Partners in Flight Monitoring and Inventory Working Group Current Goals:
To: Members, Joint Management and Steering Committees, Partners in Flight
As one of the technical working groups, our primary role has been to help partners
establish monitoring and inventory programs. These programs provide the foundation for
management and conservation of landbirds, both migrants and residents, in all the temperate and
tropical areas of the Americas.
To date, the Group has produced several documents and handbooks, as well as conducted
workshops to provide biologists and managers with the tools to design and operate inventory of
birds at a station or in a region, as well as monitoring their population trends over time.
In a series of meetings over the past few years, many goals have been established and later
met by the members. At the moment, the following are the goals that have been suggested for
new projects for the Group, either at the Cape May workshop, or by input from the various
Regional and Staff Coordinators of PIF.
Revision of Needs Assessment.--At Cape May, it was felt that the 1991 Assessment was
in need of some updating. To this end, a draft is under preliminary review, and will be the subject
of a general review by all members of the Working Group, and then subjected to ratification at a
General Meeting. An important component of this revision should be issues regarding the
application to Latin America, the nature of questions posed, the adequacy of various procedures,
the power of tests, and sample size. National Data Base.--A primary need of PIF in the Americas are national repositories,
especially for census data and migration monitoring, that would provide a common resource site
for all partners. Presently, repositories and consultations are available for some monitoring data,
such as data in the North America taken during the breeding season for nest search and constant
effort mist netting. It would, however, be of great benefit if all these services and data were
stored, organized, and available at one site. In the U.S., I have been in contact with NBS staff at
Patuxent about an expansion of their role along these lines. Standard protocols for monitoring migration.--Protocols have been developed for both
intensive (mist net capture stations and census), and extensive (checklist projects), and drafts are
available from the Chair. This has been accomplished through the Migration Monitoring Council,
a joint Canada-U.S. effort, involving various members of the Monitoring Working Group. Protocols for other groups or species.--Most species are monitored by the generally
established methods, but protocols for some specialized species, such as marsh birds, nocturnal
species, and many species in the winter, are needed. It has also been recently suggested that the
Monitoring Working Group take on standardizing protocols for monitoring shorebirds and
raptors. In past discussions over the years, it has been felt that other organizations were covering
these groups, but the issue can be revisited. Consistency of Monitoring.--Many regional and state plans are being developed for
monitoring by PIF and agency personnel. While most of these plans do follow the standards and
guidelines prepared by the Group, some of these plans suggest using other methods or
approaches. It is incumbent upon the Group to review these plans and to fully communicate the
advantages and disadvantages of departures from the standardized protocols. To this end, we
could implement a communication network between the all the national, state, provincial, and
regional Monitoring Working Groups to facilitate this important communication interchange. It
has been suggested that the chairs of Regional and State Working Groups could be an ad hoc
steering committee for the National Group. Vegetation data.--The multitude of bird monitoring methods pales before the plethora of
methods of assaying vegetation structure and composition. Providing a series of hierarchically
nested techniques for surveys in a variety of habitats will be a major challenge for the Group.
We would appreciate comments on the above list, especially in terms of priorities or possible
funding sources for the efforts of the Group. Any additional matters arising from the discussions
will be passed along to the Group for further discussion.
Respectfully yours,
C. John Ralph
Chair
Direct comments to: C. John Ralph, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, 1700 Bayview Drive, Arcata, California,
707 825-2992 fax: 2901 home: 822-2015 fax: 1626 e-mail: cjr2@axe.humboldt.edu
Research Contact:
|
