-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
The rise of the generalists (BTO) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BF Newsroom
- Start date
citrinella
Well-known member
It's not just birds. Plants and innvertebrates with specific, narrow, requirements are not doing well either.
Mike.
"It appears that the winners from recent climate change were already common habitat generalists that have expanded their ranges, such as Great spotted Woodpecker - up by 139%, likely at the expense of habitat specialists such as the Grey Partridge and Corn Bunting, which have declined by 50% and 29%, respectively, over the period of the study."
What chance did the Grey Partridge and Corn Bunting have in the face of such exploding woodpecker populations? And all because of global warming!
Looks like a rip-snorting BTO classic. I really cannot wait to read it.
http://www.cpbell.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/CultoftheAmateur
grahamarchy
Well-known member
That is quite poor sentence structure on the part of the BTO! not thinking about how easy it is to pick very, very large holes in arguments like that. the report is just another run of correlations and associations rather than rigorous science- but the data the BTO has to work with is just that and lots and lots of it. The trends are likely to be correct in the most part but the reasons behind the trends still remain elusive. So it is just another study showing change without and directed thinking into the true causes- past the generic and omnipresent climate change and anthropogenic factors.
I guess this is a problem when the BTO produces weighty stats-heavy papers than have no clear message for the press- general folk cannot be expected to understand the details with ease. Something the BTO has to consider generally i think- wanting to widen their membership, but producing incomprehensible papers with a lack of science communication skill. for an example- how many people can understand all of the latest Bird Study (free with membership)- probably only those with some science training. So not very appealing to the general public that their new image/logo etc was supposed to attract.
Generally poor show guys- these things are crucial to your success especially in getting your science across.
Last edited:
To be fair, there’s nothing in the paper’s abstract about competition between ‘specialists’ and ‘generalists’, so this might be a case of the PR team bringing their special skills to the table.
The web page was probably written by a teenager with a media studies diploma, and waved through by someone in a shiny suit who can’t wait to get a proper marketing job and start earning some real money. The authors will know they have to keep their heads down, and this is the problem with NGOs. Professionals have to dance to the tune of the marketing men, not the other way round.
http://www.cpbell.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/CultoftheAmateur
To be far they could have just rewritten this with different sp and it might be close to the truth. Climate change is probably favouring short-distance migrants and residents like Chiffchaffs and Blue Tits over Willow Warblers and Nightingales. Maybe the marketers didn't mention them because the public won't recognise some of the names.
What they should have done to cause a stir was suggest that people stop feeding birds in winter in gardens. How are these long-distance migrants going to cope when we subside the existence of the residents (i.e. their competitors)...
Even worse in the states where they give food to the brood parasites too!
Z
John Morgan
Well-known member
It seems with a marked push for fiscal efficiency, spending on editorial time is getting hit. Perhaps. But I agree it was a fairly bad error, and it seems to have handed climate 'denialists' some easy cannon fodder. We'll see if James Delingpole in the 'Telegraph' picks up on it.
Linking gross distribution changes in many species to climate change and/or human activity would seem to cover the field, as these are the only ways in which *widespread* habitat change can be effected. Can you cite another possible cause? I'm sure scientists would be interested if it was a reasonable hypothesis.
General folk are not expected to read these papers. Why do you suppose the BTO came up with this close-to-p*ss-poor, press release.
Bird Study is not free to the ordinary members, only to 'fellows', and that seems a very reasonable thing, given the difficulty of reading behind the jargon for many people. BTO News is the communication which is sent to all members free of charge. This is considerably better in presenting the meaning behind the BTO scientific research than any technical publication intended for one's peers in the same field of work.
As you are criticising the BTO as a generality, perhaps you should've paid more attention to the whole of their public 'interface'. Not just to one bad press release and a jargon-filled, technical production for fellow scientists. Generally poor show, Graham, and not just for some parts of your punctuation :eek!:
Last edited:
John Morgan
Well-known member
A more interesting experiment would be to try and alter the ratio of common species to rare species at feeding stations. In particular to find how one could give Marsh Tits and Willow Tits an edge over Blue and Great Tits. Also look for ways of pulling Lesser Spotted 'pecker in, now we know what brings in GSWs.
A good opportunity for "citizen science", wouldn't you say? RSPB has a huge number of observers in the Big Garden Bird Watch, and an extra question or two concerning the feeding regime might produce testable ideas that could be fed back to the observers.
King Edward
Well-known member
And which of our resident birds do you suppose are responsible for declines among migrants? Largely, these are feeding on different foods in different habitats, so competition is unlikely to be that strong between them.
Think competition between say tits and and warblers, between different tits (e.g. Marsh and Blue) and between warblers (e.g. Willow and Chiffchaff). Not that people have direct impacts on the latter.
King Edward
Well-known member
The latter two comparisons don't seem very relevant, since the tits are all resident and the warblers are pretty much all migratory. How much overlap is there in the diets of, say Blue/Great Tits and warbler species? I suspect it's not that much.
You are missing the point.... Marsh Tits are rare or absent at bird feeders (unlike Blue Tits) and there is a huge difference in migratory behaviour between say Chiffchaffs (which go to Spain or don't even leave the country) and Willow Warblers that go south of the Sahara...
I'm not saying it is significant, but I am saying that it might be...
grahamarchy
Well-known member
Thanks for your comments especially regarding punctuation. People in glass houses should not throw stones. Your post was fairly poor on that front too if you care to look! but i would rather focus on the topic and not pedantic points to try to make you look clever ( you fail by the way).
There are many reasons that can be suggested for the decline in specialists and the rise of generalists, and using purely observational data, over even long periods of time, is just that and not causal. I was suggesting that with data like this and conclusions as presented that the press release should be very carefully worded to avoid situations like this.
My comment of 'poor show' was very specific to this story and not anything else at all. I am a big fan of the BTO (pre image change) and the work that they do. I am just disappointed with the science communication aspects highlighted here in this story and this thread. The link between the science published and pushed by the BTO and what they should edit for the media is weak in situations such as this. Other studies findings have been excellently presented. By the way the BTO are actively trying to gain membership at the fellow level and quite a number of these fellows are not impressed with Bird Study at all due to the reasons Cited above.
There is a scientific publication, Bird Study which requires a scientific background to fully understand and BTO News which is a magazine with few details, i would suggest that a middle ground is required if the membership drive is to succeed. Right now i think that they miss the majority of interested amateurs who want to understand the science but not the statistics.
anyway i remain a fellow member of the BTO and think that they do a good job- i just want to see that become a brilliant job and for the public to understand the work that is done and this can only be achieved through very careful press released and media events.
The 2010 BBS annual report arrived in the post yesterday.
An article "The BBS and Climate Change Research" by Dr Alison Johnston includes the following (I have italicised it) :
One study examined how bird communities in the UK
are changing in response to a warming climate...
BTO researchers also examined how specialised these
communities are. A more specialised community was
composed of a higher proportion of those species which
need a more specific environment or food source to
survive, for example Corncrake and Osprey. Community
specialisation was estimated in each BBS square as the
average specialisation of the species observed in that
square.
The results of the specialisation analyses were very
revealing: as average species numbers have been increasing,
the increasing temperatures have also led to a decrease
in community specialisation. The bird communities are
therefore becoming composed of more generalists and/or
fewer specialists (on average) than they were a couple
of decades ago.
It's not at all clear to me how the researchers actually measured "specialisation" in each species. Can anyone enlighten me ?
An article "The BBS and Climate Change Research" by Dr Alison Johnston includes the following (I have italicised it) :
One study examined how bird communities in the UK
are changing in response to a warming climate...
BTO researchers also examined how specialised these
communities are. A more specialised community was
composed of a higher proportion of those species which
need a more specific environment or food source to
survive, for example Corncrake and Osprey. Community
specialisation was estimated in each BBS square as the
average specialisation of the species observed in that
square.
The results of the specialisation analyses were very
revealing: as average species numbers have been increasing,
the increasing temperatures have also led to a decrease
in community specialisation. The bird communities are
therefore becoming composed of more generalists and/or
fewer specialists (on average) than they were a couple
of decades ago.
It's not at all clear to me how the researchers actually measured "specialisation" in each species. Can anyone enlighten me ?
Trystan
Well-known member
Maybe they didn't measure it. I think there is a tendency to try to apply models and formulas to something which isn't an exact science to support a hypothesis which is infact nothing more then common sense and obvious.
A generalist is a species which can survive in or adapt to different habitats, humans for example.
In a world where human influence through building, farming, pollution, over-consumption and even managed conservation is constantly changing the environment, then the species which will do best are the ones which are able to adapt.
It's not certain which species these will be but there are some simple inferences to make. For example a migrating species will need suitable habitat in 2 places plus a means of getting between them. The chances of something becoming unsuitable in the modern world for such species is therefore much higher. It's not science, it's just blatantly obvious.
Unfortunately, if you want to persuade the government to do anything, then gathering a load of data and waving it under their noses is the only way and even that doesn't actually work.
When you hear talk of specialisation and generalisation, you should at least release the safety catch on your Browning, since they can be defined in whatever manner suits the interests of the protagonist. To achieve any genuine insights it’s essential to break down the concepts into more definable categories. As an example, I recently proposed an evolutionary typology for migrant/resident differences, based partly on the insightful analysis of the meaning of dietary specialisation by the American ornithologist Thomas Sherry. This might contain the key to declines among long-distance migrants, but it’s unlikely to pique the interest of the likes of the BTO, since it has limited value as a heuristic device for the promotion of their wares as a means of ‘monitoring the impacts of climate change’.
http://www.cpbell.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/CultoftheAmateur
John Morgan
Well-known member
But you should add "...unless highlighted by addition of a smiley". My use of :eek!: , I thought, acknowledges we all make the occasional typo - however carefully one applies self-editorship.
I looked several times, but have had to admit defeat in this endeavour. Please feel free to specify.
If you think that was my intention, then I apologise for misleading you (and anyone else reading it). Had it been so I would have attached a more appropriate icon - or none at all.
John Morgan
Well-known member
I am not sure how you interpret the mission of the BTO in this way. The original intent of Max Nicholson when he founded the organisation had nothing to do about growing some kind of business corporation, and everything to do with creating a sound scientific base for the study of birds within their milieu. The fact climate change impacts on the subject of study here is irrelevant.
You perhaps need to read their charter more carefully.
This view of the BTO may (just) have been sustainable when I used to visit Beech Grove regularly back in the 1980s when there were a handful of staff, and the place was run agreeable old buffers like Chris Mead. But even then there were hard-faced characters in the background, raised in the spirit of Thatcherism, and with a cool eye on the main chance. These are the people in charge now, and looking to cash in their pensions in the next ten years or so. Do you really think they give a fig about what Max Nicholson wanted back in the 1930s?
http://www.cpbell.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/CultoftheAmateur
Similar threads
