In many countries, point counts are the main method in monitoring the population changes of breeding landbirds. With the point count method it is possible to study the yearly changes of bird populations at fixed points, differences in species composition between habitats, and abundance patterns of species. The point count method is probably the most efficient and data-rich method of counting birds. It is the preferred method in forested habitats or difficult terrain. Point counts involve an observer standing in one spot and recording all the birds seen or heard at either a fixed distance, or unlimited distance. This method can be conducted one or many times at a given point. The North American Breeding Bird Survey of the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service is such a method.
The first action of CalPIF was to identify habitats important to birds. Following the guidelines of the International Partners in Flight "Flight Plan," habitat-based Bird Conservation Plans (BCPs) have been prepared, using data from point counts, to facilitate that goal by stimulating a proactive approach to landbird conservation.
In cases where the exact classification of a species was not determined, the AOU checklist is augmented with codes for "unknown" species. For example, UNSP refers to "unknown sparrow". Observations outside the domain of the AOU checklist are cross-referenced with the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) and the eBird Taxonomy in order to present as complete a record as possible.
PRBO Conservation Science does not assume any responsibility regarding the accuracy, utility or completeness of the data for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. We strongly recommend that the data be acquired directly from PRBO Conservation Science and not from an independent third party, which may have modified the data after obtaining it. PRBO shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein.
PRBO Data Sharing Policy November 2003, Updated May 2008
It is PRBO policy that data should be shared whenever possible while considering the tradeoffs between widespread distribution of data sets, the need to assure data quality and validity, and the privacy rights of land owners, as applicable. The general rule is that data should be released as soon as possible, along with documentation that can be used to judge data quality and potential usefulness.
PRBO believes that the intellectual investment and time committed to the collection of a data set entitles the investigator to the fundamental benefits of the work. Therefore, publication of descriptive or interpretive results derived immediately and directly from the data is the privilege and responsibility of the investigators who collect the data. This is one of the primary motivations for scientific data collection, and the scientific method is supported by this principle.
PRBO encourages its scientists to anticipate that most data collected will eventually become part of the public domain, and recommends that procedures be employed to facilitate this sharing, such as concurrent metadata generation, data verification, data entry, and data backup.
Data for which there are no associated metadata, or which have not been verified, should not be shared. Data that have not been used for peer-reviewed publication should be shared with caution. Data used in publications should be ready for public distribution at the same time as the actual publication. Data relevant to public policy should be shared as quickly and widely as possible. All PRBO data that have been shared should be maintained in a fashion that facilitates its continued public accessibility. This includes the need for data versioning, informing users when there have been important changes to public datasets. However, PRBO has no obligation to inform anyone who has received data from the organization of subsequent changes (such as corrections, additions, deletions) to those data. Data collected on private lands may be subject to more extensive sharing restrictions, depending on agreements between PRBO and landowners. Some contractual agreements may preclude sharing (or publicly posting on a web or FTP site) of some PRBO data.
PRBO maintains numerous datasets, including several with hundreds of thousands of records covering 20 or more years and involving multiple investigators. PRBO recognizes that these datasets can be used for many purposes, either on their own or through combination with other data. Any researcher making substantial use of a dataset should communicate with the investigators who acquired the data, or those to whom responsibility for the data has been entrusted, prior to publication. In most cases these researchers should anticipate that the data collectors or current managers would be co-authors of published results. PRBO will encourage and facilitate the ethical and courteous use of data within its archives.
PRBO will maintain a record of all data access and will notify those who access the data that they may be the intellectual property of PRBO. PRBO requests that the appropriate PRBO scientists and PRBO be acknowledged in any publication, report, presentation or the like using data that have been collected by PRBO scientists. Before any agreements to share PRBO data are reached, including posting on a website or FTP server, the specific case must be discussed with the relevant PRBO Division Director as well as with the Science Director and/or Executive Director as appropriate. The requesting party(s) and Division Director must sign a specifically crafted data sharing agreement, memorandum of understanding, or a copy of this Data Sharing Policy acknowledging that all involved agree to abide by its recommendations. A copy should be filed with the Division Director and with the appropriate PRBO data manager.
Any costs that PRBO incurs in the process of providing or maintaining public access to its datasets should be reimbursed. These costs should be considered at the project proposal stage for new data, and at the data request stage for legacy data. Costs include hourly wages for persons responsible for data maintenance and retrieval, as well as indirect costs for maintenance of computer equipment and backup systems.
Developed by Grant Ballard, revised per feedback at PRBO's 2003 Science Retreat and with additional revisions and approval by the PRBO Management Team, November 2003. PRBO reserves the right to modify, revise or supplement this policy, as it deems appropriate.
Aaron Holmes, Annalaura Averill, B.W. Massey, Bill Hogoboom, Bob Barnes, Chris Barr, Chris McCreedy, Chris Otahal, Chuck Vaughn, Craig Swolgard, Dave Riensche, Dave Shuford, David DeSante, Dolores Nice-Siegenthaler, Eugene Cardiff, Grant Ballard, Geoff Geupel, Jeanne Hammond, Jim Booker, Jim DeStaebler, Jim Steele, Joanne Gilchrist, John Alexander, John Stephenson, John Wagnitz, Julian Wood, Kathy Purcell, Kenneth Weaver, Madrone Audubon, Mark Holmgren, Mark Mendelsohn, Mary Chase, Ray Hasey, Ryan Burnett, Sacha Heath, Sandy Scoggin, Sherry Hudson, Stephen Lehman, Tim Meehan, Tom Gardali, Will Richardson, USDA Forest Service Redwood Sciences Lab.
Survey locations on private land have been excluded at the domain level and are not included in this dataset. In future updates of this dataset, locations on private land may be "blurred" to the nearest one-tenth of a decimal degree latitude and longitude.
The North American Breeding Bird Survey of the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service is such a method. These data come from CALPIF point count locations throughout the western United States for surveys conducted by trained observers between 1992 and the present. As new surveys are added on a yearly basis, this database is constantly being updated. All counts were 5 minutes duration and data were collected which denote, at least, whether individuals were within 50 m of the observer. All species were recorded. For more information on field protocols please see: <http://data.prbo.org/cadc2/index.php?page=songbird-point-counts>
These processes are all ongoing and continuous as new data are added, or additional precision is calculated on existing data.
These processes are all ongoing and continuous as new data are added, or additional precision is calculated on existing data.
These processes are all ongoing and continuous as new data are added, or additional precision is calculated on existing data.
The nine fields are:
1. SPEC: The four letter AOU abbreviation for species name. SOSP = Song Sparrow. Enter "9999" for no detections.
2. DATA: A five character code for type, distance, and timing of detection. The first character corresponds to the behavior of the bird that caused it to be detected, "S" for singing, "C" for calling, "V" for visual. The second through fourth characters correspond to distance of detection from point count location. In general, "L50" for within 50 meters, "G50" for greater than 50 meters, "FLO" for flying over. Use "B00" for > 100 m. The final character represents the timing of the detection, and could be used to identify the duration of each count. "3" for three minutes, "5" for five minutes, etc. Example: "CL505" would correspond to an individual detected calling within 50 meters during a five-minute point count. Enter "99999" for no detections. For variable circular plot (VCP) data, "L" still signifies < 50, G > 50. However, the upper end of the distance band is used rather than "50". For detections > 100 m, use "B". See examples at end.
3. State: Two letter abbreviation for the state in which the census occurred.
4. Region: Generally the county in which the census occurred, though could be used for more descriptive location information, if applicable. Nine characters.
5. Station: Six character study area identifier.
6. Date: Date of count.
7. Initials: Three characters for initials of observer.
8. Site: Two digits for individual point count site number.
9. Time: Four numbers for beginning time (in 24 hour format with no colon) of census for each site. Each record contains all of this information. Though it may seem redundant, it is important for keeping track of data and for ease of analysis using each individual as a separate statistical observation.