[orebird] Re: A few procedural questions
- From: "W. Douglas Robinson" <w.douglas.robinson@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 08:01:31 -0800
Regarding raptor runs, it's been a long process, but I am working with Jeff
Fleischer to get each segment on each raptor route geo-referenced and measured.
The raptor survey data can then be archived in eBird as a series of short
traveling routes, rather than very long routes. They are incomplete checklists
because not all bird species are counted, but the locations will be much more
precise. My team has completed the process of getting GPS for each segment, and
Jeff is now error checking this for us.
Regarding crossbills, I usually can type them in the field, but it has taken a
lot of practice. I send recordings to Matt Young to double check (I don't tell
him what I think they are, so it's an independent process). Typically, I have
just added to my checklist entry a comment about what type I think the birds
are. I agree that it raises lots of challenges if folks identify crossbills to
type when entering the data without having a sound file to share. It is super
easy to confuse the types for lots of reasons. Some of those reasons include:
knowing which calls to be comparing because crossbills make many different
varieties of calls that also vary by age of the bird; wind or distance
distortion affecting what you hear and/or record; mixed flocks of types that
occur in some places. So, good to ask for a recording whenever possible.
Probably won't be long before we can record calls with our smart phones and
have an app tell us the most likely type, save the spectrogram, and upload it
directly to our checklists. So cool.
Doug
On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Greg Haworth wrote:
> On the first point, from what i read from the CBC Help section on eBird there
> are six points or caveats that need to be considered for acceptance. These
> can be found here and here.
>
> I would validate any reports that meet these criteria. It may take a couple
> of interactions with the observers to assure they are met. But, once that is
> established and any adjustments made to the report to comply, they should be
> validated per team eBird.
>
> On the Raptor Runs -- i validated the first report i received but sent a
> message to the observer that in the future these reports need to be broken
> down to 5 mile increments of similar habitat types; e.g. the stretches along
> the Columbia River are not to be aggregated with the Coastal Mountains. I
> did this to encourage the report and the observer, but to refine it in the
> future. Input on that action would be encouraged.
>
> On the Crossbills, I haven't come across them and i dread the day when a
> Crossbill type comes across my filter, i'm not qualified to deal with this,
> nor am i interested in becoming qualified. I'll be kicking it up to Dave and
> Shawneen and let their council by my guide.
>
> greg haworth
> Columbia County
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Matthew G Hunter <matthewghunter@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I've got a "few in the queue" that I have been avoiding because I wasn't sure
> what I wanted to do with them....
>
> CBC SECTOR LISTS
>
> One is a CBC sector list. According to the eBird help, these are
> "acceptable," which I guess means they don't need to be invalidated because
> of lack of specificity? I guess so long as they input the hours and miles,
> it is supposed to be okay to validate it? That's what the "help" says. This
> one is 36 miles, 9 hours.
>
> I'll describe again my perspective on the whole "valid"/"invalid"
> dichotomy.... From my perspective, a CBC checklist with accurate
> observations and supporting data is not inherently valid or invalid, or
> useful vs not useful, IT IS WHAT IT IS. Its usefulness in analysis (assuming
> it is accurate) depends on what the analyst is attempting to analyze! And,
> so, either the user (best) or the reviewer should have an option to say what
> it is, so that it can be either included or excluded in any particular
> analysis or presentation.
>
> Anyway, so I guess an accurately documented CBC Sector list, with hours,
> miles, number in party, should be "validated," correct? Just would be nice
> to tag it as what it is, though maybe the title is enough (Roseburg-Sutherlin
> CBC Sector 1).
>
> WINTER RAPTOR SURVEYS
>
> Similar to the CBC sector question, but in this case, some of these are 75
> miles or more. ???
>
> RED CROSSBILL TYPES
>
> I have a report for a Red Crossbill (Sitka Spruce or Type 10).
> https://ebird.org/admin/reviewSub.htm?subID=S21104476
> The birds are foraging on sitka spruce cones, but, according to what I've
> ready, they don't hold exclusive rights to that tree. From what I've read a
> bit in eBird help ... it sounds like observers are encouraged to report only
> as Red Crossbill unless they can submit a verifiable recording. This report
> mentions they have a recording, so perhaps I will ask for it. But I don't
> have sound analysis software. I could get some. I could just listen to it and
> compare to online recordings (e.g., Matt Young's on eBird.org). What are
> you all doing with reports of Red Crossbill types?
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> Matt Hunter
> eBird Reviewer
> Douglas County
> Oregon
>
>
>
> --
> Avian Migration w/ PNW focus
> Forays into the field
Other related posts:
