The conservation
literature and the media are alive with cries of declining bird populations
around the world (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Birds are well liked by people, and
an important part of our environment so they garner a lot of attention when the
cry goes out that all is not well. The problems from a scientific perspective
is what evidence is required to “cry wolf’. There are many different opinions
on what data provide reliable evidence. There is a splendid critique of the
Rosenberg et al paper by Brian McGill that you should read::
https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2019/09/20/did-north-america-really-lose-3-billion-birds-what-does-it-mean/
My object here is to add a comment from the viewpoint of population ecology. It might be useful for bird ecologists to have a brief overview of what ecological evidence is required to decide that a bird population or a bird species or a whole group of birds is threatened or endangered. One simple way to make this decision is with a verbal flow chart and I offer here one example of how to proceed.
- Get accurate and precise data on the populations of interest. If you claim a population is declining or endangered, you need to define the population and know its abundance over a reasonable time period.
Note that this is already a nearly impossible demand. For birds that are continuously resident it is possible to census them well. Let me guess that continuous residency occurs in at most 5% or fewer of the birds of the world. The other birds we would like to protect are global or local migrants or move unpredictably in search of food resources, so it is difficult to define a population and determine if the population as a whole is rising or falling. Compounding all this are the truly rare bird species that are difficult to census like all rare species. Dorey and Walker (2018) examine these concerns for Canada.
The next problem is what is a reasonable time period for the census data. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) gives 10 years or 3 generations, whichever is longer (see web link below). So now we need to know the generation time of the species of concern. We can make a guess at generation time but let us stick with 10 years for the moment. For how many bird species in Canada do we have 10 years of accurate population estimates?
- Next, we need to determine the causes of the decline if we wish to instigate management actions. Populations decline because of a falling reproductive rate, increasing death rate, or higher emigration rates. There are very few birds for which we have 10 years of diagnosis for the causes of changes in these vital rates. Strong conclusions should not rest on weak data.
The absence of much of these required data force conservation biologists to guess about what is driving numbers down, knowing only that population numbers are falling. Typically, many things are happening over the 10 years of assessment – climate is changing, habitats are being lost or gained, invasive species are spreading, new toxic chemical are being used for pest control, diseases are appearing, the list is long. We have little time or money to determine the critical limiting factors. We can only make a guess.
- At this stage we must specify an action plan to recommend management actions for the recovery of the declining bird population. Management actions are limited. We cannot in the short term alter climate. Regulating toxic chemical use in agriculture takes years. In a few cases we can set aside more habitat as a generalized solution for all declining birds. We have difficulty controlling invasive species, and some invasive species might be native species expanding their geographic range (e.g. Bodine and Capaldi 2017, Thibault et al. 2018).
Conservation ecologists are now up against the wall because all management actions that are recommended will cost money and will face potential opposition from some people. Success is not guaranteed because most of the data available are inadequate. Medical doctors face the same problem with rare diseases and uncertain treatments when deciding how to treat patients with no certainty of success.
In my opinion the data on which the present concern over bird losses is too poor to justify the hyper-publicity about declining birds. I realize most conservation biologists will disagree but that is why I think we need to lift our game by having a more rigorous set of data rules for categories of concern in conservation. A more balanced tone of concern may be more useful in gathering public support for management efforts. Stanton et al. (2018) provide a good example for farmland birds. Overuse of the word ‘extinction’ is counterproductive in my opinion. Trying to provide better data is highly desirable so that conservation papers do not always end with the statement ‘but detailed mechanistic studies are lacking’. Pleas for declining populations ought to be balanced by recommendations for solutions to the problem. Local solutions are most useful, global solutions are critical in the long run but given current global governance are too much fairy tales.
Bodine, E.N. and Capaldi, A. (2017). Can culling Barred Owls save a declining Northern Spotted Owl population? Natural Resource Modeling 30, e12131. doi: 10.1111/nrm.12131.
Dorey, K. and Walker, T.R. (2018). Limitations of threatened species lists in Canada: A federal and provincial perspective. Biological Conservation 217, 259-268. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.11.018.
Rosenberg, K.V., et al. (2019). Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 366, 120-124. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw1313.
Stanton, R.L., Morrissey, C.A., and Clark, R.G. (2018). Analysis of trends and agricultural drivers of farmland bird declines in North America: A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 254, 244-254. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.11.028.
Thibault, M., et al. (2018). The invasive Red-vented bulbul (Pycnonotus cafer) outcompetes native birds in a tropical biodiversity hotspot. PLoS ONE 13, e0192249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192249.
Thank you Charley/Judy for very useful comments. I fully agree with your assessment of the (poor) quality of the data for inferences about actual population sizes, reproductive and death rates, even from systematic surveys like the BBS. But I find myself wondering about the relative merits of estimating what is really ‘out there’ vs. what us (humans) actually observe.
I spend a lot of time analysing eBird data these days. Like BBS, eBird data are good enough to help us detect large (i.e. management-relevant) trends over time in birds observed. eBird gives a direct measurement of the amount of “joy” provided by birds to people. I don’t want to sound “new age”, but isn’t this “joy” the “bottom line”? It seems to be the motivation behind most of bird conservation. What worth would have an existing bird if it was never to be observed by humans? I would say, hardly more than Russell’s tea pot.
If we had myriads of birds but were unable to observe them, one could argue that their “ecological services”, a notion used in Rosenberg et al’s paper, would be sufficient reason to keep their numbers and diversity as high as it was. But I am unimpressed by the empirical basis for those claims about “ecological services” beyond the obvious fact that removing birds from the face of Earth would probably have significant impacts on ecosystems. Fortunately, while big challenges face bird conservation, we have reasons to be hopeful that birds will remain with us a long, long time. In fact, if we are to trust eBird metrics, birds have never procured as much joy to as many people as now.
A.D.
Excellent point and I agree. I am happy with all the bird programs and the joy they bring to people. We do not want to lose any of these beautiful organisms and I can hope that more detailed population studies will allow us to manage any declines with data on the mechanisms that might allow targeted management. Better data, better management, more birds, a win for all. Charles Krebs