Changes in how Ebird treats non-natives (1 Viewer)

[Mysticete]

Some news out of the facebook ebird support group, that might prove relevant here for other folks who use the service.

Apparently sometime next year (?), they are implementing new ways of registering non-natives, allowing regional reviewers to designate something an escapee, a provisional, or an established species. Only "established" species will count toward life-lists, although provisionals will still be recorded but put down near the bottom under a separate subheading. Presumably, alerts will only be keyed to "established" species.

On the plus-side, this means that every city park's Black Swan or escaped Cockatiel won't trigger rare/need alerts, and people who use ebird exclusively for their life-lists won't have to worry about reporting things like this and having them "count"

The downside is that what is considered "established" will be based on regional checklists and local reviewers, which often have a lot of variance in how they treat different introduced populations (or whether they bother at all), and some populations recognized as "established" by the ABA are not considered established for the specific state. So a lot of ABA countable species may suddenly no longer be counted on ebird in areas where they are considered so by the ABA (good bye non-Floridian Egyptian Geese and Texas Red-vented Bulbuls...). Something to maybe keep in mind for the future.

An the discussion so far I have seen online is mostly focused on our side of the pond, but presumably this will be global, with countable established species in, say, the UK, being will be based on what their checklists are considered countable.

 

[Farnboro John]

Some news out of the facebook ebird support group, that might prove relevant here for other folks who use the service.

Apparently sometime next year (?), they are implementing new ways of registering non-natives, allowing regional reviewers to designate something an escapee, a provisional, or an established species. Only "established" species will count toward life-lists, although provisionals will still be recorded but put down near the bottom under a separate subheading. Presumably, alerts will only be keyed to "established" species.

On the plus-side, this means that every city park's Black Swan or escaped Cockatiel won't trigger rare/need alerts, and people who use ebird exclusively for their life-lists won't have to worry about reporting things like this and having them "count"

The downside is that what is considered "established" will be based on regional checklists and local reviewers, which often have a lot of variance in how they treat different introduced populations (or whether they bother at all), and some populations recognized as "established" by the ABA are not considered established for the specific state. So a lot of ABA countable species may suddenly no longer be counted on ebird in areas where they are considered so by the ABA (good bye non-Floridian Egyptian Geese and Texas Red-vented Bulbuls...). Something to maybe keep in mind for the future.

An the discussion so far I have seen online is mostly focused on our side of the pond, but presumably this will be global, with countable established species in, say, the UK, being will be based on what their checklists are considered countable.

I knew it! List authoritarianism. This is being driven from Beijing, where no doubt they are preparing to launch a Chinese wonder-lister on 10,758, well ahead of any Western listers....

Well I'm sticking with paper!

John

 

[Dortmundbirder]

I guess in general that would be pretty easy implementable as at least in Europe every country has a list where cat C birds are clearly defined.
Of course you wouldnt target random escapees in an area without the established population.
here in Germany e.g Snow Geese are established in a very specific population which doesnt seem to move around that much. But it would clearly sort out the extremes.

 

[Mysticete]

I guess in general that would be pretty easy implementable as at least in Europe every country has a list where cat C birds are clearly defined.
Of course you wouldnt target random escapees in an area without the established population.
here in Germany e.g Snow Geese are established in a very specific population which doesnt seem to move around that much. But it would clearly sort out the extremes.

Yeah I don't seeing this be as much an issue outside of North America. I feel like European checklist committees have reasonable and clear standards and keep good track of their non-natives. Standards are unfortunately all over the place in the states.

 

[lgonz1008]

I can say with confidence that this is great news since it will finally stop the daily notifications in Florida for non-established exotics. It's definitely going to be difficult for certain species that have been around for years but are decreasing because of the pet trade (mostly the Macaws and Parrots), but at least it will help keep track of certain exotics that just shouldn't be counted but people do. A famous example is a hotspot called Tamarac Exotic Duck Pond in Broward county that everyone seems to go to get birds that are sustained by a private collector, this causes extra confusion when these ponds have White-cheeked Pintail, which is a rare vagrant to South Florida.

Also, eBird is kind of doing this already in Florida, at the current time even if you get the Red Junglefowl in Key West, eBird has made it clear to the reviewer to not count those birds. So while ABA says they are countable, eBird considers them domestic birds.

 

[Mysticete]

I can say with confidence that this is great news since it will finally stop the daily notifications in Florida for non-established exotics. It's definitely going to be difficult for certain species that have been around for years but are decreasing because of the pet trade (mostly the Macaws and Parrots), but at least it will help keep track of certain exotics that just shouldn't be counted but people do. A famous example is a hotspot called Tamarac Exotic Duck Pond in Broward county that everyone seems to go to get birds that are sustained by a private collector, this causes extra confusion when these ponds have White-cheeked Pintail, which is a rare vagrant to South Florida.

Also, eBird is kind of doing this already in Florida, at the current time even if you get the Red Junglefowl in Key West, eBird has made it clear to the reviewer to not count those birds. So while ABA says they are countable, eBird considers them domestic birds.

The Tamarac Duck Pond is notorious in fantasy birding, as its location means you are constantly getting birds seen there, including the pintail. So it not popping up will be good. The junglefowl thing is silly I think,, but that is why I don't rely on ebird to host my life and ABA lists.

 

[jurek]

In Europe, looking at Ebird surprisingly revealed many exotics which are becoming established but are not on the radar of serious birders. Ornithologists in Europe tend to ignore exotics as probably freshly escaped, even after the population is already in 100s of breeding pairs.

So counting is one thing, but reporting is important.

 

[raymie]

This better come with better guidelines for reviewers on what species to count. I know of some well-established introduced population (including both "countable" and "non-countable" by the ABA) where reviewers just refuse to accept the observations for any reason. A good example of this is the wild-type Red Junglefowl in Georgia.

I wonder how species like the Great Tit in Wisconsin and the Black-throated Magpie-Jays in California (and others) will fare here? They are obviously established, no matter what the ABA says.

 

[pbjosh]

There is also an issue of the public not being able to see abundance information in some areas for some species depending on policy. There are feral birds I have recorded in San Diego that are not displayed in eBird. When I reported them it gave me the impression these birds were extremely rare as ferals. I documented them well including multiple bonded pairs. The records weren’t approved, with no explanation given. Later when I enquired it turned out there are a lot of records but they are suppressed from public view by policy. I am still at a loss to understand what good that serves.

 

[raymie]

There is also an issue of the public not being able to see abundance information in some areas for some species depending on policy. There are feral birds I have recorded in San Diego that are not displayed in eBird. When I reported them it gave me the impression these birds were extremely rare as ferals. I documented them well including multiple bonded pairs. The records weren’t approved, with no explanation given. Later when I enquired it turned out there are a lot of records but they are suppressed from public view by policy. I am still at a loss to understand what good that serves.

What species was that?

 

[Maffong]

There is also an issue of the public not being able to see abundance information in some areas for some species depending on policy. There are feral birds I have recorded in San Diego that are not displayed in eBird. When I reported them it gave me the impression these birds were extremely rare as ferals. I documented them well including multiple bonded pairs. The records weren’t approved, with no explanation given. Later when I enquired it turned out there are a lot of records but they are suppressed from public view by policy. I am still at a loss to understand what good that serves.

I believe, this is exactly what's being adressed with the new changes to ebird. As far as I understand it the rationale for reviewers until now was to reject anything that isn't considered established. Thus, correct IDs would get rejected and disappear. I've often tried to do a little research about populations of exotics worldwide and the data quality was extremely bad, with 95 % of records having been rejected, but an occasional report slipping through the grid and giving a completely wrong appearance about this kind of data. The new handling can only be considered a major improvement, let's hope the reviewers or ebird don't mess it up.

 

[pbjosh]

What species was that?

White-winged Parakeet in this specific case. About 2018 if memory serves I saw a flock of ~7 individuals with pair behavior several times out between El Cajon and Singing Hills where my mother lives.

I personally don’t care if exotics end up counting on lists, though I realize others do and these sound like good changes.

I just wish that information on exotics wasn’t suppressed. I understand sensitive species but why shouldn’t I be able to see records for escapees and exotics? Just seems odd.

 

[heynonny]

White-winged Parakeet in this specific case. About 2018 if memory serves I saw a flock of ~7 individuals with pair behavior several times out between El Cajon and Singing Hills where my mother lives.

I personally don’t care if exotics end up counting on lists, though I realize others do and these sound like good changes.

I just wish that information on exotics wasn’t suppressed. I understand sensitive species but why shouldn’t I be able to see records for escapees and exotics? Just seems odd.

I’ve had similar experiences with ebird reviewers. Some of them use their own personal biases on what they suppress, and sometimes it even comes down to which ebirder submitted the data (sometimes it does get cliquey).

Being an ebird reviewer is an enormous, time-consuming task. I appreciate the hard work and dedication of these volunteers and do not wish to denigrate them or overlook their important work. But some biases are totally ridiculous and I know this for a fact from having discussed it personally with one of the top ebird project leaders (this person works in the very top echelon of ebird).

This person also encouraged me to report exotics and document their breeding behaviors (very much like you described), because that’s one of the ways Cornell is learning about the established populations of these species. So even though the local reviewer in San Diego county hid your documentation from public output, you can rest assured that the trouble you took has been valued by Cornell, if not by the local reviewer and the local records committee.

I’m curious to see how this thing will play out. I think it’s great that this new initiative will stop the dinging of ebird alerts from that Florida pond. (It must be especially annoying for people who live in that county and have set up ebird email alerts). But it’s really too bad if the same thing happens with the exotic parrots that fly in each evening at Oliveras Park in Brownsville, TX. The sheer numbers of individuals in that nightly parrot “show” is rather something to behold.

 

[lgonz1008]

I’ve had similar experiences with ebird reviewers. Some of them use their own personal biases on what they suppress, and sometimes it even comes down to which ebirder submitted the data (sometimes it does get cliquey).

Being an ebird reviewer is an enormous, time-consuming task. I appreciate the hard work and dedication of these volunteers and do not wish to denigrate them or overlook their important work. But some biases are totally ridiculous and I know this for a fact from having discussed it personally with one of the top ebird project leaders (this person works in the very top echelon of ebird).

This person also encouraged me to report exotics and document their breeding behaviors (very much like you described), because that’s one of the ways Cornell is learning about the established populations of these species. So even though the local reviewer in San Diego county hid your documentation from public output, you can rest assured that the trouble you took has been valued by Cornell, if not by the local reviewer and the local records committee.

I’m curious to see how this thing will play out. I think it’s great that this new initiative will stop the dinging of ebird alerts from that Florida pond. (It must be especially annoying for people who live in that county and have set up ebird email alerts). But it’s really too bad if the same thing happens with the exotic parrots that fly in each evening at Oliveras Park in Brownsville, TX. The sheer numbers of individuals in that nightly parrot “show” is rather something to behold.

From what I've seen so far, species that are filtered to not be considered established, is 100% determined by the eBird reviewer and nothing else. In Miami, species like Orange-winged Parrot and Blue-and-Yellow Macaws are no longer considered as countable since they are in an intermediary zones between established and escaped, yet Red-masked Parakeet, Common Hill Myna and Chestnut-fronted Macaw, which are not ABA countable are all fine by the filter.

This is especially weird since both the Blue-and-Yellow Macaw and the Common Hill Myna are in what you'd call their last leg with the populations numbering less than 20 individuals at this point but the only difference is that the Myna had a population since the 70s, while the Macaw had it since the mid 80s-90s (also the Orange-winged Parrot is in a similar state as far as the reviewer is concerned, except this one's population is between 50-200 birds).

 

[dantheman]

Re: This whole situation with exotics - my understanding in the UK is that escapes and exotics are often under-reported at eg County Recording level. Even established species such as Pheasant and Feral Pigeon as people look upon them 'as less than wholesome' . But escaped cagebirds often unreported or unlikely to make the county report (usually there is still an appendix at the back of the annual report).

 

[Mysticete]

This better come with better guidelines for reviewers on what species to count. I know of some well-established introduced population (including both "countable" and "non-countable" by the ABA) where reviewers just refuse to accept the observations for any reason. A good example of this is the wild-type Red Junglefowl in Georgia.

I wonder how species like the Great Tit in Wisconsin and the Black-throated Magpie-Jays in California (and others) will fare here? They are obviously established, no matter what the ABA says.

They both get reported and are viewable on ebird, so I would imagine nothing will change with these. They would just be slotted as provisional. My understanding is that you can still look up provisional records, at least I would hope so.

Establishment is a nebulous term. I have experience with the Magpie-Jay and the Great Tit, and I would probably only consider them marginally so. However what is and isn't considered established in general is far more strict than how it's applied to just about any other critters in North America.

 

[Mysticete]

From what I've seen so far, species that are filtered to not be considered established, is 100% determined by the eBird reviewer and nothing else. In Miami, species like Orange-winged Parrot and Blue-and-Yellow Macaws are no longer considered as countable since they are in an intermediary zones between established and escaped, yet Red-masked Parakeet, Common Hill Myna and Chestnut-fronted Macaw, which are not ABA countable are all fine by the filter.

This is especially weird since both the Blue-and-Yellow Macaw and the Common Hill Myna are in what you'd call their last leg with the populations numbering less than 20 individuals at this point but the only difference is that the Myna had a population since the 70s, while the Macaw had it since the mid 80s-90s (also the Orange-winged Parrot is in a similar state as far as the reviewer is concerned, except this one's population is between 50-200 birds).

On a side note, the California checklist committee is presently voting on Red-masked Parakeet and Lilac-crowned Amazon, so at least the former may soon be countable for the ABA.

 

[lgonz1008]

On a side note, the California checklist committee is presently voting on Red-masked Parakeet and Lilac-crowned Amazon, so at least the former may soon be countable for the ABA.

By ABA rules, if either of those gets approved in California, it also gets approved elsewhere in the ABA right? Guess my ABA list will have to more parrots added to it if it goes through

 

[raymie]

They both get reported and are viewable on ebird, so I would imagine nothing will change with these. They would just be slotted as provisional. My understanding is that you can still look up provisional records, at least I would hope so.

Establishment is a nebulous term. I have experience with the Magpie-Jay and the Great Tit, and I would probably only consider them marginally so. However what is and isn't considered established in general is far more strict than how it's applied to just about any other critters in North America.

Both meet all the requirements to be counted by the ABA, they just aren't for some reason.

 

[Mysticete]

By ABA rules, if either of those gets approved in California, it also gets approved elsewhere in the ABA right? Guess my ABA list will have to more parrots added to it if it goes through

Yep, those are the rules. I have Red-masked Parakeet from San Francisco and should hopefully pick up Lilac-crowned in about 2 weeks.