USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Ornithology”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2013

Book review: The man who saved the whooping crane: The Robert Porter Allen story

Kathleen Kaska has done a remarkable job of capturing the life of Robert Porter Allen, truly one of the premier biologist/conservationists of the twentieth century. Allen, born in 1905, grew up reading outdoor adventure books and playing in the woods of northern Pennsylvania with his brother. At a young age, he was encouraged to join the Junior Audubon club and his passion for ornithology soon crystallized. He attended Lafayette College to study ornithology, but he was disinterested in academics and fared poorly. He dropped out after two years and joined the Merchant Marines. Not an auspicious beginning for such a highly respected scientist and conservationist! Soon, however, he landed a librarian job with Audubon and his diligence, acumen, and communication skills allowed him to take more and more responsibilities. He became one of the youngest Audubon sanctuary directors ever appointed, and he was also able to secure a fellowship through Cornell to work on Roseate Spoonbills ( Platalea ajaja ). Audubon later appointed him to lead their Whooping Crane ( Grus americana ) studies. Review info: The Man Who Saved the Whooping Crane. By Kathleen Kaska, 2012. ISBN: 978-0813040240, 256 pp.

Journal of Field Ornithology↗
USGS2025

AviList: A unified global bird checklist

Universally recognized scientific names for organisms are necessary for accurate and efficient communication. Incongruence in taxonomic treatments results in situations where one name is used for different entities or one entity is known by different names, with negative consequences for conservation, science, trade, legislation, law enforcement, and education, leading to discord among stakeholders and confusion among users. Within the ornithological community taxonomic incongruence among four widely adopted global bird checklists has led to calls for the development of a single unified global avian taxonomy or checklist. Here we introduce AviList, a comprehensive, collaborative and evolving effort towards developing a unified global avian taxonomy, spearheaded by representatives of most current global checklists and many major regional authorities, and supported by the International Ornithologists’ Union (IOU), BirdLife International and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. AviList version 2025, the first version, was officially launched on 11 June 2025 and is available online as a comprehensive, searchable public-access database. It recognizes 11,131 bird species in 2376 genera, 252 families and 46 orders. This global effort has resolved over 1000 species-level taxonomic incongruences among existing checklists. With AviList’s launch, the IOC World Bird List and the Clements Checklist of Birds of the World have ceased any independent taxonomic updates, while BirdLife International is in the process of total alignment, leading to a harmonization in the classification underpinning a number of major bird projects, including eBird, Macaulay Library, Merlin Bird ID and the IUCN Red List. Adoption of AviList will improve inter-operability across global biodiversity, molecular, ecological and spatial databases (e.g. GBIF). Strong governance of AviList will ensure it is a “living” document that is regularly updated by a global community of bird taxonomists as new scientific advances are made, with positive impacts for conservation, academia and human society. It is hoped that AviList will support and encourage taxonomic science by identifying areas where further research is most needed, and that it will provide a blueprint for taxonomic authorities in other organismic groups endeavoring to achieve taxonomic harmonization.

Biodiversity and Conservation↗
USGS2011

Avian research on U.S. Forest Service Experimental Forests and Ranges: Emergent themes, opportunities, and challenges

Since 1908, U.S. Forest Service Experimental Forests and Ranges have been dedicated to long-term interdisciplinary research on a variety of ecological and management questions. They encompass a wide diversity of life zones and ecoregions, and provide access to research infrastructure, opportunities for controlled manipulations, and integration with other types of long-term data. These features have facilitated important advances in a number of areas of avian research, including furthering our understanding of population dynamics, the effects of forest management on birds, avian responses to disturbances such as fire and hurricanes, and other aspects of avian ecology and conservation. However, despite these contributions, this invaluable resource has been underutilized by ornithologists. Most of the Experimental Forests and Ranges have had no ornithological work done on them. We encourage the ornithological community, especially graduate students and new faculty, to take advantage of this largely untapped potential for long-term work, linkage with long-term data sets, multiple disciplines, and active forest management.

Forest Ecology and Management↗
USGS2007

Philopatry: A return to origins

The word “philopatry” is a combination of the prefix philo (from the Greek philos, “beloved”) and the Latin patria, which means “fatherland” or “homeland.” Since the first English-language use of “philopatry” in an ornithological context by Huntington (1951) , the term has been applied to two types of site-faithful behavior in birds. Closest to the etymological meaning is the first, “natal philopatry,” which means not dispersing far from, or returning to, a birthplace for reproduction. The second is “breeding philopatry,” which means returning to the same breeding area each year, though that area may not be an individual’s birth place ( Shields 1982 , Anderson et al. 1992 ). Therefore, any assessment of breeding philopatry likely includes some immigrant individuals, whereas assessments of natal philopatry include only locally hatched or born individuals. In the past several years, the use of philopatry in the ornithological literature has widened further, to include site fidelity to nonbreeding areas, such as sites used for molting ( Iverson et al. 2004 ), wintering ( Robertson and Cooke 1999 , Mehl et al. 2004 ), or stopover during migration ( Merom et al. 2000 ). Use of the term “philopatry” to describe not only natal homing, but general site fidelity to both breeding and nonbreeding sites of individuals whose natal areas are unknown is, I believe, problematic and warrants reconsideration. This is because there are substantial genetic and demographic implications of philopatry in its purest and historical sense (i.e., natal philopatry), such as increased relatedness and population differentiation ( Greenwood 1980 , Quinn and White 1987 , Avise et al. 1992 ). Indeed, the historical and theoretical discussions of natal philopatry focus on the behavior of limited dispersal from a birth place, how this promotes inbreeding, why inbreeding might be adaptive, and how a lack of gene flow might promote speciation ( Mayr 1963 , Shields 1982 , Anderson et al. 1992 ). I believe that these population-genetic and demographic implications are potentially misapplied when “philopatry” is used to describe site-faithful behavior in general (see Pearce and Talbot 2006 ). The potential danger of applying philopatry to non-natal and nonbreeding conditions is that it creates the expectation of certain outcomes, such as low dispersal rates, population genetic differentiation, and unique population segments, when such conditions may not exist. Given that most avian species do not molt, winter, or have migratory stopovers where they breed, I propose that the term “philopatry” and its genetic expectations be used only in relation to natal philopatry and not extended to (1) breeding- site fidelity of individuals whose natal areas are unknown and (2) nonbreeding areas where site- faithful behavior is observed. I believe this correctly distinguishes natal philopatry as a specific type of site fidelity with its own implications for population genetics and dynamics. Thus, philopatry should be viewed as synonymous and interchangeable with the terms “natal-site fidelity” and “natal philopatry,” and the term “breeding-site fidelity” should replace “breeding philopatry,” because it reflects the unknown natal origins of birds captured as adults. Although the broader condition of site fidelity may have implications for fitness, mate pairing, and population delineation—as examined in several studies ( Robertson and Cooke 1999 , Merom et al. 2000 , Iverson et al. 2004 , Mehl et al. 2004 )—future investigations of site fidelity should be pursued without automatically invoking the term “philopatry” and assuming that the genetic and demographic connotations of natal philopatry also apply. In contrast to philopatry, the probability of fidelity ( F ) and dispersal (1 − F ) are estimable parameters ( Burnham 1993 , Kendall and Nichols 2004 ), and the demographic and genetic consequences of site fidelity, regardless of where it occurs, can serve as hypotheses for testing with multiple data types (e.g., Arsenault et al. 2005 ). Such data mergers should enhance our understanding of the demographic, behavioral, and genetic implications of natal philopatry and site fidelity.

The Auk↗
USGS2005

Birds of the Baja California Peninsula: Status, distribution, and taxonomy

Birds of the Baja California Peninsula: Status, Distribution, and Taxonomy. By Richard A. Erickson and Steve N. G. Howell (Eds.). American Birding Association Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3, Colorado Springs, Colorado. 2001: 261 pp. ISBN: 1878788396. $39.95 (paper). This volume is a collection of eight papers and five appendices on the status and distribution of the birds of Baja California. In the preface, the editors lament the end of an era of "frontier" birding in Baja California brought on by the publication of this volume. While discoveries of new species are certain to decline with time, I suspect that interest in birding and ornithology in Baja California will be enhanced by the information contained in this book. Perhaps the "frontier" era that Erickson and Howell lament the end of is the unbirded, wide open spaces and the chance for making new discoveries.

Baja California Peninsula↗