[mjh73]

Originally Posted by Jos Stratford

For a topic that focusses on a very UK-based issue, one could also ask if this study was so good why it ended up in an American-based journal, rather than any of the respected UK journals.

Not good enough to get through UK peer reviews? Reviewers far afield might conveniently be less aware of failings in your data, such as urbanisation and bird data quality realting to the UK, etc.

You're clutching at straws when you start suggesting that the overseas journal is obviously the last refuge for an allegedly shoddy study. The Auk is a highly respected journal, and a quick glance at it's editorial committee will reveal that, whilst having a heavy US / Americas bias it includes members from such 'shonky' institutions as the Max-Planck Institute in Germany and Australia's CSIRO. It is a world class publication.
Regardless the actual reviewers will, as far as practicable, have been selected to have the background to be able to properly review the subject of the study and / or the methodologies used and might well have been English for all you, I or C P Bell know.

I'm not sure what makes me sadder on this thread. People's disrespect for science, or C P Bell's disrespect for people

[John B (not the sloop)]

Originally Posted by Jane Turner

As far as was aware, it was already game set and match, just someone hasn't noticed

I think you're right Jane. This has been far more entertaining than Wimbledon too.......

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by mjh73

You're clutching at straws when you start suggesting that the overseas journal is obviously the last refuge for an allegedly shoddy study.

It remains that the obvious place for a very UK-based study would be a UK-based journal - given respected UK-based persons have rejected this paper, then I would see it a valid question as to why this hasnot made any of the UK journals.

Originally Posted by mjh73

I'm not sure what makes me sadder on this thread. People's disrespect for science, or C P Bell's disrespect for people

I see little disrespect for science - most of the criticisms on this thread have related to obvious flaws in the work relating to sparrows and sparrowhawks.

If these are pointed out, a typical response by the author is one of attempting to belittle those with views that don't conform to his - this is hardly the standards of someone producing works of science.

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by Jos Stratford

It remains that the obvious place for a very UK-based study would be a UK-based journal - given respected UK-based persons have rejected this paper, then I would see it a valid question as to why this hasnot made any of the UK journals.




I see little disrespect for science - most of the criticisms on this thread have related to obvious flaws in the work relating to sparrows and sparrowhawks.

If these are pointed out, a typical response by the author is one of attempting to belittle those with views that don't conform to his - this is hardly the standards of someone producing works of science.

It does however seem to be a more common affliction for the folks at UEA.
This is also the home of the Climategate hack, which has seriously embarrassed the entire field of climate science. The response recorded in those documents were very similar in tone.

[Jane Turner]

Originally Posted by mjh73

I'm not sure what makes me sadder on this thread. People's disrespect for science, or C P Bell's disrespect for people

By both luck & good fortune I am in possession of a scientific PhD and I have to say, that shouting louder than anyone who dares to doubt your methods didn't used to be an accepted part of good scientific method.

[CPBell]

At the risk of drifting off-topic, I’d like to respond to some of the points made in recent posts.

I’m occasionally criticised for the tone of my responses, and Etudiant compared the language in some of the exchanges on the thread to the UEA Climategate emails from Phil Jones and others. Elsewhere there are regular palpitations whenever I dare to suggest that the motives of the RSPB or BTO are less pure than the driven snow.

Such reactions betray a failure to understand that events like Climategate provide a glimpse of the quotidian reality of academic life. Scientists in particular have been supremely successful in promoting themselves as noble seekers after truth, but what they really do is push their own interest and point of view by any underhand means necessary. Slander and vilification of rivals is a stock in trade, and those that have the power to obstruct potential competitors miss no opportunity to do so. As the saying goes, ‘academic disputes are vicious because the stakes are so low’.

The choice of the Auk as an outlet for the article is heuristic. Initially we submitted to the Journal of Animal Ecology, but after six months had gone by found that they hadn’t even sent the paper out for peer review. The idea of submitting to the Auk came from Dan Chamberlain, then of the BTO, as a means of ‘avoiding the politics’ in the UK/Europe, the signature of which is not too hard to discern.

Kicking the issue into the long grass is a popular ruse. Apart from the JAE incident, I’m still waiting for a response from British Birds to a sparrow manuscript I submitted in December 2009. Another trick is to write a review that ignores the submitted article completely, as in the case of a review of the sparrow literature that I sent to Journal of Avian Biology, which responded with two hostile reviews of the already published Auk article.

The truth is that science and academic pursuits in general, far from being pure and noble, are probably a good deal more sordid, nasty and malevolent than most other areas of life, and this is all the more unfortunate given the smiling image they present to the wider world. It’s for this reason I’d like to offer a word of advice for anyone planning a career as a professional scientist. Despite the general dog eat dog atmosphere, you’ll sometimes come across people who cultivate impeccably good manners, are unfailingly polite, and who are careful to wear their deprecation of discourtesy on their sleeve. Watch out for them – they are the biggest snakes of all.

http://www.cpbell.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/CultoftheAmateur

[CPBell]

I've recorded a long interview covering my research on House Sparrows and Sparrowhawks with Charlie Moores, which he has uploaded as a two-part podcast on his 'Talking Naturally' website.

The first part (TN24) covers the background to the project and the science itself, and the second part (TN25) deals with the politics, including discussions of the RSPB, the BTO, and Songbird Survival.

Science and scandal: something for everybody!

http://www.cpbell.co.uk
http://www.youtube/CultoftheAmateur

[spencer f]

Interesting listening

Plant a hedge, save our sparrows

hawthorn, beech, privet, hornbeam, dog rose

[CPBell]

Thanks Spencer.

Here's an interesting paper from the Comoros Islands between Africa and Madagascar. It shows an inverse correlation between the presence of Frances's Sparrowhawk and abundance/diversity of small birds across the archipelago, which can't be explained by differences in character among the islands.

House Sparrow is one of the species contributing to the pattern. On the single island where the Sparrowhawk is absent sparrows are widespread, but on the rest of the islands it only occurs in coastal towns which the Sparrowhawks avoid.

http://www.cpbell.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/CultoftheAmateur

[earleybird]

sorry for the slightly off-topic post but you all seem to know your stuff about hedges etc.

Our neighbour has cut down all the trees and bushes the House Sparrows used to use to congregate in before feeding and roost in at night. A beech hedge is planned because its dense and retains its leaves throughout winter but its going to take upwards of 6 years to get sufficiently established.

What trees/shrubs/bushes etc would you recommend to plant that either obtainable well established or is fast growing and a suitable alternative until a hedge gets established .? bearing in mind that ideally all year round cover would be preferable ?

[spencer f]

Hawthorn is probably the fastest growing native. I don,t know how you feel about plant fertilizers but regular feeding would speed the process up. An idea that is occasionaly suggested is aquiring dead branches or prunnings from a parks department or neighbour, partialy burying them and trailing a fast growing climber up it. Wire mesh fencing can provide protection from predators and you can train climbers up it also, honeysuckle, climbing rose, clematis montana, ivy, and russian vine if you can stand its rampant nature, are all recomended and will green up quickly.

[earleybird]

Originally Posted by spencer f

Hawthorn is probably the fastest growing native. I don,t know how you feel about plant fertilizers but regular feeding would speed the process up. An idea that is occasionaly suggested is aquiring dead branches or prunnings from a parks department or neighbour, partialy burying them and trailing a fast growing climber up it. Wire mesh fencing can provide protection from predators and you can train climbers up it also, honeysuckle, climbing rose, clematis montana, ivy, and russian vine if you can stand its rampant nature, are all recomended and will green up quickly.

thanks Spence there is some excellent ideas there. I did consider errecting some dead branches for constructing a feed station closer to my window for photo opportunities. Never thought about using it as a base for climbers etc.
Have looked at some nice 8 foot high reed fences at B&Q
Thanks for some excellent ideas.

[bitterntwisted]

In Leeds the House Sparrow population seems to be entirely concentrated in the few remaining strips of beech hedge. (where hedges have not been dug out to accommodate car parking, panel fencing etc.)

[bluechaffinch]

Getting back to House sparrows, I picked up an old book about the British monarchy whilst staying in a B&B in Northumberland last year, one chapter of which was about the Great Exhibition of 1851. Apparently there was somewhat of a hoo-ha about the mess that House sparrows were causing inside the great pavilion, ruining the many displays with their droppings. When Queen Victoria asked her staff what could be done about this problem, the Duke of Wellington replied "Sparrowhawks, ma'am".

[CPBell]

Originally Posted by bluechaffinch

Getting back to House sparrows, I picked up an old book about the British monarchy whilst staying in a B&B in Northumberland last year, one chapter of which was about the Great Exhibition of 1851. Apparently there was somewhat of a hoo-ha about the mess that House sparrows were causing inside the great pavilion, ruining the many displays with their droppings. When Queen Victoria asked her staff what could be done about this problem, the Duke of Wellington replied "Sparrowhawks, ma'am".

The irony of which is that the Great Exhibition building or Crystal Palace was in Kensington Gardens, from which sparrows disappeared 150 years later following colonisation of the Gardens by Sparrowhawks. Very prescient!

[earleybird]

Originally Posted by CPBell

The irony of which is that the Great Exhibition building or Crystal Palace was in Kensington Gardens, from which sparrows disappeared 150 years later following colonisation of the Gardens by Sparrowhawks. Very prescient!

As a matter of interest how many House sparrows and Sprawks were recorded in ,or in the direct proximity, of the gardens ?

[CPBell]

Originally Posted by earleybird

As a matter of interest how many House sparrows and Sprawks were recorded in ,or in the direct proximity, of the gardens ?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Originally Posted by CPBell

The 1995 autumn count for sparrows in Kensington Gardens for was 81, which was an 85% drop from the 1975 figure (no counts were done in the interim). Breeding by sparrowhawk in the grounds of Kensington Palace (which adjoins Kensington Gardens) was first confirmed in 1995, but they had been breeding in nearby Holland Park and Regent’s Park since at least 1993.

[earleybird]

so, no recorded numbers of Sparrowhawks during the period of HS decline !? just that some has been observed in the vicinity. Not very convincing evidence of any significant correlation I shouldn't have thought.

[CPBell]

Originally Posted by earleybird

so, no recorded numbers of Sparrowhawks during the period of HS decline !? just that some has been observed in the vicinity. Not very convincing evidence of any significant correlation I shouldn't have thought.

Perhaps you can describe the quality of evidence you would have found convincing?

[earleybird]

Originally Posted by CPBell

Perhaps you can describe the quality of evidence you would have found convincing?

I'm not being funny but you are claiming as a scientist that your studies would suggest that the primary reason for UK Housesparrow decline is Sprawk predation and you highlighted the Ideal Home Exhibition building as being a case in point so I am asking to see the evidence you have to support that claim.

[CPBell]

Originally Posted by earleybird

I'm not being funny but you are claiming as a scientist that your studies would suggest that the primary reason for UK Housesparrow decline is Sprawk predation and you highlighted the Ideal Home Exhibition building as being a case in point so I am asking to see the evidence you have to support that claim.

I sense you may be getting the wrong end of the stick here, but let's pursue this nevertheless.

The example of Kensington Gardens is just one example in which the decline or disappearance of house sparrows at a location coincides with its adoption as a breeding site by sparrowhawks. On its own it provides no compelling evidence, but the point is that it is just one of many, many examples where this occurs.

You ask for evidence. I think its fair to say that I've spared no effort to clearly set out the evidence both in the original paper, and in terms of argument here, and wherever else there is an opportunity to do so. Your question therefore makes little sense, and your position would be better expressed by saying that you are not convinced on the basis of the evidence I've put forward.

My challenge to you, therefore, is to describe the kind of evidence that would convince you that sparrowhawks have been responsible for house sparrow declines. If you are unable to do so, it would seem certain that there is no possibility of your being convinced on the basis of evidence, in which case there is no point to your participation in the debate.

http://www.cp_bell.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/CultoftheAmateur

[Tideliner]

C P Bell , I had promised myself i would not waste anymore time in this debate as any comments contary to your opinions fall on deaf ears , but .........

At last a proper paper with real observations in the field that adds some validity to your claims that sparrowhawks may be having an impact on house sparrows instead of work done purely of statistical evidence of work done mainly by someone else.

However the paper is of a different species of sparrowhawk which may or may not have a bearing on your claim. As is well known even within an individual species races or even individual birds can individual feeding ,hunting habits or preferred prey.

Having said that there is no questioning that European sparrowhawks prey on house sparrows . The big question that is still unanswered is their predation having an impact on the house sparrow population at a high enough level to drive it down. Or are their other factors causing the decline , such as modern farming methods , cat predation , loss of nest sites due to new building methods or is it a combination of all the above influences causing the house sparrow decline.

I strongly suspect it’s a combination of factors in which sparrowhawk predation is a part , but probably not the major cause. If sparrowhawks were the major cause then why did they not have a serious impact on house sparrow numbers 150 years ago before the advent of modern farming , pesticides and so on ? Both species share much of the same European range and yet the steepest declines appear to be in the more developed industrialised farming countries for the house sparrow. And if house sparrows and sparrowhawks are so closely interwoven why has the sparrowhawk continued to prosper despite the house sparrow decline ?

[Robin Edwards]

Some thoughts based on my non-scientific studies ....

I have been feeding year-round a population of garden House Sparrows for fifteen years and although numbers do vary from year to year, there has not been a noticable downward trend despite Sparrowhawks nesting within the village throughout the period and there also being an array of household cats in the vicinity.
From observations, the factor that holds the HS to the garden is nesting habitiat that seems limited to one or two older properties that allow the birds access to the roof area, and food not available through local farming practice. If these roof spaces are sealed through renovation then I strongly believe that the birds will dissapear.

I also agree with the view that Sparrowhawks and House Sparrows will have co-existed for millenia and without the hand of man influencing their existance. Compare rural Europe where Sparrows flourish and so do BoP.

Robin

[Robin Edwards]

I also wonder if the Sparrowhawk had been otherwise named the "Collared Dove-Hawk" then we would have the same intent of proving that the hawk is causing the loss of the sparrow ?

Our human race need to take greater responsibility for the affect they're having on their environment rather than looking to apportion root-cause blame on a single natural predator.

[CPBell]

Originally Posted by Tideliner

I had promised myself i would not waste anymore time in this debate as any comments contary to your opinions fall on deaf ears , but .........

If anything, I may have given your opinions a more generous hearing than they deserve, although my questions @ comment #495 really do appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

Your approach exemplifies the problem with so much ecological science. You are not interested in performing critical tests, but prefer to assert that a problem must have multiple causes that require much more research to unravel all the details. This has the happy consequence for professional ecologists of delaying the solution of any problem indefinitely, ensuring that they remain gainfully employed, and the unhappy consequence for the rest of us that the environment continues to be degraded.

The fact is, we do not know how many sparrows or sparrowhawks there were in the countryside 100 years ago, so your question remains hypothetical. I've already pointed out in a previous response to you that sparrowhawk impact is likely to be geographically correlated with farming 'intensity', because of a steeper recovery from greater organochlorine impact in intensively farmed areas. Finally, as the BTO is eager to point out, sparrowhawk is declining from its peak in the early 1990's, and tends to retreat from urban areas when house sparrows becomes depleted.

I'm afraid all you are doing here is repeating received wisdom, while presenting it as profound insight on your part. Such is the artifice of the professional in all walks of life.

Originally Posted by Robin Edwards

Our human race need to take greater responsibility for the affect they're having on their environment rather than looking to apportion root-cause blame on a single natural predator.

Robin, we need to take responsibility to find real solutions to environmental problems rather than allowing big-business conservation to blame every single issue that arises to some vague consequence of our guilty bourgeois lifestyles so we end up giving them more money. Sometimes it just isn't so simple as 'wicked humans are to blame', but the suits that pull the strings in the conservation industry don't care about that - their motto is 'never let a crisis go to waste'.