[orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on)
- From: David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx>
- To: "orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 05:31:04 +0000
Doug,
I too think that Matt's option #2 is best. As soon as we include
non-identifiable or somewhat unquantified sub-population/subspecies in the
default checklist, user will them use and likely misuse them. Many of the dicey
sub-population designations are those that reference generalized regional forms
like I described in my long initial post on this topic. These taxa (for lack of
better word) do not necessarily represent a specific subspecies or readily
identifiable population. Folks use these thinking that they are helping, when
in reality they are making waters that are already murky more muddy.
Dave
From: w.douglas.robinson@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on)
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:05:02 -0800
To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I feel like Matt's option 2 is generally the best. It strikes a balance between
adding the obvious and regionally identifiable subspecies to the lists while
making it easy to find them (and therefore gather data on them) and not
cluttering lists with too many subspecies.
I'm still open to hosting a group meeting of reviewers who want to attend and
talk about these and other issues. The initial offer was met by a few positive
replies and a bunch of negative ones. We don't all have to attend. I know we
have a big state and it is hard for all of us to travel to a meeting. If
interested, one option would be to meet a day before or after one of our
upcoming 2020 county blitzes. The schedule is on the oregon2020.com website.
The counties are Sherman/Gilliam, Wheeler, Clatsop/Columbia, Wallowa and
northern Malheur. Maybe some of you find it easier to shake free during late
May and June, and could multi-task by joining a blitz?
CheersDoug
On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Matthew G Hunter wrote:I assume a short note for
the NW portal would be directed at "users" and encouraging a conservative
approach to using these designations? I think that is a good idea.
We, I think, still have not had enough discussion among ourselves (just a
couple big long emails from Dave and me), about what we should do with regard
to our default checklists. Options I see: (1) leave them all off so people have
to add them if they want them, (2) include only the subpopulations that we feel
are readily identifiable in the field, and any others people have to add
themselves, or (3) put all the expected subpopulations for each county in the
default checklist, so people don't have to add them. In all cases people would
have to add out of range subpopulations (e.g. a European Herring Gull or
whatever).
Matt
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:16 AM, David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Doug at al.,
You are probably right. A short note on this topic and the use of
sub-population assignments would be a good topic for the portal. I will try to
get something started on this.
Also, I heard back from Craig Miller this morning and to my modest surprise he
has offered to take on the eBird review for Lake, Harney and Malheur counties.
I will make contact with Noah (to the extent that it's possible right now) and
let him know that Craig is willing to take on these duties. Noah has another
book to write upon his return from the World Big Year effort, so I don't
foresee eBird review fitting into his life again any time soon. We may want to
recruit some help with Harney for Craig, as this county becomes a load once the
masses descend in May. Lake and Malheur are both very manageable year around.
Once I get Craig's user name, I will forward it to Brian Sullivan so that we
can get him set up as a reviewer. I know that he'll do a fantastic job with
these counties. As soon as all this is in place, I will let Greg Haworth and
Ian Davies know so that we can update the review team spreadsheet and get
everyone properly assigned.
Dave
From: w.douglas.robinson@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on)
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 08:34:54 -0800
To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dave,
I think a short article about the need for Mallard (Northern) and why it is
showing up on Oregon eBird checklists would be good for eBird Northwest
article. Pretty sure most birders will see it and think "What's this all
about?" Want to write something up?
Doug
On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, David Irons wrote:
Greetings All,
Given that Noah Strycker is out of the country for nearly the entirety of this
coming year (doing a World Big Year) it is probably safe to assume that eBird
reviewing will not be part of his activities in 2015. He is currently the
assigned reviewer for Harney, Lake, and Malheur counties. Over recent weeks I
have taken it upon myself to plow through the modest backlog of un-reviewed
records for these counties. The Malheur County queue is, as of a few minutes
ago, empty. I've been able to whittle the Harney and Lake queues down to fewer
than 10 outstanding records each, with queries out to those observers with
records that remain in question. I also sent a note to Craig Miller, asking if
he might take on Lake County. He knows the status and distribution of Lake
County's birds as well as anyone and would surely make a wonderful addition to
our team if he accepts (fingers crossed).
Today, Shawneen and I went out to the Nature Center at Jackson Bottom Wetland
Preserve to meet with staffers and volunteers there who have been entering more
than two decades of monthly on-site bird survey data into eBird. As one might
expect, their survey protocols, particularly the earlier ones don't dovetail
perfectly with the current requirements of eBird. There are of course taxonomy
issues, with older checklists listing all white-cheeked geese as "Canada Goose"
and Pacific Wrens as "Winter Wrens." There are also lots of checklists that
show "Common Snipe," which is now of course the Eurasian cousin of North
America's Wilson's Snipe. They have a wonderful volunteer who is a whiz at
getting the data formatted and transferred en masse and just today he solved
most of the biggest issue. In there historical data there is a consistent use
of regional sub-population designations that have not been entered into the
default Washington County checklist or had filters set. Examples of this are
things like "Song Sparrow (Pacific Northwest)" and "Spotted Towhee (Pacific)."
Since I've raised this issue, you should be aware that there has been some
behind the scenes discussion about the value and usefulness of some of the
regional taxonomic designations. Personally, I don't like many of them because
I think the definitions themselves defy quantification. Can any of you define
the bounds of "Spotted Towhee (Pacific)." I can't, so I suspect that the
average birder can't either. It's likely that most observers who select this
more refined regional designation when entering Spotted Towhee are doing so
because they are standing in proximity to the Pacific Ocean/Coast and not
because they are identifying the bird (based on appearance) to a particular
source breeding population.
During the winter months in particular, western Oregon gets Spotted Towhees
that are not very spotted on the upperparts and uniformly dark burnt orange on
both the flanks and the undertail (the local breeding P. m. oregonus). We also
get quite a few birds that are heavily spotted and paler burnt orange on the
flanks, with even paler somewhat yellowish-orange under the tail. The latter
birds resemble a number of interior and more northerly breeding subspecies,
which in my opinion probably can't be assigned to subspecies with any clarity.
We have a long way to go in order to gain a grasp on where these birds
originate, so for now it may be best to leave them as simply Spotted Towhee and
discourage the use of "Spotted Towhee (Pacific)" until such time that we or
someone else comes along who can teach the rest of us how to sort them out.
My personal yardstick for determining whether I make subspecies/sub-population
assignments is, "can I, in relatively short order, show other birders the
difference between two subspecies or sub-population types and have them
understand it and be able to use it themselves." If I can't, then I probably
shouldn't be using such designations myself. For example, I've had good success
teaching folks the difference between Gambel's and Puget Sound White-crowned
Sparrows, so I endeavor to sort this species to subspecies whenever I get a
good look. Myrtle and Audubon's Yellow-rumped Warblers are another good example
of readily identifiable sub-populations. To a lesser degree, most Dark-eyed
Juncos can be sorted to types that most frequently occur in Oregon. On the
reverse side of this coin, I don't have any notion of what a "Song Sparrow
(Pacific Northwest)" is, although I assume most would limit the use of this
designation to the really dark coastal types that we see most often on the west
side of the Cascades. That said, one doesn't have to travel very far east to
start seeing Song Sparrows that are considerably paler in appearance. When I
think of the Pacific Northwest, I don't lop off the eastern two-thirds of
Oregon and Washington.
As those of us who subscribe to OBOL have seen, many of the birds listed in the
daily eBird rarity alerts for Oregon are there solely because we have not added
these regional sub-population taxa or set filters for them in our respective
default county checklists. Ultimately, the eBird project managers are
interested in the most refined reporting possible, with the ultimate goal of
being able to map the ranges of identifiable subspecies and sub-population
groups. In my view, the key word is "identifiable." If we allow the use of
designations for which there are not well-established ID criteria we are
creating a lot of less than ideal and perhaps even incorrect data that we may
have to revisit and unravel someday. There is no easy answer. I am all for
trying to collect subspecies information when available.
I would encourage you all to keep this issue in mind as you review flagged
reports and set filters. Take the extra time to ask observers how or why they
decided to label a bird under one of these murky regional taxa and add them to
the county checklist only when you feel like you are capable of helping your
user base through the process of identifying them.
Finally, some of you may have seen "Mallard (Northern)" pop up in a checklist
or in the Oregon alerts for a particular county. This is the default Mallard
for all parts of North America away from the southerly areas where Mexican
Mallard can be found. Since this is a readily recognizable form and the
presumed type that we get in Oregon, it should be added to all county default
checklists and the filters should be set at the same level as "Mallard." On the
surface this may seem like having two entry slots for the very same bird, but
think of the big picture goal of being able to define the range of this
sub-population of Mallard. Ideally, we want train local users to start entering
their birds as "Mallard (Northern)" rather unspecified "Mallard." It may save
us a lot of work in the future.
I know this post is long and lot of ideas are addressed. Let's try to stay on
top of our respective reviewing responsibilities. Folks who are dedicated about
entering checklists and accurately accounting for what they see and hear
deserve to see their data points represented in the output data in a timely
fashion. Reviewing eBird observations tends to be one of those things that I
forget to do for several weeks at a time, so I have set my phone up to give me
a weekly notification reminding me to do it. Every Sunday at 10AM my phone
beeps at me. It has helped me keep up and stay on top of the review process.
Thanks to all of you for the time that you invest in making Oregon's eBird data
as good as it can be.
Dave Irons
From: g.haworth@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:10:17 -0800
Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update and Ian Davies introduction
To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; id99@xxxxxxxxxxx
Brian, Ian, fellow OR review team:
Among ourselves, we came to decisions of "best case" assignments. These were
based on evolved personal circumstances, balancing the work load of the
available reviewers, and familiarity with the counties to be reviewed. We
still have one outstanding issue and that is what to do with Noah Stryker's
three SE counties during his travels this year.
We have a communal spreadsheet that reflects the decisions we came to. It can
be found here. Currently reviewer access to the filters reflected in this
spreadsheet do not match with current access. Current access matches past
assignments. Changes would need to made to filter access in order for us to
achieve our current thinking on how best to cover Oregon.
greg haworth
Columbia (access) Clackamas (no access) Counties
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Brian Sullivan <bls42@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Everyone
I've been meaning to respond to the recent spate of emails and make sure that
everyone has the correct review assignments in OR and that we can successfully
accomplish any juggling that needs to be done. Luckily, we've just brought on
Ian Davies to help with these kinds of house-keeping issues, so please add Ian
to the orebird list so he can be up to speed on what's happening. In addition
to helping with reviewers/filters, Ian is the point person for content on the
eBird site and social media. Please feel free to email him directly if you have
questions.
I think, once Ian is added, that it would be worth everyone sending an email to
this list that details the OR counties that they are currently covering. That
way Ian can double-check the review assignments and make sure they are up to
date.
Thanks
Brian
--
===========
Brian L. Sullivan
eBird Project Leader
www.ebird.org
Photo Editor
Birds of North America Online
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA
-------------------------------
--
Avian Migration w/ PNW focus
Forays into the field
Other related posts:
