Global trends show seabird populations dropped 70 per cent since 1950s

[flacaltenn]

Global trends show seabird populations dropped 70 per cent since 1950s

Media Release | July 9, 2015

Read more: http://news.ubc.ca/2...nt-since-1950s/

Damn, life is dying all around us but yet it isn't happening within the minds of some. damn.

---
The minds of some, like those anthro climate change and tobacco-cancer deniers, are ego-centric, and are AQ challenged (AQ = Awareness quotient).
Or, they are plain stupid and easily influenced by Con artists ... in the 1% portion of the Repub party.
According to their minds, these causes are not related to human activity:

"The dramatic decline is caused by a variety of factors including overfishing of the fish seabirds rely on for food, birds getting tangled in fishing gear, plastic and oil pollution, introduction of non-native predators to seabird colonies, destruction and changes to seabird habitat, and environmental and ecological changes caused by climate change."

Hey PK1 -- Of ALL those causes -- why do you have to come out swinging for Global Warming to be the ONLY eco issue worth discussing? What do you think the chances are that the 0.4deg change in your lifetime is the DRIVING cause of this tragedy?? We should be working to understand and fix this --- not letting our "programming" interfere with whatever eco causes need to be addressed..

---
Re: "why do you have to come out swinging for Global Warming to be the ONLY eco issue worth discussing?"

Huh? The anthro-eco issues mentioned in the article included "overfishing of the fish seabirds rely on for food, birds getting tangled in fishing gear, plastic and oil pollution, introduction of non-native predators to seabird colonies, destruction and changes to seabird habitat".

It was probably because you OPENED that post with "climate deniers === tobacco deniers".. and the "not caused by human activity" and digs at Repubs. (not that I protect Repubs)

Sorry if you're actually aware that this likely has nothing to do with any of that..

---
Yes, I assumed that those blindly critical of this research paper were also blindly following the AGW deniers, many of the same folks who supported tobacco company denials. Perhaps I am mistaken, especially if they have a good scientific argument.

For the record, as an independent SR libertarian, I criticize both Dems & Repubs who don't think for themselves.

Well that's refreshing honest and open. As a longtime Libertarian -- Welcome to USMB and let's talk about the long list of Eco projects that the GW freight train has delayed..

 

[flacaltenn]

From the paper itself:

We constructed a global database of available primarily English-language seabird population size records worldwide for the years spanning 1950–2010. We compiled data per population, defined as the breeding population of a species occurring on an island or stretch of coastline in which data were most commonly aggregated for reporting (i.e., a country or discrete sub-region of a large country such as a group of islands or a province). In total, we found data for 3213 breeding populations belonging to 324 seabird species (S1 Table) [17] reported in 357 coastal stretches (S2 Table).

We obtained data from primary sources including journal articles, books, and unpublished reports. We obtained population sizes as breeding pairs or total population; for comparison between the two, we converted records reported in breeding pairs to total population assuming that the population includes 30% non-breeders, a commonly assumed estimate for global seabird studies [18–20]. If a population size was reported as a range (e.g., 100–200 breeding pairs), we assumed the population size to be the geometric mean of the minimum and maximum records; the geometric mean is the square root of the product of a pair of values, and is applied in ecology to approximate central tendency [21]. For an example of the population database contents, see S3 Table. The database derived from our study is maintained by the Sea Around Us Project and will be made publicly available at www.seaaroundus.org.

They took numbers from everyone who published anything, There is no data credibility or reliability. They placed this into their model and the output is being treated as empirical evidence..

In their methods they do not even address the ADO and PDO with its resulting shifts in migratory bird route changes they cause.

??? How did this pass peer review???

This isn't even a polished turd! Given their data credibility problems this is worse than manufactured crap... but its still crap..

Source

---
Yes, they used whatever data they could find on seabird POPULATIONS (324 species) across 357 coastal stretches around the world. A nice sample!
Do you understand statistics?

Can you read or are you an imbecile? That peer-reviewed scientific article did not need ADO, PDO, AMO, ENSO or other ocean climate-related migrations, since they sampled POPULATIONS all over the world.

Yes, it looks like humans are screwing up the ecology world-wide. And you doubt that?

There is no statistical control or check for properly sourced numbers. They ASSUMED that the other numbers from sources were not contrived or deflated for political gain. This is like giving someone you dont know access to your bank account and assuming that the numbers are A-ok each month..

The paper and its assumptions are garbage.

It's not garbage. It's a starting point -- unless MORE accurate work is out there on "ALL seabirds". Sounds like they bit off more than an honest research team can handle.

But you are correct -- the METHODOLOGY SUCKS bigtime. You don't take "geometric mean" estimates of ALL the data and arrive at a better TRUE number. You need to PRESERVE the Variance in the estimates. Whoever these guys are --- they should start with California Seagulls and expand from there..

 

[flacaltenn]

Two minutes on the web and you can find ANY NUMBER of focused and detailed surveys of Seabird populations. By specie with analysis of the colony stress factors. Good stuff -- if you want to peruse it.

Seabird Populations of Britain and Ireland

Reads really well and informative. Sampled below..

The most abundant seabird in Britain and Ireland is the Common Guillemot, of which thereare 1.6 million, more than double the number in 1969-70. There are around 1.2 million Atlantic Puffins breeding in Britain and Ireland, and some colonies on islands along the North Sea coast of Britain have increased substantially in size over the last 15 years. Numbers of Northern Fulmars breeding in Britain and Ireland increased throughout most of the 20th century, and there are now 1.1 million breeding birds, 74% more than in 1969-70. However, the total population of Northern Fulmars in Britain and Ireland has changed little since 1985-88 and while numbers continue to increase in some areas, numbers within the densest areas (i.e. in northern Scotland) have declined slightly. Black-legged Kittiwakes remain one of the most abundant seabirds in the British Isles, totalling 800,000 breeding birds, but this represents a decline of 23% since 1985-88. This decline is due mainly to successive years of poor breeding success related to low availability of their main food sandeels in the North Sea, particularly around Shetland where the number of breeding Kittiwakes has declined by 69% in the last 15 years.

A major achievement of Seabird 2000 was to survey the nocturnal European and Leach's Storm-petrels that nest under ground on the remotest of the British Isles, which due to inherent logistical problems had never been accurately counted before. The nests of both species are hidden away in earth burrows or in rock crevices, under boulders or in stone walls and are therefore extremely difficult to find. Seabird 2000 used a technique called 'tape playback', which relies on the fact that petrels hidden away in burrows will call back to taped recordings of their calls. By counting the number of responses to the taped calls, surveyors could estimate the number of breeding pairs within each colony, without actually having to see any birds. A total of 180 remote and mostly uninhabited islands around the British Isles were visited by Seabird 2000 surveyors.



I think the guys in this OP study just want to toss hand grenades out there. To bolster their "organization".. Probably selling the fluffy versions of Puffins if you donate $40.....

 

[flacaltenn]

What'd I miss? Are the birds dying because they need to die? Is it just natural variation? Noise in the bird population numbers? Are they actually all in bird cages somewhere we just don't know about? Did they all just fly away? What? What?

You are soooo insensitive Crick to anything Vaguely resembling REAL environment issues.

 

[PK1]

From the paper itself:

We constructed a global database of available primarily English-language seabird population size records worldwide for the years spanning 1950–2010. We compiled data per population, defined as the breeding population of a species occurring on an island or stretch of coastline in which data were most commonly aggregated for reporting (i.e., a country or discrete sub-region of a large country such as a group of islands or a province). In total, we found data for 3213 breeding populations belonging to 324 seabird species (S1 Table) [17] reported in 357 coastal stretches (S2 Table).

We obtained data from primary sources including journal articles, books, and unpublished reports. We obtained population sizes as breeding pairs or total population; for comparison between the two, we converted records reported in breeding pairs to total population assuming that the population includes 30% non-breeders, a commonly assumed estimate for global seabird studies [18–20]. If a population size was reported as a range (e.g., 100–200 breeding pairs), we assumed the population size to be the geometric mean of the minimum and maximum records; the geometric mean is the square root of the product of a pair of values, and is applied in ecology to approximate central tendency [21]. For an example of the population database contents, see S3 Table. The database derived from our study is maintained by the Sea Around Us Project and will be made publicly available at www.seaaroundus.org.

They took numbers from everyone who published anything, There is no data credibility or reliability. They placed this into their model and the output is being treated as empirical evidence..

In their methods they do not even address the ADO and PDO with its resulting shifts in migratory bird route changes they cause.

??? How did this pass peer review???

This isn't even a polished turd! Given their data credibility problems this is worse than manufactured crap... but its still crap..

Source

---
Yes, they used whatever data they could find on seabird POPULATIONS (324 species) across 357 coastal stretches around the world. A nice sample!
Do you understand statistics?

Can you read or are you an imbecile? That peer-reviewed scientific article did not need ADO, PDO, AMO, ENSO or other ocean climate-related migrations, since they sampled POPULATIONS all over the world.

Yes, it looks like humans are screwing up the ecology world-wide. And you doubt that?

There is no statistical control or check for properly sourced numbers. They ASSUMED that the other numbers from sources were not contrived or deflated for political gain. This is like giving someone you dont know access to your bank account and assuming that the numbers are A-ok each month..

The paper and its assumptions are garbage.

It's not garbage. It's a starting point -- unless MORE accurate work is out there on "ALL seabirds". Sounds like they bit off more than an honest research team can handle.

But you are correct -- the METHODOLOGY SUCKS bigtime. You don't take "geometric mean" estimates of ALL the data and arrive at a better TRUE number. You need to PRESERVE the Variance in the estimates. Whoever these guys are --- they should start with California Seagulls and expand from there..

---
That JNCC pub was a good piece, but the OP pub also was informational and was more thought-provoking, with a valid statistical approach for such a global focus. Perhaps more "research needed", as often is the case!
Do you see anything wrong with this narrative?

"We assessed the population trend of the world’s monitored seabirds (1950–2010) by compiling a global database of seabird population size records and applying multivariate autoregressive state-space (MARSS) modeling to estimate the overall population trend of the portion of the population with sufficient data (i.e., at least five records). This monitored population represented approximately 19% of the global seabird population. We found the monitored portion of the global seabird population to have declined overall by 69.7% between 1950 and 2010. This declining trend may reflect the global seabird population trend, given the large and apparently representative sample. Furthermore, the largest declines were observed in families containing wide-ranging pelagic species, suggesting that pan-global populations may be more at risk than shorter-ranging coastal populations."

 

[flacaltenn]

Couldnt tell you without looking at number of samples, time intervals, species involved, etc. I am skeptical of there numbers, because doing this for ALL seabirds, hides too much about Where the problems are. Studies that take these sweeping surveyys and hawk ONE NUMBER, should always be scrutinized carefully. For instance if ALL seabirds were 10 families of related species and 2 of those families represent 80% of the world population, then that single number tells you jackshit about the other 8 families doesnt it?

If im sober later, maybe I will read thru.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From the paper itself:

We constructed a global database of available primarily English-language seabird population size records worldwide for the years spanning 1950–2010. We compiled data per population, defined as the breeding population of a species occurring on an island or stretch of coastline in which data were most commonly aggregated for reporting (i.e., a country or discrete sub-region of a large country such as a group of islands or a province). In total, we found data for 3213 breeding populations belonging to 324 seabird species (S1 Table) [17] reported in 357 coastal stretches (S2 Table).

We obtained data from primary sources including journal articles, books, and unpublished reports. We obtained population sizes as breeding pairs or total population; for comparison between the two, we converted records reported in breeding pairs to total population assuming that the population includes 30% non-breeders, a commonly assumed estimate for global seabird studies [18–20]. If a population size was reported as a range (e.g., 100–200 breeding pairs), we assumed the population size to be the geometric mean of the minimum and maximum records; the geometric mean is the square root of the product of a pair of values, and is applied in ecology to approximate central tendency [21]. For an example of the population database contents, see S3 Table. The database derived from our study is maintained by the Sea Around Us Project and will be made publicly available at www.seaaroundus.org.

They took numbers from everyone who published anything, There is no data credibility or reliability. They placed this into their model and the output is being treated as empirical evidence..

In their methods they do not even address the ADO and PDO with its resulting shifts in migratory bird route changes they cause.

??? How did this pass peer review???

This isn't even a polished turd! Given their data credibility problems this is worse than manufactured crap... but its still crap..

Source

---
Yes, they used whatever data they could find on seabird POPULATIONS (324 species) across 357 coastal stretches around the world. A nice sample!
Do you understand statistics?

Can you read or are you an imbecile? That peer-reviewed scientific article did not need ADO, PDO, AMO, ENSO or other ocean climate-related migrations, since they sampled POPULATIONS all over the world.

Yes, it looks like humans are screwing up the ecology world-wide. And you doubt that?

There is no statistical control or check for properly sourced numbers. They ASSUMED that the other numbers from sources were not contrived or deflated for political gain. This is like giving someone you dont know access to your bank account and assuming that the numbers are A-ok each month..

The paper and its assumptions are garbage.

It's not garbage. It's a starting point -- unless MORE accurate work is out there on "ALL seabirds". Sounds like they bit off more than an honest research team can handle.

But you are correct -- the METHODOLOGY SUCKS bigtime. You don't take "geometric mean" estimates of ALL the data and arrive at a better TRUE number. You need to PRESERVE the Variance in the estimates. Whoever these guys are --- they should start with California Seagulls and expand from there..

I will give you "starting place".. My problem is with all the subjective and incomplete numbers they used. Its like putting in random numbers and coming up with a hockey stick every time. Its deceptive at best.

 

[PK1]

From the paper itself:

We constructed a global database of available primarily English-language seabird population size records worldwide for the years spanning 1950–2010. We compiled data per population, defined as the breeding population of a species occurring on an island or stretch of coastline in which data were most commonly aggregated for reporting (i.e., a country or discrete sub-region of a large country such as a group of islands or a province). In total, we found data for 3213 breeding populations belonging to 324 seabird species (S1 Table) [17] reported in 357 coastal stretches (S2 Table).

We obtained data from primary sources including journal articles, books, and unpublished reports. We obtained population sizes as breeding pairs or total population; for comparison between the two, we converted records reported in breeding pairs to total population assuming that the population includes 30% non-breeders, a commonly assumed estimate for global seabird studies [18–20]. If a population size was reported as a range (e.g., 100–200 breeding pairs), we assumed the population size to be the geometric mean of the minimum and maximum records; the geometric mean is the square root of the product of a pair of values, and is applied in ecology to approximate central tendency [21]. For an example of the population database contents, see S3 Table. The database derived from our study is maintained by the Sea Around Us Project and will be made publicly available at www.seaaroundus.org.

They took numbers from everyone who published anything, There is no data credibility or reliability. They placed this into their model and the output is being treated as empirical evidence..

In their methods they do not even address the ADO and PDO with its resulting shifts in migratory bird route changes they cause.

??? How did this pass peer review???

This isn't even a polished turd! Given their data credibility problems this is worse than manufactured crap... but its still crap..

Source

---
Yes, they used whatever data they could find on seabird POPULATIONS (324 species) across 357 coastal stretches around the world. A nice sample!
Do you understand statistics?

Can you read or are you an imbecile? That peer-reviewed scientific article did not need ADO, PDO, AMO, ENSO or other ocean climate-related migrations, since they sampled POPULATIONS all over the world.

Yes, it looks like humans are screwing up the ecology world-wide. And you doubt that?

There is no statistical control or check for properly sourced numbers. They ASSUMED that the other numbers from sources were not contrived or deflated for political gain. This is like giving someone you dont know access to your bank account and assuming that the numbers are A-ok each month..

The paper and its assumptions are garbage.

It's not garbage. It's a starting point -- unless MORE accurate work is out there on "ALL seabirds". Sounds like they bit off more than an honest research team can handle.

But you are correct -- the METHODOLOGY SUCKS bigtime. You don't take "geometric mean" estimates of ALL the data and arrive at a better TRUE number. You need to PRESERVE the Variance in the estimates. Whoever these guys are --- they should start with California Seagulls and expand from there..

I will give you "starting place".. My problem is with all the subjective and incomplete numbers they used. Its like putting in random numbers and coming up with a hockey stick every time. Its deceptive at best.

---
Apparently, you don't understand statistics, let alone MARSS modeling .

 

[depotoo]

PK, did you find anywhere in which they took into account the split of species that has occurred, particularly since 2000? Did you see where they added those totals back into the original species classification to come up with a more accurate representation of their numbers?

The sources and variables not spoken to, as well as the variables they did admit to, make this less than anything other than a hatchet job, in my analytical opinion.

 

[depotoo]

Reminds me of something else...

From the paper itself:

We constructed a global database of available primarily English-language seabird population size records worldwide for the years spanning 1950–2010. We compiled data per population, defined as the breeding population of a species occurring on an island or stretch of coastline in which data were most commonly aggregated for reporting (i.e., a country or discrete sub-region of a large country such as a group of islands or a province). In total, we found data for 3213 breeding populations belonging to 324 seabird species (S1 Table) [17] reported in 357 coastal stretches (S2 Table).

We obtained data from primary sources including journal articles, books, and unpublished reports. We obtained population sizes as breeding pairs or total population; for comparison between the two, we converted records reported in breeding pairs to total population assuming that the population includes 30% non-breeders, a commonly assumed estimate for global seabird studies [18–20]. If a population size was reported as a range (e.g., 100–200 breeding pairs), we assumed the population size to be the geometric mean of the minimum and maximum records; the geometric mean is the square root of the product of a pair of values, and is applied in ecology to approximate central tendency [21]. For an example of the population database contents, see S3 Table. The database derived from our study is maintained by the Sea Around Us Project and will be made publicly available at www.seaaroundus.org.

They took numbers from everyone who published anything, There is no data credibility or reliability. They placed this into their model and the output is being treated as empirical evidence..

In their methods they do not even address the ADO and PDO with its resulting shifts in migratory bird route changes they cause.

??? How did this pass peer review???

This isn't even a polished turd! Given their data credibility problems this is worse than manufactured crap... but its still crap..

Source

---
Yes, they used whatever data they could find on seabird POPULATIONS (324 species) across 357 coastal stretches around the world. A nice sample!
Do you understand statistics?

Can you read or are you an imbecile? That peer-reviewed scientific article did not need ADO, PDO, AMO, ENSO or other ocean climate-related migrations, since they sampled POPULATIONS all over the world.

Yes, it looks like humans are screwing up the ecology world-wide. And you doubt that?

There is no statistical control or check for properly sourced numbers. They ASSUMED that the other numbers from sources were not contrived or deflated for political gain. This is like giving someone you dont know access to your bank account and assuming that the numbers are A-ok each month..

The paper and its assumptions are garbage.

It's not garbage. It's a starting point -- unless MORE accurate work is out there on "ALL seabirds". Sounds like they bit off more than an honest research team can handle.

But you are correct -- the METHODOLOGY SUCKS bigtime. You don't take "geometric mean" estimates of ALL the data and arrive at a better TRUE number. You need to PRESERVE the Variance in the estimates. Whoever these guys are --- they should start with California Seagulls and expand from there..

I will give you "starting place".. My problem is with all the subjective and incomplete numbers they used. Its like putting in random numbers and coming up with a hockey stick every time. Its deceptive at best.

 

[PK1]

PK, did you find anywhere in which they took into account the split of species that has occurred, particularly since 2000? Did you see where they added those totals back into the original species classification to come up with a more accurate representation of their numbers?

The sources and variables not spoken to, as well as the variables they did admit to, make this less than anything other than a hatchet job, in my analytical opinion.

---
Split of species and summation across monitored coastal stretches?
Yes, their sampled data included 3213 breeding populations belonging to 324 seabird species in 357 coastal stretches. They summed up counts for each species observed across various locations across time.
They provided a sample (S3 Table) for the Blue Petrel species observed in 6 locations from 1977 to 2003.

What good is your analytical opinion if you don't read the detail?

 

[rdean]

Republicans call that a job well done.

 

[PK1]

The total population at the end of the time period was 30.3% of the population at the start, representing a 69.7% loss. Dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals, using MARSS modeling.

This study may not be difinitive, but it sure is alarming.

 

[HenryBHough]

I had noticed 50% less seagull shit on my car in the last few months but hardly 70%.

 

[flacaltenn]

View attachment 45087
The total population at the end of the time period was 30.3% of the population at the start, representing a 69.7% loss. Dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals, using MARSS modeling.

This study may not be difinitive, but it sure is alarming.

Were they looking in right spots? Right times? Actually --- THEY didn't do the looking. They went to the Seabird library and pulled surveys of unknown quality. What do you think the significance of that ONE Number is?

Does it describe the problem? Or as I said, should they be looking 15 species in jeopardy comprising the MAJORITY of sea birds? Instead of 350 different species? I WILL read this and get back to you.. Maybe I'll be shocked. But the better bet is -- that 70% number is misleading...

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 45087
The total population at the end of the time period was 30.3% of the population at the start, representing a 69.7% loss. Dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals, using MARSS modeling.

This study may not be difinitive, but it sure is alarming.

Were they looking in right spots? Right times? Actually --- THEY didn't do the looking. They went to the Seabird library and pulled surveys of unknown quality. What do you think the significance of that ONE Number is?

Does it describe the problem? Or as I said, should they be looking 15 species in jeopardy comprising the MAJORITY of sea birds? Instead of 350 different species? I WILL read this and get back to you.. Maybe I'll be shocked. But the better bet is -- that 70% number is misleading...

There is no quality control for the data, They even used magazine articles which cite no real work.. The paper is garbage. But hey, that's my opinion. I truly think this was an intentionally concocted pile of crap given the authors and their affiliations with World Wild Life Fund and several far left wing groups. I am not putting much credibility in this. The more i look and the deeper I investigate the group, this is pure propagandist crap.

 

[depotoo]

That flew right past you.

PK, did you find anywhere in which they took into account the split of species that has occurred, particularly since 2000? Did you see where they added those totals back into the original species classification to come up with a more accurate representation of their numbers?

The sources and variables not spoken to, as well as the variables they did admit to, make this less than anything other than a hatchet job, in my analytical opinion.

---
Split of species and summation across monitored coastal stretches?
Yes, their sampled data included 3213 breeding populations belonging to 324 seabird species in 357 coastal stretches. They summed up counts for each species observed across various locations across time.
They provided a sample (S3 Table) for the Blue Petrel species observed in 6 locations from 1977 to 2003.

What good is your analytical opinion if you don't read the detail?

 

[ScienceRocks]

We should bring them back and set up a trillion dollar breeding program for all the animals that we made extinct. Then triple the size of all of our national parks so they'll have a place to live!

That would be the best thing humans could do for animals! Us our brains for something good.

 

[PK1]

View attachment 45087
The total population at the end of the time period was 30.3% of the population at the start, representing a 69.7% loss. Dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals, using MARSS modeling.

This study may not be difinitive, but it sure is alarming.

Were they looking in right spots? Right times? Actually --- THEY didn't do the looking. They went to the Seabird library and pulled surveys of unknown quality. What do you think the significance of that ONE Number is?

Does it describe the problem? Or as I said, should they be looking 15 species in jeopardy comprising the MAJORITY of sea birds? Instead of 350 different species? I WILL read this and get back to you.. Maybe I'll be shocked. But the better bet is -- that 70% number is misleading...

There is no quality control for the data, They even used magazine articles which cite no real work.. The paper is garbage. But hey, that's my opinion. I truly think this was an intentionally concocted pile of crap given the authors and their affiliations with World Wild Life Fund and several far left wing groups. I am not putting much credibility in this. The more i look and the deeper I investigate the group, this is pure propagandist crap.

---
Your "opinion"? You mean your politicized mind-made-up opinion?

I prefer the more objective scientific process, which the PLOS ONE journal takes:
"PLOS ONE accepts scientifically rigorous research, ... including interdisciplinary and replication studies as well as negative results. The journal’s publication criteria are based on high ethical standards and the rigor of the methodology and conclusions reported."

If you see a method/statistical problem here, why don't you contact the journal and explain your "scientific" issues with this article? I'd love to see your complaint and their response!!!

As you mentioned, the authors compiled a database of relevant data, and the Q/C was done by original sources, mostly from other scientific journals & books.
What "magazine" did they use as a source that was bogus (did not cite "real work")??

Why don't you cite "real work" that contradicts the conclusions made by the authors ... Or can't you?

Otherwise, that journal article raises valid global ecological concerns, which may not be of interest to those who only care about themselves.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All we know for certain is that all the dinosaurs are extinct

http://