Close
Articles today i learned (til)

Marine Birds Fly Into Storms to Survive?

October 20, 2022

In a recent article written by Freda Kreier, I learned about a very interesting phenomenon that some researchers have discovered. Many different species of seabirds have had their behavior studied during typhoons in the seas around Japan.

What’s going on?

Let’s get straight to the point. Some seabirds are flying directly into storms! The observations of the birds’ behavior differed greatly when a storm was present and when one was not. It’s as if the birds sense the storm coming, and head to the center. An example of this behavior can be seen in the following video:

In this video, the various colorful paths are flight paths of streaked shearwaters and the black path is the path of storm “Soulik” and typhoon “Jebi” respectively. You can see that as Soulik approaches, many of the birds alter their course directly into the direction of the storm. Then, right after Soulik, Jebi appears and the birds nearest to the typhoon engage in similar behavior.

You can find more evidence of this behavior in different scenarios in this research article: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2212925119

Why?

Now, let us discuss why on Earth this would be happening! As discussed by Emily Shepard, a contributor to the previous research article, during a storm, birds at sea have nowhere to go. Their options to choose from are not ideal in the slightest. Birds can either go inland if they are close enough, or stay out on the ocean.

Two Choices:

Go Inland

Even though going inland may seem like an obvious safe option, it is often much safer for these birds to stay out in the ocean. If a bird were to stay near shore during a storm, it runs the risk of being blown onto land or hit by debris carried by the strong winds.

Remain At Sea

Being at sea during a storm instinctively sounds dangerous to most people. However, it might be the safest option! If a bird were to go towards the storm, it has the ability to coast along, riding on the winds of the storm. An analogous situation might be when a person gets swept out to sea by a riptide. In that scenario, the best course of action is to float and allow yourself to be carried by the current. If you fight it, you will become tired and possibly drown. I believe this is why the birds do this. It makes sense to just float along with the winds and preserve your energy until its over.

It is also important to note that the birds already inland do not seem to participate in this behavior. I believe it is more of a “spur of the moment” type of situation. If a bird is out on the sea, they have the choice to exert themselves fight the storm to get to shore, or ride the storm through.

Although this whole situation seems outlandish, when we dive in and really think about the birds’ choices, it ends up making a lot of sense!

Sources:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/seabirds-typhoons-shearwaters-survival#:~:text=Some%20seabirds%20don’t%20just,the%20National%20Academy%20of%20Sciences.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2212925119

Tags:
0Likes
About Author

she/her/hers & they/them/theirs
Georgia Tech CS '24
Concentrations: Media & Intelligence

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
The Do’s and Don’ts of Georgia Tech
today i learned (til)
Burps to Breakthroughs: Reducing Livestock Emissions
An image of a mechanical keyboard, with the W A S D keycaps removed to expose the blue switches in clear housing in the keyboard
Field Notes, today i learned (til)
Mechanical Keyboards and the Psychology of ASMR
today i learned (til)
Bad @ss Birds

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.