wrote on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 11:22
AM:
> Research shows that, as in humans, silver gulls supersizing on junk
> food are the poorer for it.
.
.
.
> There were physical differences too. "Urbanised gulls had greater
> body condition and were heavier than their non-urbanised
> counterparts. Across the genders, this meant a mass - or size -
> difference of about 10 per cent."
What does "greater body condition" mean? It sounds good, but obviously
it isn't.
.
.
.
> Hobart's silver gull population is in decline, and it is
> possible the
> poorer diet may be one reason, along with better management of
> rubbish tips and greater competition from other larger gulls.
Not sure I understand that either. They're suggesting that they're
living on stuff from tips that's not good for them, but are also
suggesting that they're being prevented from accessing that stuff by
better tip management. Can't have it both ways.
Peter Shute
==============================www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
=============================
|
