Skip to main content

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca, have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together. 

Photo by Sid Balachandran on Unsplash

For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals. 

Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet that isn't bamboo, pandas eat eggs, small animals, carrion, and are known to forage in farmland for pumpkin, kidney beans, wheat and domestic pig food.  It is thought these bears switched to eating bamboo, in part because it's extremely abundant and they don't have to fight with other animals to get it. Bamboo is high in fibre but has a low concentration of nutrients. So pandas have to eat 20 to 40 pounds of the stuff every day survive. 

It is not clear if giant pandas are promiscuous, but out of the wild, pandas mate more successfully when they are free to choose their mate. This could also explain the poor breeding success in captivity. This is a significant ingredient in reproductive success across all species, and vital for species adaptation. Reproduction isn't simply about replication, but about change and variability. Charles Darwin also thought this to be a significant selection for survival and evolution. 

Pandas sleep a lot, taking regular naps throughout the day simply lying on the ground or resting up against a tree, balancing on a branch. Much of their time is spent eating. 

The iconic black and white panda is actually the Sichuan giant panda, one of two subspecies. Their recently discovered cousins are the brown-furred Qinling giant pandas. New research published in Science Bulletin has used state-of-the-art technology to genome sequence both subspecies to understand when the Sichuan and Qinling pandas diverged; and why giant pandas have small organs and difficulty reproducing. 

The research concludes that the two subspecies diverged around 10-12 kya (thousand years ago), far more recently than previous estimates of 300 kya. Giant pandas have relatively small organs, including “diminutive penises”. A number of genes associated with reproductive performance, including sperm production and male genitals, exhibited unique evolutionary traits in the giant panda genome, which may be partially to blame for the giant panda’s low reproductive rate.

Ray Noble is a chartered biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology


Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As