North American Breeding Bird Survey
Strategic Planning Workshop
November 15-16, 2005
MEETING MINUTES AND
PRODUCTS
Location:
Meeting Organizers:
Keith Pardieck and Dave
Ziolkowski, Jr.
Meeting Facilitators:
Karen Buehler (Day 1)
Tom Will (Day 2)
Meeting participants:
Eighteen individuals
participated including representatives from the U.S. and Canadian national BBS
offices, Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity,
Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological
Survey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, New Mexico Department of Game
and Fish, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, North Carolina State University,
North American Bird Conservation Initiative, and Partners in Flight. See
Appendix A for a complete list of participants and contact information.
Acknowledgments:
We thank all of the
participants for their attendance and service at the meeting and extend special
thanks to Tom Will for graciously accepting the challenge of facilitating on
the second day.
Workshop Objectives:
Evaluate and prioritize the
needs and goals of the BBS program as identified by the Peer Review report, BBS
program managers and the avian conservation community. Prepare a 5-year strategic planning document
for the BBS program that:
1) prioritizes and determines relative resource
requirements to the pending peer review recommendations and other identified
issues,
2) identifies the issues of greatest import to the BBS
program over the next 5 years, and
3) outlines a strategy, timeline, and resource needs for
accomplishing each 5-year goal.
See Appendix B for collective list of individual
participant goals and objectives.
Workshop Structure:
Facilitated discussions and
break-out groups designed to distill, capture, and prioritize the key
scientific and operational issues facing the BBS.
BBS VISION
A collective visioning
exercise was performed primarily as a preamble to developing a mission
statement. Each participant was asked to
envision: Where the BBS should be 5 years from now? How would the success be measured? Who would recognize the success? Participants then broke into four teams to
further develop these visions. The group
did not consolidate a collective vision statement due to time constraints and
doubts as to need, since the BBS is a tool not an organization. However, a vision statement could be written
using the elements captured by the four teams.
See Appendix C for a listing of vision themes and
elements captured by each team.
BBS PROGRAM
Participants developed a mission
statement by collectively considering the following guidelines:
1) what does the BBS do,
2) who does it do it for /
or with whom,
3) what is the benefit or
value of BBS products
A facilitated whole group
discussion resulted in the following BBS mission statement:
“We provide scientifically credible measures
of the status and trends of North American bird populations at continental and regional
scales to inform and assess* biologically
sound conservation and management actions*.”
* Note: Continued discussion
centered on whether to add the words “assess” and “actions” to the finished
statement. There appeared to be
tentative agreement to retain both.
BBS SCIENTIFIC GOALS
A combination of facilitated
whole group discussion and break-out group work yielded three primary
scientific goals of the BBS.
Participants were given the opportunity to identify two priorities each.
Numbers in parentheses indicate total priority
votes. Bulleted items beneath each goal
indicate discussion items and were not necessarily agreed upon by the entire
group.
1. (17) Estimate Population Change
— using annual indices that also capture annual
variation in bird numbers
— at the scale of a BCR or higher
— for individual species and for defined clusters of
species (environmental indicators, species richness, community guilds, “state
of the birds” reporting?)
— with specified resolution (power to detect 50%
decline over 20 years) and accuracy (80%)
2. (11) Provide Data for Model-based
Conservation Planning
— models that associate bird populations with
environmental features (e.g. habitat, climate, habitat change?)
— resolution of the causes underlying bird population
variation
— combine BBS counts with habitat and other spatially
explicit data to increase interpretation and application of BBS data)
— resolve species/habitat associations (species
densities by habitat and landscape)
3. (3) Estimate Species Population Size (for setting population goals)
— provide the data and address the detection and bias
issues that enable BBS to be used for this purpose
— provide acceptable range of accuracy for population
estimates
SCALE OF BBS FOCUS
As a subtopic in the above exercise, participants
were given an opportunity to identify the geographic scale that the BBS most
appropriately addresses. Participants
were nearly evenly divided between the regional scale (i.e., BCR; 6 votes) and
the continental scale (5 votes), with several participants encouraging equal
emphasis on both (4 votes).
ISSUES FACING THE BBS
An evaluation of the results
of the preceding exercises identified several themes that capture the issues
currently facing the BBS (list follows). In consideration of the limited meeting time
remaining, the group conservatively agreed to single out one theme for initial
consideration that warranted the most discussion.
Total individual votes indicated by the numbers in
parentheses.
I) Enhancing
Data Quality for Science (14)
II) Enhancing
Data Use (1)
III)
Building and Maintaining Support (3)
The first theme was selected
and subsequently sub-divided into four topic areas, each further discussed by
specific break-out groups:
Ia) Enhancing
Geographic coverage
Ib) Increasing
Observer Quality
Ic) Addressing
Habitat Bias Issues
Id) Addressing
Bias in Detection Probability
The break-out groups additionally
recommended strategies for addressing each of the goals within the four topic
areas.
After reformation of the
entire participant group, participants split into two break-out groups to
further tackle Issues II and III. Each
break-out group again further fleshed out the issues and proposed recommended
strategies.
BREAK-OUT GROUP RESULTS
I. ENHANCING DATA QUALITY FOR
SCIENCE
Areas to be addressed:
-
Expansion into
-
Filling gaps within
current BBS coverage area ( e.g. northern fringe of
-
Habitat gaps (high
mountains; native grasslands) – not addressed by this group
Strategies:
STRATEGIES 1-3 BEST ADDRESSED BY A SINGLE
INTEGRATED STUDY/ANALYSIS
? - Find ways to run at least 1 route/degree
block throughout continental coverage area.
[This recommendation requires long-term action and high resources. Need guidance from trend analysts &
modelers on importance of even coverage, relative to items below.]
1. Do new analysis of precision of trends at
“continental” scale (current U.S. & Canada BBS coverage area) to develop
more detailed advice on number of routes needed within BCR or continent to meet
precision target for each species at each of these scales. (Assume precision target is that of Bart et
al. 2005.) Provide guidance on
minimum/maximum N routes/degree block that are needed to meet precision
targets. (I.e. – maybe no value of
adding after you have a certain number/block.)
Need to consider effect of uneven coverage within BCR – what guidelines
should there be for min/max n routes/degree block.
2. In the short term (i.e., before analysis done),
develop interim guidelines for regional coordinators for
3. Analyze current BBS data based on sub-set of stops
(e.g. first 20) to examine effect on trend and precision. Examine effects of uneven geographical
distribution of short routes. Develop
recommendations for length of routes for Mexican program and appropriateness of
mini-routes in far north.
4. Hold a meeting to develop a preliminary strategy for
expanding BBS into
5. Conduct a study in which routes are run by observer
and recordings are made simultaneously, which are later counted by a different
observer, with objective of recommending whether recording is a useful means of
covering routes where no observers are available.
Group Ib: Increasing Observer Quality - Recruitment
Issues
See Appendix D for further details of the group’s considerations
Format: * Goals
Strategies (5-Year Priority)
OBSERVERS &
DATA QUALITY
Explore
*Hearing loss
affecting data quality and can it be mitigated with hearing aides?
Subsample observers and
evaluate (High)
*Are personal
skill changes (sensu ID ability) affecting data quality?
Subsample observers and
evaluate (Low)
*Does equipment
availability affect data quality (especially consider
Subsample observers and
explore correlations w/ equipment (Med)
*Do increasing
ID abilities in the observer community as a whole affect data credibility?
Explore correlations with
‘changes in the birding community’ (Med)
*Does observer
experience on the route affect data quality?
Subsample observers and
explore correlations w/ experience (High)
Related to above - Observer turnover (how useful are short term
observers?)
Establish
Training-(
Skills
-Identification skills
Online
Mentoring program
-Field skills (individual counts, recording data, etc.)
Online
Mentoring
program
Certification - minimum observer quality
standards.
Identification skills (Low)
Online skills test
In the field (i.e., w/ coordinator, mentor, etc.)
Methodology (Largely Complete)
Translate into Spanish (High)
Assessment -
Hearing ability (Low)
Regular hearing
evaluations
Skills (
Regular evaluation
- regular
online skills testing
- regular
in the field (i.e., w/ coordinator, mentor, etc.)
OBSERVER RECRUITMENT & RETENTION
The two priorities ranked
highest above, hearing loss issues and observer route experience/turnover
issues, are directly related to two observer attrition and recruitment issues.
Explore
*Is retaining skilled
observers as important as new recruitment - can
observer longevity in the BBS be extended
with the use of hearing aides?
*Short-term observers (e.g.,
field techs, college students, etc.) are available for many
routes but are currently discriminated
against - do they provide more value in
our goal of filling all existing routes
than they cost in data quality?
*Skilled observers are
available for recruitment in areas where routes are covered – can
we
create new routes for these folks even though that means uneven route
dispersion
across the state?
*What is the likelihood of
filling routes in border BCR’s of
Group Ic: Addressing Habitat Bias Issues
On-road v. Off-road. -- This is a major criticism of
BBS.
General
-- Additional testing of roads as attractants or repellents for different
species.
Consider
prioritizing by habitats based on groups of taxa most in need of conservation
Consider
road density, road type, land-use intensity in vicinity
Should
we have a road condition co-variate – has profile or definition ‘secondary
roads changed over time.
How
is traffic being incorporated into data.
How does this overlap with observer bias and hearing issues.
Priority -- High
·
Form group that sets up studies; could habitat
working group be peer-review panel to evaluate proposed studies and criteria
for studies and RFPs, and priorities for next steps, guidance on this
issue. Focused and limited feasible
studies – initiate 3 within next 5 years?
Routes v. Habitat Coverage
General
Coverage
uneven? How do we address at Continental
level – it’s a habitat issue.
Lawlor
paper in 2004 examined route coverage relative to habitat coverage. Will additional routes correct this, or
should other methods be used. Resolution
of land cover layers is very important.
How
can NLCD (or other mapping re-GAP) be used coincident with BBS to inform
analyses with current mapping that tracks land changes, resulting in analyses
that show what is given up in terms of birds with land conversion.
Is radar an opportunity to look at on-road off-road
issues.
Priority -- High
·
Evaluate what Lawlor and O’Conner. Finish
General
Inform
habitat modeling and change over time in habitats
Especially
to examine routes from one end to the other.
And changes such as developments at specific stops – can be analyzed
later.
Areal extent – is it 400 m radius
around stop? Species specific, but
Priority -- High
·
Canvass country to see where we stand, with level
·
Within 5 years, GPS &/or geo – locate all stops
(In some habitats assume ½ mile stops throughout, e.g. in ag areas?
Strategies
·
National
initiative coordinated by States or state groups
·
Need to set
standard for volunteers? Within 25 m of
GPS point? Emphasize importance of
location. Incorporate into training.
·
Ortho-photo
quads or Google maps for people to mark on, in lieu of GPS.
·
Strike deal with
Google
·
Map coordinator
position on BBS or other USGS staff, contract out to get those digitized?
·
Go through NBII
·
Photo overlays
also provide some habitat information
·
NBII – locator
for all monitoring activities; develop a tool for users to add points for their
routes.
·
Reconsider in 5
years habitat information
·
BBL?
Other stop-level information to be collected?
·
Don’t
over-burden volunteers.
Co-variates of population change
General
To
what degree could BBS incorporate co-variates into trend analysis: disease,
weather cycles, annual effects v. long-term gross land-cover changes.
Priority -- Low
Acknowledge importance of some
variables driving annual population change, including weather. Study whether or not it is useful to
incorporate annual co-variates that might influence changes in bird populations
Develop Library of Models
Priority – Medium
·
Have the habitat group evaluate models and coordinate
spatial analyses available to research community and conservation managers.
Group Id: Addressing Bias in Detection Probability
See Appendix E for further details of the group’s
considerations.
Strategies to deal with
detectability effects
•
e.g. running routes twice
•
“removal” method approaches
–
running routes twice (or multiple times)
–
double observer effects
–
(Note: requires framework to receive data into system)
3. Support (ongoing) research into factors that
influence detectability:
-
e.g. playback experiments (e.g. Ted Simons research)
-
work with microphones and recordings
-
include evaluating observers and observer training
-
Implementation
-- Develop a working group to prepare an
experimental design or call for proposals (could be external, e.g. to NSF)
-- Collaboration of operational and research
people
-- Use results of estimation to model potential
impacts on trend/population change estimates (i.e. to determine whether it
really matters)
-- 2-year post-doc $85k, operations $40k
ADDITIONAL SCIENCE ISSUES DEEMED IMPORTANT BUT NOT
COVERED BY BREAKOUTS:
*** Route replacement
issues—need further study.
** What to do about requests
for alternate routes? Need resolution
and standard policy.
II. ENHANCING DATA USE
Philosophy: don’t limit
people from doing what they want (but make sure they are aware of limitations)
Recommendations:
- allow users to easily
analyse multiple species when they do this!
- perhaps could get some
NBII funding to help do some of this
MEDIUM: 2 – better integrate
web presence of BBS summaries (e.g.
HIGH: 3 – Encourage/explore
modeling approaches that integrate BBS data with other sources of data (e.g.
refuge data, point count data) in analyses.
- ensure that point level
data are available along with coordinates
- Detectability and observer
effects will help to enhance this
HIGH: 4 – Continue to
practice high quality data management practices:
(still need to prioritize within this)
- flexible data base design
-
HIGH: annual review of metadata to ensure complete and up-to-date as
possible. Formal review of metadata.
-
HIGH: keep metadata on changes in routes over time (starting now).
-
-
allow volunteer entry of point level data
-
HIGH: make stop coordinate (lat/long) information more readily available
-
MEDIUM: species-name issues (scientific names, changes in taxonomy)
-
HIGH: complete a stand-alone program for data entry for users who don’t want
to use web page to enhance amount of
internet-based data entry.
-
MEDIUM: ability to display locations data to enhance editing (and many other
things).
Allow editing of stop location data – can probably be done with some
expertise.
-
MEDIUM: make .pdf files of individual routes available on web
-
(some can take advantage of BBL expertise)
HIGH: 5 – BBS should
encourage others to develop higher level of interpretation of trends: web site
summarizes state of birds e.g., what is the meaning of trends.
- Greg Butcher: is
interested in doing something with Audubon
- RSPB/BTO state of birds
report.
- (fits within Build and
Maintain Support)
HIGH: 6 – Encourage new
approaches to analyses to enhance reliability of results, particularly for
looking at annual indices (e.g. by making hierarchical models operational) to
better understand non-linear population change.
Suggestion:
- Develop a comprehensive
(e.g. 20-page) users guide to the BBS for what it is, how it works, how to
analyse the data, what are the limitations, differences in analysis methods
among sites …, functioning like the PIF handbook.
- BBS office has a number of
other idea to enhance outreach:
-
e.g. Powerpoint presentations
III.
Participation
How do you recruit?
From State coordinators – through their network.
Not all State coordinators are equally functional.
OR-WA PIF and other PIF coordinators. Connections within bird
conservation/birding community. Audubon.
“Conservation through Birding”
Agencies – IAFWA – Reiterate message from USGS to directors
of agencies.
CONABIO – the database compilers in
connection. Perhaps
could provide some funding for coordination, training,
perhaps in steps (north, mid, south) over 20 years.
Is there group ownership in running routes. Biggest thing with State
Coordinators is in connections they have with the birding
communities.
Problem with organizations is the problem of volunteer
turn-over. For routes not
being run regularly,
could have birding clubs send teams of two, which would
include a trainee.
Master Birder – Course for people to learn about ecology
and natural history….
In
Foundered because of lack of expertise to teach kids the
upper levels of training
– needed naturalist or birding clubs to take this on.
Mentoring hugely important.
Personal Anecdotes
Rewards. Web-based
gratification
Priority – Yep
Funding
Prioritiy – Ultra High and major purpose of document
from this group
Prioritization of tasks/priorities
identified within each topic area
Topic areas are: Enhancing
Geographic Coverage, Increasing Observer Quality, Habitat Bias Issues,
Addressing Bias in Detection Probability, Enhancing Data Use, and Building and
Maintaining the Support Network. During
break-out groups strategies were prioritized within topic areas. This exercise allowed group members to
prioritize items relative to each other.
Each workshop participant was given seven votes with only one vote per
item permitted.
(Number of votes in parenthesis; science sub-group
after dash)
Voting results may be
fundamentally skewed given the somewhat arbitrary lumping and splitting of priority
issues which may have caused some votes to be wasted on, what may be considered
in hindsight, sub-issues of an existing priority. For example, items 14 and 17 would seem to be
sub-issues of item 3; where a properly designed item 3 should inform us as to
the necessity of 14 and 17. Again, items
20, 10, and 6 (
Also obtaining “GPS Stop
Locations” was identified as the top priority, which surprised many in the
group given our discussions over the 2-day workshop. The voting system employed seems to have
captured the most common interest among group participants (having stop
locations), rather than the top BBS priority.
Many are interested in having stop location data, but the reasons for
having it vary with the individual.
Next Steps
1. Circulate workshop
products to group.
2. Capture pertinent
flipchart notes.
3. Minutes – Comments due by
December 15
4. Start writing strategic
plan
a. Charles Francis and Ricky Dunn – 1st draft
b. Connie, Dave, Keith, Marshall – 1st review
c. Review by Strategic Plan workshop participants & other
identified stakeholders
d. Open review
e. Final report
5. Strategic Plan will be a
trilateral document (parts relevant or differently prioritized for a single
country should be flagged.)
6. Annual partners meeting
to provide guidance/evaluation
7. Need to discuss formal
research unit/team tied to BBS – flexible membership yet institutionalized in
some way.
8. Working Groups (ad hoc)
Habitat – Neal Niemuth, Wayne Thogmartin, Andy Royle
(others?)
Detectability – Ted Simons, John Sauer, Charles Francis,
Andy Royle (others?)
Appendix A. Workshop Participants and Contact
Information
Name Organization Telephone
Number Email Address
1. Humberto
Berlanga Mexican National Commission
for the Knowledge and 52-55-5528-9176 hberlang@xolo.conabio.gob.mx
Use of
Biodiversity (CONABIO) / NABCI
2. Connie
Downes Canadian Wildlife Service 613-998-0490 connie.downes@usgs.gov
3. Paul
Dresler USGS
Status & Trends Program 703-648-4114 paul_dresler@usgs.gov
4. Erica
Dunn Canadian
Wildlife Service / PIF 613-998-7356 erica.dunn@ec.gc.ca
5. Charles
Francis Canadian Wildlife Service 613-998-0332 charles.francis@ec.gc.ca
6. Michael
Green USFWS Non-game Migratory
Bird Coordinator (Reg. 1) 503-972-2707 michael_green@fws.gov
7. Marshall
Howe USGS Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center 301-497-5858 mhowe@usgs.gov
8. Eduardo
Inigo Cornell Laboratory of
Ornithology 607-254-2120 eei2@cornell.edu
9. Neal
Niemuth USFWS
Habitat and Population Evaluation Team 701-355-8542 neal_niemuth@fws.gov
10. Keith
Pardieck USGS Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center 301-497-5843 kpardieck@usgs.gov
11. Andy
Royle USGS
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 301-497-5846 aroyle@usgs.gov
12. John
Sauer USGS
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 301-497-5662 john_r_sauer@usgs.gov
13. Todd
Schneider Georgia Department of
Natural Resources 478-994-1438 todd_schneider@dnr.state.ga.us
14. Ted
Simons North
Carolina State Univ./USGS Coop. Research Unit 919-515-2689 tsimons@ncsu.edu
15. Wayne
Thogmartin USGS Upper Midwest
Environmental Science Center 608-781-6309 wthogmartin@usgs.gov
16. Tom
Will USFWS
Non-game Migratory Bird Coord (Reg. 3) / PIF 612-713-5362 tom_will@fws.gov
17. Sandy
Williams New Mexico Department of
Game and Fish 505-247-3731 sunbittern@earthlink.net
18. Dave
Ziolkowski, Jr. USGS Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center 301-497-5753 dziolkowski@usgs.gov
Appendix B. List
of Individual Participant Goals and Objectives
Workshop participants were
asked to state their individual objectives and goals for this
Meeting. They were:
-
maximize BBS
data credibility
-
develop 5-year
plan with concrete objectives and strategies
-
set priorities
for future / ensure clear focus on priority setting
-
discuss the
direction of the BBS over the next 40 years
-
Strengthen and
potentially change the BBS
-
Help move
strategic planning process along / help group make decisions
-
Ensure BBS has
resources to meet objectives
-
Discuss how to
tap into funding
-
Build better
relationships between BBS and conservation community
-
Ensure plan
buy-in from stakeholders
-
Better
understand the BBS
-
Give Canadian
BBS and conservation perspectives
-
Ensure Mexican
BBS collaboration and connect CONABIO to common concerns
-
See how my piece
(i.e., research or conservation interests) fits into BBS plan
-
Represent
operational aspects of BBS
-
Provide guidance
-
Ensure that
spatial aspects of data are represented
-
Ensure data is
applied for conservation purposes
-
Market BBS
better
-
Not offend
people
-
Not take offense
-
Work together
Appendix C. BBS Vision Exercise and Discussion
Elements
Vision Themes
-
Partners working
together to efficiently implement survey
-
Improve science
-
Improve image of
BBS / Raise public awareness of program
-
BBS in
-
Data is used by
conservation community
-
Program evolving
to meet future needs
-
Funding is
adequate to meet objectives
Blue Team:
-
BBS world-renowned
as avian monitoring flagship and widely recognized for scientific integrity
-
Program will
have closer ties regional conservation initiatives that influence local
management (e.g., Joint Ventures and BCRs)
-
Scientific
integrity of BBS strengthened by implementation of bias reduction practices
-
Success of BBS
tied to specific quantifiable measures (e.g., 4100 routes completed by 3600
observers annually, the data from which provides useable trends for 420
species)
Green Team:
-
BBS fully
creditable to scientists and public
-
Data and trends
widely accessed via beautiful and functional analysis portal
-
Allows
identification of landscapes for conservation concern
-
Functional BBS
Network
-
Provides more
information on causes of annual variation in bird numbers
-
Improve
geographic coverage by filling gaps and expanding into
-
See that all
routes are run annually
Yellow
Team:
-
Credibility of
the data with respect to potential biases is greatly enhanced
-
Base funding is
commensurate with operational and research needs
-
Data are
incorporated into conservation planning and evaluation
-
BBS sets
standard for large scale, long term avian monitoring by combining best science
with grass roots public participation
Red
Team:
-
BBS has been
demonstrated, and is accepted, as reliable indication of change in bird
populations
-
Results are
being used for decision-making and conservation
-
BBS data and
ancillary information being used to answer research questions
-
BBS implemented
in
-
Program is well
funded and maintained
-
Program evolving
to meet future needs
Appendix D.
Increasing Observer Quality/Recruitment Issues Group Discussion
Hearing Loss-
*With nearly ¾ of observers over the age
of 45, hearing loss may be significantly affecting
the quality of BBS data.
*Is this age spread the consistent ‘age
profile of the BBS’ or is it a cohort of observers
moving through time? If it is the former
– hearing loss may be a huge issue in
the future.
*More than 45% of “retiring” observers
recognize hearing loss as their primary reason
for leaving the BBS suggesting the possibility of significantly cutting observer attrition if hearing aides
are determined appropriate.
Skill Changes-
*Detection probability would be expected
to increase in most cases (from a skills perspective)
as observers become more experienced both as birders and with their routes in particular. This is a difficult variable to account for
on a broad level and consideration of
ameliorating the phenomenon seems futile.
Equipment Availability-
*Mexican observers may not have the
equipment available for use that US and Canadian
observers do.
ID Abilities In The
Community At Large-
*The average level of observer knowledge
is likely higher today than in previous decades,
when far fewer education resources were available. Therefore, detection
probabilities (from a skills perspective) are likely higher today than in the earlier years of the survey. What affect has this had on trend interpretation?
Turnover/Observer Experience
On Routes-
*Younger observes (college students, etc.)
can rarely make a long term
commitment to the route and so are often discriminated
against by coordinators
seeking a more long-term presence.
*Less than ¼ of observers are under the
age of 45.
Training-
*We are not trying to train observers from
‘off the street’.
*More than 90% of observers have been
birding for more than a decade – representing
a mixture of training that would be hard for us to provide.
*There are other, more comprehensive
education tools out there.
*Any of the following programs would
likely require a corresponding education tool.
Assessment-
*Track the quality (skills, hearing, etc.)
of our observers for analytical consideration.
Certification-
*Establish minimum observer quality
standards (regards skills, hearing, etc.).
*This may be necessary for the data to be
considered legally defensible.
Appendix E. Addressing
Bias in Detection Probability Group Discussion
Sources of Bias:
-
Majority of
birds detected by song
o Bystrak: 70% detected by song
o Does this vary a lot among routes?
-
Issues that
arise:
o Changes in singing rate with season and time of day
and weather and all sorts of other things
§
Concern is systematic
change over time
§
Annual effects
o Detection change from:
§
Increasing
background noise
§
Observer change
(hearing loss, etc.)
·
Multi-year
start-up effects
·
Declines later
on
§
Systematic
increase in background noise
§
Systematic
increase/decrease with vegetation
Strategy:
-
implementing
detection probabilities on a subset of routes
-
Will only likely
be useful for some species
-
Need to do some,
to find out how it will work
Design issues:
-
intervals and
how to deal with them in context of 3 minute count
Spatial/Temporal
implementation?
-
what percentage
of routes?
-
What percentage
of stops?
Develop pilot work to
determine ways this could be done operationally:
-
done by
observers?
-
Measure
background noise on routes
-
Technology
options – recording technology
Strategy:
-
measuring
background noises on routes
-
hand-held sound
meter ($150 dollars) – allows point estimates
-
or recording?
(sophisticated)
How is detectability
influenced by habitat?
-
may help with
on-road, off road stuff
Ted Simons:
-
all work done
with leaf-off in winter
-
intended to
repeat last month, but didn’t happen
-
started making
expts very realistic, but then started dealing with subsets
-
Future
experiments:
o May help with training
o Can teach people interested in this topic about how
well they do.
Talked with Arch McCallum
and others at Cornell
-
using the
playback system to calibrate their system
Strategies:
1 – Start to implement
specific approaches in an operational context on a subset of actual routes.
-
objective is to determine what is feasible
-
pay people to run specific protocols (e.g. 2-3 runs per year)
-
Select a subset of routes in a sample of BCRs
-
re-run those routes twice and try double observer effects
Questions: what is toolbox to consider?
1 – distance sampling does not seem practical or useful
(Simons research)
2 – replicate surveys – run a subset of routes multiple
times
3 – perhaps also incorporate “removal” methods or related
factors
- double/observer &
removal may be preferable methodologically
1 – Continue research into
sources of bias and potential ways to address them
Strategies.
-
ask a subset of
volunteers to run routes twice
-
ask a subset of
volunteers to run route at same time
-
paid version –
hire people to do this.
1. Select a subset of routes
and start to implement some appropriate approaches using (under-) paid crews
•
e.g. running routes
twice
•
“removal” method
approaches