• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Global warming could cause bird extinctions: (1 Viewer)

Jaeger01

Well-known member
NAIROBI (Reuters) - Unchecked climate change could force up to 72 per cent of bird species in some areas into extinction but the world still has a chance to limit the losses, conservation group WWF said in a report on Tuesday.

From migratory insect-eaters to tropical honeycreepers and cold water penguins, birds are highly sensitive to changing weather conditions and many are already being affected badly by global warming, the new study said.

"Birds are the quintessential 'canaries in the coal mine' and are already responding to current levels of climate change," said the report, launched at a United Nations conference in Kenya on ways to slow warming.

"Birds now indicate that global warming has set in motion a powerful chain of effects in ecosystems worldwide," WWF said.

"Robust evidence demonstrates that climate change is affecting birds' behavior -- with some migratory birds even failing to migrate at all."

In the future, it said, unchecked warming could put large numbers of species at risk, with estimates of extinction rates as high as 72 per cent, "depending on the region, climate scenario and potential for birds to shift to new habitats."

It said the "more extreme scenarios" of extinctions could be prevented if tough climate protection targets were enforced and greenhouse gas emissions cut to keep global warming increases to less than 2 degrees C (1.6 F) above pre-industrial levels.

Already in decline in Europe and the United States, many migratory birds were now missing out on vital food stocks that are appearing earlier and earlier due to global warming, widely blamed by scientists on emissions from burning fossil fuels.

In Canada's northern Hudson Bay, the report said, mosquitoes were hatching and reaching peak numbers earlier in the spring, but seabirds breeding there had not adjusted their behavior.

In the Netherlands, it added, a similar mismatch had led to the decline of up to 90 per cent in some populations of pied flycatchers over the last two decades.

"NOWHERE TO GO"

Predicted rising temperatures could see Europe's Mediterranean coastal wetlands -- critical habitats for migratory birds -- completely destroyed by the 2080s, it said.

Rising temperatures were also seen having disastrous impacts on non-migratory species, as their habitat ranges shifted.

"Many centres of species richness for birds are currently located in protected areas, from which birds may be forced by climatic changes into unprotected zones," the report said.

"Island and mountain birds may simply have nowhere to go."

In the U.S., unabated warming was seen cutting bird species by nearly a third in the eastern Midwest and Great Lakes, while almost three-quarters of rainforest birds in Australia's northeastern Wet Tropics were at risk of being wiped out.

"In Europe, the endangered Spanish imperial eagle, currently found mainly in natural reserves and parks, is expected to lose its entire current range," WWF's report said.

Also at high risk were eight species of brightly colored Hawaiian honeycreeper, Galapagos Islands penguins and the Scottish capercaillie -- the world's biggest grouse -- which WWF said could lose 99 per cent of its habitat due to warming.
 
and still some people will say either.

"I don't believe it"

or even more frustratingly

"What is the point of me altering my behaviour when my contribution to global warming is such a tiny part of the percentage".

Thanks for posting this Jaeger
 
Jane Turner said:
and still some people will say either.

"I don't believe it"

It does sound a bit over-pessimistic.

I think scientists like to exaggerate these things because it means they'll get more funding and NGO's/charities like to exaggerate because they'll get more donations.

Still that's not to say global warming is a good thing or anything like that......
 
Jane Turner said:
I was thinking 72% extinction was actually a little optimistic for e.g. Isolated mountain species.

Even the article admits that is the highest estimate and most extreme scenario.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be worried just that the article is a little extreme.
 
I guess it depends if you notice the "as high as" and "depending on regions" - I agree that these articales can be written in such away as they are translated at 72% global extinction. Don't fancy the chances of high arctic breeding Waders much though!
 
Jane Turner said:
I guess it depends if you notice the "as high as" and "depending on regions" - I agree that these articales can be written in such away as they are translated at 72% global extinction. Don't fancy the chances of high arctic breeding Waders much though!

It's not been all that long (geographically speaking) since the last time they were in this position - surely they can't all have evolved after cooling started again?
(No, I'm not saying global warming is a good thing, etc...)
 
colonelboris said:
It's not been all that long (geographically speaking) since the last time they were in this position - surely they can't all have evolved after cooling started again?
(No, I'm not saying global warming is a good thing, etc...)
You must be right. I'd be amazed if "extinction" were any other than a rhetorical usage, and I'd be grateful if august bodies such as the WWF used plain speaking instead. But plain speaking has left this world of hyperbole, gloss and spin, methinks.
 
The WWF report is not new research -it is a summary of extant studies.

The postulated extinction rates range from 2% for Mexican birds to 49 to 72% for birds in Australia's Wet Tropics.

It would be interesting to know what adaptive changes are known to be taking place.
I have in mind that fantastic Pulitzer Prize book " The Beak of the Finch" in which a twenty year study on Galapagos documented rapid & visible adaptation in birds to the dramatic periodic onset of El Ninos.

Colin
 
Of course, it's interesting to reflect that climate warming in East Africa (the result of continental drift) was probably a major factor in the evolution of mankind!
 
I wonder how many birds will increase in warmer climate? In Europe, we all see bee-eaters and egrets spreading and increasing.

Does this study compares increasing species to decreasing ones? Some birds may even avoid extinction by spreading to new areas.
 
Incidentally, the report can be found here:

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/birdsclimatereportfinal.pdf

for comparison, you may wish to have a look at a similar report done by the British Trust for Ornithology, available here:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-co...echange-migratory/climatechange-migratory.pdf

If memory serves me correctly (as it should do as I did the anlayses:) 84% of migratory bird species (listed on the CMS) face some threat from climate change, almost half because of changes in water regime.
 
No doubt global warming is a concern for all species.

However, it ill behoves a species that has so devastated life on earth by it's own presence to "complain" about the prospect of future extinctions from climate change.-particularly if these in turn will in fact be caused by our actions.

Since the adoption of civilisations based on agriculture & technology our population has grown from around 5 million to 6 billion. The growth history is as follows :-
1 billion by 1800AD
2 billion 128 years later (1928)
3 billion 33 years later ( 1961)
4 billion 13 years later ( 1974)
5 billion 13 years later ( 1987)
6 billion 12 years later (1999)
...
9 billion by 2050?

We are a species which uses 40% of total global resources-leaving 60% for all other species on earth. We have destroyed habitat through agriculture, de-forestation, over grazing ,fragmentation, mining, erosion, pollution etc.

The extinction rate during the Holocene is reckoned to be at least 50 times background rates over geological time-and possibly as much as 1000 times.
The Permian Mass Extinction wiped out 95% of all species then alive-this took around 1 million years. E O Wilson in The Future of Life ( 2002) estimated that 50% of all species would perish in a century.

It sometimes seems as though our real concern is that climate change can be averted so that WE may continue to wipe out the rest of life on earth with impunity-and apparently with a clear conscience.

Colin
 
Last edited:
Hi,

I take a pleasure to bash this report as a bollocks.

Especially:

- Mean shifts of bird's migration and breeding dates are smaller than year-to-year changes which birds routinely do as a matter of course every year in response to cold or warm spring. 14 days difference in arrival or breeding due to cold spell is normal in Europe.

- Many changes can actually be described as good for birds. For example, Bewick Swans wintering further north will probably be less stressed by migration and will return to breeding grounds in bigger numbers and in better condition. Keel-billed Toucans colonising cloud forest is positive range extension.

- Many predictions are based on extreme and unlikely scenario (warming of 4,8oC)

- Proposition that birds, as a rule, cannot adapt to quick change of weather is wrong. There are many examples (little egret, collared dove, bee-eater) of birds spreading 100's of kilometers in a decade. Birdlife in the past succesfully coped with dramatic Lower Dryas Cooling, when European climate changed from temperate to Arctic in 10-100 years.

- Worldwide, studies focused on worst-case examples (Arctic, mountains) which were presented as average,

- Arctic birds as a rule have large breeding populations, in tens or hundreds of thousands. Even 90% decrease of American geese or waders will not come anything near to extinction.

- For Scottish Crossbill, the study proposed extinction shorter than life-span of pine trees currently growing in Scotland.

- No mention was made of habitat formation and range expansion. For example, decrease of tundra habitat should result in great increase in taiga birds!

- Studies on small study plots mean nothing - birds survive on plots nearby.

- In one place, all birds which benefit and spread due to warmer weather in Mexico are dismissed as "invaders". Are they all worthless?

- Knowledge of past climate was omitted. Actually, Europe AD 2006 is still colder than around year 1AD, when Romans hunted Dalmatian Pelicans in England and Netherlands. The report gives impression, that warming to return to that time would be a disaster for birds.
 
jurek said:
Hi,

I take a pleasure to bash this report as a bollocks.

... The report gives impression, that warming to return to that time would be a disaster for birds.
In one way, I hope you're wrong to do the bashing as I'd like to think that important bodies such as the WWF and BTO can be entirely trusted; but in another way, I rather suspect you're nearer the mark than many might like to admit. Thanks for adding to the debate!
 
Tranquility Base said:
Of course, it's interesting to reflect that climate warming in East Africa (the result of continental drift) was probably a major factor in the evolution of mankind!
All the more reason to try slow it this time around ;)
 
scampo said:
In one way, I hope you're wrong to do the bashing as I'd like to think that important bodies such as the WWF and BTO can be entirely trusted; but in another way, I rather suspect you're nearer the mark than many might like to admit. Thanks for adding to the debate!

Yes I agree Steve.
It is good to see a more measured assessment.
Colin
 
jurek said:
- Mean shifts of bird's migration and breeding dates are smaller than year-to-year changes which birds routinely do as a matter of course every year in response to cold or warm spring. 14 days difference in arrival or breeding due to cold spell is normal in Europe.

The ability to modify breeding dates & migration is what drives these climate induced changes. Just because they can modify their behaviour doesn’t mean its good news though. Often it leads to mistiming with respect to an essential resource. For example although Great Tits have advanced their egg-laying the caterpillars they feed their young on have advanced their phenology even more, so the caterpillars aren’t around when the chicks need them. Also there is a limit to migration date modification – these are often triggered by cues unrelated to climate, such as day length.

jurek said:
Many changes can actually be described as good for birds. For example, Bewick Swans wintering further north will probably be less stressed by migration and will return to breeding grounds in bigger numbers and in better condition. Keel-billed Toucans colonising cloud forest is positive range extension.

In one place, all birds which benefit and spread due to warmer weather in Mexico are dismissed as "invaders". Are they all worthless?

I’m sure a lot of birds will do better, but on the whole I suspect these will be widespread generalists of little conservation concern. More threatened specialists will become rarer. Think about other major threats to birds such as habitat loss / fragmentation and how climate change will inevitably interact with these deletirous impacts to make them worse. Also even if 100 birds double their population size all it takes is one bird to go extinct for us to have a less diverse planet

jurek said:
- Many predictions are based on extreme and unlikely scenario (warming of 4,8oC)
That is the projected temperature by c. 2120 if you project the IPCC A1F1 scenario forward about 20 years. The A1F1 scenario – rapid economic growth, human population peaking in 2150, continued fossil fuel use. Not all that unlikely in my opinion.

jurek said:
- Proposition that birds, as a rule, cannot adapt to quick change of weather is wrong. There are many examples (little egret, collared dove, bee-eater) of birds spreading 100's of kilometers in a decade. Birdlife in the past succesfully coped with dramatic Lower Dryas Cooling, when European climate changed from temperate to Arctic in 10-100 years.

Your examples come from widespread generalists, in some instances species that have spread for reasons unrelated to climate. Birds can spread – but their food, or their food’s food might not be able to. Lots of species went extinct during the Lower Dryas Cooling.

jurek said:
- Arctic birds as a rule have large breeding populations, in tens or hundreds of thousands. Even 90% decrease of American geese or waders will not come anything near to extinction.

Spoon-billed sandpiper, Spotted Greenshank, Eskimo Curlew…..


jurek said:
- No mention was made of habitat formation and range expansion. For example, decrease of tundra habitat should result in great increase in taiga birds!

Tundra into Taiga, Taiga into Temperate grassland / decidious woodland, and so forth. But it kind of has to stop when it reaches the sea.
jurek said:
- Knowledge of past climate was omitted. Actually, Europe AD 2006 is still colder than around year 1AD, when Romans hunted Dalmatian Pelicans in England and Netherlands. The report gives impression, that warming to return to that time would be a disaster for birds.

Its not the temperature that’s as much of a problem as the rate at which it’s changing.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised if it was all down to twitchers.
If migrating waders are driven further North year year, eventually, they'll all end up at the North Pole and intermingle. Then we'll start getting North American and Pacific waders coming here, because from the North Pole, every direction is South.
It's a conspiracy, I tell you.
 
Ilya Maclean said:
...the rate at which it’s changing
Thanks for posting that - very interesting. I wonder, though, if the above statement should more accurately read something like, "the rate at which it's predicted to change in the future if climate models turn out to be accurate"?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top