New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Why Some Birds Are Likely To Hit Buildings

Those that eat insects, migrate or usually live in the woods are most likely to fly into buildings that feature a lot of glass.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

About a billion birds die from flying into buildings each year in North America. Suspicions have been that birds may perceive the open areas behind glass as safe passageways. Or they may mistake the reflected foliage for the real thing.

Researchers would like to reduce collisions, which requires a solid understanding about what makes a bird more or less likely to die by smacking into a building in the first place.

“There was, and still is, relatively little known at a broad scale. Most studies are at one small study site.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Jared Elmore, a graduate student in natural resource ecology and management at Oklahoma State University. He and his colleagues used a previously created data set of building collisions for birds at 40 sites throughout Mexico, Canada and the U.S.

The first finding was obvious: bigger buildings with more glass kill more birds. But the details were more noteworthy.

“We found that life history predicted collisions. Migrants, insectivores and woodland-inhabiting species collided more than their counterparts.”

Most migratory species travel at night, when lights near buildings can distract or disorient them. And Elmore thinks that insect-eating birds might be attracted to buildings because their insect prey is attracted to the lights. He suspects that woodland species get fooled by the reflections of trees and shrubs in the windows. The results are in the journal Conservation Biology. [Jared A. Elmore et al., Correlates of bird collisions with buildings across three North American countries]

By understanding which birds are more likely to collide with buildings, researchers can perhaps determine the best way to modify buildings, or their lighting, to help prevent such accidents. And by knowing risks, along with migration timing and behavior, building managers can better anticipate when birds are at their greatest danger—and modify lighting strategies accordingly.

Elmore’s next project will use radar to help predict bird migrations.

“I think that would maybe go a long way in terms of providing information to people, to the public, to building managers, on when they can get the most bang for their buck in terms of lights-out policies.”

—Jason G. Goldman

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Jason G. Goldman is a science journalist based in Los Angeles. He has written about animal behavior, wildlife biology, conservation, and ecology for Scientific American, Los Angeles magazine, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the BBC, Conservation magazine, and elsewhere. He contributes to Scientific American's "60-Second Science" podcast, and is co-editor of Science Blogging: The Essential Guide (Yale University Press). He enjoys sharing his wildlife knowledge on television and on the radio, and often speaks to the public about wildlife and science communication.

More by Jason G. Goldman

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe