Land Cover Sampling Biases Associated with Roadside Bird Surveys

Roadside surveys such as the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) are widely used to assess the relative abundance of bird populations. The accuracy of roadside surveys depends on the extent to which surveys from roads represent the entire region under study. We quantified roadside land cover sampling bias in Tennessee, USA, by comparing land cover proportions near roads to proportions of the surrounding region. Roadside surveys gave a biased estimate of patterns across the region because some land cover types were over- or underrepresented near roads. These biases changed over time, introducing varying levels of distortion into the data. We constructed simulated population trends for five bird species of management interest based on these measured roadside sampling biases and on field data on bird abundance. These simulations indicated that roadside surveys may give overly negative assessments of the population trends of early successional birds and of synanthropic birds, but not of late-successional birds. Because roadside surveys are the primary source of avian population trend information in North America, we conclude that these surveys should be corrected for roadside land cover sampling bias. In addition, current recommendations about the need to create more early successional habitat for birds may need reassessment in the light of the undersampling of this habitat by roads.

Comparing the results of recall surveys and standardized searches in understanding bird-window collisions at houses

Every year a large number of birds die when they collide with windows. The actual number is difficult to ascertain. Previous attempts to estimate bird-window collision rates in Canada relied heavily on a prior citizen-science study that used memory-based surveys. Such an approach to data collection has many potential biases. We built upon this study and its recommendations for future research by creating a citizen-science program that actively searched for collision evidence at houses and apartments for an extended period with the objective to see how standardized approaches to data collection compared with memory recall. Absolute collision estimates as well as relative differences were compared between residence types in the two studies, and we found considerable differences in absolute values for collisions but similar rankings of collision rates between residence types. Collision recall rates in our study (56.5%) were very similar those in the prior 2012 study, where 50.5% of participants remembered a bird colliding with a window at some time in the past. Fatality estimates, however, were 1.4 times higher in the 2012 study than in our study based on standardized searches. Rural houses with a bird feeder consistently had the highest number of collisions. This suggests that memory recall surveys may be a useful tool for understanding the relative importance of different risk factors causing bird-window collisions.