[BCNnet] Re: Response to Science and Birds (no sightings, long)
judymellin
judymellin@netzero.net
Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:44:01 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0178_01C2C7CE.C5EF9B40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I claim no science background at all (I have a BA and an MBA so that =
makes it clear that I am as far from science as I can get!) but I do =
have a lot of background monitoring at the same site and feel that =
experience qualifies me to chime in on this subject.
We usually have 75 bobolinks on our site, the Poplar Creek Forest =
Preserve in Hoffman Estates, every year. This year, we had 11. Was I =
panicky about what had happened to all of them? No, because we had had =
a very extensive burn in April and there was very little habitat for =
them. I also knew that the folks at Paul Douglas ( a similar sized =
preserve about 3 miles from us) had record numbers (upwards of 100 =
birds) of that species this year. I feel very confident that I can draw =
a cause and effect relationship here without a lot of research- =
scientific or otherwise- because I have facts to support my conclusion: =
my 13 years of observations on this site, the fact of the burn and the =
information from Carolyn Fields and Stan Stec, monitors at Paul Douglas.
But 13 years of experience at one site does not give me all the =
information I need to draw other conclusions. For example, we have an =
area affectionately referred to as "Lake Leaky" because of its =
propensity to go dry at some point every year. For years, I have watched =
waterfowl come through in the spring and, some years, species like coots =
and grebes will stay to nest. There have been other years, though, =
where these species appeared and then moved on without an apparent =
reason. I never could figure out how they knew what the water level =
would be by the time their young hatched.
One year when the area went dry, I saw tremendous growth of sedges and =
grasses and it finally occurred to me that the birds were staying or =
moving based on food source and I was thrilled that I had figured that =
out. Well, the next year, when the food source was there and the water =
levels were good, very few birds even stopped there so my great theory =
was blown, you'll excuse the expression, out of the water. So, after 13 =
years, I still cannot explain why those birds come and go the way they =
do.
One of the greatest things about ornithology is that the "real" =
scientists not only accept, but solicit, input from amateurs. We can =
gather the data and submit it but I have a problem with analyzing it in =
any meaningful way unless we have some guidelines for gathering it. We- =
or the real "experts"- can make preliminary evaluations but that's all =
they are until they are backed up by more data.
Since I see crows only 7 out of every 10 monitoring trips, I did not =
participate in the crow study since a one day observation would have =
been meaningless. I felt better about doing the chickadee study because =
I see that species almost without fail every time I go out so their =
complete absence would have told me something (but, since they were =
present every week this year, I learned nothing, in my opinion).
As amateurs (most of us, anyway), I feel we need to be very cautious in =
drawing some of the conclusions that we do. We can label them as =
preliminary but I feel we need to make that extremely clear before they =
are released.
Judy Mellin
Bird Monitor
Poplar Creek Forest Preserve
Hoffman Estates
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Douglas Stotz=20
To: ibet@lists.enteract.com=20
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 7:26 AM
Subject: IBET: Response to Science and Birds (no sightings, long)
I felt I needed to respond to Steve Bailey's interesting and =
provocative post with respect to science, censusing and specifically =
projects that attempted to look at declines of some birds in the Chicago =
area this summer.
Steve makes a number of good points about how science should =
be done ideally--the value of long-term data, some of the weaknesses of =
short-term and limited data, and some of the hazards of interpreting =
Christmas Count data. But I have to say that I think I fundamentally =
disagree with him in three major areas: the value of the data that was =
collected in the crow and chickadee study, the strength of the tie to =
West Nile Virus, and the usefulness of Christmas Count data for =
investigating such issues.
Before I get started in the specifics, I should just mention =
my personal biases. I think I qualify as a scientist. I have a Ph. D. =
in Evolutionary Biology, and I have worked at the Field Museum in a =
scientific position of 8 years. However, I am less concerned with the =
need for scientific purity than with the need to try to understand what =
is going on in the world. Our desire to understand what is going on in =
the world of birds, I think requires us to accept data from sources that =
are not perfectly clean and in fact to search out those sources. One =
needs to keep in mind the limitation of those sources, but to ignore =
these data reduces our ability to determine the "truth." Just as an =
example of this, in most taxonomic fields, sight records are completely =
ignored in determining the known distribution of a species. Ornithology =
is one of the few fields that pays any attention to sight records at =
all. Records committees such as IORC, of which I am Secretary, are an =
attempt to improve the quality of the data based on sight records, so =
that that data approaches the ideal for most scientists of a =
well-documented specimen housed in a museum. But the fact is that much =
of what we know about the distribution and abundance of birds, and =
especially the dynamic nature of this comes from sight records of =
amateur birders. One of the heartening things of the past couple of =
decades is the rise in formalized systems for collecting and reporting =
that data. Anyway...
On the data in the chickadee and crow studies, there is not =
question that the amount of data collected is small, smaller than you =
would like. It is clearly not sufficient for a publication in a major =
scientific journal. I think though that it is sufficient, especially =
the chickadee survey to demonstrate a major decline in that species =
around Chicago. Ideally, some Illinois scientist would have designed a =
carefully worked out and scientifically rigorous study to evaluate the =
effects of West Nile last year. But that didn't happen, in part =
because I think nobody imagined that West Nile would hit Illinois so =
hard, although we did know it was coming. So, BCN put together a =
project to attempt to get at least some information on the topic. =
Timing was important. If they waited for established monitoring =
programs such as the breeding season censuses in 2003, or even Christmas =
Bird Counts, some of the local declines could have been reversed I =
applaud the attempt to get data in the heart of last year's West Nile =
outbreak, even as I recognize the limitations of that data, and look =
forward to further attempts to collect data that can be used to track =
population changes.
Steve talks about biases, and this is always a problem. In an =
ideal study, the sites would be chosen randomly to avoid biases. =
However, the fact that this was not done does not necessarily invalidate =
the results. Unless the biases in how sites were selected would be =
expected to influence the results in a fashion relevant to the question =
being examined, I think the issue of bias is not something I would focus =
on. Frankly, I can't personally see an obvious way in which the =
chickadee study would have had a bias that would invalidate the results. =
I personally participated in the chickadee survey, surveying two areas =
in western Cook County. These areas were selected because they were =
places where I had comparable data in earlier years from the same time =
of year, with numbers and hours spent observing. So these sites were =
not selected randomly, but they were not selected with reference to =
anything specific about chickadee numbers (except that there had been =
chickadees there in past years). I don't think that such selection =
criteria would be expected to bias the results. =20
In terms of the tie of the declines found for these species to =
West Nile, the nature of the tie is correlational and circumstantial, =
not causal. Ideally, you would demonstarte directly that the cause of =
any observed decline was due to West Nile. That was not done, and =
frankly I am unable to imagine how one would do it. However, I think =
there are several strong lines of evidence-the declines were most severe =
in areas where human cases are most concentrated, the declines occurred =
during the time period that West Nile was having most impressive affects =
in terms of birds being found dead and tested as positive for West Nile. =
Finally we know that these species are susceptible to West Nile, and =
crows apparently are particularly susceptible. So, yes there is no =
"proof" that West Nile is responsible for the declines we've all =
observed in crows and chickadees, and that the studies this summer and =
fall provided some data for, but in my view there is strong evidence. I =
would just remind people that the scientific purists who work for =
tobacco companies still claim that there is no proof that cigarette =
smoking causes long cancer.
Finally, we have just come through the Christms Bird Count =
season. Exciting to me because I love Christmas Counts, but also =
exciting because it is a huge dataset with years of data collected from =
the same areas. As Steve rightly points out, there are variables that =
need to be considered when looking at CBC data, and because of the =
highly unstandardized manner in which the data is collected, you need to =
look at a lot of data and/or be looking for large changes. If you go =
to the CBC home page, http://www.audubon.org/bird/cbc/ , at the bottom =
you can see a variety of studies that use CBC data to track changes in =
bird populations. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately for the =
species involved) the changes in populations being looked for were =
massive, at least in the Chicago area. This year's CBC season was =
blessed with normal weather, and, at least in the Chicago area, little =
in the way of inclement weather, so I think the weather variable is =
pretty minimal in affecting this year's data. I think that the CBC =
dataset is almost ideal for looking for the details of the declines in =
local bird populations due to West Nile. It provides many hours of =
observation, a great geographic spread, and many years of comparable =
data. I am analyzing that data myself, and I know others are too. Not =
to steal anybody's thunder, but preliminarily it looks clear that crows =
are way down in the Chicago area, and are low, but much more variable =
elsewhere in the state.
So sorry to have gone on for so long, but I thought that a =
different perspective on the West Nile story was called for. It will be =
interesting to see if the Spring Bird Count and censuses done next =
summer show the continued declines or whether this will have been a one =
year deal. The summer censuses will be especially interesting because it =
will be our first chance to see if some of the more sensitive migrant =
species (things like Ovenbirds, Rose-breasted Grosbeak, etc.) may have =
been affected. Because loss of birds due to mortality last year may get =
obscured by immigration from other parts of the range that were not hard =
hit by West Nile, we may never know if there was significant mortality =
in many of our Neotropical migrants. My personal expectation is that =
West Nile will not be a big factor in the Chicago area next year and =
that we'll see complete recovery within a couple of years. I hope so.
=20
Doug Stotz =20
Douglas Stotz
Conservation Ecologist/Ornithologist
Environmental and Conservation Programs
Field Museum of Natural History
1400 S. Lake Shore Dr.
Chicago, IL 60605
Phone: (312)-665-7438
Fax: (312)-665-7440
e-mail: stotz@fmnh.org
------=_NextPart_000_0178_01C2C7CE.C5EF9B40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD><X-TAB>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>I claim no science background at all (I have a BA and an MBA so =
that makes=20
it clear that I am as far from science as I can get!) but I do have a =
lot of=20
background monitoring at the same site and feel that experience =
qualifies me to=20
chime in on this subject.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We usually have 75 bobolinks on our site, the Poplar Creek Forest =
Preserve=20
in Hoffman Estates, every year. This year, we had 11. Was I =
panicky=20
about what had happened to all of them? No, because we had had a =
very=20
extensive burn in April and there was very little habitat for =
them. I also=20
knew that the folks at Paul Douglas ( a similar sized preserve about 3 =
miles=20
from us) had record numbers (upwards of 100 birds) of that species this=20
year. I feel very confident that I can draw a cause and effect=20
relationship here without a lot of research- scientific or otherwise- =
because I=20
have facts to support my conclusion: my 13 years of observations =
on this=20
site, the fact of the burn and the information from Carolyn Fields and =
Stan=20
Stec, monitors at Paul Douglas.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But 13 years of experience at one site does not give me all the =
information=20
I need to draw other conclusions. For example, we have an area=20
affectionately referred to as "Lake Leaky" because of its propensity to =
go dry=20
at some point every year. For years, I have watched waterfowl =
come=20
through in the spring and, some years, species like coots and =
grebes will=20
stay to nest. There have been other years, though, where these =
species=20
appeared and then moved on without an apparent reason. I never =
could=20
figure out how they knew what the water level would be by the time their =
young=20
hatched.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One year when the area went dry, I saw tremendous growth of sedges =
and=20
grasses and it finally occurred to me that the birds were staying or =
moving=20
based on food source and I was thrilled that I had figured that =
out. Well,=20
the next year, when the food source was there and the water levels were =
good,=20
very few birds even stopped there so my great theory was blown, you'll =
excuse=20
the expression, out of the water. So, after 13 years, I still =
cannot=20
explain why those birds come and go the way they do.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One of the greatest things about ornithology is that the "real" =
scientists=20
not only accept, but solicit, input from amateurs. We can gather =
the data=20
and submit it but I have a problem with analyzing it in any meaningful =
way=20
unless we have some guidelines for gathering it. We- or the real=20
"experts"- can make preliminary evaluations but that's all they are =
until they=20
are backed up by more data.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Since I see crows only 7 out of every 10 monitoring trips, I did =
not=20
participate in the crow study since a one day observation would have =
been=20
meaningless. I felt better about doing the chickadee study because =
I see=20
that species almost without fail every time I go out so their complete =
absence=20
would have told me something (but, since they were present every week =
this year,=20
I learned nothing, in my opinion).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As amateurs (most of us, anyway), I feel we need to be very =
cautious in=20
drawing some of the conclusions that we do. We can label them as=20
preliminary but I feel we need to make that extremely clear before they=20
are released.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Judy Mellin</DIV>
<DIV>Bird Monitor</DIV>
<DIV>Poplar Creek Forest Preserve</DIV>
<DIV>Hoffman Estates</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Ddstotz@fieldmuseum.org =
href=3D"mailto:dstotz@fieldmuseum.org">Douglas=20
Stotz</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dibet@lists.enteract.com=20
href=3D"mailto:ibet@lists.enteract.com">ibet@lists.enteract.com</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 29, =
2003 7:26=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> IBET: Response to =
Science and=20
Birds (no sightings, long)</DIV>
=
<DIV><BR></DIV> </X-TAB>I =
felt=20
I needed to respond to Steve Bailey's interesting and provocative post =
with=20
respect to science, censusing and specifically projects that attempted =
to look=20
at declines of some birds in the Chicago area this summer.<BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Arial, =
Helvetica"><X-TAB> </X-TAB=
>Steve=20
makes a number of good points about how science should be done =
ideally--the=20
value of long-term data, some of the weaknesses of short-term and =
limited=20
data, and some of the hazards of interpreting Christmas Count =
data. But=20
I have to say that I think I fundamentally disagree with him in =
three=20
major areas: the value of the data that was collected in the crow and=20
chickadee study, the strength of the tie to West Nile Virus, and the=20
usefulness of Christmas Count data for investigating such=20
=
issues.<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB=
>Before=20
I get started in the specifics, I should just mention my personal=20
biases. I think I qualify as a scientist. I have a Ph. D. =
in=20
Evolutionary Biology, and I have worked at the Field Museum in a =
scientific=20
position of 8 years. However, I am less concerned with the need =
for=20
scientific purity than with the need to try to understand what is =
going on in=20
the world. Our desire to understand what is going on in the =
world of=20
birds, I think requires us to accept data from sources that are not =
perfectly=20
clean and in fact to search out those sources. One needs to keep =
in mind=20
the limitation of those sources, but to ignore these data reduces our =
ability=20
to determine the =93truth.=94 Just as an example of this, in =
most taxonomic=20
fields, sight records are completely ignored in determining the known=20
distribution of a species. Ornithology is one of the few fields =
that=20
pays any attention to sight records at all. Records committees =
such as=20
IORC, of which I am Secretary, are an attempt to improve the quality =
of the=20
data based on sight records, so that that data approaches the ideal =
for most=20
scientists of a well-documented specimen housed in a museum. But =
the=20
fact is that much of what we know about the distribution and abundance =
of=20
birds, and especially the dynamic nature of this comes from sight =
records of=20
amateur birders. One of the heartening things of the past couple =
of=20
decades is the rise in formalized systems for collecting and reporting =
that=20
data. =20
=
Anyway...<BR><X-TAB> </X-T=
AB>On=20
the data in the chickadee and crow studies, there is not question that =
the=20
amount of data collected is small, smaller than you would like. =
It is=20
clearly not sufficient for a publication in a major scientific =
journal. =20
I think though that it is sufficient, especially the chickadee survey =
to=20
demonstrate a major decline in that species around Chicago. =
Ideally,=20
some Illinois scientist would have designed a carefully worked out and =
scientifically rigorous study to evaluate the effects of West Nile =
last=20
year. But that didn=92t happen, in part because I think =
nobody=20
imagined that West Nile would hit Illinois so hard, although we did =
know it=20
was coming. So, BCN put together a project to attempt to get at =
least=20
some information on the topic. Timing was important. If =
they=20
waited for established monitoring programs such as the breeding season =
censuses in 2003, or even Christmas Bird Counts, some of the local =
declines=20
could have been reversed I applaud the attempt to get data in =
the heart=20
of last year=92s West Nile outbreak, even as I recognize the =
limitations of that=20
data, and look forward to further attempts to collect data that can be =
used to=20
track population=20
=
changes.<BR><X-TAB> </X-TA=
B>Steve=20
talks about biases, and this is always a problem. In an ideal =
study, the=20
sites would be chosen randomly to avoid biases. However, the fact that =
this=20
was not done does not necessarily invalidate the results. Unless =
the=20
biases in how sites were selected would be expected to influence the =
results=20
in a fashion relevant to the question being examined, I think the =
issue of=20
bias is not something I would focus on. Frankly, I can=92t =
personally see=20
an obvious way in which the chickadee study would have had a bias that =
would=20
invalidate the results. I personally participated in the =
chickadee=20
survey, surveying two areas in western Cook County. These areas =
were=20
selected because they were places where I had comparable data in =
earlier years=20
from the same time of year, with numbers and hours spent =
observing. So=20
these sites were not selected randomly, but they were not selected =
with=20
reference to anything specific about chickadee numbers (except that =
there had=20
been chickadees there in past years). I don=92t think that such =
selection=20
criteria would be expected to bias the results. =20
<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>In =
terms of=20
the tie of the declines found for these species to West Nile, the =
nature of=20
the tie is correlational and circumstantial, not causal. =
Ideally, you=20
would demonstarte directly that the cause of any observed decline was =
due to=20
West Nile. That was not done, and frankly I am unable to imagine =
how one=20
would do it. However, I think there are several strong lines of=20
evidence=96the declines were most severe in areas where human cases =
are most=20
concentrated, the declines occurred during the time period that West =
Nile was=20
having most impressive affects in terms of birds being found dead and =
tested=20
as positive for West Nile. Finally we know that these species =
are=20
susceptible to West Nile, and crows apparently are particularly=20
susceptible. So, yes there is no =93proof=94 that West Nile is =
responsible=20
for the declines we=92ve all observed in crows and chickadees, and =
that the=20
studies this summer and fall provided some data for, but in my view =
there is=20
strong evidence. I would just remind people that the scientific =
purists=20
who work for tobacco companies still claim that there is no proof that =
cigarette smoking causes long=20
=
cancer.<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB=
>Finally,=20
we have just come through the Christms Bird Count season. =
Exciting to me=20
because I love Christmas Counts, but also exciting because it is a =
huge=20
dataset with years of data collected from the same areas. As =
Steve=20
rightly points out, there are variables that need to be considered =
when=20
looking at CBC data, and because of the highly unstandardized manner =
in which=20
the data is collected, you need to look at a lot of data and/or be =
looking for=20
large changes. If you go to the CBC home page, </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.audubon.org/bird/cbc/" eudora=3D"autourl"><FONT=20
face=3D"Arial, Helvetica"=20
=
color=3D#0000ff><U>http://www.audubon.org/bird/cbc/</A></U></FONT><FONT=20
face=3D"Arial, Helvetica"> , at the bottom you can see a variety of =
studies that=20
use CBC data to track changes in bird populations. =
Fortunately (or=20
perhaps unfortunately for the species involved) the changes in =
populations=20
being looked for were massive, at least in the Chicago area. =
This year=92s=20
CBC season was blessed with normal weather, and, at least in the =
Chicago area,=20
little in the way of inclement weather, so I think the weather =
variable is=20
pretty minimal in affecting this year=92s data. I think =
that the CBC=20
dataset is almost ideal for looking for the details of the declines in =
local=20
bird populations due to West Nile. It provides many hours of=20
observation, a great geographic spread, and many years of comparable=20
data. I am analyzing that data myself, and I know others are =
too. =20
Not to steal anybody=92s thunder, but preliminarily it looks clear =
that crows=20
are way down in the Chicago area, and are low, but much more variable=20
elsewhere in the=20
=
state.<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>=
So=20
sorry to have gone on for so long, but I thought that a different =
perspective=20
on the West Nile story was called for. It will be interesting to =
see=20
if the Spring Bird Count and censuses done next summer show the=20
continued declines or whether this will have been a one year deal. The =
summer=20
censuses will be especially interesting because it will be our first =
chance to=20
see if some of the more sensitive migrant species (things like =
Ovenbirds,=20
Rose-breasted Grosbeak, etc.) may have been affected. Because =
loss of=20
birds due to mortality last year may get obscured by immigration from =
other=20
parts of the range that were not hard hit by West Nile, we may never =
know if=20
there was significant mortality in many of our Neotropical=20
migrants. My personal expectation is that West Nile will =
not be a=20
big factor in the Chicago area next year and that we=92ll see complete =
recovery=20
within a couple of years. I hope=20
=
so.<BR></FONT><X-TAB> </X-=
TAB><BR>Doug=20
Stotz<X-TAB> </X-TAB><BR>
<DIV>Douglas Stotz</DIV>
<DIV>Conservation Ecologist/Ornithologist</DIV>
<DIV>Environmental and Conservation Programs</DIV>
<DIV>Field Museum of Natural History</DIV>
<DIV>1400 S. Lake Shore Dr.</DIV>
<DIV>Chicago, IL 60605</DIV><BR>
<DIV>Phone: (312)-665-7438</DIV>
<DIV>Fax:<X-TAB> </X-TAB> =20
(312)-665-7440</DIV>e-mail: stotz@fmnh.org =
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0178_01C2C7CE.C5EF9B40--