Report of Meeting on Landbird Monitoring and Data Center:
This meeting was held at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
Laurel, Maryland, January, 27th 1997
Opening
At 10:30 Kushlan opens meeting. Pashley outlines the objectives. The focus is on the role
that the various organizations and agencies of Partners in Flight (PIF) can play in gathering and
storing data. This is part of the role of the Monitoring Working Group of PIF.
Desired Outcome
As outlined in agenda, the goal is "progress toward an efficient, cooperative, coherent, and
comprehensive national array of bird population monitoring efforts. This array should help
achieve conservation objectives (such as those being set through PIF), and should take maximum
advantage of existing efforts.
General Discussions
How to link partnerships. Kushlan feels that a window now available, many partnerships now
possible for various data sets.
Conservation Plans. The PIF plans now being set throughout the country, with specific
conservation goals now being set on different scales, as Stangel noted, continental, physiographic
region (this is the level that PIF is now setting conservation plans), and, e.g.
National Forest level.
General considerations for each monitoring program. Kushlan suggests that existing problems
are: statistical, analytical, and how keep up to date. We should provide general access to a
discussion on the quality of the various monitoring techniques, including through the Internet.
Fitzpatrick suggested including non-scientists and non-biologists in the debate. Schmidt
suggested that we should be willing to delete some programs from the list of those used. Erwin
suggested that the Ornithological Council should coordinate. The Council should do overview of
methods and make suggestions, as many monitoring programs need intervention.
National Data Center. Butcher suggested that a National Data Center is needed, and we need
to know what programs could be handled from NBS, and what programs could be handled by
other programs, such as Cornell's BIRDSOURCE. Petit suggested that we need to first decide
what data sets are important, reasonable, and possible, before decide who would act as a data
center. Fitzpatrick notes that technology is now ready to actually handle the data
center material.
Separate Consideration of Monitoring Data Sets or Techniques
Kushlan suggests that we go through monitoring programs and deal, as much as possible, with
each of the following four points:
- Who will ultimately use the data, why, and how the data can be made available to
them?
- What should be the mechanisms of maintenance and
management of data?
- How should the data gathering networks be maintained?
- What should be the issues involved with determination of design of monitoring
methods?
In this discussion we should determine what role Patuxent can play. Droege suggested that we
get idea of where everyone is on the programs, and get to the point of how can collaboration
augment ongoing activities. PIF groups can fit into any such organization.
Breeding Bird Survey
Kushlan outlined that BBS is a long-lived program, a good model for other programs,
especially concerning its Internet access. It has 4,000 volunteers, state coordinators, with a two
person office at Patuxent. Additionally, it has data people and statistical help. It is an inexpensive
program, so long-lived. It is also efficient, with a clean, clear focus, making it available to people.
In 5 years there has been a 50% increase in number of surveys. Patuxent is going to a relational
database data entry through Internet and e-mail. This will make it more efficient. They plan for
complete set-up within 6 months. Sauer presented a view of the home page, which is the key to
rapid distribution of data. It is a trade off between the lack of peer reviewed data and analyses,
vs. current data. on screen analysis can see the role that, for example, observers and species
interactions plays. Some of the numbers are calculated on demand from the user, like number of
birds by strata, or are canned. Many analyses can be done on demand, and they also can provide
programs for a user's analyses. It was asked by Erwin if there are any red flags to notify users
about scale-derived problems. Kushlan suggested a user agreement about how to use data,
coupled with an ongoing dialogue about use of the data.
Items to do:
- None, at present, program is well-established with protocols in place and a home
for the data.
Christmas Bird Count
Patuxent is treating the data and analyses like the BBS model. Droege mentioned how
Patuxent got all data on tape from Cornell. A feedback mechanism has been put into place. The
biggest problem was commonality between the data sets from different years. Data management
has been variable, involving outside people in analysis, allowing quality control feedback.
Patuxent organizes data, and Cornell and Audubon gets data and compiles. This arrangement is
not formalized, but Fitzpatrick felt that it should be.
Items to do:
- The three groups need to get together and formalize arrangement for data.
Breeding Bird Census
Audubon, Cornell, the Society of Field Ornithology, and Patuxent are being involved. Droege
says right now Jim Lowe manages data set. The financial support for publication of the data are a
problem. Putting it on the Internet would be much better from a cost standpoint. Sauer is now
looking at design problems with the data. The Estes park proceedings showed that much more
work is needed on a statistical level to upgrade the quality of data. Rather few data points, with
only about 150, including the Winter census.
Items to do:
- The existence and stability of the program should be examined as the data set generated
is quite small, relative to other efforts.
Point Counts
Sauer outlined that as far as Patuxent is now involved, PC are Refuge-based surveys. Sauer
demonstrated their use on Patuxent itself, using a systematic grid, compiling them with a
systematic vegetation grid. The thought is to expand this system to other refuges. The refuge
manager would put them into a data base, and then downloads to Region.
In regards other sources of PC, Fitzpatrick noted that it is potentially a huge data base. Ralph
suggested that approximately a million PC data points are generated each year. It was noted that
the most meaningful population estimates are
habitat-specific. It was generally agreed that there must be a data center. Most people would like
a center to upload into continental-wide perspective. Using something like gap analysis to assess
habitats would help a great deal.
The major issues are the quantity of bird PC data, and that the concomitant vegetation data
sets are taken in too many ways. As always, an issue is the degree that people are willing to share
their data.
Droege suggested that the best option is archiving data only, just letting outside people decide
what do with data. Kushlan says that the data should be treated like banding data, making it
entirely electronic. Sauer says that many PC data are not useful because people are using
different protocols, different observer qualities, and very different habitat level data. Schmidt asks
why we should perpetuate this type of bad data... that is, the notion that if there are lots of data,
you can do something with them. Butcher suggested that there are good local questions to
answer, and that a national analysis could bring them together. Fitzpatrick suggested a team
taking on the question of what are acceptable levels of data. They would set up standards.
Stangel felt that not every PC data set would be useful. He suggests trying to get the useful data,
especially for certain critical areas, then one could cut back the number of data points to less than
a million.
A central question was derived from this discussion. What scale are PC useful. Pashley felt
that at a local level PC are fine to answer specific questions. Fitzpatrick and Stangel expressed
some doubt that PC are useful at larger scales. For instance, Fitzpatrick said that BBS is not an
accurate measure of trend, because of roadside bias. Ralph suggested that the data we have
suggests otherwise. central data base if local questions. The problem is that as one expands the
scale, how can the data sets be put together? Kushlan said that there are a series of data sets out
there, taken at different scales, and suggested that we stop, look at what we have, and then design
a PC system to make it specific to answer some specific questions. Sauer felt that the local scale
and habitat specific data, not on a landscape level, makes moving between the two very difficult.
PROPOSAL: Take some existing data sets, gathered over a regional basis, on different scales, and
using somewhat different methods, and see if they can be put together.
Items to do:
- Discuss proposals and status of data at
Monitoring Working Group meeting in March.
Major questions to be addressed:
- Are the data useful for trends and habitat relationships?
- Need to see if can
go from local to regional, and then to a continent-wide program with the same methods.
- Do we need a start from scratch with very specific dictums about the methods, or are the
existing standards adequate?
- How can the vegetation component be made useful? Would it bebest as a ground
verification from aerial or satellite imagery?
- What objectives are possible to be met with the methods, and what questions are most likely
to be asked?
Ralph will prepare a 2-page outline of a PC proposal for general circulation and to
Kushlan.
Birdsource
Gill and Fitzpatrick outlined 'BIRDSOURCE' a new view of population dynamics in space,
similar in concept to weather maps. It will use citizen-level involvement to make this map....
because they like to count birds. Explained the new direction as Audubon is getting back to birds,
and forging a link with
Cornell.
In regards to winter birds, they have 'Project Feeder Watch' and Christmas Bird Counts as a
first focus. There exists, they felt, a big gap in data analyses. Then, they suggest they would
checklist program, such as those suggest for migration monitoring, as well as winter season.
These involve people submitting daily checklists of types and numbers of birds that they see in a
certain area. At this point, they have funding from the Packard foundation. They have about $2
million for CBC and Feeder Watch to get it underway. They expect it to be interactive by
December '97. Cornell will do the science, while Audubon does public outreach.
Butcher brought up the Migration Monitoring Council [a joint U.S./Canada effort to monitor
fall migration that has produced both extensive and intensive protocols]. He said that the
American Birding Association wants to do an extensive checklist program for bird watchers,
weekly site specific during migration using the checklist idea. This fits in with BIRDSOURCE.
Petit asks if checklist is capable of monitoring. The answer was yes, the major purpose is for
monitoring trends. Making it continent-wide and year around are challenges, similar to PC
concerns. Contrast with ABA suggestion, Fitzpatrick noted, is that BIRDSOURCE is intended
to be a web site. Gill says that with mass of data can filter through noise to see signal.
Standardization is certainly needed, but also identification of species is variable, there will be
variation in numbers of birds recorded, and other problems. They would install automatic checks
for quality of data.
Pashley asks if this has any effect upon efficacy and usefulness of PC to monitor national
populations, or could it take the place of PC. Ralph felt that the different quality of observers,
different scales, and other factors make them complementary. Gill sees BIRDSOURCE as an
early warning system.
They do plan to have habitat component, perhaps as simple as a vegetation checklist, so as to
have upward integration.
Items to do:
- Integration of the role of BIRDSOURCE in the spectrum of censuses from PC to
CBC. Along this continuum one has to decide where effort will be put. ABA, Audubon could be
at one end, and Patuxent might well be at another.
- Gather more information on current status of both the protocols and the data set
compilation and storage.
Colonial Waterbird Survey
Kushlan outlined the problems in making it at present a reality. It was passed off to a variety
of organizations and regions. Now, it is still going, with states doing it, but only on the east
coast. A pilot will then go to Gulf States, and then finally West coast. Almost lost it because was
stored in a database that became obsolete.
Items to do:
- It was decided that a group should be put together, including American Bird
Conservancy, the Important Bird Areas Group, Audubon Society, Cornell, and perhaps others, to
work on this. Kushlan will put together a meeting to get this going.
Bird Banding
Kushlan outlined that the report by Paul Buckley et al. ("The North American Bird Banding
Program: into the 21st Century") is now undergoing internal review. The major findings are that
the primary user is waterfowl harvest in the Fish and wildlife Service. There is a great deal of
consistency in the program because of all participants, stake in data, etc. The program needs to
move to be all electronic, with no paper. Tautin indicated that the overall program moving
towards being a monitoring program. This process is developing in various areas, including data
management and staffing. Most important to us is data management: no paper (in reporting
captures, banding, and dissemination of data). He suggests additional types of data will be taken,
such as measurements, better location, integration with constant effort programs such as MAPS
and migration monitoring.
Items to do:
- At present, program is well-established with overall protocols in place and a home for
the data.
- However, the interaction with constant effort mist-netting programs needs to be addressed,
as at present the BBL doesn't take information on effort.
Maps (Constant Effort Mist-Netting in Breeding Season)
This effort, is now under the Institute for Bird Populations, and David DeSante. This is a
good model of outside control of a program by a consultant. This is a predesigned program, cf.
other programs. It is now under review, with a final report just out ("xxxx xxxx"). During the
pilot program, it got redesigned along the way.
Items to do:
- Question now facing Patuxent is what role will IBP play in future years vs. Patuxent in
management of program, data storage, and analyses.
Raptors
Many questions are involved with a raptor inventory. One basic question is does BBS work
well for raptors vs. migration counts. Droege brought together people at an AOU meeting to
look at how well could track changes. A report from this meeting is forthcoming, a strategy of
monitoring raptors. Diurnal owls and hawks, but nocturnal owls will be coming up. There is a
group involved, called the Hawk Migration Association of North America.
Items to do:
- Gather more information on current status of both the protocols and the data set
compilation and storage.
Migration Monitoring Intensive Sites
Ralph outlined that these involve constant effort mist nets, as well as counting diurnal
migration. At present the data set is an orphan, but Droege mentioned that Long Point Bird
Observatory is interested in becoming involved in managing the data base, at least for Canada.
Items to do:
- Gather more information on current status of both the protocols and the data set
compilation and storage.
-
BBIRD
This program by Tom Martin has considered by some as largely a research issue, and thus of
less importance to the other monitoring efforts. It was felt that Dr. Martin might feel otherwise,
and that this needs to be addressed in more detail.
Items to do:
- Gather more information on current status of both the protocols and the data set
compilation and storage.
Sea Birds
Ralph brought up that standard protocols for monitoring this group is ongoing at the Pacific
Seabird Group. The monitoring of birds at sea is an orphan data set at present, although the Fish
and wildlife Service is doing seabird colonies.
Items to do:
- Gather more information on current status of both the protocols and the data set
compilation and storage.
Shorebirds
The issues of accepted protocol and data store need to be addressed.
Items to do:
- Gather more information on current status of both the protocols and the data set
compilation and storage.
Other Issues
- Canadians and Latin Americans
It was noted that they should be involved at an early date in any discussions.
- PIF Prioritization Scores
It was suggested that these should be in the Patuxent web pages.
- Issue of Determining Total North American Population of Species
Fitzpatrick said that this number is often useful in conservation work. He felt it could do with
BBS and an estimate of detection distances. We need to be able to do it for all sorts of
applications, not just ducks, because they're hunted.
Overall Questions to be Addressed
How to maintain the interest in the outcome of monitoring and the data generated?
Suggestions:
- Be part of Monitoring Working Group at its meetings.
- Participate in list server and a discussion group, such as the one
that Hoover has put out for Patuxent.
- Establish the list server for the Monitoring Working Group for monitoring.
- Refer to web page of Patuxent (http:/www.pwrc.nbs.gov/pif/) and Monitoring Working
Group (http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/wildlife/birdmon/pif/). The former has a list of
meetings and a calendar for all.
Attendees and E-mail Addresses
- David Blockstein, Ornithological Council, oc@cnie.org
- Greg Butcher, American Birding Association, gregb@aba.org
- Sam Droege, Patuxent, frog@nbs.gov
- R. Michael Erwin, Ornithological Council, rme5g@virginia.edu
- John Fitzpatrick, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, jwf7@cornell.edu
- Frank Gill, National Audubon, fgill@audubon.org
- Paul Geissler, Patuxent, paul_geissler@nbs.gov
- Brett Hoover, Patuxent, brett_hoover@nbs.gov
- Jim Kushlan, Patuxent, james_kushlan@nbs.gov
- Bob Munro, Patuxent, robert_munro@nbs.gov
- David Pashley, American Bird Conservancy, dpashley@abcbirds.org
- Bruce Peterjohn, Patuxent, bruce_peterjohn@nbs.gov
- Dan Petit, FWS_MBMO, daniel_petit@fws.gov
- C. John Ralph, Monitoring Working Group, cjralph@humboldt1.com
- John Sauer, Patuxent, john_r_sauer@nbs.gov
- Paul Schmidt, FWS-MBMO, paul_r_schmidt@fws.gov
- Betty Anne Schreiber, Ornithological Council, schreibere@aol.com
- Peter Stangel, Nat. Fish and wildlife Founda., stangel@nfwf.org
- John Tautin, Patuxent, john_tautin@nbs.gov
Research Contact:
|
