I think most people will be amazed at all the recent activity in La. Steinberg did not start out to do a book primarily on La., but he found so many recent reports that it ended up that way. Even I, who consider myself now "in the loop" got some very useful info. I found his interactions with Fielding Lewis quite enlightening. Old friends like Tommy Michot and Garrie Landry also figure rather prominently. "Team Elvis South" has been plugging away very quietly, but now the cat will be out of the bag.
Since Scott Ramsey's name is mentioned prominently, I would like to say that I consider Scott to be a quiet hero of ivory-bill conservation, not to mention black bear and others. He is not interested in taking the credit he deserves, but he has worked and continues to work to save as much forest in his area as possible. The best way to express our gratitude is to respect his privacy and his sanctuary from the clamor of modern life.
"Team Elvis South" has been plugging away very quietly, but now the cat will be out of the bag.
Fang, if you wouldn't mind clarifying, is the cat "out of the bag" with this publication, or are you speaking of something more detailed in the near future? Hope you don't mind my asking.
I mean that there has been a lot of recent activity related to ivory-bills in La. that has not been publicized. Most people would not associate names like Jay Huner, Ron Boustany, and Scott Ramsey with ivory-billed woodpeckers. Most people have never heard of Team Elvis South or the "code name" they use for the ivory-bill, "Goofy." All of these things and more are detailed in Steinberg's book. Sightings are by no means confined to the last few years, there have been many going back to the 1970's.
Last edited by fangsheath : 04-11-2008 at 09:00 PM.
Does anyone know of a good source on the ecology and life histories of Cerambycids and other wood boring beetles? I am particularly interested in larval ecology and behavior. Thanks.
I'm hoping someone has ready access to the following report by:
W.W. Cooke, 1888. A report of bird migration in the Mississippi Valley in the years 1884 and 1885. U.S. Dept. of Ag., Division of Economic Ornithology, Bulletin 2:128.
I have a copy somewhere, but have misplaced it. I have the excerpt Cooke has for Ivory-bill, which appears to be all second-hand information (and includes reports all along the Missouri River that Tanner dismisses as vagrants or misidentifications).
What I'm really looking for is what Cooke has to say about the status of Pileated Woodpecker during that same time period (late 1800s).
Some theory on the possibility that very small populations of large woodpeckers may be able to persist for relatively long time periods is the subject of the following on-line publication (with link http://www.ace-eco.org/vol3/iss2/art5/ ):
Evaluating the Small Population Paradigm for Rare Large-Bodied Woodpeckers, with Implications for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
Évaluation du paradigme des petites populations pour les pics de grande taille et implications pour le Pic à bec ivoire HTML
Brady J. Mattsson, Rua S. Mordecai, Michael J. Conroy, James T. Peterson, Robert J. Cooper, and Hans Christensen
They are taking a fecundity of 1.06 as a middle-of-the-road value for ivory-bills. I assume this is a reflection of Tanner's result of 2.11 fledglings/brood and a failure rate of 0.5. However, remembering that the birds will likely re-nest in the event of a failure, the annual failure rate would average closer to 0.25. This would give a fecundity of 1.58, near the high end of their input values.
They are taking a fecundity of 1.06 as a middle-of-the-road value for ivory-bills. I assume this is a reflection of Tanner's result of 2.11 fledglings/brood and a failure rate of 0.5. However, remembering that the birds will likely re-nest in the event of a failure, the annual failure rate would average closer to 0.25. This would give a fecundity of 1.58, near the high end of their input values.
Intriguing. I hope their calculations hold up to further scrutiny.
Remember that these approaches only use breeding females and recruited females. So assuming the average of 2.11 fledglings per brood and assuming on average a 50-50 sex ratio, then we have 1.06 fledged ("recruited") females per year, per breeding female.
There are many, many inherent assumptions here, not the least of which would require these small populations (down to 5 pairs) to be both successful breeders almost every year and on occasion to avoid inbreeding depression for there to be at least recruitment from other very small populations. Otherwise this model points to population collapse.
I think that if there are several very small populations (i.e., from Florida to Arkansas) involved, each too small to have reliable detection of individual birds, then at least occasional very wide dispersal of individuals would seem essential. Obviously, we have no actual data on any successful breeding since the 1930s. So whether the recruitment rate has remained high enough that on average each breeding female recruits one female into the population each year since 1940 is purely speculative.
Nevertheless, is it possible to support very small (one or more) populations of Ivory-bills for 70+ years undetected (or more correctly unconfirmed)? The answer is yes, it is possible. Is it probable? That's a different kettle of fish and only time will tell.
I have long thought that the "very wide dispersal" assumption was essential for persistence, but it doesn't concern me much. I suspect that unpaired birds move tremendously - take Noel et al.'s observation that young pileateds range over areas more than 30 times the size of those of established pairs. I also believe that Tanner's estimate of the species population in 1939 at 22 individuals was far too low. Much of his estimate is based on his presumed carrying capacity of each area. Since McIlhenny was seeing as many as 7 pairs in an area of no more than 16 square miles at one time, I consider Tanner's views on this to be extremely flawed.
Here's yet another paper from Avian Conservation and Ecology (the same on-line journal mentioned above regarding minimum population theory) regarding detectability issues and surveying for very rare (if not extinct) species. The question is how much survey is enough to declare a rare species absent from an area, or extinct rangewide.
Scott, J. M., F. L. Ramsey, M. Lammertink, K. V. Rosenberg, R. Rohrbaugh, J. A. Wiens, and J. M. Reed. 2008. When is an “extinct” species really extinct? Gauging the search efforts for Hawaiian forest birds and the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Avian Conservation and Ecology - Écologie et conservation des oiseaux 3(2): 3. [online] URL: http://www.ace-eco.org/vol3/iss2/art3/
Along these same lines, but perhaps expressing views from differing angles than the authors do above are the following references/abstracts that I don't think have been discussed here previously (sorry, I don't have links to pdf's handy):
BioScience Volume 58, 549-555 (2008)
Using Anecdotal Occurrence Data for Rare or Elusive Species: The Illusion of Reality and a Call for Evidentiary Standards Kevin S. McKelvey, Keith B. Aubry, and Michael K. Schwartz
Abstract.Anecdotal occurrence data (unverifiable observations of organisms or their sign) and inconclusive physical data are often used to assess the current and historical ranges of rare or elusive species. However, the use of such data for species conservation can lead to large errors of omission and commission, which can influence the allocation of limited funds and the efficacy of subsequent conservation efforts. We present three examples of biological misunderstandings, all of them with significant conservation implications, that resulted from the acceptance of anecdotal observations as empirical evidence. To avoid such errors, we recommend that a priori standards constrain the acceptance of occurrence data, with more stringent standards applied to the data for rare species. Because data standards are likely to be taxon specific, professional societies should develop specific evidentiary standards to use when assessing occurrence data for their taxa of interest.
and
Chadés, I., E. McDonald-Madden, M. A. McCarthy, B. Wintle, M. Linkie, and H. P. Possingham. 2008. When to stop managing or surveying cryptic threatened species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 105:13936–13940.
.....
Along these same lines, but perhaps expressing views from differing angles than the authors do above are the following references/abstracts that I don't think have been discussed here previously (sorry, I don't have links to pdf's handy):
BioScience Volume 58, 549-555 (2008)
Using Anecdotal Occurrence Data for Rare or Elusive Species: The Illusion of Reality and a Call for Evidentiary Standards Kevin S. McKelvey, Keith B. Aubry, and Michael K. Schwartz
here is a link to that particular paper, which I posted about at the time it made the rounds:
However, the link you offered for the original ace-eco paper is not working for me... is anyone else having problems with that link??? (in fact, I can't even get on the ace-eco website currently?)
p.s. -- if anyone else is having trouble using PORCAR's link, I just created another link to the same article here:
http://tinyurl.com/7p7agf
Last edited by cyberthrush : 01-04-2009 at 04:07 AM.
Reason: to add a link
After reading the Bioscience article, I am absolutely appalled by the lack of understanding these authors portray. Are we at liberty do discuss their methods/conclusions here?
After reading the Bioscience article, I am absolutely appalled by the lack of understanding these authors portray. Are we at liberty do discuss their methods/conclusions here?
Snowy, I believe that your chief concern had to do with the treatment by the authors of the observational data regarding the Ivory-billed Woodpecker's persistence. I share your concerns. However, I feel the authors bring to the forefront an important point: we absolutely need conclusive physical data to assess the status of rare or elusive species. The disctinction between corroborative and confirmatory data is important, though it can also be blurry. The three examples selected by the authors (two mammals and the Ivory-bill) all illustrate major problems of documentation, regardless of the extent to which conservation prioritization was appropriate. Observational data are essential for ornithological research, and no one who browses the literature on behavior or ecology of birds could dispute this point. Their relevance for documenting rare species is another issue. Although we might disagree with the authors on their interpretation of the evidence for persistence of IBWO, I appreciated their conclusion that, "because data standards are likely to be taxon specific, professional societies should develop specific evidentiary standards to use when assessing occurrence data for their taxa of interest." We need to have balanced discussion of what constitutes appropriate evidence for documenting rare or elusive birds, so I think that articles such as these, even if bias toward one side of the "evidence" is transparent, are meaningful. If they elevate our own efforts at documenting our bird of interest, all the better.
The Avian Conservation and Ecology paper discusses "detections". Ordinarily, that would be a positive identification by an observer, but for Ivory-bills that gets conflated into a clear photograph/video which is a much more difficult standard. The article notes that there were a number of audio detections. IIRC there were visual detection(s) from volunteers working under the Cornell search as well, like Guthrie.
The article's results probably tell searchers what they already knew: the odds are heavily against them. The paper says that there would be a 49% chance of detecting a population of 5 birds in the study area using Cornell's systematic search technique. If there were 5 birds in the study area and that area is representative of the habitat in the state, that would correspond to a population of something like 40 birds just in Arkansas. While it is heartening to think that is possible for a surprisingly large population to remain without being "detected", the flip side is that a population of say 10 birds in the state would be very difficult to detect with Cornell's intensive search protocol. To me, this brings home the idea that searches need to be smart and not systematic.
The Avian Conservation and Ecology paper discusses "detections". Ordinarily, that would be a positive identification by an observer, but for Ivory-bills that gets conflated into a clear photograph/video which is a much more difficult standard. The article notes that there were a number of audio detections. IIRC there were visual detection(s) from volunteers working under the Cornell search as well, like Guthrie.
The thing I don't understand is why the Cuba sightings were seemingly accepted at a much lower standard.
I'd like to thank everyone here for their efforts and this most interesting discussion. If I were close to IBWO territory, you can be sure I'd be out there myself. For now, I mostly lurk.
The thing I don't understand is why the Cuba sightings were seemingly accepted at a much lower standard.
I'd like to thank everyone here for their efforts and this most interesting discussion. If I were close to IBWO territory, you can be sure I'd be out there myself. For now, I mostly lurk.
I think one factor there is lack of the PIWO to confuse the issue. It is my understanding that the Cuban IBWO is the only large woodpecker on the island, so foraging sign indicating a large woodpecker or sightings of large woodpeckers are less ambiguous there.
While it is likely that it will never again be "easy" to find IBWOs, there seems to be a tendency to overlook and/or minimize what seems to me to be the basic problem. As emupilot says in his post, "searches need to be smart and not systematic". We all should, however try to maintain a good standard of documentation of when, where, and what happens each time we search. This helps us as individuals to keep from wasting time covering non-productive ground, as well as lending credibility to any sightings that may happen.
As I see it, the problem is not so much the search protocols, as it is the methodology employed within the framework of the protocol. That is, most of the searches that I am aware of, seem to have been conducted as just another science project...I could be wrong here, feel free to correct me if I am.
I wonder how many visual encounters with wood ducks and wild turkeys the average searcher has on a per trip to the field basis? Better yet...How many photos of these fairly common birds can they produce? While in the context of woodpeckers, the IBWO is large, in the context of the overall habitat (especially those favored by IBWOS) it is a relatively small and undeniably elusive creature.
Before I go any further, I want to repeat that I believe GOOD DOCUMENTATION IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL...In this age of digital manipulation of images, the moment a decent photo emerges, cries of "foul" will be heard even prior to the image being made public. I am not personally aware of anyone on this forum who would for a moment consider faking a photograph, but the scientific and ornithological communities, as well as other interests with a big stake in the final outcome of the debate are going to descend on the "lucky" individual like flies on a gutbucket...If the individual has a good body of supporting documentation, previous encounters, sightings, sound detections, etc...the photo(s) and/or video will be that much more difficult to attack.
That being said, the search for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is not just a science project. It is nothing other than a hunt. It is a hunt for a small, shy, elusive, highly mobile and unbelievably rare animal; one that inhabits some of the most inaccessible and unforgiving areas left in North America. Logistics, accessibility, mobility, endurance, and skill are all factors that will affect the final outcome.
The basics of hunting (whether one is hunting squirrels, rattlesnakes, or nuclear submarines) can be summed up thus: "find it, fix it, kill it..." In the case of IBWO, let's substitute photograph for "kill", which adds another layer of complexity to the problem...Go shoot a mallard duck...Now, get a photograph of a flying mallard; one of acceptable quality, with enough field marks to identify the bird unequivocally as a mallard...See what I mean? I'm sure any duck hunters will know exactly what I'm talking about.
As searchers, we (especially those of us who mostly work alone, supported by our own bank accounts) have to learn everything we can about the habitat and all of it's inhabitants, the "lifestyle" and habits of the IBWO, where IBWO fits into the larger picture, while at the same time becoming expert woodsmen (and women), cartographers, naturalists, documentarians, and photographers...A task that is daunting, but doable, and the ultimate reward will be the preservation of this magnificent species and its even more magnificent habitat...Or there is the chance that someone, possibly even one of the search teams will just "get lucky"...While that would be great, in my experience, lady luck is a treacherous and uncertain ally...
The basics of hunting (whether one is hunting squirrels, rattlesnakes, or nuclear submarines) can be summed up thus: "find it, fix it, kill it..." In the case of IBWO, let's substitute photograph for "kill", which adds another layer of complexity to the problem.
I may be unduly optimistic, but I think I am past the "find it" phase and stuck on the "fix it" phase. I have been able to consistently find what I believe to be hot zones (that is, after some considerable effort - it takes up to a week examining a large area of habitat to decide if hot zones are present and where they lie). I define these hot zones as areas where proper habitat, the type of feeding sign I attribute to IBWOs - and it must be fresh - and the sounds attributed to IBWOs (putative kents and double knocks) come together. I have yet to fix the hot zone in Congaree this year (though I have a good idea based solely on half a day of scouting), but had fixed them for the two prior years. The question is "what next?"
I have spent time wandering and sitting quietly in the hot zones with naught but sounds to show for my effort. Tanner insisted sound was the key to locating them, but I have not made the transition from hearing to seeing. Reading closely what Tanner wrote about locating IBWOs, I have convinced myself that, upon hearing a sound, the searcher must move directly toward the sound to make contact. I suspect, though, that it is much easier said than done. First, you need to be able to move quickly enough to not just keep up with the birds, but overtake them. I should think an unfordable creek in your way would just end your pursuit! Second, you need to know contact when you see or hear it. I suspect keeping contact is probably more a matter of sound than sight. Even with common woodpeckers, you see but a small proportion of the individuals you hear. It takes quite some time following and watching to catch a glimpse of a woodpecker high in a tree. It may be a matter of keeping audio contact for most of the day for a single confirmatory sighting - and that sighting may not be photographable. Tanner scored by locating a nest with a tolerant pair of birds which allowed activity close to the nest. It seems odd that all his photos came from a single nesting pair, and the other photos from Florida and Cuba are not much better than the somewhat infamous 1971 Louisiana photos.
The fact is Tanner and Allen may have hit the jackpot to get the Singer Tract photos, and the most we can really hope for without winning that same lottery may be a photo not much better than Dennis' photo of an IBWO in a pine tree in Cuba.
Before I go any further, I want to repeat that I believe GOOD DOCUMENTATION IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL...In this age of digital manipulation of images, the moment a decent photo emerges, cries of "foul" will be heard even prior to the image being made public. I am not personally aware of anyone on this forum who would for a moment consider faking a photograph, but the scientific and ornithological communities, as well as other interests with a big stake in the final outcome of the debate are going to descend on the "lucky" individual like flies on a gutbucket...If the individual has a good body of supporting documentation, previous encounters, sightings, sound detections, etc...the photo(s) and/or video will be that much more difficult to attack.
I do believe there are one or two suitable means of validating still images, and this would, of course, be relevant for any scientific publication. For one, I've been told by a nature photographer that a RAW image, a nonstandardized format which many cameras capture and can save (see this), is preferred by some journals (like National Geographic) because it has not been altered. The biggest drawback is a larger file size for each image, thus filling your card much more quickly. Second, software exists to detect alterations to images. Some of the high-end science journals use this software, as there are forms of scientific data, such as images from electrophoresis gels (e.g., protein or DNA bands), that can be readily altered and editors rightly eschew data manipulation. I believe I've mentioned these comments elsewhere at this forum, but I really do think that still images can indeed provide compelling documentation that a quality publisher can validate. Shoot away!
You're absolutely right...The hard part IS "fixing" the quarry. I have had the exact experience you speak of; trying to ease up on a possible sound contact, only to find an unfordable creek, or impenetrable briarpatch right in the way...I know that as a hunter, most of the animals I've taken, I heard well in advance of seeing them...
Here's an experiment for everyone to try...The next time you hear a reasonably close pileated, try sneaking up on it, and taking an acceptable photo. The scarcity of IBWO alone increases the difficulty of the task probably by several orders of magnitude...
In reference to Tanner, he had J.J. Kuhn to find and "fix" the NESTING location of the Singer Tract pair. I have often wondered if those birds were unusually tolerant of humans to begin with, or if the fact that they were bound to the nest location (the evolutionary mandate to propagate is at least as strong, and perhaps stronger than the one involving individual survival...) along with the fact that the silly humans did nothing but watch, TAUGHT them tolerance...
Like everyone else, I try to read the sign (or at least what I interpret to be sign, with a lot of help from the folks here at the forum), listen for suspicious noises (and record them if possible...back to the documentation thing again...a sound recording is worth less than a bucket of spit without a photo) and isolate what I think is an active hot zone. The trick then is to locate the nest...Tanner never really tells us exactly how he and Kuhn performed that little magic trick...I have the same problem as everyone else...OK birdie...Where'd you put the nest?...Once someone figures out the trick to this part; it will all be chicken 'cept the bone...
You're absolutely right...The hard part IS "fixing" the quarry. I have had the exact experience you speak of; trying to ease up on a possible sound contact, only to find an unfordable creek, or impenetrable briarpatch right in the way...I know that as a hunter, most of the animals I've taken, I heard well in advance of seeing them...
Here's an experiment for everyone to try...The next time you hear a reasonably close pileated, try sneaking up on it, and taking an acceptable photo. The scarcity of IBWO alone increases the difficulty of the task probably by several orders of magnitude...
In reference to Tanner, he had J.J. Kuhn to find and "fix" the NESTING location of the Singer Tract pair. I have often wondered if those birds were unusually tolerant of humans to begin with, or if the fact that they were bound to the nest location (the evolutionary mandate to propagate is at least as strong, and perhaps stronger than the one involving individual survival...) along with the fact that the silly humans did nothing but watch, TAUGHT them tolerance...
Like everyone else, I try to read the sign (or at least what I interpret to be sign, with a lot of help from the folks here at the forum), listen for suspicious noises (and record them if possible...back to the documentation thing again...a sound recording is worth less than a bucket of spit without a photo) and isolate what I think is an active hot zone. The trick then is to locate the nest...Tanner never really tells us exactly how he and Kuhn performed that little magic trick...I have the same problem as everyone else...OK birdie...Where'd you put the nest?...Once someone figures out the trick to this part; it will all be chicken 'cept the bone...
Another issue is the way we tend to distract ourselves with tasks such as photography and tending robotic recorders and cameras. I suspect a "back to the basics" approach may be best. When I am out searching I tend to spend as much time minding the camera as I am paying attention to the sights and sounds around me. I think I may go out one day with no camera or just a point and shoot in my pocket. I would probably enjoy the surroundings a bit more, and I would definitely be more mobile. If we believe Tanner - and I do - it is possible to make contact with IBWOS by sight and/or sound and maintain that contact for some time. Perhaps we need to perfect that art before we worry about a photograph. When we can locate, fix, and maintain contact with IBWOS, either we will find a nest or we will greatly boost our chance of an opportunistic photo.
This is an issue that has bothered me since I participated in the Official Congaree Search. They were good people conducting that search, but when we went out we had to carry video cameras, GPSs, data sheets, cavity diagrams, lunch, etc. and were required to keep track of every bird species we saw. Most of that had nothing to do with finding IBWOs. If I were to organize a volunteer search, I would send out volunteers with a GPS, a map, a small camera to photograph scaling or cavities, and lunch. I would train them by listening to the kents and double knocks recorded in Arkansas and Florida and I would play the Singer Tract kents to them in heavy woods from a range of 150 to 300 yards. The order of the day would be to listen and look, note the distribution of scaling and large cavities, and to move immediately toward any potential IBWO sounds they hear and try to locate and stay near the source. Ultimately I think contact, even fleeting contact, would help define a hot zone sufficiently that you would ultimately be able to find a nest.
By the way, the volunteers would have to be willing to get wet, at least to the waist, in order to maintain contact.
Another issue is the way we tend to distract ourselves with tasks such as photography and tending robotic recorders and cameras ... This is an issue that has bothered me since I participated in the Official Congaree Search. They were good people conducting that search, but when we went out we had to carry video cameras, GPSs, data sheets, cavity diagrams, lunch, etc. and were required to keep track of every bird species we saw. Most of that had nothing to do with finding IBWOs.
If this has been true for other searches sponsored by government funding (I know nothing of the funding for Congaree's search), then one could argue that a good portion of the funds designated for IBWO conservation/research was broadly distributed across taxa, more so, at least, than I had appreciated. If the searches were constrained in obtaining confirmatory evidence of the IBWO by the perceived need to acquire additional data on other forest issues (other bird species and habitat measures), maybe there was much good in this. Regardless of how one feels about the need for evidence or where we stand with it now, the money spent has substantially increased our knowledge of southeastern older-growth forests. I wish that all "single-species" conservation programs could have similarly broad outcomes; unfortunately, this is not often the case.
Hybrid Mode
