Fern Davies

Members of the Ornithological Community: The American Ornithologist's Union ​(​AOU)​ provides a professional home for ornithologists throughout the Western Hemisphere and is dedicated to supporting their efforts to explore and carry out the scientific research and conservation of birds. Our world is changing, with new challenges and new opportunities, and the AOU is consulting the ornithological community to assess how well we are serving you and addressing your priorities. ​ Please take a few moments to fill out our survey, designed to be ​respectful of your time (10 mins or less). We value your input whether you are a current member, lapsed member, or have never joined the AOU. If you are an ornithologist, your views are important to us. Follow this link to the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/AOUornithologistssurvey Thank you in advance for your time and thoughtful participation in this important survey. I hope to see you in July at this year's annual meeting at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, OK. Respectfully, Scott M. Lanyon AOU President

This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 12 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! Due to the occurrence of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Ontario, APHIS plans to impose import restrictions on imports of avian samples and specimens from this region. Restrictions are already in place for some parts of British Columbia. An APHIS import permit (VS16-3) and a certificate of treatment will be needed (unless the importing lab is USDA-certified as biosafety level 2). It is expected that the restrictions for Ontario will be the same as those previously imposed for British Columbia. Please check back here for updates. This is a complex process and those planning to import from Canada might want to contact the Ornithological Council for assistance.

This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 12 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! The Federal Aviation Administration has proposed rules for the use of drones. The proposed rule was published on 2/23 and the comment period closes on 4/24. https://www.faa.gov/uas/nprm/ There will be a public comment period of at least 60 days. It is almost sure to be extended at least once. It can and usually does takes months and even years from the time the comment period closes to the time the final rule is announced and goes into effect. Especially one that involves public safety. Say, however, the FAA issues regulations that allow the use of drones in U.S. airspace. Will you be allowed to use them to monitor or study birds in the United States? Maybe not. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reportedly takes the position that the Airborne Hunting Act prohibits the use of model aircraft (technically known as small unmanned air vehicles or small unmanned aircraft systems) for monitoring wildlife or doing research on wildlife. It is their position that the only exemptions are for depredation and management activities. The Airborne Hunting Act applies to "any contrivance used for flight in the air" and prohibits "harassment" which is defined as "disturb, worry, molest, rally, concentrate, harry, chase, drive, herd, or torment." Do drones disturb birds? Little research has been done, but from France, seabird ecologist David Gremillet reports that a flock of flamingos seemed to ignore a drone that came as close as 13 feet over their heads. "What did affect the birds, the team discovered, was the angle at which the drone swooped into the swamp or zoo. The quadrocopter had little problem getting close to the birds when it traveled at angles of 20 degrees, 30 degrees, and 60 degrees. But when it descended vertically at a 90-degree angle, it spooked the birds, causing many to fly or move away." The study was published in Biology Letters on 4 February 2015. It was also reported in The Atlantic, with video.

(February 18, 2015, The Auk: Ornithological Advances)—Want to use GPS loggers to track parrots? It’s possible—you just have to make them beak-proof. For a new study in The Auk: Ornithological Advances, Erin Kennedy of the University of Auckland and her colleagues demonstrated this with Keas (Nestor notabilis), a large parrot found in the mountains of New Zealand. To protect the GPS devices from the birds’ crushing beaks and manual dexterity, they sealed them in tough polymer before attaching them to captured Keas with backpack harnesses. Of the 14 birds that were outfitted with the devices, two managed to remove the dataloggers within an hour and two birds were never recaptured, but the researchers were able to successfully track the remaining 10 for a week and identify where and when they foraged, roosted, and interacted with tourists. The parrots behaved normally while wearing the GPS dataloggers and showed no signs of feather or skin damage at the end of the week. GPS data can help identify essential habitats, migratory pathways, potential hotspots for human–wildlife conflict, and more, which can be critical for developing effective conservation and management strategies, and this study confirms that the technique can successfully be applied to parrots. Read the full open-access paper at http://www.aoucospubs.org/doi/full/10.1642/AUK-14-196.1.

This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 12 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! The Fish and Wildlife Service is considering establishing a permitting system that would allow the legal, unintentional killing of the more than 1,000 bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This has been contemplated for some time, even though the 1918 statute does not address the issue of "incidental take" - a term that means unintended take incidental to otherwise lawful activities - such as erecting buildings with windows, driving cars, erecting wind turbines and telecommunications towers, trimming or cutting trees and shrubs, and nearly all human activities. The concept of issuing permits for incidental take rests on the idea that the agency will now be able to require conditions designed to reduce or even eliminate the level of take; the permittees would not be prosecuted provided they complied with those conditions. The concept is already being tested with the new 30-year incidental take permits for Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles. If a permittee fails to comply with permit conditions and avian mortality occurs, the USFWS would be able to suspend or revoke the permit and prosecute the permittee. The legal basis for prosecution in the absence of such a permit is unclear; some lower federal courts have ruled that incidental take can be the basis of liability but others have reached the opposite conclusion. For species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the agency has, until now, preferred to work with industries to encourage the development and implementation of voluntary guidelines. The agency plans to issue a "notice of intent" to prepare an environmental impact statement for permitting the incidental "take" of migratory birds. It is not known when the notice will be published, but it appears that the concept has been under discussion for several years. USFWS Director Dan Ashe announced plans to develop incidental take permits for migratory birds in a June 2014 speech to the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC), a coalition of electric utilities and FWS that develops guidance for minimizing avian electrocutions and collisions with power lines. The agency worked with APLIC for many years to develop guidelines to reduce this mortality but success has been limited. Nonetheless, the USFWS refrained from prosecuting unless a power line company declined to implement recommended measures. The notice of intent will, as required by law, ask for public input and will include public meetings across the county. A rulemaking, if one is proposed, could be many months away. It would almost certainly be met with litigation from conservation organizations, industry, or both. Meanwhile, the Republican-led House is considering legislation that, if enacted, would settle the issue: H.R. 493 would exempt energy companies and others who unintentionally kill or harm migratory birds from criminal penalties under MBTA. ANALYSIS FROM THE ORNITHOLOGICAL COUNCIL: The USFWS permitting offices are already so under-funded and under-staffed that they struggle under their current workloads. This has been the case for many years and continues to worsen. Without additional funding, these new permits would result in a massive slow-down in the issuance of all permits. However, if the proposed incidental take permits carry the substantial fees that are imposed on the eagle permits, it would allow the agency to hire more permits staff. However, the extensive analysis and negotiation typically required for incidental take permits may outstrip even this additional capacity. In other words, it could take longer to obtain scientific research permits. On the other hand, they are going to need quite a lot of ornithological research to determine what measures are or are not effective in reducing mortality!

If you need an permit, the time to apply is...NOW! Do you need one? More than one? What should you do to make the process go quickly and smoothly? This information is provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 11 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! Your advisor has signed off on your research proposal. You’ve got your funding. Your IACUC has approved your protocols. What stands between you and your field work is a permit. Maybe two or more permits (don't forget state permits!). There are a number of things that you can do to make sure you get your Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, and state permits in time to get your field work underway. It can take up to 90 days to obtain a permit - longer if the permit examiner has questions or concerns. And, if you are applying to work on an endangered species, allow six months because the law requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on all permits to "take" all species listed as endangered (but not threatened); that notice-and-comment process can take in excess of six months. If you have questions or need help with permits, contact the Ornithological Council. Check the new BIRDNET for info on permits, including best practices. Your society membership allows your society to support the Ornithological Council and to provide this valuable service to you. Don't forget your state permits. Most states use the term "scientific collecting" to mean any research activity that involves capture and handling. Don't assume that because your research does not involve lethal take, you don't need a scientific collecting permit. In most states, you will need a state permit, although one or two states have some exceptions for banding permits. Need gear? If you buy your banding supplies from the Association of Field Ornithologists, 100% of the profits will support student research. AFO members receive a 10% discount. Society membership has its rewards! Some other helpful hints: Don't assume that you know if a species is protected. The MBTA list includes over 1,000 bird species. In the United States, 80 bird species are listed as endangered and 21 are listed as threatened. Another 214 foreign species are listed as endangered and 17 are listed as threatened. Status changes and some species are listed in only some places. ALWAYS CHECK THE MBTA AND ESA LISTS. You can collect blood and feather samples under a banding permit ONLY if the permit expressly authorizes this activity and ONLY if you are also marking the bird. If you are not marking the bird, you must have a scientific collecting permit. If you wish to collect blood and feather samples under your banding permit, you must request that authority when you file your application. It is not automatically allowed under a banding permit. Yes! You do need a federal scientific collecting permit for every activity that involves capture or handling of a bird protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act other than capture and marking with bands, radio-transmitters, geolocators, patagial tags, neck rings, or other auxiliary markers that are approved by the USGS Bird Banding Lab. If you intend to implant a transmitter (other than subcutaneously), you will need a scientific collecting permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and most state agencies use the term "scientific collecting" to encompass all research activities, unlike scientists, for whom that term connotes permanent removal of an animal from the wild. Apply early! No later than mid-March for a summer field season, and earlier if possible. The permit offices are short-staffed and facing an ever-increasing workload. Remember, yours is not the only permit application they will handle. Besides all the other ornithologists who are submitting applications, they also have to handle applications for rehabilitation, falconry, raptor propagation, taxidermy, and a number of special purpose permits. In 2002, the USFWS conducted a workload analysis. The regional staff (at that time, Region 8 did not exist) were processing about 12,000 permits per year. In the subsequent 10 years, the level of staffing has not increased but the workload has. Although the permit application states that you should allow 60 – 90 days for processing, it might take more time if the permit examiner has questions or if you have to submit additional information. This is particularly true if you are planning to work in more than one region. You will apply in the region that includes the state where you reside or attend school, but that regional office will consult with the regional offices that cover the other places where you plan to work, and that consultation will take time. And, of course, because workflow varies, your permit application might be one of an unusually large number of applications that arrive over a short period of time. The absence of an examiner, planned or otherwise, can cause a back-up. If your permit is delayed for any reason, you and the permit examiner will both be in the frustrating position of having to rush to get the permit in time. If you apply early, these problems are less likely to result in your not having your permit when you need it. If you are planning to start your work in mid-May, for instance, try to apply by mid-January. Make your requests clear and simple. State exactly what you are seeking permission to do before you go into more detail about the project. Example: I plan to conduct a study of the impact of rodenticides on Barn Owl reproduction. To do this, I will: locate the nest holes of up to 100 Barn Owls and place cameras inside the nest holes; use the camera to monitor the number of eggs laid and the number hatched; take blood samples from not more than 150 hatchlings until the last bird fledges or dies; use the camera to determine the number and frequency of feedings; periodically check the nest hole to obtain pellets I will compare the results from 50 nests in an area known to be free of rodenticides to those of 50 nests in an area where rodenticide use is known and documented. [*]If you have more than one project planned, it will help to include a table that lists the species, number of birds, type of activity, and location. If your permit will cover more than one project, describe the projects in a numbered list and key each line in the table to the project description. Example: We seek authority for the following activities: Species Number Activity Location Project description Common Loon (Gavia immer) up to 250 Collect nonviable eggs and broken shells Maine, Vermont, New York 1 All passerines unlimited Collect (salvage) birds found dead All states 2 Barn Owl (Tyto alba), Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus), Barred Owl (Strix varia) up to 50 of each Obtain crop samples Pennsylvania 3 Clark’s Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana up to 35 per year Collect live birds Arizona 4 Make sure the numbers in the table match the number of birds in the project description. [*]Remember that for MBTA permits, you are allowed by law to continue the permitted activities if you have applied for renewal at least 30 days prior to the expiration date (and the permit has not been revoked or suspended). You can avoid worrying about receiving your renewed permit if you remember to apply at least 30 days before the current permit expires. So do not worry that if you apply early, your permit will expire before you can complete your work. Just be sure to get your renewal application at least 30 days before the current permit expires and you can continue your work. However, please note that the expired permit does not authorize any new projects that might be included in your renewal application. You must have the renewed permit in hand before you can begin any new projects that were not listed on the expired permit. [*]Do all you can to be sure your permit covers all the activities that your research project will entail. Having to apply for amendments just increases the workload - including your workload, and your expenses - and slows things down for you and everyone else . For instance, do you anticipate bringing birds into captivity to study in the lab? Be sure you state what you plan to do with the birds when the research is completed. If you don’t plan to release them (or your IACUC won’t approve a protocol that entails release) make sure the permit application asks for authority to keep the birds after the research is completed, or give the birds to a zoo, other researcher, or euthanize the birds and give the carcasses to a museum or teaching collection. [*]If you plan to work on federal land (such as National Wildlife Refuges, national parks, Forest Service or BLM property), check these guides: http://www.nmnh.si.e...rmit/index.html [*]·Under some circumstances, you may need to contact the USFWS to determine if you need an ESA permit, even if you are not studying an ESA species. The USFWS has no official policy at this time. The OC has asked the USFWS to issue formal guidance but in the meanwhile, err on the side of caution. If you will use non-selective capture techniques ( such as mist nets or rocket nets, for instance) or using other techniques such as predator playback or nest searching in an area where a federally-listed species is known to occur and within the habitats where it occurs, then you should communicate with the endangered Species office. They will determine if you will need an endangered species “Section 10” (incidental take) permit. This would be true for all endangered Species, not just listed bird species. If the endangered Species office determines that your activity is not likely to impact a listed species in the project area, then you should obtain a written determination for your records. It is advisable to contact the endangered Species office before applying for a Section 10 permit; provide as much detail as possible about your project so they can make this determination. Finally - READ YOUR PERMITS WHEN YOU RECEIVE THEM! Make sure they allow you to do what you need to do. Make sure you understand the terms and conditions.

This news and analysis are provided by the Ornithological Council, a consortium supported by 12 ornithological societies. Join or renew your membership in your ornithological society if you value the services these societies provide to you, including Ornithology Exchange and the Ornithological Council! Minnesota 28 March 2015: The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has confirmed the presence of highly pathogenic H5N2 avian influenza (HPAI) in a commercial turkey flock in Stearns County, Minnesota. This is the third confirmation in a commercial flock in Minnesota. The flock of 39,000 turkeys is located within the Mississippi flyway where this strain of avian influenza has previously been identified. CDC considers the risk to people from these HPAI H5 infections in wild birds, backyard flocks and commercial poultry, to be low. No human infections with the virus have been detected at this time. Minnesota 11 March 2015: The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has confirmed the presence of highly pathogenic H5N2 avian influenza in a commercial turkey flock in Pope County, Minnesota.This is the first finding in the Mississippi flyway.It is the same strain of avian influenza that has been confirmed in backyard and wild birds in Washington, Oregon and Idaho as part of the ongoing incident in the Pacific flyway. Samples from the turkey breeder replacement flock, which experienced increased mortality, were tested at the University of Minnesota Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory and the APHIS National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa confirmed the finding. APHIS is partnering closely with the Minnesota Board of Animal Health on a joint incident response. State officials quarantined the affected premises and the remaining birds on the property will be depopulated to prevent the spread of the disease. Birds from the involved flock will not enter the food system. CDC considers the risk to people from these HPAI H5 infections in wild birds, backyard flocks, and commercial poultry, to be low. No human infections with these viruses have been detected at this time. The Minnesota Department of Health is working directly with poultry workers at the affected facility to ensure they are taking the proper precautions.As a reminder, the proper handling and cooking of poultry and eggs to an internal temperature of 165 ˚F kills bacteria and viruses. Federal and State partners are working jointly on additional surveillance and testing in the nearby area, following existing avian influenza response plans. The United States has the strongest AI surveillance program in the world, and USDA is working with its partners to actively look for the disease in commercial poultry operations, live bird markets, and in migratory wild bird populations. These virus strains can travel in wild birds without them appearing sick. People should avoid contact with sick/dead poultry or wildlife. If contact occurs, wash your hands with soap and water and change clothing before having any contact with healthy domestic poultry and birds. Missouri 11 March 2015: The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has confirmed the presence of highly pathogenic H5N2 avian influenza (HPAI) in two separate commercial turkey flocks in Missouri. The flocks are located in Jasper County and Moniteau County, within the Mississippi flyway where this strain of avian influenza has previously been identified. CDC considers the risk to people from these HPAI H5 infections in wild birds, backyard flocks and commercial poultry, to be low. Samples from the turkey flocks, which experienced increased mortality, were tested at the Missouri Department of Agriculture Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory and the APHIS National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa confirmed the findings. APHIS is working closely with the Missouri Department of Agriculture on a joint incident response. State officials quarantined the affected premises and the remaining birds on the properties will be depopulated to prevent the spread of the disease. UPDATE 19 Feb 2015: First published report on H5N1 available. British Columbia 9 Feb 2015: H5N1 has also been detected in poultry in British Columbia. This strain also differs from the Asian strain. "Based on the limited partial sequence of the H5 and N1 gene segments obtained this far, it appears very likely that this is the same or a very similar virus to the ... H5N1 virus in Washington state, but more sequencing will be needed to make a final conclusion," the Canada Food Inspection Agency said in its Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 has been detected for the first time in a US bird, in Washington state, according to a report filed by John Clifford, DVM, deputy administrator with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The report, posted yesterday by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), details a novel H5N1 virus found in a wild green-winged teal in Whatcom County that resulted from reassortment between a Eurasian (EA)-type H5N8 virus and North American avian influenza strains. It is critically important to note, per the U.S. Geological Survey, that this is a different strain from that found in Asia. Its not known to harm humans nor has it been found in domestic poultry. This Washington state strain incorporates genes from North American waterfowl-associated viruses. Unlike the Asian H5N1 strain that has been found in Asia, Europe, and Africa, this Washington state strain has only been found in wild waterfowl and has not been associated with human illness, nor has this new Washington state strain been found in domestic poultry. The virus was detected in a hunter-killed bird as part of increased avian flu surveillance in wild birds, according to the report. Whole-genome sequencing placed it in EA H5 clade 2.3.4.4. Its PB2, H5, NP, and MP components are more than 99% identical to the HPAI H5N8 strain found in a wild gyrfalcon in the same county in December. It also contains PB1 genes that are 98% identical to those in a HPAI H5N2 found in a northern pintail duck, also in Whatcom County in December, as well as PA, N1, and NS components from a North American low-pathogenic wild bird lineage. This follows confirmation of the the presence of highly pathogenic (HPAI) H5 avian influenza in wild birds in Whatcom County, Washington. Two separate virus strains were identified: HPAI H5N2 in northern pintail ducks and HPAI H5N8 in captive Gyrfalcons that were fed hunter-killed wild birds. There is no immediate public health concern with either of these avian influenza viruses. Both H5N2 and H5N8 viruses have been found in other parts of the world and have not caused any human infection to date. The finding in Whatcom County was quickly reported and identified due to increased surveillance for avian influenza in light of the HPAI H5N2 avian influenza affecting commercial poultry in British Columbia, Canada. Washington State, USDA, and other Federal partners are working jointly on additional surveillance and testing of birds in the nearby area. Ornithologists working in the Pacific Northwest and particularly those working on waterfowl, may want to review the Ornithological Council's fact sheet on zoonotic infectious disease.

The ambitious IOC World Bird List has a set of 10 laudable principles for assigning a single, official name for every species. Among them: “Existing usage would be a predominant guideline. A long-established name would not be changed just to correct a perceived inaccuracy or misdescription.” A fine rule, as there is much to be said for stability in long-standing names. Still…some bird names are real head-scratchers as they simply do not describe the bird at all. Ouzel. Pipit. Erne. Great words for crossword-puzzlers but they tell you nothing about the bird. Dipper is a vast improvement over water ouzel, especially as ouzel was the name for the Common Blackbird. Even worse, some names are inaccurate and misleading. As Elliott Coues, a member of the first checklist committee noted in the case of the oystercatchers, “Oyster opener would be a better name, as oysters do not run very fast.” (And here you thought that Coues had no sense of humor). What would you call an insectivorous bird that is not related to hawks, that does not resemble hawks, that is not active at night, and flies much like a bat? Common Nighthawk, of course. What if we were the ornithologists of the 1700s who first described and named the birds? What if you could re-name them all? What would you call that Common Nighthawk? This irregular feature will keep us busy for years. As Ludlow Griscom argued in 1947, some 80% of the vernacular names of North American birds would have to be junked. Of course, he also argued against the value of the effort, saying that vernacular names should be scrapped: “If we had a Gallup poll, and a thousand bird students of proper geographic distribution sent in a name on a postcard1, it would be very surprising if a hundred of them picked the same one. Meanwhile the A.O.U. Committee has agreed to provide a species name; whatever one they dig up, my guess is that they will be soundly denounced by a certain percentage of students.” So…get ready to re-name and get ready to denounce the names proposed for Chordeiles minor. Submit your ideas in the comments section. 1 Like a tweet, but on a small piece of stiffened paper and sent through the U.S. mail, an ancient form of transmitting information. It also required a small piece of paper fastened to the corner of the stiffened paper. Known as a stamp, it signified that the fee for transmittal had been paid to the U.S. Postal Service, which would then physically carry the postcard to the recipient.

Citizen science is nothing new! Back in 1881, ornithologist Wells Cooke organized volunteers throughout the Mississippi Flyway to collect data on the arrival and departure dates of migratory birds. For this work, he was eulogized in the Auk as the "Father of cooperative study of bird migration in America." His success sparked the interest of C. Hart Merriam, of the newly formed American Ornithologist’s Union (AOU) who expanded the volunteer network to include the entire United States, Canada and a portion of the West Indies. The program was then passed, in the late 1880’s, to the Division of Economic Ornithology (then in the Dept. of Agriculture; it was the forerunner of the Bureau of the Biological Survey, which later became part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) where it reached its greatest extent of 3000 volunteers. By the time the program was discontinued in the 1970s, it had amassed millions of hand-written cards. Cards that are perishable and from which data extraction would be far too time consuming for an individual researcher. Today, the USGS, under the leadership of Jessica Zelt, has scanned the records and place the images online, where volunteers from all over the world have been transcribing the content and entering it into a database for analysis. This North American Bird Phenology Program is part of the USA National Phenology Network which collects phenological observations of plants and animals in cooperation with existing phenology monitoring programs, with the aim to increase understanding of the phenology of organisms and landscapes and how the respond to environmental variation and climate change. Field notes are another invaluable source of information that until recently have been largely inaccessible. Now the Ernst Mayr Library of the Museum of Comparative History at Harvard has launched a project to digitize and transcribe the field notes of ornithologist William Brewster. Brewster (1851-1919) was a renowned American amateur ornithologist, first president of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, and a president of the American Ornithologists’ Union. He is the namesake of the AOU's prestigious Brewster Medal. His collection of over forty thousand bird specimens, collected from 1861 until his death in 1919, was bequeathed to the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. It is considered one of the finest private collections of North American birds ever assembled. Though Brewster collected throughout North America, his collection is especially comprehensive in its coverage of the birds of New England. Brewster thoroughly documented his collecting trips. His journals and diaries are a gold mine of scientific observations and a delightful account of years spent exploring the woods, fields, lakes, and rivers of New England. The Library is digitizing its collection of Brewster’s field notes and observations, and making these available worldwide via the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL). As part of a project led by the Missouri Botanical Garden, and funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the library has begun efforts to transcribe Brewster’s voluminous field notes with the ultimate goal of making the full text of his observations searchable and available for any number of uses. As an initial trial project, the library has placed ten digitized volumes of field notes on two crowdsourcing websites, and invites anyone interested to help transcribe Brewster’s journals. The crowdsourcing websites chosen for this project are the Biodiversity Volunteer Portal (BVP), a collaboration between the Australian Museum and the Atlas of Living Australia; and a BHL installation of FromThePage, a transcription tool developed by Ben Brumfield. Please visit one or both of these transcription sites, create an account, and enjoy Brewster’s idyllic writing style while helping to unlock his valuable observations for the benefit of all. While there, browse Brewster’s diaries and journals on the BHL portal.

[update 7 November 2014: Tim Birkhead's campaign was a great success - he has now reached 102% of his fundraising goals! However, for those in the U.S., keep reading anyway] Every year, we hear the same refrain: research funding is insufficient. However much Congress allocates, it is never enough. When said by the biomedical folks, I just chuckle. Folks – you have NO idea what “insufficient” really means. And even though the National Science Foundation has little compared to the National Institutes of Health, it still had $5.81 billion in its Research and Related Activities account for basic research, not to mention another $486 million in the Education and Human Resources account, which, among other things, funds graduate research fellowships, research at undergraduate schools, and early career development. Consider the plight of researchers – the few remaining! - at the U.S. Geological Survey who have almost no research funding and are thus forced to beg other government agencies for contracts; they have no funding to travel to scientific society meetings and often work in facilities so dilapidated that buildings have been condemned. And things are getting worse. It is becoming commonplace to see young researchers trying to scrape together pennies and nickels with Kickstarter campaigns. That’s worrisome enough – if young researchers can’t find funding, they are not likely to complete their degrees. Net result – fewer ornithologists in the future. Just when you think it can’t get any worse, this blow-to-the-gut news from renowned researcher Tim Birkhead reaches your inbox: For the last 42 years I have maintained a long-term study of Common Guillemots (Uria aalge; known as Common Murres in North America) on Skomer Island, Wales. Earlier this year the Welsh government chose not to continue to fund this study even though we had just experienced the worst seabird disaster for several decades in which over 40,000 seabirds, including many guillemots (and including many of our colour-marked individuals from Skomer) starved to death as a result of persistent storms. The aim of the study has been two-fold: (i) to understand how the population 'works', and (ii) to provide a scientifically robust monitoring programme which quantifies (annually) numbers, survival, timing of breeding, breeding success and chick diet. Concern over the lack of funding prompted the journal Nature to ask me to provide and account of the situation, which I have done here: http://www.nature.com/news/stormy-outlook-for-long-term-ecology-studies-1.16185 And because there seems to be no other way be able to continue the study I have resorted to crowd-sourcing https://www.justgiving.com/timbirkheadguillemots/ If you can help I will be extremely grateful. The support I have had already is breath-taking, and we have recently reached half way point towards the target (Another article about the situation appeared in the Guardian) It is beginning to look like ornithological research will go the way of the murres. That such desperately needed research conducted by so decorated an ornithologist (including the Elliott Coues award from the American Ornithologists’ Union) could be hinging on coins dropped into an electronic tin cup is baffling, discouraging, and deeply worrisome. If Tim Birkhead can’t get funding…? For those in the U.S., things may soon take a turn for the much worse. The conservatives in Congress have already demanded that NSF fund primarily “research in the national interest.” The “First Act” that was introduced in the House in May has yet to make it through that chamber, but once the Senate turns red, legislation of this sort could easily make it through both the House and Senate. Thus far, the focus has been on the social sciences, but it doesn’t take much to wonder how long it will be before the biological sciences make the hit list.

2014 AOU SENIOR AWARDS 2014 RALPH W. SCHREIBER CONSERVATION AWARD STEPHEN KRESS The RW Schreiber Conservation Award honors extraordinary scientific contributions to the conservation, restoration, or preservation of birds and/or their habitats by an individual or small team. This year’s recipient is a conservation legend. Dr. Stephen Kress from the National Audubon Society is internationally known as the founder of “Project Puffin”, his decades long effort to restore Atlantic Puffins to their original breeding islands in the Gulf of Maine. The story of Project Puffin and the resulting success is unprecedented. The project required extensive knowledge of the breeding biology and natural history of puffins. The Project crew prepared Eastern Egg Rock by creating burrows de novo and removing predators, then transporting the chicks and establishing them in their new burrows, and then raising the birds entirely by hand to independence. Because puffins take 4-5 years before they return to the colony to breed for the first time and the Project personnel worked to create an environment, that would “welcome” the puffins back and encourage them to stay without any reassurance if or when the birds would return. Incredibly enough, all of the work paid off, and a successfully self-sustaining breeding colony of Atlantic Puffins was reestablished at Eastern Egg Rock. In 1981, there were four nesting pairs at Eastern Egg Rock, and now over 120 pairs nest on the island. While waiting for the Egg Rock puffins to return and for the colony to grow, Steve and Project Puffin staff worked to restore seabirds on other islands. They transplanted puffins to Seal Island in Penobscot Bay and created a second self-sustaining colony that grew to 546 pairs in 2011. In addition to puffins, Steve and his staff began working to restore populations of other seabirds, specially terns and storm-petrels, to Maine. According to USFWS: –96% of the Arctic Terns breeding in the lower 48 states do so on Gulf of Maine islands -- 85% of all Razorbills -- 90% of all Atlantic puffins breeding in the US do so o n Gulf of Maine islands. The techniques developed through Project Puffin have been used on at least 40 seabird species in 12 countries including the Dark-rumped Petrels (Ecuador), Short-tailed Albatross (Japan), Gould’s Petrel (Australia), and Common Murre (California). Steve is currently the Vice President for Bird Conservation for the National Audubon Society as well as Director of the Society’s Maine Coast Seabird Sanctuaries. He has had immeasurable impact on the conservation of numerous seabird species across the globe. His work has greatly supported development of conservation policy, as well as public education, engagement and outreach. It is for these reasons and more that the AOU proudly awards Dr. Stephen Kress the 2014 Ralph W. Schreiber Conservation Award. 2014 Marion Jenkinson AOU Service Award Sara R. Morris The Marion Jenkinson Service Award is given to an individual who has performed continued extensive service to the AOU, including holding elected offices but emphasizing volunteered contributions and committee participation. Recipients are selected by the AOU Executive Committee. The award consists of a framed certificate and honors Marion Jenkinson Mengel, who served the AOU as Treasurer and in other capacities for many years. This year’s award is presented to outgoing AOU Secretary Sara Morris for her significant contribution of service to the AOU. Sara became a member of AOU as a graduate student in 1990, was voted an Elective Member in 2004, and a Fellow in 2010. She has served on numerous AOU committees including the Web Committee (2006-present), Finance Committee (2005-2006), Student Awards Committee (2002-2003). We are particularly grateful to Dr. Morris for these past 8 years as Secretary of the AOU. In this role, she has served as the instant calendar, planner, by-laws expert, organizational fiend, true thinker and voice of reason on all issues facing the AOU Executive Committee and the Council. She is truly remarkable. Sara is also currently first vice-president of the Wilson Ornithological Society and will be its next president. Thus, she will be missed on the AOU Council and Executive Committee. We owe Sara a tremendous debt of gratitude for her dedication to the AOU. We believe Marion Jenkinson would be proud as well. NED K. JOHNSON YOUNG INVESTIGATOR AWARD ALEX JAHN This award recognizes work by an ornithologist early in his/her career who shows distinct promise for future leadership in the profession. The award honors Ned K. Johnson, a lifelong supporter and former President (1996-1998) of the AOU. We are pleased to present Dr. Alex Jahn with the 2014 Ned K. Johnson Young Investigator Award. Alex’s passion is austral migration -- a stunningly neglected topic. More than 98% of papers published on bird migration focus on migrants that breed in North America and Eurasia, despite the incredible diversity of migrants in South America. Alex charged into this void. For his Master’s work at the University of Arkansas, he chose to study migration in the Chaco region of Bolivia. His Ph.D. at the University of Florida focused on partial migration of Tropical Kingbirds that breed in Bolivia. During this time, he discovered that well-supported hypotheses to explain partial migration in North America do not apply in South America; his results firmly rejected hypotheses that are taken for granted by practically all ornithologists. In short, he argues that seasonality of temperature drives migration in the Northern Hemisphere, whereas seasonality of rainfall drives migration in the Southern Hemisphere. Alex’s unusually broad perspective on migration is widely sought out. He has written two reviews on austral migration: one in Ecological Monographs, one in Ecological Applications In 2013, Dr. Jahn was the first author on two groundbreaking papers in The Auk that used geolocators to provide the first documentation of a migratory passerine’s annual movements in South America. He is a also co-author of Guide to Birds of Bolivia, which will be published this year. The National Geographic Society has recognized the unusual scope of his work with two Research Grants. In summary, we believe that Alex has truly been a leader in the study of bird migration in Latin America and certainly has a bright future ahead of him. The AOU is so pleased and proud to name him as our Young Investigator of 2014. 2014 ELLIOTT COUES AWARD Staffan Bensch The Elliott Coues Award recognizes outstanding and innovative contributions to ornithological research regardless of the geographic location of the work. The award is named in honor of Elliott Coues, a pioneering ornithologist of the western United States and a founding member of the AOU. This year, the AOU presents the Elliott Coues Award to Dr. Staffan Bensch, Professor of Animal Ecology at Lund University. Professor Bensch is an accomplished and highly productive avian ecologist and evolutionary biologist, who has produced a significant body of work across several important areas of avian research, including: genetics of migration in warblers population genetics of migratory songbirds the characterization, impact and evolution of avian malaria; the evolution of avian sex chromosomes; and the genetics of speciation in birds. His work in all of these areas has been ground-­‐breaking and he has produced more than 170 contributions to the scientific literature, much of it in ornithological journals. Professor Bensch received his doctoral degree from Lund University in 1993, conducted postdoctoral work at the University of California, San Diego in 1994-­‐1995, and has been in research and faculty appointments at Lund University since that time. He has had continuous funding from Swedish and EU funding agencies. He is known among biologists for showing considerable depth of knowledge in spite of the extensive breadth of his research interests and experience, and for being equally at home in the field and lab, and at the computer. Dr. Bensch began his career conducting analyses of the behavioral and population ecology of Swedish Great Reed Warblers, much in collaboration with Denis Hasselquist and others in this group. Staffan developed and applied powerful molecular markers and methods that proved extremely useful in assessing the mating patterns, sexual selection, population genetics and phylogeographic structure of this species. Staffan also developed a major program assessing the patterns of migration in Eurasian warblers, in particular assessing the origins and effects of migratory divides in differentiation and speciation. He has applied classical, isotope, and molecular marker methods to characterize these divides in the Willow Warbler, and has made great strides toward determining the genetic basis of migratory orientation and behavior with recent transcriptome sequencing and other genomic approaches. Recently, Staffan has had major interests and success in studying the evolution of sex chromosomes and sex-­‐limited gene expression. He and colleagues made a fascinating discovery of a novel neo-­‐sex chromosome in passerine birds, in particular in Old World warblers. A portion of chromosome 4, autosomal in other birds, is now showing sex specific patterns of gene expression, and sex-­‐linked inheritance. In short, Professor Staffan Bensch is a highly regarded ornithologist who has greatly enhanced our understanding of the ecology and evolution of birds and their blood parasites, and for these reasons the AOU proudly presents the Elliott Coues Award to Staffan Bensch. 2014 WILLIAM BREWSTER AWARD Geoffrey Hill The William Brewster Award is given annually to the author or co-authors of an exceptional body of work on birds of the Western Hemisphere. The award consists of a medal and an honorarium provided through the endowed William Brewster Memorial Fund of the American Ornithologists' Union. The award is in honor of William Brewster, one of the founding members of the AOU. This year’s recipient of the Brewster Medal is Professor Geoffrey Hill from Auburn University. Professor Hill is without question one of the most prolific, influential, and successful scientists who has ever worked on bird plumage coloration and the evolution of animal signals. Geoff has authored 225 papers, theoretical papers and book chapters in first-rate journals, (11,000 total citations) and edited a two-volume book with Kevin McGraw on bird coloration that is already a landmark publication in behavioral and evolutionary ecology. His books on House Finches (A Red Bird in a Brown Bag), bird colors (Bird Coloration) and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Ivorybill Hunters) are very popular far beyond our small scientific community. Geoff’s pioneering work on mate choice in House Finches is among the best studies ever done in this area and, consequently, his study organism is now widely viewed as one of the model systems for the study of female mate choice and sexual selection, among other things. Geoff is a brilliant experimentalist, with a knack for conducting elegant studies that cut to the heart of a question: his designer-finches produced by diet variation provide a good example of this. Professor Hill’s work on the carotenoid-based pigmentation of plumage coloration is now widely viewed as a classic study (his Nature paper on this has 570 citations) that helped spawn an entire area of research that continues to expand into new and interesting dimensions (e.g., the role of carotenoids in immune function). Geoff has also contributed in important ways to training the next generation of ornithologists and several rising stars have come through his lab as graduate students or postdocs (e.g., Kevin McGraw, Renee Duckworth, Alex Badyaev, Matt Shawkey and Stephanie Doucet, to name few). Therefore, with his international reputation for excellence in avian research, his outstanding record of publications, and his commitment to teaching and outreach in ornithology, the AOU proudly awards Geoff Hill the 2014 William Brewster Medal.

Waterbirds Editor’s Choice: Loon Research and Conservation in North America Waterbirds 37 (Special Publication I) The song of the Common Loon (Gavia immer) is evocative of many areas of North America: spring would not be the same without this amazing song carrying over northern lakes. Using a custom-designed microphone array to collect landscape-scale recordings, Dan Mennill's bioacoustic analyses focused on understanding how their vocal output varied with time of day, time of year, and in response to variation in weather. Common Loons showed significant diel variation in vocal output, producing more wail, yodel, and tremolo calls at night than during the day; the wail, yodel, and tremolo calls transmit significantly farther at night than during the day. These results provide quantitative details of Common Loon vocal signaling strategies, revealing that this species calls when abiotic conditions are ideal for long-range signaling. Mennill, D. 2014. Variation in the Vocal Behavior of Common Loons (Gavia immer): Insights from Landscape-level Recordings. Waterbirds 37 (Special Publication I): 26-36. This open access article can be viewed at: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1675/063.037.sp105 Why do birds nest where they do? A new paper using Common Loons (Gavia immer) explored aspects of this question. Common Loons nest throughout the northern reaches of North America. Paul Radomsky and co-authors investigated shoreline attributes and nesting segments of lake shores on 35 lakes in north- central Minnesota. The resulting nesting habitat models were used to predict nesting sites for a small set of independent lakes. The ability to predict suitable Common Loon nesting sites should lead to the greater protection or restoration of these valuable areas and enhance conservation efforts across the state. Radomsky, P. J., K. Carlson and K. Woizeschke. 2014. Common Loon (Gavia immer) Nesting Habitat Models for North-central Minnesota Lakes. Waterbirds 37 (Special Publication I): 102-117. This open access article can be viewed at: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1675/063.037.sp113

The Margaret Morse Nice Medal Lecture is awarded annually to an individual who exemplifies her scientific curiosity, creativity and insight, her concern for the education of young and amateur ornithologists, and her leadership as an innovator and mentor. This year’s recipient of the Margaret Morse Nice Medal - Don Kroodsma - personifies these characteristics … The Wilson Ornithological Society recognizes Don for his lifetime of outstanding work on bird song. As Don has written on his blog, “It was the spring of 1968, my last semester in [Hope] College, when I became hooked on birds in general [i think a singing Marsh Wren], and a few months later on birdsong in particular.” After earning his Ph.D. at Oregon State University, Don was a Postdoctoral Fellow and then an Assistant Professor at Rockefeller University. In 1980, he moved to University of Massachusetts at Amherst (a mile from where MMN had grown up), where he remained until he retired (early) in 2003. During his academic career, Don says, “I asked question after question, about wrens and chickadees and warblers and sparrows and flycatchers and almost any bird who sang.” And he published: 75 academic articles, more than 25 popular articles, several books … Don chose to retire early so that he could celebrate birdsong full-time. In her speech presenting the medal, WOS past-president E. Dale Kennedy said, "I want to get back to two topics that connect Don and Margaret Morse Nice (apart from the Amherst connection). In 1915, Margaret Morse Nice published a paper, “The development of a child’s vocabulary in relation to environment,” based on her observations of her daughter Constance at ages 18 months, 3 years, and 4 years. Don Kroodsma’s dissertation was, “Singing behavior of the Bewick’s Wren: development, dialects, population structure, and geographical variation.” He studied the development of language in his daughter and compared it with development of song in songbirds (“Cousin Songbird” in Birder’s World in 1993). On March 15, 1928, Margaret wrote in her journal, “The chorus of song is bewildering in its beauty and its sense of joy… What a blessing it is to be alive this bright morning of early spring…” That same sense of joy is expressed by Don in his Preface to The Singing Life of Birds (2005): “Somewhere, always, the sun is rising, and somewhere, always, the birds are singing.” About the Margaret Nice Morse Medal In 1888 the Wilson Ornithological Club was founded, and Margaret Morse turned five years old in Amherst, Massachusetts, where her father taught history at Amherst College. In 1891 she received her first real bird book, Our Common Birds and How to Know Them, and in 1896 she wrote and published “Fates and fortunes of Fruit-acre birds.” She graduated from Mount Holyoke College in 1906 and, a year later, entered Clark University as one of only two women graduate students. She earned a Master of Science degree in 1910 for the first comprehensive study of diet in the Northern Bobwhite. In 1908 she married Blaine Nice, a graduate student in physiology also at Clark University. In 1913 they moved to Norman, Oklahoma, where she wrote “The Birds of Oklahoma,” published in 1931. In 1927 the family moved to Columbus, Ohio, where Margaret studied Song Sparrows in her yard and neighboring vacant lots along the Olentangy River. Margaret Morse Nice joined the American Ornithologists’ Union in 1907 and attended her first meeting in 1908. In 1920 she was the only woman to present a paper. In 1921 she joined the Wilson Ornithological Club and attended her first Wilson meeting in 1927 at which time she reported on the nesting of the Myrtle Warbler. In 1933 she founded the Recent Literature section of Bird-Banding, now the Journal of Field Ornithology and wrote 1800 reviews over the next nine years, many of these commenting on articles written in foreign languages of which she spoke five fluently. In 1935 she was elected Second Vice-President of the Wilson Ornithological Society and succeeded to its Presidency in 1937, the same year in which she was elected a Fellow of the American Ornithologists’ Union, only the second woman so honored. 1937 was also the year in which the first volume of her Studies in the life history of the Song Sparrow appeared. In 1939 she published her popular account “The watcher at the nest.” In 1943, she published the second volume of “Studies in the life history of the Song Sparrow” and was awarded the Brewster Medal for her landmark life history studies. She wrote several important reviews of territoriality in 1941, of incubation periods in 1954, and of behavioral development in precocial birds in 1962. She was awarded honorary doctorates by Mount Holyoke College in 1954 and Elmira College in 1962. One of her close friends and colleagues, Nobel-laureate Konrad Lorenz offers the following personal reminiscence: “Margaret Morse Nice was a naturalist in the truest sense of the word. She combined a poet’s appreciation of nature’s beauty with a scientist’s analytical mind. Her simple and artless description of natural things often achieved an effect reminiscent of Thoreau’s writing. Her greatest gift was an infinite joy in observation for its own sake which, unbiased and free from any hypotheses or prejudice, is the very best basis for the understanding of animal behaviour. Another outstanding trait of her character was her engaging simplicity … a property which is rarely found in combination with an intelligence such as hers. Her attitude towards nature remained … that of a child’s wide-eyed wonder, combined with a childlike curiosity, which is exactly what a scientist’s attitude ought to be, but so very seldom is.”

The Association of Field Ornithologists Alexander F. Skutch Award for Excellence in Neotropical Ornithology is awarded periodically to a deserving ornithologist nominated by peers and selected by the Skutch Medal committee of the AFO. This year an award is presented to James W. Wiley [currently affiliated with University of Maryland Eastern Shore and the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology in recognition of his exemplary research contributions to Neotropical ornithology, mentoring students and professionals, and his commitment to the conservation of birds and their habitats in the in the Latin American – Caribbean region. As a bit of background information, In 1997, in celebration of our 75th anniversary, the AFO created the Alexander F. Skutch Award for Excellence in Neotropical Ornithology. The award recognizes career accomplishments, particularly, although not limited to, research relating to life history studies of Neotropical birds. Criteria may include encouragement and mentoring of students, particularly Latin Americans, making research accessible to the public through popular publications as well as publishing work in scientific journals. A goal of the award is to recognize individuals whose careers will stand as models for excellence in Neotropical ornithology. The first award was presented by Dr. Skutch in San José, Costa Rica to Dr. F. Gary Stiles (1997); subsequent winners include Herbert A. Raffaele (1999), Mercedes Foster (2006) and John O'Neill (2010). Dr. Wiley has made exemplary research contributions to Neotropical ornithology, mentoring students and professionals in the Latin American-Caribbean (LAC) region, and commitment to the conservation of birds and their habitats in the LAC region. In his nomination credentials, it was noted that much of his research, while valued for its scientific merit, has contributed greatly to management efforts for the recovery of endangered species and their habitats in the Caribbean that benefits the public as well. He also was one of the co-authors of the seminal field guides to the birds of the West Indies and the birds of Hispaniola. These field guides have significantly contributed to the understanding the ornithology of the region. Dr. Wiley was also a founding member of the Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds (SCSCB), and served as the first editor of their scientific journal. He established a legacy of training and mentoring students and young professionals in ornithology and conservation. Jim did this both formally through his supervision of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit at both Grambling University and the University of Maryland at Eastern Shore and informally through field work, communications, and scientific societies. Jim's generosity and dedication to his students is legendary. In summary, Dr. Wiley was nominated and chosen as the 2014 recipient of the Alexander F. Skutch Award for Excellence in Neotropical Ornithology award because he best exemplifies the qualities this award seeks to recognize and Jim is the kind of professional who Alexander Skutch would want to thank for his efforts.