to the present, document changes in beak size and shape driven by fluctuations in seed availability, particularly during droughts that favor birds with deeper, stronger beaks capable of cracking harder seeds. For instance, following a 1977 drought, medium ground finches (Geospiza fortis) with larger beaks survived at higher rates, leading to a heritable increase in average beak depth by approximately 4-5% within one generation, as measured through parent-offspring correlations and genomic analysis. A 2023 genomic study of these populations revealed that 45% of beak size variation is attributable to just six loci, with allele frequency shifts confirming natural selection's role in rapid adaptation over 30 years, independent of genetic drift.[34][35] These adaptations extend beyond size to functional morphology, influencing feeding efficiency and even mating signals; beak shape variations alter song production, reinforcing species isolation amid ecological divergence. Hybridization events, such as the emergence of a new lineage from a 1981 immigrant male and resident females, further illustrate ongoing speciation tied to beak traits suited to novel niches, with descendants exhibiting distinct beak forms for specialized insectivory. Such microevolutionary changes align with fossil evidence of faster evolutionary rates in avian rostra compared to other skull elements, underscoring beaks' lability in adapting to selective pressures like food scarcity or interspecific competition.[36] In invasive populations, beak evolution can occur rapidly post-colonization. European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) introduced to North America in 1890 exhibit beaks 8% longer than those in their native European range, based on morphometric comparisons of museum specimens collected over 206 years. This elongation, absent in native populations over the same timeframe, correlates with expanded dietary opportunities in urban and agricultural habitats, including access to softer foods like fruits and insects, though climatic factors like warmer winters may contribute via phenotypic plasticity initially fixed by selection. The pattern holds across sexes and age classes, with statistical models ruling out measurement artifacts or translocation effects, highlighting invasion as a catalyst for morphological divergence.[37] Other cases, such as subtle lengthening in British great tits potentially linked to feeder use rather than feeders per se, suggest anthropogenic landscapes can accelerate beak trait shifts, but rigorous longitudinal data confirm selection on existing variation rather than de novo evolution. These examples collectively demonstrate that avian beak adaptations remain dynamic on contemporary timescales, governed by ecological feedbacks and genetic architectures that enable precise responses to shifting resources.[3]Anatomy
Mandibles and Keratin Sheath
The avian beak consists of an upper mandible derived from the premaxillary and maxillary bones and a lower mandible formed by the dentary, angular, and other ossified elements, providing the primary skeletal framework. These bony cores are lightweight yet robust, adapted for mechanical stress during feeding and other activities.[38][39] Overlaying these mandibles is the rhamphotheca, a thin, horny sheath composed mainly of β-keratin proteins, which originates from the stratified squamous epithelium and lacks pigmentation in its basal layers but may incorporate pigments superficially. The rhamphotheca subdivides into the rhinotheca covering the upper mandible and the gnathotheca on the lower mandible, with the two meeting at the commissure or gape.[40][39][41] A vascular dermal layer, rich in blood vessels and nerve endings, lies between the bony core and the rhamphotheca, facilitating nutrient supply, thermoregulation, and sensory feedback; this intermediate zone enables the beak's continuous growth at rates varying by species, typically 0.1 to 0.3 mm per day in many passerines to offset abrasion from use.[42][43][38] The germinative epithelium at the base of the rhamphotheca drives its lifelong renewal, with keratinization occurring as cells migrate rostrally; in some taxa, the sheath features imbricated scales or compound plates that enhance durability or flexibility, as observed in parrots and raptors. Disruptions to this growth, such as nutritional deficiencies, can lead to overgrowth or deformities, underscoring the sheath's dependence on systemic health.[44][45]Cutting Edges and Structural Features
The cutting edges of a bird's beak, known as the tomia (singular: tomium), form the sharp margins along the upper (rhynchotheca) and lower (gnathotheca) mandibles of the rhamphotheca, enabling precise manipulation and processing of food.[46] These edges are composed of densely keratinized epidermal tissue, which provides durability and resistance to wear during foraging.[1] In many species, the tomia align closely to create a scissor-like action for shearing vegetation or flesh, with their structure varying based on dietary needs—smooth and chisel-like in granivores for cracking seeds, or reinforced for harder materials.[47] Serrated tomia, featuring small tooth-like projections, are adaptations for gripping slippery prey such as fish or insects, as seen in mergansers where sawtooth edges prevent escape during capture.[10] Similarly, geese exhibit transverse ridges along the tomia to tear fibrous grasses, functioning analogously to mammalian incisors without true dentition.[48] In hummingbirds, minute serrations on the tomia aid in snaring small arthropods, challenging earlier assumptions of exclusive nectar-feeding and highlighting predatory capabilities.[49] Scopate tomia, characterized by brush-like fringes of fine ridges, occur in shorebirds like oystercatchers and facilitate handling hard-shelled mollusks by wedging into shells or rasping flesh.[50] Hooked tomia, prominent in raptors such as falcons, feature a sharply curved tip on the upper mandible that overlaps the lower, optimized for tearing carrion or live prey with high bite forces concentrated at the edge.[51] This hook, often reinforced by underlying bony projections, enhances mechanical leverage, with the tomium's keratin layer absorbing impacts without fracturing. Structural integrity of the tomia derives from layered keratin deposition, vascular cores for nutrient supply, and conformity to the mandibular bones, allowing self-sharpening through abrasion while minimizing weight.[53] These features underscore causal adaptations driven by selective pressures for efficient energy extraction from diverse ecologies, rather than uniform design.[54]Sensory and Accessory Elements
Bird beaks feature specialized sensory structures, primarily mechanoreceptors, that enable tactile detection crucial for foraging. Herbst corpuscles, lamellated nerve endings unique to birds, are densely distributed in the bill tips of probe-foraging species such as sandpipers, ibises, and kiwis, allowing them to sense vibrations and locate hidden prey through remote touch without visual cues.[55] These corpuscles, embedded in pits within the beak's bony core, evolved during the Cretaceous period over 70 million years ago, as evidenced by fossil records of enantiornithine birds.[56] In seabirds like albatrosses and penguins, similar high-density Herbst corpuscles and nerve concentrations in the beak tip facilitate prey detection in low-visibility aquatic environments.[57] Grandry corpuscles complement Herbst corpuscles in some species, particularly aquatic birds, providing sensitivity to textures, pressure, and transient touch stimuli during food processing.[58] Beaks generally contain numerous nerve endings that detect temperature, pressure, and mechanical stimuli, aiding in manipulation of objects and food.[40] Additionally, iron-rich magnetite structures in the beaks of pigeons and migratory birds function as magnetoreceptors, contributing to orientation and navigation by sensing Earth's magnetic field.[59] Accessory elements include the cere, a soft, waxy skin patch at the base of the upper mandible in raptors, parrots, and pigeons, which encases the nostrils (nares) and supports respiration while potentially indicating sex or health through color and texture variations.[60] Rictal bristles, stiff feather-like structures around the beak's corners in certain passerines and nightjars, associate with Herbst corpuscles to enhance tactile sensing near the mouth.[61] Nares, positioned on the cere or upper mandible, primarily serve olfaction, though most birds rely weakly on smell; exceptions like kiwis possess enlarged olfactory bulbs linked to foraging via scent.[55]Developmental Biology
Embryonic Formation
The avian beak originates from facial primordia derived from the frontonasal prominence, which forms the upper beak (rhamphotheca), and the mandibular prominences, which contribute to the lower beak, during early embryogenesis.[62] Neural crest mesenchyme (NCM), migrating from the midbrain and hindbrain regions, populates these prominences and differentiates into the skeletal elements, dermis, muscle connective tissues, and melanocytes of the beak, while mesoderm-derived cells provide vascular endothelium, osteoclasts, and skeletal muscles.[62] Epithelial layers from ectoderm and endoderm overlay the mesenchyme, secreting signaling molecules that direct patterning and outgrowth.[62] In chicken embryos, beak development commences around embryonic day 3 (E3), coinciding with limb bud formation, with facial prominences fusing by E5 to establish the basic structure.[62] The prenasal cartilage, marked by Col2a1 expression, emerges at stage 27 (approximately E5.5) as the first mineralizing skeletal element, defining initial beak protrusion and species-specific contours before ossification of the premaxillary bone at stage 30 (E6.5).[63] This cartilaginous template transitions to bony elements, with the keratin sheath (rhamphotheca) forming concurrently through epidermal specialization. Incubation timelines vary by species, such as 17 days to hatching in chickens and quail versus 28 days in ducks, influencing developmental rates.[62] Epithelial-mesenchymal signaling pathways orchestrate beak morphogenesis, with bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), sonic hedgehog (SHH), Wnt, and transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ) gradients patterning NCM proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis.[62] For instance, FGF8 promotes premaxillary outgrowth in the facial frontonasal region, while Wnt signaling drives medial proliferation, modifications of which in embryos can revert beak-like structures toward ancestral toothed snouts resembling those in crocodilians.[64] Runx2 regulates ossification timing via cell cycle control, and matrix metalloproteinase 13 (Mmp13) facilitates remodeling, with elevated levels in faster-developing species like quail contributing to shorter beaks.[62] Beak shape emerges from two semi-independent developmental modules: an early module involving prenasal cartilage growth, modulated by BMP4 for depth and width and calmodulin for length, and a later module refining premaxillary bone morphology through networks including TGFβIIr, β-catenin, and Dkk3.[63] Quail-duck chimeras demonstrate that NCM autonomously specifies morphology, as transplanted quail NCM produces quail-like beaks in duck hosts, underscoring intrinsic genetic programming over host environment.[62] These mechanisms enable rapid evolutionary diversification while conserving core primordia across Aves.[62]Hatching Mechanisms
In avian embryos, hatching relies on a specialized, temporary keratinized structure called the egg tooth, positioned at the distal tip of the upper mandible (rhinotheca) of the developing beak. This projection, formed during late embryonic stages, functions as a mechanical tool to penetrate the eggshell from within, facilitating the embryo's emergence without parental assistance in most species.[65][66] The hatching sequence commences approximately 19-20 days post-fertilization in species like the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus), when the embryo repositions with its beak oriented toward the blunt end of the egg, adjacent to the air cell. Internal pipping occurs first, as the beak tip ruptures the inner shell membrane and chorioallantoic membrane, allowing access to atmospheric oxygen for pulmonary respiration while the lungs inflate. This step, driven by embryonic head movements, typically precedes external pipping by hours to days, depending on species incubation duration—such as 21 days for chickens or 17 days for quail (Coturnix japonica).[66][67][62] External pipping follows, where the egg tooth scores and cracks the calcareous outer shell through repeated, forceful thrusts powered by the Musculus complexus and other neck extensor muscles, which anchor the beak tip against the shell for precise cutting action. The embryo rotates circumferentially, enlarging the initial fissure into a zip-like seam around the egg's equator, often completing the process over 4-12 hours amid periodic rests to conserve energy from the absorbed yolk sac. In precocial species like megapodes, thermal gradients may influence timing, but the beak's role remains mechanically central across Aves.[67][66][68] Post-hatching, the egg tooth typically detaches or erodes within 1-3 days due to its provisional structure, sloughing off as the hatchling's beak keratinizes fully; in passerine birds, it is resorbed internally rather than shed externally. This transient adaptation underscores the beak's evolutionary primacy in avian reproduction, with fossil evidence of similar structures in theropod hatchlings suggesting deep homology. Absence or malformation of the egg tooth, as in certain developmental anomalies, can lead to lethal hatching failure, highlighting its causal necessity.[68][69][62]Post-Hatching Growth and Regeneration
In birds, the rhamphotheca—the keratinous sheath covering the beak's bony core—undergoes continuous growth post-hatching from a basal germinal epithelium, analogous to mammalian nail growth, to offset abrasion incurred during foraging, preening, and other behaviors. This elongation begins immediately after hatching and scales with somatic growth in nestlings, where beak length can increase by factors of 2–5 times within weeks, depending on species; for instance, in precocial galliforms like chickens, the beak achieves near-adult proportions by fledging at 4–6 weeks. Throughout adulthood, growth persists at species-specific rates, typically 1–3 cm annually in many passerines and raptors, balanced by mechanical wear to maintain functional morphology.[70][71][44] Growth dynamics are influenced by nutritional status, hormonal factors such as thyroid hormones, and mechanical stimuli, with deficiencies in vitamin D3 or calcium leading to softened or malformed beaks in chicks. In captive or rehabilitated birds, unchecked growth can result in overgrowth if abrasion is insufficient, necessitating trimming, but wild birds self-regulate via substrate interactions. Experimental studies on beak-trimmed poultry demonstrate regrowth of the rhamphotheca at rates of 1–2 mm per week initially, restoring length but sometimes altering tip shape due to uneven wear.[72][73] Regeneration capacity is limited to the rhamphotheca, which can renew following distal injury or avulsion if the proximal dermis and germinal layer remain viable, with full replacement timelines varying from months in small species to over a year in larger ones like parrots or toucans. Underlying osseous damage, however, does not regenerate in birds, as avian bone lacks the robust regenerative potential seen in some reptiles, often leading to permanent deformity or impaired function unless surgically scaffolded. Documented cases in raptors and waterfowl show partial recovery through keratin deposition, but success depends on injury extent and supportive care, with severe cases resulting in starvation risks due to foraging deficits.[74][75][76]Morphological Variations
Sexual Dimorphism
Sexual dimorphism in avian beaks primarily involves differences in size and shape between males and females, with variations arising from ecological adaptations, sexual selection, or niche partitioning. In many species, males possess larger or more robust bills suited for territorial defense or mate competition, while females may have bills adapted for provisioning young or specific foraging tasks. Such dimorphism is more prevalent than previously assumed, occurring across diverse taxa including passerines, hummingbirds, and shorebirds.[77][78] The extinct huia (Heteralocha acutirostris) exemplifies extreme bill dimorphism, with female beaks averaging 77.9 mm in length—about 48% longer than the male's 52.8 mm—and featuring a more pronounced downward curve of approximately 30 degrees compared to the male's 15 degrees. This divergence enabled complementary foraging: females probed deep into decayed wood for insect larvae using their slender, flexible bills, while males used shorter, sturdier bills to chisel away bark. Initially mistaken for separate species due to these differences, the dimorphism likely evolved to reduce intraspecific competition and enhance pair efficiency in resource exploitation.[79][80][81] In hummingbirds such as the purple-throated carib (Eulampis jugularis), females exhibit longer, more decurved bills relative to males, facilitating access to deeper corollas in certain flowers and potentially reducing feeding interference within pairs. Conversely, in lekking species like the wire-tailed manakin, males develop dagger-like bill tips as sexually selected weapons for intrasexual combat, with dimorphism evident in bill robusticity and curvature. Studies on seabirds, including Cory's shearwater (Calonectris diomedea), reveal female bills that are narrower and shorter, correlating with divergences in prey size selection and diving behaviors.[77][82][83] Bill dimorphism can also influence isotopic niches, as seen in the huia where overlapping but distinct diets reflected sex-specific bill functions, confirmed through ancient DNA and morphometric analyses. In ibises, pronounced dimorphism correlates with broad niche breadth and low interspecific competition, suggesting ecological selection over sexual antagonism. While coloration dimorphism in bills often ties to signaling, structural differences predominate in functional adaptations, with genetic underpinnings explored in extinct species like the huia revealing no simple chromosomal linkage to bill traits.[81][79]Color and Pigmentation Patterns
Bird beak coloration arises primarily from two classes of pigments: melanins, which produce black, brown, and gray tones through endogenous synthesis via tyrosinase enzymes, and carotenoids, dietary compounds that yield yellow, orange, and red hues since birds cannot synthesize them de novo.[84][85] These pigments are concentrated in the epidermal and dermal layers of the rhamphotheca, the keratinous sheath covering the beak, with distribution influenced by genetic, environmental, and physiological factors.[84] Uniform pigmentation predominates in many species, such as the black melanin-dominated beaks of corvids or the yellow carotenoid-rich bills of pigeons (Columba livia), but variations include gradients, with darker melanin accumulation at tips or cutting edges for wear resistance.[86] Mottled or patchy patterns emerge in certain taxa, often combining melanin overlays on carotenoid bases; for example, breeding female common waxbills (Estrilda astrild) exhibit black-mottled red bills, where melanin deposition creates irregular dark spots on a carotenoid substrate, reverting post-breeding.[87] In ducks (Anas spp.), beak pigmentation includes mixed "miscellaneous" patterns blending yellow carotenoids with black melanin flecks, genetically distinct from uniform yellow or black forms and linked to loci affecting pigment deposition.[88] Age and environmental cues modulate patterns: ultraviolet exposure and post-hatching growth promote melanin buildup, leading to darkening or spotting in species like domestic chickens, as identified in genome-wide association studies.[86] Genetic mechanisms underpin pattern diversity; in Darwin's finches (Geospiza spp.), yellow bills result from mutations disabling C(4)-ketolase enzymes, blocking dietary carotenoid conversion to red ketocarotenoids and yielding unprocessed yellow pigmentation without red gradients.[89] Seasonal shifts alter patterns dynamically, as in the Eurasian blackbird (Turdus merula), where spring breeding intensifies yellow carotenoid expression in males' bills, fading to brownish melanin dominance in winter, reflecting resource allocation rather than fixed morphology.[90] Such condition-dependent patterns, while rapid, stem from underlying pigment synthesis and transport pathways conserved across Aves.[91] Rare structural contributions, like iridescent overlays from epidermal nanostructures, enhance perceived patterns in some parrots but remain secondary to pigmentary control in most beaks.[62]Primary Functions
Foraging and Food Processing
Bird beaks serve as specialized tools for capturing prey and processing food, with morphology closely tied to dietary niche and foraging behavior. Studies on diverse avian taxa demonstrate that beak shape and size primarily evolve in response to feeding ecology, enabling efficient exploitation of specific resources such as seeds, insects, or vertebrates. For instance, in parid birds, foraging substrate—whether foliage, ground, or aerial—significantly predicts beak dimensions, with ground foragers exhibiting deeper beaks suited for cracking hard items.[92] [93] Granivorous species, like finches, possess stout, conical beaks optimized for husking and crushing seeds, where deeper beaks correlate with greater force application and handling of tougher husks during droughts, as observed in Darwin's finches on the Galápagos.[94] In contrast, raptors employ hooked, robust beaks to grasp and tear flesh, with the tomial edge facilitating dismemberment of vertebrate prey through scissoring motions that generate high mechanical leverage. Piscivorous birds, such as mergansers, feature serrated lamellae along the bill margins to filter and hold slippery fish, enhancing capture success in aquatic environments.[95] [96] Food processing extends beyond capture, involving manipulation to prepare ingestible pieces; parrots, for example, use powerful, dexterous beaks to shear nuts and manipulate objects, achieving bite forces up to 400 Newtons in some species due to reinforced cranial structures. Probing foragers like shorebirds employ long, slender bills to extract invertebrates from mud, with bill-tip mechanoreceptors aiding detection without visual cues. These adaptations underscore causal links between beak geometry, biomechanics, and foraging efficiency, where mismatches reduce survival rates in experimental manipulations.[97] [98] [99]Defense and Interspecific Interactions
Bird beaks function in self-defense by enabling pecking, biting, or stabbing actions against predators, particularly when flight or evasion fails. This capability supplements other antipredator strategies, with the beak's durable keratin sheath providing a rigid structure for inflicting damage or deterring attacks. In species like parrots, the beak constitutes the principal weapon against threats due to limited alternative armaments.[100] Although primarily evolved for feeding, beaks are deployed alongside talons and spurs in direct confrontations. In interspecific interactions, beaks facilitate aggressive encounters, including territorial defense and resource competition with other species. Raptors leverage hooked beaks, equipped with a tomial edge for tearing flesh, to dispatch prey or counter intruders from different taxa.[102] Such uses extend to nest protection, where parent birds jab or grasp at approaching heterospecifics to safeguard offspring. Additionally, the beak aids in ectoparasite removal via preening, mitigating infestations from interspecific arthropods like lice and fleas as a behavioral defense mechanism.[103] These applications underscore the beak's versatility beyond foraging, adapting to confrontational contexts driven by survival pressures.Sensory Perception and Environmental Probing
Bird beaks serve as primary tactile interfaces with the environment, enabling perception of mechanical stimuli such as vibrations, pressure gradients, and textures that inform foraging and navigation behaviors. In probe-foraging species, including shorebirds (Scolopacidae) and kiwis (Apteryx spp.), the bill tip contains densely packed mechanoreceptors, primarily Herbst corpuscles, embedded in bony pits that detect substrate-borne vibrations and interstitial fluid movements to locate buried invertebrates without visual cues.[55] [104] This remote-touch capability, often termed a "sixth sense," allows precise probing into mud, sand, or soil, where birds like the American woodcock (Scolopax minor) or Wilson's snipe (Gallinago delicata) insert their long bills up to several centimeters deep to sense prey movements.[105] [106] The vibrotactile bill-tip organ represents a conserved trait across diverse avian lineages, with evidence from 2020 paleontological analysis indicating its emergence in the Cretaceous period among early ornithuromorph birds, predating modern shorebird diversification.[55] In kiwis, for instance, the bill tip features over 15,000 Herbst corpuscles innervated by the trigeminal nerve, providing heightened sensitivity to detect earthworms and larvae at depths up to 10 cm in forest litter or soil, a adaptation suited to their nocturnal, ground-foraging lifestyle.[104] Similarly, ibises (Threskiornithidae) exhibit bill-tip mechanoreceptor clusters that facilitate tactile discrimination during probing in wetland sediments, as documented in morphological studies from 2010.[107] Beyond tactile foraging, certain birds employ beak-embedded iron oxide (magnetite) particles as magnetoreceptors to sense geomagnetic field variations, aiding spatial orientation during migration or environmental mapping. These receptors, concentrated in the upper beak dermis of species like domestic pigeons (Columba livia) and European robins (Erithacus rubecula), transduce magnetic intensity and inclination angles via the ophthalmic branch of the trigeminal nerve, with experimental ablation studies confirming their role in disrupting navigational accuracy.[59] [108] Recent 2024 findings in seabirds, such as shearwaters, reveal homologous tactile bill-tip organs linked to conserved somatosensory pathways, underscoring the beak's role in probing oceanic or coastal environments for prey gradients.[109] These sensory mechanisms underscore the beak's evolution as a multifunctional probe, integrating mechanoreception with behavioral responses to heterogeneous substrates.Specialized Adaptations
Thermoregulation and Heat Exchange
Avian beaks contribute to thermoregulation primarily as vascularized, unfeathered structures that facilitate non-evaporative heat dissipation, acting as thermal windows to radiate excess body heat without water loss.[110] This function relies on dense superficial blood vessels that enable vasodilation to increase heat flux during hyperthermia and vasoconstriction for conservation in colder conditions, with beak surface temperatures often measured via infrared thermography to exceed ambient air by 10–20°C under heat stress.[111] In species inhabiting warm environments, such as toucans and hornbills, the beak's role is pronounced, where bill size correlates positively with mean annual temperatures both within and across taxa, reflecting evolutionary adaptation for enhanced radiative cooling.[112] In the toco toucan (Ramphastos toco), the oversized bill—comprising approximately one-third of body length—serves as a controllable thermal radiator, with empirical measurements indicating it can theoretically dissipate 5–100% of total body heat loss depending on ambient conditions and blood flow modulation.[113] Thermal imaging studies reveal that toucans actively adjust arteriovenous blood flow to the bill, elevating its surface temperature to match or surpass core body temperature (around 39–41°C) at air temperatures above 30°C, thereby offloading metabolic heat generated from activity or digestion without relying on panting until thresholds near 40°C.[113] This capacity underscores the beak's efficiency in tropical settings, where passive radiation accounts for up to 400% of resting heat production in extreme models, though actual dissipation aligns with behavioral states like perching in shade to minimize overload.[114] Hornbills demonstrate similar but comparatively limited beak-mediated heat exchange, with Southern yellow-billed hornbills (Tockus leucomelas) dissipating a maximum of 19.9% of total non-evaporative heat loss via the beak at air temperatures of 33°C, peaking at heat fluxes of 25.1 W/m² between 30.7°C and 41.4°C.[111] Vasodilation initiates around 30.7°C (approximately 10°C below core body temperature of 41.4°C), enabling radiative and convective losses, but efficacy diminishes in arid habitats compared to humid ones, prompting supplementary behaviors like gular fluttering.[111] Across 14 Australian bird species studied from 2020–2023, beak heat regulation proves less precise than in legs, with bill surfaces maintaining ~2°C warmer than plumage across 2–39°C air temperatures and minimal slope in temperature response (b = -0.0276), implying consistent but non-adjustable dissipation that influences bill morphology evolution under climate gradients.[115] While effective for heat shedding, beak thermoregulation exhibits species-specific thresholds tied to body size and habitat; smaller-billed birds in temperate zones rely less on bills (often <10% of total loss), favoring insulation or leg-based control, whereas enlarged bills in endotherms from hot climates mitigate hyperthermia risks but may incur energetic costs during cold snaps via obligatory losses.[115][116] Empirical data from thermal flux measurements confirm that beak contributions rarely exceed 25% of overall heat budget in most taxa, positioning it as a supplementary rather than primary mechanism alongside panting or postural adjustments.[111]Bill Tip Organ and Mechanoreception
The bill tip organ is a specialized vibrotactile sensory structure concentrated at the distal end of the avian bill, enabling probe-foraging birds to detect mechanical vibrations and pressure gradients from concealed prey in substrates such as soil, sand, or mud. This organ facilitates remote-touch perception, allowing localization of buried or hidden invertebrates without visual input, which is particularly adaptive in low-light, nocturnal, or turbid conditions.[55][104] Anatomically, the bill tip organ comprises densely clustered mechanoreceptors embedded within dermal papillae or bony pits in the premaxilla and mandible, often numbering 100–500 pits per bill tip, with nearest-neighbor distances as low as 0.39–0.51 mm in fossil and modern examples. The primary mechanoreceptors are Herbst corpuscles, which are lamellated, Pacinian-like structures sensitive to high-frequency vibrations (typically >100 Hz) generated by prey movements; each pit may contain 6–10 such corpuscles, oriented rostro-caudally and innervated by branches of the trigeminal nerve. Grandry corpuscles, ovoid Meissner-like end-organs, complement this by detecting velocity changes and low-frequency vibrations, with both types distributed in higher densities toward the bill's apex and edges in tactile specialists.[55][104][117] Mechanoreception occurs through the organ's integration of vibrotactile and pressure cues: substrate vibrations propagate to the bill tip, stimulating Herbst corpuscles to transduce rapid mechanical transients into neural signals, while Grandry corpuscles encode sustained contact or motion. These signals project via the trigeminal nerve to enlarged somatosensory nuclei, such as the principal sensory trigeminal nucleus (volume up to 7 mm³ in kiwi) and nucleus basorostralis (up to 41 mm³), supporting precise prey discrimination and strike accuracy. In species like kiwi and godwits, this yields 10–20% higher Herbst density per pit compared to less tactile foragers, correlating with enhanced foraging efficiency in granular media.[104][55] This sensory adaptation is widespread among probe-foraging taxa, including shorebirds (Scolopacidae, e.g., godwits with 10.27 ± 5.59 Herbst corpuscles per pit), ibises (Threskiornithidae), and kiwi (Apterygidae, with 113 premaxillary pits), but also conserved in seabirds like albatrosses and penguins for potential underwater prey detection or courtship, and even non-probers like ostriches for food texture assessment. Fossil evidence from Cretaceous lithornithids indicates 416–564 pits, suggesting the organ's deep evolutionary roots predating major avian divergences, likely as a symplesiomorphy retained for diverse tactile roles.[55][104][109][117]Rictal Bristles and Aerodynamic Roles
Rictal bristles consist of stiffened, often vaneless feathers emerging from the skin at the rictal margin—the gape corner where the upper and lower mandibles meet—and project forward or laterally from the base of the beak. Present in roughly one-third of extant bird species, they are especially prominent in aerial insectivores, including flycatchers (Tyrannidae) and nightjars (Caprimulgiformes), where they can number dozens per side and reach lengths up to several centimeters. Structurally, these bristles feature a prominent rachis with minimal or absent barbs, adaptations that enhance rigidity while reducing drag, and their follicles are frequently innervated by mechanoreceptors such as Herbst corpuscles, which transduce mechanical stimuli into neural signals.[118][119] In aerodynamic contexts, rictal bristles function primarily as airflow sensors, enabling birds to detect variations in air speed, direction, and turbulence during flight. This sensory capability, mediated by follicle innervation, allows species like nightjars to perceive subtle environmental cues, such as headwinds or prey-induced disturbances, which inform orientation and maneuvering precision—critical for nocturnal or crepuscular aerial foraging. Comparative anatomical studies across Caprimulgiformes reveal morphological diversity correlating with habitat: longer, unbranched bristles in closed, low-light environments exhibit greater innervation density, consistent with heightened airflow sensitivity, whereas shorter, branched forms in open-habitat species show reduced tactile apparatus, implying a diminished but persistent aero-sensory role.[119][120] Experimental evidence underscores the subtlety of this aerodynamic sensing over direct flow modification. For instance, removal of rictal bristles in willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii) did not alter aerial insect capture success rates, indicating they do not serve as physical prey funnels or scoops but may instead provide proprioceptive feedback on facial airflow for flight stability. Similarly, phylogenetic analyses link bristle elongation to low-light foraging guilds, where airflow detection likely supplements vision for collision avoidance and prey tracking, though quantitative aerodynamic modeling remains limited. These findings align with broader feather sensory evolution, where bristles parallel filoplumes in monitoring air movement without significant lift or drag contributions.[121][120]Behavioral Applications
Social and Courtship Displays
Birds utilize their beaks in diverse social interactions, including playful beak-grabbing and jousting among conspecifics, which facilitate bonding and exercise without causing injury.[122] In courtship contexts, billing—defined as the mutual touching, tapping, or clasping of beaks—serves as a precopulatory behavior in species such as pigeons, doves, and gannets, strengthening pair bonds through tactile and visual signaling.[123] This display often accompanies vocalizations and postures, with empirical observations indicating its role in mate synchronization prior to mating.[124] Courtship feeding represents another beak-mediated behavior, wherein males transfer food directly into the female's beak, mimicking chick-feeding to elicit acceptance and assess pair compatibility.[125] Documented across raptors, seabirds, and passerines, this practice correlates with higher reproductive success in species like zebra finches, where males perform beak-oriented dances integrating song and food presentation.[126] In hornbills and toucans, enlarged beaks amplify display efficacy through clattering or visual emphasis during territorial or mating rituals.[127] Social dominance displays may involve beak gaping or threat posturing, as observed in corvids and parrots, where open beaks signal aggression or submission to maintain hierarchy.[128] These behaviors, grounded in observational studies, underscore the beak's versatility beyond foraging, enabling precise communication of intent and fitness in avian societies.[129]Grooming and Maintenance Activities
Birds utilize their beaks as primary tools for preening, a behavioral process essential for maintaining feather structure, hygiene, and waterproofing. During preening, individuals draw feathers through the mandibles to realign barbules, excise broken barbs or debris, and dislodge ectoparasites such as lice, fleas, and mites, thereby reducing infestation risks that could impair insulation or flight efficiency.[103][130] The beak also facilitates the transfer of oily secretions from the uropygial gland—located at the base of the tail—to feathers, which distributes lipids that enhance flexibility, prevent bacterial growth, and maintain aerodynamic properties.[131] This activity occurs frequently, often hourly in many species, as feather maintenance demands ongoing attention to counteract wear from environmental exposure.[132] Preening's mandibular nibbling or zipping motions represent an evolved antiparasite strategy, with beak morphology influencing efficacy; for instance, finer-tipped beaks in certain passerines enable precise removal of small arthropods embedded in plumage.[133] Birds cannot access head feathers via beak alone, compensating through indirect methods like foot-mediated scratching, which spreads preen oil to inaccessible areas or employs the feet as proxies for mandibular cleaning.[134] In social contexts, some species engage in allopreening, where conspecifics use beaks to groom one another's feathers, fostering pair bonds or group hygiene, as observed in colonial seabirds like gannets during billing rituals that incorporate feather alignment.[132] Beak maintenance involves self-induced wear to counteract continuous keratin growth, preventing overelongation that could hinder feeding or manipulation. Birds achieve this through grinding the lower mandible against the upper during food processing or by rasping the beak on abrasive surfaces like perches, bark, or hard seeds, which naturally files edges and maintains curvature.[135][136] Chewing behaviors, prevalent in psittacines and corvids, further abrade the rhamphotheca via contact with woody substrates or nuts, ensuring functional sharpness without external intervention in wild populations.[137] Captive birds, lacking diverse foraging opportunities, often require enriched environments with chewable toys to replicate this wear, as unchecked growth leads to nutritional deficits or injury risks.[132] Additionally, birds periodically clean accumulated food residues from the beak's serrations or grooves using mandibular scraping or water bathing followed by shaking, preserving sensory acuity for subsequent tasks.[138]Acoustic and Communicative Uses
Bird beaks contribute to acoustic signaling primarily through their role in modulating vocalizations produced by the syrinx, the avian sound source located at the tracheobronchial junction. As part of the vocal tract, the beak acts as an acoustic filter that shapes timbre, resonance, and frequency characteristics of songs and calls, with airflow from the lungs passing through the syrinx, trachea, and oropharyngeal-esophageal cavity before radiating from the open beak.[139] [140] In species like zebra finches, adjustments in beak gape and position alter vocal tract resonances, enabling precise control over harmonic structure and pitch during song production.[139] Beak morphology exerts a causal influence on the acoustic properties of vocalizations, correlating with body size and ecological pressures. Larger beaks generally lower resonant frequencies by extending the effective vocal tract length, allowing birds with robust bills—such as those adapted for seed-cracking—to produce deeper, bass-like tones that propagate effectively in dense habitats.[141] [142] Empirical analyses across passerines confirm that bill depth and length predict lower fundamental frequencies in songs, independent of body mass in some cases, as seen in Darwin's finches where wider beaks associate with broader spectral bandwidths and reduced trill rates.[143] [144] Global datasets spanning thousands of species reveal interactive effects of beak size, habitat, and geography on frequency diversity, with open-country birds exhibiting higher-pitched calls facilitated by narrower bills.[142] These adaptations likely arise from bioacoustic optimization rather than direct selection for sound, as foraging demands on beak shape secondarily constrain vocal output.[145] [146] Beyond modulating syrinx-generated sounds, beaks produce non-vocal acoustic signals via mechanical actions, serving communicative functions in social and reproductive contexts. Bill clacking—rapid snapping of the mandibles—occurs in diverse taxa including corvids, herons, and roadrunners, generating percussive clicks that convey aggression, territorial claims, or pair bonding.[147] [148] In hooded crows (Corvus cornix), documented claps function in non-vocal displays alongside visual cues, while greater roadrunners (Geococcyx californianus) pair clacking with whines for mate location and coordination.[149] [148] Shoebill storks (Balaeniceps rex) employ clattering during courtship, producing resonant snaps audible over distances, which may amplify through the beak's hollow structure.[150] Such mechanosounds bypass the syrinx, enabling energy-efficient signaling in noisy environments or when vocalization is suboptimal.[151] Rare closed-beak vocalizations, inflating buccal cavities vented minimally through the beak, occur in displays across unrelated lineages, further highlighting the beak's versatility in acoustic output.[152]Human Interventions
Beak Trimming Practices
Beak trimming, also known as debeaking, involves the partial amputation of the beak tip in young poultry, primarily laying hens and turkeys, to mitigate injurious behaviors such as feather pecking and cannibalism that arise in high-density housing systems.[153] This procedure targets the distal portion of the upper and lower beak, reducing its length by approximately one-third to one-half, thereby limiting the potential for severe tissue damage during aggressive interactions.[154] Performed typically within the first 10 days of life, it addresses the causal link between intact beaks and escalated pecking in genetically selected commercial strains prone to such behaviors under confinement.[155] Common methods include hot-blade trimming, where a heated guillotine severs the beak, cauterizing tissue simultaneously, and infrared beak trimming (IRBT), which applies targeted heat to cause necrosis and sloughing of the tip without immediate cutting.[156] IRBT, increasingly adopted since the early 2010s, preserves more beak integrity and yields superior outcomes in feed efficiency, body weight gain, and egg production compared to hot-blade methods, as evidenced by controlled trials showing reduced post-trim weight loss and neuromas.[156] Hot-blade trimming, while effective, induces more acute thermal injury and potential for bacterial infection if not managed sterilely.[157] The primary rationale stems from empirical observations in commercial flocks, where untrimmed birds exhibit 35-45% higher cannibalism-related mortality and 3-10 grams greater daily feed wastage per bird due to inefficient prehension and increased aggression.[157] In barn-laid systems, omitting trimming correlates with poorer plumage scores, elevated skin injuries, keel bone deformities from stress-induced behaviors, and a 1.5-2% rise in overall mortality over a 72-week production cycle, based on longitudinal studies of over 5,000 hens.[158] These outcomes reflect causal realities of density-dependent aggression in modern breeds, where selective breeding for high yield amplifies pecking tendencies absent in freerange or low-density ancestral conditions.[158] Prevalence remains high in global commercial egg production, with beak trimming applied to most laying hens in the United States and non-EU markets as of 2025, though partial bans exist in regions like the European Union for chicks over 10 days old, prompting shifts to IRBT or genetic selection efforts.[156] Early trimming minimizes long-term sensory deficits and pain, as the beak's regenerative nerve endings adapt without forming hypersensitive neuromas when done pre-hatch or neonatally, per neurophysiological assessments.[72] While acute nociception occurs—measurable via elevated cortisol and beak-directed avoidance—the procedure's net welfare benefit is supported by reduced chronic suffering from flock-wide injuries, outweighing transient effects in utilitarian farm metrics.[158][153]Welfare Debates and Empirical Outcomes
Beak trimming in laying hens elicits welfare debates centered on balancing acute and potential chronic pain from the procedure against the prevention of injurious feather pecking and cannibalism, which inflict severe wounds, infections, and elevated mortality in untrimmed flocks. Proponents argue that trimming mitigates these population-level harms, while critics highlight neuromas—nerve bundles forming in regrown beak tissue that may cause ongoing hypersensitivity—and sensory deficits impairing foraging and beak use. Empirical data from controlled studies indicate that trimming, particularly when performed early (day-old chicks), minimizes long-term behavioral disruptions compared to later interventions, though immediate post-procedure aversion to food and reduced activity persist for days, suggestive of nociceptive pain.[159][160] A 2017 study on barn layers omitting beak trimming reported significantly poorer plumage and skin condition scores (e.g., higher feather damage incidence of 20-30% vs. trimmed controls), increased keel bone fractures (up to 15% prevalence), and a trend toward 5-10% higher cumulative mortality attributed to escalated pecking injuries, underscoring causal links between intact beaks and aggressive conspecific damage in group-housed birds.[158] Conversely, trimmed birds exhibited transient body weight reductions (e.g., 5-10% lower at 8 weeks) and lower initial egg production, but these normalized over time, with overall survival benefits outweighing deficits in commercial settings. Infrared beak trimming (IRBT), applied at hatcheries via laser-like heat, yields superior outcomes to hot-blade methods, including preserved feeding efficiency, reduced neuroma formation, and minimal stress responses (e.g., lower cortisol spikes), as evidenced by 2025 field data showing IRBT flocks with 10-15% better body development and production metrics.[161][156][162] Alternatives such as genetic selection for low-pecking lines, enriched environments (e.g., perches, dust baths), and nutritional adjustments (e.g., low-methionine diets) aim to curb pecking without mutilation, yet longitudinal trials reveal incomplete efficacy; for instance, a 2018 review of non-cage systems found persistent injurious pecking rates of 10-20% in alternative-managed flocks, often necessitating culling and failing to match trimmed flocks' welfare metrics like injury-free plumage. Natural beak abrasion via abrasive feeder inserts has been trialed but shows limited blunting (e.g., <5% length reduction over 20 weeks in pullets), insufficient to prevent outbreaks in high-density housing. European Food Safety Authority assessments in 2023 acknowledged trimming's welfare trade-offs but noted alternatives' variable success, with untrimmed systems correlating to 2-3 times higher mortality from cannibalism in empirical farm data, prioritizing causal evidence of pecking's drivers—overcrowding and boredom—over unproven non-invasive fixes.[163][164][165]Alternatives and Industry Implications
Infrared beak trimming, which applies targeted heat to induce gradual tissue necrosis and beak tip regrowth, serves as a primary alternative to conventional hot-blade methods in commercial poultry operations. Empirical studies demonstrate that infrared trimming causes less acute pain and neuromorphological damage while preserving beak shape and function more effectively, leading to improved feeding efficiency and body weight gain in pullets compared to hot-blade trimming.[166][167] In brown layer chickens, laser-assisted variants of this approach yield uniform beak reduction with minimal stress indicators, such as lower cortisol levels, and support equivalent egg production rates to untreated controls when pecking behaviors are managed.[168] These methods have been adopted in regions with welfare regulations restricting hot-blade use, such as parts of the European Union since 2016, where they mitigate injury risks without elevating mortality or cannibalism rates beyond 5-10% in monitored flocks.[156] Non-surgical alternatives focus on husbandry and genetic interventions to curb injurious pecking at its root. Environmental enrichments, including perches, litter substrates for foraging, and dust-bathing areas, reduce feather pecking incidence by 20-40% in non-trimmed laying hens by redirecting behaviors toward natural substrates, though they do not fully prevent severe outbreaks in high-density systems.[169] Genetic selection programs targeting low-aggression strains, such as those developed by breeding calm lines over multiple generations, have decreased pecking-related mortality by up to 30% in experimental flocks without trimming, but require 5-10 years for widespread commercial viability and may compromise other traits like feed conversion efficiency.[170] Lighting manipulations, such as red-spectrum bulbs to reduce visibility of conspecifics, and nutritional additives like high-fiber diets, further suppress aggression by 15-25%, yet studies omitting trimming entirely report 2-3 times higher plumage damage and 1.5-2% elevated mortality from cannibalism in barn systems.[158][154] Industry-wide adoption of these alternatives carries economic and regulatory implications, balancing welfare standards with productivity. Infrared and laser techniques increase upfront equipment costs by 10-20% per flock but yield net savings through reduced labor for injury treatment and sustained egg output, with no observed decline in body weight or keel bone integrity over 72-week production cycles.[156][157] In jurisdictions enforcing bans on conventional trimming, such as Switzerland since 1992, producers report compliance via enrichment and genetics without productivity losses exceeding 5%, though incomplete transitions have led to 10-15% higher cull rates in non-adapted flocks.[171] Long-term, selective breeding could diminish trimming reliance by 50% in integrated operations, but empirical data underscore that unmanaged intact beaks elevate operational risks, including feed wastage of 3-10 grams per bird daily and infection-driven losses, necessitating hybrid strategies over outright elimination.[160][172] These shifts promote causal reductions in acute pain while preserving the empirical necessity of beak management for flock viability in intensive production.References
- https://people.[ohio](/page/Ohio).edu/witmerl/Downloads/1991_Witmer_&_Rose_Diatryma.pdf
