More than 100 European species of bird at risk of extinction (1 Viewer)

[JTweedie]

Birds teetering on the edge include Balearic Shearwater, Eider and Rook.

Some species have fared better such as Red Kite and Kingfisher.

One of the things I've often wondered regarding birds that are found a lot on agricultural land is whether these species' numbers have been artificially increased beyond naturally occurring numbers as a result of human activity, but now as this habitat that previously supported them becomes degraded, are they returning to pre-agricultural numbers?

One in five European birds at risk of extinction, report warns

Over 100 species of European birds are on the road to becoming extinct, a new report has warned.

www.nhm.ac.uk

 

[THE_FERN]

Well extinct is the steady state...

 

[qwerty5]

One of the things I've often wondered regarding birds that are found a lot on agricultural land is whether these species' numbers have been artificially increased beyond naturally occurring numbers as a result of human activity, but now as this habitat that previously supported them becomes degraded, are they returning to pre-agricultural numbers?

I've wondered this too with regards to North American birds like Eastern Meadowlark etc. It would be nice to know if someone has an answer

 

[Hauksen]

Hi,

One of the things I've often wondered regarding birds that are found a lot on agricultural land is whether these species' numbers have been artificially increased beyond naturally occurring numbers as a result of human activity, but now as this habitat that previously supported them becomes degraded, are they returning to pre-agricultural numbers?

Well, I guess it depends on what you consider "pre-agricultural" ... agriculture in Europe goes back at least 6000 years.

My impression is that there is no doubt that certain forms of agriculture have historically created large habitats for bird species compatible with them, and the numbers of these birds decline when their agricultural habitats are re-purposed for other forms of agriculture.

On the other hand, I think it's also clear that there has been a steady increase in total land use by human society, along with a continuous increase of the intensity with which arable land is used. Accordingly, the environment is not actually going to return to a "reference" status quo, as the original, natural habitats "undisturbed by man" of the species that for a while benefitted from mankind's agricultural practices does no longer exist.

Regards,

Henning

 

[jurek]

One of the things I've often wondered regarding birds that are found a lot on agricultural land is whether these species' numbers have been artificially increased beyond naturally occurring numbers as a result of human activity, but now as this habitat that previously supported them becomes degraded, are they returning to pre-agricultural numbers?

Yes, with the caveat that pre-agricultural or 'natural' habitat in Europe is very poorly known.

However, IUCN Red List measures decline only 3 bird generations in the past. So it has nothing to do with the numbers before agriculture or even 100 years ago. In my opinion, IUCN Red List is not a good system (other that it is formally described), and is poorly predictive of the real chance of extinction - especially the 3 generation decline part.

 

[JTweedie]

Yes, with the caveat that pre-agricultural or 'natural' habitat in Europe is very poorly known.

However, IUCN Red List measures decline only 3 bird generations in the past. So it has nothing to do with the numbers before agriculture or even 100 years ago. In my opinion, IUCN Red List is not a good system (other that it is formally described), and is poorly predictive of the real chance of extinction - especially the 3 generation decline part.

This got me wondering how long a bird generation was, and according to this article, it's between 1.42 to 27.87 years.

https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cobi.13486

I hadn't intended anyone to think I was suggesting that habitats would be returning to pre-industrial levels. I had just wondered that if our activities had made conditions favourable for some species, eg Yellowhammer, that their levels were higher than they might otherwise be, then a logical consequence of further habitat change, for example changing farmland into a new housing development, could be a fall in numbers for that species. Other species might benefit from the change.

We could be suffering under shifting baseline syndrome where we're basing numbers of birds in an ecosystem on a set reference number, without knowledge of what the numbers were like before then.

 

[jurek]

For some reason my response seems to have disappeared.

Yes, sadly, the IUCN Red List criteria contain the shifting baseline syndrome. Which is sometimes actually referenced, e.g. in words that 'a decline occurred more than 3 generations ago'.

In case of red list of IUCN European bird list, missing are many iconic European farmland birds which disappeared mostly during the 20. century, like Grey Partridge, Great Bustard, Roller, Hoopoe or most shrikes. Also many iconic large birds wiped out by persecution and pesticides during the 19. and 20. century and still very rare are least concern: pelicans, Black Stork, many eagles and other birds of prey. Luckily regional conservationists don't strictly follow the IUCN classification in their conservation plans.

 

[Mysticete]

I've wondered this too with regards to North American birds like Eastern Meadowlark etc. It would be nice to know if someone has an answer

I feel like from what I have heard, Wild Turkeys, Grackles, and Red-winged Blackbirds all have benefited from humans and exist at larger populations than originally. Cowbirds and Cardinals have certainly benefited and expanded their range due to human habitat alteration and feeding.

 

[qwerty5]

I feel like from what I have heard, Wild Turkeys, Grackles, and Red-winged Blackbirds all have benefited from humans and exist at larger populations than originally. Cowbirds and Cardinals have certainly benefited and expanded their range due to human habitat alteration and feeding.

Yes, and cowbirds have now grown to be a conservation concern to other songbirds. They should be removed from federal protection in my opinion.
I think many grassland birds in the east benefited from the clearing of the forest. But agriculture is now taking over every open space available, and increased management of hay fields and pastures make them less safe for nesting birds.

 

[Himalaya]

What about Gulls and Western Europe? They are all almost all declining and amber or red listed. When you see inland numbers sometimes it seems to me they in pretty large numbers at times. In the breeding season when many return to the coasts what impact do they have on other species in terms of predation and competition for food and nest sites? Of course in winter numbers are increased by migrants.

By the way I am not an anti Gull person. I do love them and they do fascinate me. The question has to be asked are there more than there were say 100 years ago?

 

[jurek]

@Himalaya - it is well documented that numbers of most gulls grew during the 20. century because of feeding on rubbish.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Jurek,

@Himalaya - it is well documented that numbers of most gulls grew during the 20. century because of feeding on rubbish.

I seem to remember reading that in the recent decades, there is a clear reduction in the number of large gulls in Germany due to the replacement of open landfills with less accessible (to gulls) methods of waste disposal.

I also remember an article (in "Falke", if my memory is correct) on gulls breeding on Heligoland, which correlated the geographic position of gulls fitted with geolocation devices to those of the fishing boats in Heligoland Bay. It turned out that the gulls almost exclusively fed in the direct vicinity of the fishing boats, and frequently at night. I don't remember which species were covered by the experiment in the article, unfortunately, but I think it's a good example of how birds adapt to live in an environment largely shaped by human activities.

Regards,

Henning

 

[JTweedie]

In the garden birds forum, there's a thread about some research published in August about the potential detrimental effects of providing food and shelter to birds.

It has a link to a BBC article about the work: Does feeding garden birds do more harm than good?

One of the authors has also written an article about it in the Guardian: Feeding birds in our gardens is a joy – but it may be harming weaker species | Alexander C Lees

Link to paper (paywall): Killing with kindness: Does widespread generalised provisioning of wildlife help or hinder biodiversity conservation efforts?

The paper doesn't involve any primary research, instead it's a literature review and case study and is focused more on the general feeding of birds that most people are involved with rather than the targeted conservation of any specific species. I found the following quote noteworthy:

"In the UK the amount of birdfood supplied in gardens is sufficient to maintain treble the entire combined populations of the commonest feeder-using species if they consumed nothing else."

There's a table showing benefits and costs of feeding birds, to not only the birds but also the people providing the food and shelter. Some of these specifically for the birds are:

Benefits: improved health and density of species, reduction in need to migrate (but could this have an effect on species in different countries eg explosion in insect populations that are not predated? - trophic cascade).

Costs: increased disease, dependency on foods of poor nutritional value, predation.

It was also noteworthy that there are some countries that do not promote feeding of birds, such as Australia and New Zealand that have problems with invasive species.

So this again could indicate ways in which human activities are affecting bird populations.

 

[pianoman]

When on vacation in Maine a few years ago, I was interested to learn that 100 years ago or so, the forests of New England were largely arable and pasture land, with many fewer trees - so now represents a view of what farmland might be like after 100 years of being left to return to forest.
I did notice that there were perhaps fewer species of woodland bird than one might expect in a forest of that size, compared to Oregon for example (though still plenty of interest). So perhaps it takes a while to get a habitat fully "up and running"

 

[qwerty5]

When on vacation in Maine a few years ago, I was interested to learn that 100 years ago or so, the forests of New England were largely arable and pasture land, with many fewer trees - so now represents a view of what farmland might be like after 100 years of being left to return to forest.
I did notice that there were perhaps fewer species of woodland bird than one might expect in a forest of that size, compared to Oregon for example (though still plenty of interest). So perhaps it takes a while to get a habitat fully "up and running"

That's very interesting. Here in Ohio, it takes only a few years for land to grow up completely in trees.

 

[Streesh]

I feel like from what I have heard, Wild Turkeys, Grackles, and Red-winged Blackbirds all have benefited from humans and exist at larger populations than originally. Cowbirds and Cardinals have certainly benefited and expanded their range due to human habitat alteration and feeding.

Oddly, another beneficiary has been the pileated woodpecker, which has apparently is adapting steadily to urban life. Birdwatching Magazine ran an article about this in January 2021.

 

[Streesh]

Certain areas in Europe are reportedly depopulating. I haven't been able to find any sources of information on how this depopulation is affecting habitat and wildlife populations.