Hunan Global Messenger Technology Co., Ltd. (HQXS) is sponsoring the IWSG Conference 2021 by giving away six GSM/GPS transmitters to one conference participant. How to win the transmitters? Please find out at: https://www.waderstudygroup.org/conferences/2021-virtual-conference/#3
- Sanders, F.J., M.C. Handmaker, A.S. Johnson & N.R. Senner. 2021. Nocturnal roost on South Carolina coast supports nearly half of Atlantic coast population of Hudsonian Whimbrel Numenius hudsonicus during northward migration. Wader Study 128(2): 117–124.
- Summers, R.W., B. Etheridge, N. Christian, N. Elkins & I.R. Cleasby. 2021. Timing, staging, speed and destination of migrant Wood Sandpipers Tringa glareola. Wader Study 128(2): 145–152.
- Adha Putra, C., D. Hikmatullah, I. Febrianto, I. Taufiqurrahman & C. Zöckler. 2021. North Sumatra is an internationally significant region for non-breeding Nordmann’s Greenshanks Tringa guttifer. Wader Study 128(2): 157–164.
by Deborah Buehler originally published in Wader Study 128(2) Imagine that you’re a Hudsonian Whimbrel Numenius hudsonicus, a relatively large shorebird, about 45 cm from head to tail. The tide is up (which means your workday is over), the sun has set, and now you need a safe place to rest – you and nearly 20,000 others. Where do you go? Can 20,000 large birds hide? In this issue of Wader Study, Sanders and colleagues describe a nocturnal roost site in South Carolina, which supports about
Only recently we were hoping to meet in person this year, but the ongoing uncertainties regarding the health emergency have made the decision for us: the IWSG annual conference 2021 will be held online. The meeting will take place from the 8th until the 10th of October. For more information, registration and abstract submission, please visit: https://www.waderstudygroup.org/conferences/2021-virtual-conference/.
- Hari Basnet: Breeding Biology of Wood Snipe Gallinago nemoricola in Lamtang National Park, Nepal
- Sandra Giner & Virginia Sanz: Identification of potential WHSRN sites for the protection of breeding areas of two plovers of conservation concern (C. wilsonia and C. nivosus) in Margarita Island, Venezuela
This year, the IWSG Small Grant Committee are very delighted to support two projects targeting breeding biology and requirements of lesser known and studied species and these studies will definitely add to new knowledge: Hari Basnet: Breeding Biology of Wood Snipe Gallinago nemoricola in Lamtang National Park, Nepal Sandra Giner & Virginia Sanz: Identification of potential WHSRN sites for the protection of breeding areas of two plovers of conservation concern (C. wilsonia and C. nivosus) in
Position advert: International Strategic Planner | Life project “Conservation of wet grassland breeding bird habitats in the Atlantic Region”
The Hannover-Hildesheim office of the Lower Saxony for Water Management, Coastal Protection and Nature Conservation Agency (NLWKN) currently seeking for an "International Strategic Planner (m/f/d) - Nature Conservation" at the Hannover-Hildesheim office of the NLWKN. This fulltime employment, as temporary contract for 5 years, will focus on the processing and coordination of the Integrated LIFE-Project "Conservation of wet grassland breeding bird habitats in the Atlantic Region" (IP LIFE
- Verkuil, Y., J. Jukema, P. S. Tomkovich, N. Rönkä, J. C. E. W Hooijmeijer & T.Piersma. 2021. Striking rusty-brown neck collars in Ruffs: plumage polymorphism or staining? Wader Study 128(1): 36-43.
- L. E. Ogden. 2014. In the world of ruffs, a male bird that's sneaky … and well endowed. Earthtouch News Network. Blog post accessed 9 March 2021 at https://www.earthtouchnews.com/natural-world/animal-behaviour/in-the-world-of-ruffs-a-male-bird-thats-sneaky-and-well-endowed/
- Küpper, C., M. Stocks, J.E. Risse, N. dos Remedios, L.L. Farrell, S.B. McRae, T.C. Morgan, N. Karlionova, P. Pinchuk, Y.I. Verkuil, A.S. Kitaysky, J.C. Wingfield, T. Piersma, K. Zeng, J. Slate, M. Blaxter, D.B. Lank & T. Burke. 2016. A supergene determines highly divergent male reproductive morphs in the Ruff. Nature Genetics 48: 79–83.
- Pyle, P. 2019. Sunset Sanderlings: Digital photography leads to novel insights about the presupplemental molt of the Sanderling. Birding Magazine August 2019: 30–40.
- Delhey, K., A. Peters & B. Kempenaers. 2007. Cosmetic coloration in birds: occurrence, function, and evolution. American Naturalist 169: S145–S158.
- Piersma, T. 2018. Behind the Paper: The Natural History of Our Changing Planet. Nature Portfolio Ecology & Evolution Community. Blog post accessed 9 March 2021 at https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/posts/39860-the-natural-history-of-our-changing-planet?channel_id=521-behind-the-paper
by Deborah Buehler originally published in Wader Study 128(1) Some birds love their fashion. Even waders – known for more practical, muted colours and ‘outfits’ that camouflage – have species amongst them that love to show off their plumage. Ruffs Calidris pugnax have famously extravagant plumage. They’re even named for the typical male’s feathery neck ruffle resembling the exaggerated ruffs fashionable from the mid-sixteenth to mid-seventeenth centuries. In this issue of Wader
An environmental catastrophe looms over Europe’s largest wetland wildernessPolesia is Europe’s Amazon. This stunning floodplain region straddles the borders of Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, and spans 186,000 km2 – roughly twice the size of Portugal. It is one of Europe’s most biodiverse and culturally rich areas. The survival of many globally endangered species depends on it – including European bison, grey wolves and Eurasian lynx as well as thousands of migratory birds. It is an extremely important site for migrating waders. [caption id="attachment_14920" align="aligncenter" width="330"] This stunning region, which straddles the borders of Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, is the continent’s greatest intact floodplain region. Despite ongoing threats from climate change, hunting, logging, and mining, huge areas of Polesia remain pristine. ©https://wildpolesia.org.[/caption] The ‘Polesia – Wilderness without borders’ project, supported by the Endangered Landscapes Programme, brings together organisations and research institutions from four countries to preserve Polesia as one of the last wilderness areas in Europe. But this hidden gem is under threat: Governments of Poland, Belarus and Ukraine plan to build a waterway cutting through Polesia’s heart. The so-called E40 waterway would connect the Black Sea and the Baltic and at 2,000 km in length would be 25 times longer than the Panama Canal. To construct this huge infrastructure project, dredging, damming, straightening and deepening would be needed along some of Europe’s last major undamaged rivers, including the Pripyat and Vistula. This could have disastrous impacts on local communities, the global carbon balance and world class nature - 60 internationally protected biodiversity sites on the proposed E40 route would be directly impacted. Considering climate change and water shortages this project makes even less sense. The E40 waterway would be extremely expensive (over $12 billion) and the economic case for it is weak. Despite this, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine appear to be progressing individual elements of the waterway. ‘Save Polesia’ is an international partnership of six civil society organisations with the aim to stop the E40 waterway plans. Save Polesia believes that before the waterway is progressed further, proper assessment of the whole E40 corridor is urgently needed. This should consider cumulative and transboundary environmental impacts and enable full public participation. Instead of the waterway, Save Polesia encourages national governments to boost local and regional economies by investing in existing rail infrastructure and using the huge potential for nature-based tourism in Polesia. Save Polesia has launched a petition to save Europe’s largest wetland wilderness from the E40 waterway. Please raise your voice to save Polesia and sign our petition: http://chng.it/qjdQRGYs For more information about the ‘Polesia – Wilderness without borders’ project see https://wildpolesia.org/ For more information about the ‘Save Polesia’ campaign see https://savepolesia.org/ [caption id="attachment_14921" align="aligncenter" width="330"] Black-tailed Godwits breed at the River Pripyat Floodplains. Turov area, Polesie, Belarus. © Daniel Rosengren[/caption] Featured image: An aerial photo of the River Pripyat and its surrounding wetlands and oxbow lakes. This is an extremely important site for migrating birds (mainly waders) who stop here to feed on the abundance of food before continuing their migration. Turov area, Belarus. © Daniel Rosengren
An environmental catastrophe looms over Europe’s largest wetland wilderness Polesia is Europe’s Amazon. This stunning floodplain region straddles the borders of Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, and spans 186,000 km2 – roughly twice the size of Portugal. It is one of Europe’s most biodiverse and culturally rich areas. The survival of many globally endangered species depends on it – including European bison, grey wolves and Eurasian lynx as well as thousands of migratory birds. It
Dear Member, We hope this email finds you well and looking forward to the rest of 2021 when we are all hoping life can return to some semblance of normality. The International Wader Study Group is run by a group of dedicated volunteers without whom we could not provide you with connections to the global wader community through publishing Wader Study, our annual conferences and the grants that help fund wader projects. Each volunteer takes the lead on a different aspect of the group’s activities. Being part of this international group is a fantastic opportunity to meet like-minded people and make life-long friends, to learn how an international organisation works, to use existing skills to help the group but also to gain new and highly transferable skills. We are always keen to hear from people who might want to offer their time or expertise to the group. Right now, we have two exciting opportunities to become our next Conference Co-ordinator or our Publicity Officer. We are looking for two enthusiastic “waderologists” who enjoy communicating, are organised and would like to become part of the team running the IWSG. These roles need about a day each month but in the run up to, and during conferences, more time will be needed because of the essential role you will play in ensuring the smooth delivery of these events. The past year has taught us that the tools available online, to communicate and to run conferences in new, interesting and inclusive ways, are rapidly developing so this is an interesting time to be joining our team and you would be fully supported by the IWSG family to help you succeed. Please can I ask, even if these roles are not for you, if you know someone who would be suitable please do pass on this information and encourage them to get in touch. Conference Co-ordinator This role is critical to ensure we run a conference each year. Local teams within the country which is hosting our conference do the ‘on-the-ground’ organisation, put together the programme and abstracts and run the conference. As conference co-ordinator, your role is to find teams who want to host an IWSG conference, support them in planning and running the conference, organise the financial support for delegates from low-income countries and promote the conference to members including via social media. You would become an elected member of the ExCo of IWSG and work closely with the Chair, Membership Secretary, Treasurer, General Secretary and Publicity Officer. It would be great if you had some previous experience of attending an IWSG conference or organising a big meeting or conference. But this is not essential as you will be able to shadow Triin Kaasiku, the current co-ordinator, in the run up to the 2021 conference and we also have a detailed conference organising manual. Publicity Officer This role is all about maintaining and raising the profile of IWSG to the global shorebird community using our Twitter and Facebook social media accounts and other online platforms. One area which we are hoping to continue to develop is the use of Twitter conferences to complement our annual (usually in-person) conference. You will work closely with the ExCo of IWSG but especially the Publishing and Media Editor for Wader Study and the Conference Co-ordinator. We are ideally looking for someone who already has some experience of science communication through social and online media. How to apply? These opportunities are open to everyone. It’s simple, just drop me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org by Monday 12 April. Tell me which role you are applying for and briefly outline why you are interested and what you can bring to the role. I really look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes Jen Smart IWSG ChairFeatured image: Common Redshank Tringa totanus, April 2017, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, USA. ©Christoph Müller.
After years of dedication and service to the IWSG, Triin Kaasiku & Elwyn Sharps left two exiting volunteers positions of conference co-ordinator and publicity officer in the IWSG. Interested in helping us to run the IWSG? Take a close look below at the IWSG chair communication sent to members this week for details about these positions and how to apply, we need you!: Dear Member, We hope this email finds you well and looking forward to the rest of 2021 when we are all hoping life can
“The ÉLVONAL conference provided a remarkable overview of a collaborative research network working on waders worldwide. It was fascinating to learn about the ecology of desert-breeding lapwings, endemic island populations of coursers, social systems of pheasant-tailed jacanas, and other unique systems. Ongoing collection of behavioral and demographic data with standardized protocols will provide an interesting basis for future comparative analyses!” Dr. Brett Sandercock Senior Research Scientist, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Norway
“Unfortunately, other commitments have prevented my participation in earlier ÉLVONAL events – despite their great relevance to my research in the earlier parts of my career, and my maintained interest. I was delighted to receive an invitation from Vojtěch Kubelka to join the online meeting starting later that day, and managed to do so between other commitments. Although I was not able to be in touch throughout, I was extremely impressed by the wide spread of enthusiastic, committed and knowledgeable personnel who have been brought into the team – and their youth, looking a little like the early days of the Wader Study Group, 50 years ago. Now, of course, much stronger techniques are available as well – so all looks good for the future!” Dr. Mike Pienkowski Chairman of the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, United Kingdom
“The conference was well organized, with experienced speakers on focus topic, it gave me some good suggestions and interesting ideas. This was my third time joining ÉLVONAL conference, and its results were each time more and more interesting.” Dr. Zitan Song Post-doc, State Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Sun Yat-sen University, China
“Meeting with the multi-national ELVONAL team is always a pleasure as each team brings their own unique perspectives and expertise in both fieldwork techniques and scientific research so I always learn something new to apply to my own work. The collaborative spirit and welcoming environment makes it easy to participate and have meaningful interactions across all levels of career stages.” Allison Pierce PhD Student, Department of Integrative Biology, University of Colorado Denver, USA
“I thoroughly enjoyed hearing about the research that is being conducted worldwide on shorebird species, especially the diversity in studies and species being covered, and learning about lake species as my species, the Hooded plover, is a beach nesting bird. I am excited to attend more conferences in the future and look forward to seeing what the future holds for ELVONAL research.” Lucy Doran Wildlife and conservation biology honours student, Deakin University, Australia
“ELVONAL's virtual meeting 2021 was very good for me because I don't have much experience monitoring the reproductive biology of the shorebirds. The presentations of experts with many years of work, jointly with the experiences, achievements, limitations, and solutions of other colleagues throughout the world in different environments and realities gave me useful tips to use in my study site.” Virginia Sanz Researcher Ecology Center, Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research, Venezuela
“At this conference, the researchers presented not only their interesting results and shorebird species, but there were many talks about the practical way of shorebird fieldwork. They showed the issues and challenges of field study or gave practical advice. I think this way of the conference was really useful.” Boglárka Bukor PhD student, University of Pannonia, Hungary
“The ÉLVONAL conference was an incredible opportunity for me, as a recent baccalaureate, to meet shorebird scientists from around the world and learn about the research they are conducting. The conference being virtual granted me the opportunity to attend this event that I otherwise may not have been able to. I am grateful to have been able to attend this year’s event and am excited for future meetings.” Hannah Landwerlen Bachelor student, Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, USA[caption id="attachment_14817" align="aligncenter" width="753"] Participants of the IV. ÉLVONAL conference, who were online at the “group picture” moment during one of the conference breaks.[/caption]
Featured image: Resting flock of Bar-tailed Godwits (Limosa lapponica) and Red Knots (Calidris canutus) during their spring migration in North Norway. © Vojtěch Kubelka
Vojtěch Kubelka, Fanni Takács, Karola Szemán, William Jones, Zsófia Tóth & Tamás Székely OVERVIEW To understand mating system evolution of shorebirds, our team is running a 5-year project based at the University of Debrecen, Hungary. To overview the progress with the project, we organised a virtual conference “Sex roles and breeding ecology of shorebirds” during 8–9 January 2021 that had 125 registered participants, 39 pre-recorded talks from 29 presenters from 18 countries, and
Can machines replace humans?Article authored by Deborah Buehler It’s a thought-provoking question. Especially at moment when machines – and algorithms more broadly – are increasingly impacting our lives1. However, one might understandably say that further clarification is needed. What type of machines? What task is to be done? In this issue of Wader Study, Roberto Valle and Francesco Scarton highlight the nuanced way this question could be answered2. Of course, they don’t ask whether machines can replace humans, exactly. They just want a safe and accurate way to count nesting shorebirds and they wonder if machines might help. In this case, the machines are unmanned aerial systems, also known as ‘drones’, a name that may be an onomatopoeia for the mosquito-like noise they make. Drone technology can be useful as well as annoying. Many fields of study have used drones from military intelligence, to civil engineering, to archaeology, to mining; and wildlife biology is no exception3. If you had to count something, in inhospitable territory, wouldn’t you send in the drones? Valle and Scarton needed to count breeding pairs of their study species, Black-winged Stilts Himantopus himantopus and Pied Avocets Recurvirostra avosetta. These birds make nests in difficult-to-reach saltmarshes in the Lagoon of Venice, a 55,000 ha coastal wetland in northeastern Italy. The lagoon is the largest in the Mediterranean Sea and the area is full of soft mud and tidal channels, both of which are easier to fly a drone over than to walk on. [caption id="attachment_14742" align="alignnone" width="960"] Saltmarshes in the Lagoon of Venice in northeastern Italy (photo: Roberto Valle)[/caption] However, before sending in the drones, Valle and Scarton needed to know that the technology could accurately and safely count the birds. Therefore, they compared the safety and effectiveness of drone-conducted counts with traditional ground-based counts. The researchers conducted fieldwork from mid-April to mid-June during the 2017 and 2018 breeding seasons. Surveys were restricted to days with windspeeds less than 10 km/h and no clouds because, although human researchers often work in wind and rain, drones require better weather. Drone and ground surveys took place at 52 colonies over the two years, always either in the morning from 8 am to 10 am or in the afternoon from 4 pm to 6 pm to avoid extreme temperatures. The safety of the birds was top priority, especially since drones are a newer technology. Therefore, the researchers launched drones from sites more than 150 m from the study colony and then flew at a height of 70m until they were directly above the centre of the colony. This ensured that the drone wouldn’t disturb the birds before the survey had started. Much like humans, birds don’t like it when things plummet vertically towards them. For this reason, the researchers used the “lawn mower” pattern, systematically flying back and forth, to lower the drones when it was time to begin the survey. Once the drone was lowered to about 30m, the pilot could see the nests, but couldn’t be certain whether there was a bird present at the nest. Thus, the researchers lowered the drone a further 10 to 20 m. At this height, they flew above the nests at a speed of 15 to 30 km per hour, causing any birds to flush (fly away) from their nests. Disturbing the birds was necessary to record reactions to the drone. These reactions were coded in the field or later from videos as follows: birds sitting on or flushing from a nest were considered a breeding pair, birds strongly reacting to the drone by chasing it were considered probable breeders, even if far from a nest, and the researchers counted one pair for every two birds behaving this way. During each drone flight, a researcher observed the colony from approximately 150 m to check whether nests or young were in danger of predation after the adults were flushed from the nests. Thirty minutes later the researchers approached the colony on foot for the ground survey. During a ground survey, two researchers walked abreast about 10 m apart systematically searching for nests. Every nest with eggs or chicks was recorded as ‘confirmed breeding’. Ground surveys were always done after drone surveys even though the researchers admit that this is a limitation in terms of the comparison of methods. A completely fair comparison would have randomized the order of the surveys. However, in this study, randomization was intentionally traded for the ability to use the ground survey as a safety check on the preceding drone survey. The researchers found no evidence that drone surveys cause undue disturbance to birds. Birds were not scared permanently from their nests, nor were the nests exposed to predators. In fact, the drones caused less disturbance to the birds than humans on the ground. Drone surveys also took less researcher time, even accounting for post-processing work in the lab after drone surveys. Drones were therefore safe and efficient, but were they accurate? Unfortunately, no. Valle and Scarton found that fewer breeding pairs were identified during drone flights than ground counts. This undercounting was substantial, with 18.1% of Black-winged Stilt pairs and 20.5% of Pied Avocet pairs missed during the drone surveys. Furthermore, drone surveys had less sensitivity (true breeding pairs identified as positive), specificity (true non-breeders identified as negative), and accuracy (correctly identified birds divided by the total birds seen). This study shows that there are pros and cons to using drones when surveying nesting shorebirds. Drones did not detect as many nests as ground surveys and falsely identified some nests; however, the drone surveys caused less disturbance to the birds. These results raise the question of whether accuracy could be improved with improved drone technology or whether drones could be useful under some, if not all, circumstances? Valle and Scarton admit that a limitation of their study was the type of drone used. It was a simple model with a standard camera. A larger drone with a higher quality camera might have provided better images and allowed the researchers to distinguish incubating birds from a higher altitude without flushing them from nests. This might improve accuracy while further decreasing disturbance to the birds, but this remains to be tested. The researchers also found that the size and composition of the breeding colony mattered. In large, mixed colonies, birds flushed when the drone was still quite far away in response to alarm calls from only a few species. For example, the presence of Eurasian Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus made this worse because they are very aggressive towards drones. This contributed to undercounting because it was more difficult to identify breeding pairs when the adults were no longer at their nests. Furthermore, if nesting birds were flushed out of sight of the drone pilot, they weren’t counted. The opposite was also a problem, if the same bird repeatedly chased the drone, within the line of sight, it could be double counted. [caption id="attachment_14744" align="aligncenter" width="960"] Eurasian Oystercatcher reacting to drone. (photo: Roberto Valle)[/caption] Knowing that large, multi-species colonies contributed to errors in the drone surveys, the authors asked whether drones might be most useful for smaller colonies of mainly silts and avocets. This was indeed the case. The authors found that both the sensitivity and specificity of the drone surveys were increased in small colonies and that in these circumstances there was nearly perfect agreement between the drone and ground survey methods. So, can machines replace humans? It's a question best answered with context taken into account. In this study, the machines are drones and the task is counting breeding shorebirds. The authors recommend the use of drones only in small colonies without species, like Eurasian Oystercatchers, that react more strongly to drones. In these circumstances, drones provide high accuracy, low disturbance, and shorter time to complete a survey. In other circumstances, the authors do not recommend the use of drones. More broadly, context becomes even more important when asking whether, when and how machines might replace humans. Our world is full of technologies that were unimaginable less than a generation ago. Yet we use these technologies daily and they affect all aspects of our lives4. Machines can do many things better than humans, but there remain many things that humans can do better than machines. We can be empathetic, we can question our own biases, we can use our humanity to fight against rules that shouldn’t be automated5. This study reminds us that striking a balance where context is taken into account may be the best way to synthesize the strengths of both our machines and our own human minds.
- Demetis, D. 2019. Algorithms have already taken over human decision making. Posted in The Conversation 8 Mar 2019 at https://theconversation.com/algorithms-have-already-taken-over-human-decision-making-111436.
- Valle, R.G. & F. Scarton. 2020. Feasibility of counting breeding Pied Avocets and Black-winged Stilts using drones. Wader Study 127(3): 257–265.
- Hodgson, J.C., R. Mott, S.M. Baylis, T.T. Pham, S. Wotherspoon, A.D. Kilpatrick, R.R. Segaran, I. Reid, A. Terauds & L.P. Koh. 2018. Drones count wildlife more accurately and precisely than humans. Methods in Ecology & Evolution 9: 1–8.
- Deibert, R. 2020. Reset: Reclaiming the Internet for Civil Society. House of Anansi Press, Toronto, Canada
- Kantayya, S. (Director). 2020. Coded Bias [Documentary film]. Trailer available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZl55PsfZJQ
Can machines replace humans? Article authored by Deborah Buehler It’s a thought-provoking question. Especially at moment when machines – and algorithms more broadly – are increasingly impacting our lives1. However, one might understandably say that further clarification is needed. What type of machines? What task is to be done? In this issue of Wader Study, Roberto Valle and Francesco Scarton highlight the nuanced way this question could be answered2. Of course, they don’t ask whether