THE MONITORING WORKING GROUP OF
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT ‑‑ COMPAÑEROS EN
VUELO
PROPOSAL FOR THE PILOT NETWORK OF
MIGRATION
MONITORING IN
Contact: Dr. C. John Ralph, US
(707) 825-2992; cjr2@humboldt.edu or cjralph@humboldt1.com
Following the lead of the Canadian Migration Monitoring
Network, this proposal seeks to establish a similar, companion pilot network
for the rest of the continent, operating primarily in both migration seasons
when short and long-distance migrants, as well as birds largely considered to
be ‘resident’ are moving into and out of areas for the northern winter, and are
subject to stresses of such displacement, as well as amenable to certain
monitoring techniques. Birds that winter
in the southern
Background
Widespread concern
with population declines of landbirds, coupled with the knowledge that birds
are a good metric of habitat changes has led to the need for systematic
monitoring, especially of species north of Breeding Bird Survey routes in
Much discussion over
the past decade about the establishment of bird monitoring networks throughout
the Americas has established the broad outlines of such a network both for
resident and migratory birds (Ralph and Mila, Butcher and Ralph, McCracken,
etc.). Methods are in place for single
locations during migration, using methods such as banding captures, area search
census, and visible migration counts, as typically occur at observatories (Hussell
and Ralph MS), that could collectively make up a network. Monitoring by census on a wide scale is in
Dunn and Butcher (MS). These two documents are available on the web at the
Partners in Flight Monitoring Working Group's web page: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/rsl/pif/
Composition
Components of the Network have been under
development by many organizations and agencies throughout the
Formation
of the Network
Although the Network will follow the lead of the
Canadian network, requirements for membership will likely differ, due to
differing objectives. Members of the
Network will be encouraged to use standardized methods for bird monitoring
including estimates of population size and demographic measures, primarily
through censuses and mist netting, but also to include other methods such as
migration counts, nest searching, and color marking. The
specific standards for such monitoring are in Ralph et al. (1993, 1995). An important aspect could
be the regular and repeatable monitoring effort within and between stations in
the Network to facilitate comparison to enable Members to use and compare their
results with other stations. This would
entail monitoring on a regular basis, whether it is daily, weekly, monthly, or
even yearly effort, and could also include intensive monitoring for a portion
of the year.
An important component of the
Network will be the partners that provide an overview function of data editing,
compilation, analysis, and communication.
At the moment, the Laboratory of Ornithology at
Questions
Addressed by a Network
An interactive Network will enable
biologists, managers, and investigators to begin to explore and answer many
interrelated questions concerning monitoring bird populations. They include the following:
·
Changes in population numbers, especially long-term
trends of northern or otherwise poorly-monitored populations in non-breeding
season
·
Changes in population composition, including age
composition for demographic measures, nutritional status, incidence of disease,
and contaminant burdens.
·
Origin and destination of migrating populations
·
Routes of migration, especially possible corridors
on either side of the
·
Stopover ecology, habitats, and sites.
·
Effects of weather on movements
Methods used in the Network
Clearly many methods could
be used in the network and we intend that most of them be part of the overall
databases that will ultimately be available.
The methods include the following:
·
Censuses including point counts, diurnal migration
counts, and area search
·
Constant effort stations involving mist netting
·
Checklists, including museum specimens, but mostly
volunteer observers
·
Radar, especially NEXRAD surveys of broad geographic
scale (not species-specific)
·
Genetic markers, providing the approximate
geographic origin of migrating birds, species and race identification, and
sexing of individuals (Appendix C)
·
Vegetation metrics, including on the ground
inventory and monitoring, as well as remote sensing.
·
Behavioral observations, especially foraging methods
and substrates.
An important component to
these methods will be the concomitant further development of various aspects of
monitoring methods, especially the tools used in vegetation assessment,
database management and access, and statistical modeling.
Content of data
In
general, each data set would include several interrelated sets. One set could contain the bird data and the
other the characteristics of the station (number of hours operated, length of census,
observers, habitat, and location).
Levels
of processing can be dependent upon complexity and cost desired. For example, data can just be stored in
original format, edited to a common ASCII format with standardized fields,
edited to correct certain basic errors, providing feedback to cooperators from
the Network, and interpretation and analyses.
Archiving Existing Data
We have estimated
that the continent-wide loss of monitoring data taken in past years is about
10% annually from a variety of causes.
It is urgent that we stem this hemorrhaging of these irreplaceable data. As a first step, we propose that we form a
set of regionally-distributed administrators at local nodes (such as bird
observatories) who would solicit data from Network members, add or subtract
registered users as needed, and funnel data into a central server
themselves. The eBird system of
Making Data Available
Three
methods are possible, and could be implemented differently for each station:
(1) data could held centrally and at the regional node as merely a repository
(released only with permission); (2) be made available to those who request
them; (3) the data could be published for internet access through a web page:
and (4) the nodes could provide computer and analytical support. Testing of all these combinations, as well as
the desire of each station to share data, would be an important part of this
pilot program.
Station Membership
Potentially there could be three groups of organizational members by station. Full Members are stations that support the development of the Network by helping develop facilities, collecting data, managing and training volunteers, and fundraising. Full members could also have a vote in the organization and its funding decisions. Candidate Members are those who intend to meet the standards for Full Membership. Affiliate Members are those who choose participate in the Network at a less intense level. Individual members and sponsors could also contribute funding and expertise to the effort.
Benefits
Full members could be
eligible for various types of assistance from the Network and from other
members. These could be especially
important in
Draft Estimate of Costs
The funding requirements
would depend upon the level desired, the number of cooperators, and how many
types of data would be accepted, processed, and made available. As a first consideration or a pilot year, a
suggested staffing and funding level is as follows:
Supervisor (0.1 person-years) $ 4,000
Biologist for data management (1.0) 35,000
Data manager, programmer (0.5) 8,000
Travel to meet cooperators 25,000
Equipment 4,500
Support for node cooperators (@950 per member) 25,000
Total………………………………….. $ 101,500
Application Process
The Network welcomes the application of stations
that wish to join to further development of the Network. A person involved with each station should
send the form for “Preliminary Application” to one of the parties listed
below. After receiving the form, we
will contact the applicant for the final materials for acceptance to Associate,
Candidate, or Full Membership.
A Candidate Member would:
(a) Submit its Preliminary Application to the
network for membership; and
(b) When its “Station Operating Protocol” is
completed, submit, as outlined below, and indicate its progress towards meeting
the criteria for designation as a Full member in the Network.
The Full Member would:
(a) Agree to abide by the Banders Code of Ethics
(Appendix A);
(b) Comply with legal requirements for running a
station (e.g. banding permits, animal care committee approvals, and landowner
permission);
(c) Commit to making all reasonable efforts to run
the station for at least the next three years, and preferably more; and
(d) Enter monitoring data into computer files in a
format mutually agreeable to the Member and the Network and submit these data
annually.
(e) Make every effort to meet all the requirements
for a Full Membership, as outlined below in Appendix B.
The Network would:
(a) Provide advice on operations, through a site
visits where possible;
(b) Store data submitted by the Members, hold such
data and retrieve data on request or approval of the Member;
(d) Report annually to all Members on the status of
data submitted (i.e., acknowledge receipt, indicate when archived, and identify
any problems);
(f) Acknowledge the Member in any reports and
publications that make use of the station’s data; and obtain Full Member
permission for use of data for any purpose other than for determining species
coverage across the Network.
Appendix A
The Bander's Code of Ethics
1. More than anything else, banders are responsible for the
safety and welfare of the birds they study.
This means that stress and risks of injury or death need to be
minimized. Some basic rules are as
follows:
- handle each bird carefully,
gently, quietly, in minimum time and with respect
- capture
and process only as many birds as you can safely handle
- close
affected traps or nets when there are known predators in the area
- do not band in inclement
weather
- frequently
assess the condition of traps and nets and make timely repairs
- students
must be properly trained and supervised
- check nets as frequently
as conditions dictate
- check traps as often as is
recommended for each trap type
- properly
close all traps and nets at the end of the banding day
- do not leave traps or nets
set and untended
- use the correct band size
and banding pliers for each bird
- treat all bird injuries in
the most humane way
2. Banders must continually assess their own work to ensure that
it is beyond reproach.
- reassess methods and your
approach whenever an injury or mortality occurs
- accept constructive
criticism from other banders
3. Banders must be willing to receive and offer honest and
constructive assessment of their and others' work to help maintain the highest
standards possible.
- publish innovations in
banding, capture and handling techniques
- educate prospective
banders and trainers
- provide feedback of any
instances of mistreatment of birds to the bander
- if
no necessary improvements are observed, then file a report with the Banding
Offices
4. Banders must ensure that the data gathered are accurate and
complete.
5. Banders must obtain permission to band
on private property.
Appendix B
Criteria for Designation as
a Full Member in the Migration Monitoring in
In order to be formally designated as a Full Member
of the Network, monitoring stations should seek to satisfy the following
criteria. These are guidelines only, and individual stations will have varying
abilities to meet the criteria.
1. The
station provides an estimate on the number of species of birds that it is
likely to adequately monitor by the methods it employs. Daily operation during migration is the
ideal for assessment at a single station.
As a general rule, we would suggest that at least 20 species of birds in
its area should be sampled each year.
Current guidelines suggest a minimal migration monitoring program would
likely have (1) at least weekly operation as part of a small, regional network;
or (2) an average of at least 100 individuals of the 20 species recorded per
season on an average of at least 5 separate days per season.
2. The
station should have secure tenure of the site (through ownership of the area or
a long‑term (5 years plus) agreement with the land owner, preferably in
writing), or a reasonable expectation of tenure (e.g. based on historical site
occupancy).
3. The
station must operate consistently under a written protocol that includes the
following seven elements:
(a) A brief
statement of goals and objectives of the program. The main groups of birds (e.g. landbirds,
diurnal migrants, neotropical residents, species
breeding in the forests of central
(b) A definition of the area being monitored,
including a map or maps showing (if applicable) the boundaries of the count
area, a census route, visible migration observation points, and/or net and trap
sites.
(c) Definition of hours and days that the monitoring
is to be conducted.
(d) A description of the methods used to produce a
count of birds, including mist netting, census, diurnal counts, etc., with
particular attention to any procedures that are specific to the site.
(e) A description of record‑keeping
procedures.
(f) Statements estimating the number, skills, and
experience of qualified banders and assistants that are required to run the
station, and descriptions of training programs to bring inexperienced personnel
up to the required levels, including North American Banding Council
certification.
(g) A description of the methods that were, or could
be, used to determine the current vegetation at the levels of net lane, site
and surrounding lands potentially including photographs and measurements of
vegetation characteristics; a monitoring plan and schedule designed to track
vegetation changes; and if necessary a management plan designed to cope with
changing vegetation succession.
The above protocol could be
reviewed (and an on site visit could be made where possible) by preferably at
least two persons representing the Network with knowledge of field procedures
and analysis of landbird monitoring data.
4. We
recommend that station be incorporated as a non-profit organization in its
country; and for purposes of fund‑raising it is best that it be able to
issue tax receipts, or have a formal association with an organization that can
give tax receipts on the member’s behalf.
Applying molecular genetic techniques to songbird migration monitoring
Migration Monitoring Network and Center for Tropical Research (UCLA)
What can genetic data provide to migration
monitoring?
- Approximate geographic origin of migrating birds
- Species/race identification
- Sexing of individuals
Tentative Research Objectives for a pilot project. At present, the target species are
Yellow-breasted Chat, Common Yellowthroat, Wilson’s Warbler,
Nashville Warbler, and Swainson’s Thrush.
For purposes of this Network, other species would be included in the
first tier of species. For instance,
taking two taxa:
1. Determining the origin
and migratory phenology of declining populations of a species, e.g., the Swainson’s Thrush:
·
Observation: migratory populations sampled by the
network show significant declines according to fall data.
·
Questions: Are all the Swainson’s Thrushes coming
from the same area, or are we lumping several
populations into the trend analysis?
·
Objective: Identifying populations genetically,
determining population-specific migratory phenology, and re-analyzing
population trend data.
2. Differentiating between
Pacific Slope and Cordilleran flycatchers.
·
Observation: Species are hard to identify in the
hand.
·
Questions:
which species is/are captured at each network’s station? Do they
segregate according to elevation, habitat, etc.? Do they show the same
population trends? Do they show similar patterns of migratory phenology?
·
Objective: Developing genetic marker that
differentiates the two species; analyzing samples from all stations in the
network to determine the frequency of each species; re-analyzing population
trend data.
General
Plan of Action
1. Target Species List and Ranking of Network’s
Objectives.--A list of target species will be put together based on the
network’s objectives. Network’s
objectives will be ranked according to the following criteria: feasibility of
obtaining sufficient samples for a specific target species, conservation
importance/urgency, etc.
2. Collection of genetic material.--Two tail
feathers will be collected from all target species.
3. Archiving of genetic material.--Feather samples
could be archived at the Center for Tropical Research’s Conservation Genetics
Resource Center at UCLA. Samples will
not be used for any other project without previous authorization by the
Network.
4. Genetic analysis.--Analyses could be carried out
at UCLA’s Center. Once sufficient
samples are in place and research objectives have been clearly laid out, the
Nework and the Center could write up a funding proposal, secure funds, hire a technician
or a student as needed, purchase the necessary reagents, carry out the
laboratory work, and conduct the necessary data analyses.
5. Demographic analysis.--Genetic
data will be used in conjunction with capture data in order to address the
network’s research objectives.
6. Publication/Dissemination of
results.--Publications based on the project’s genetic and demographic data will
be co-authored by participants in the Network and Center’s researchers.
Butcher, G. (Ed.). 1992.
Needs assessment: Monitoring Neotropical migratory birds. Prepared by participants at the Monitoring
Working Group Meeting,
Dunn and Butcher
Hussell, D.J.T. and C.J. Ralph. 1998. Recommended methods for monitoring bird populations
by counting and capture of migrants. Unpublished report available
from E.H. Dunn or D.J.T. Hussell, CWS,
McCracken
Ralph, C.J., G.R. Geupel, P.
Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante.
1993. Handbook of Field Methods
for Monitoring Landbirds.
Ralph, C.J. and B. Milá.
1995. Towards an integrated and
standardized monitoring program for landbirds in
For
further information contact:
Dr. C. John Ralph, US Forest Service, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California; (707) 825-2992; cjr2@ humboldt.edu or cjralph@ humboldt1.com, or
John Alexander, Klamath Bird
Observatory,