Maybe it’s just a normal part of growing older and “taking the time to smell the roses”, but I’ve been finding over the past few years that I’m much more interested in birds. That hasn’t yet turned me into a “twitcher”. But as I’ve become ever more conscious of what steadily increasing human numbers and consumption patterns are doing to the livability of our small planet, I’ve realised that birds are the most readily observable biological monitoring system we have when it comes to measuring the consequences of continued habitat degradation and climate change.
This science has long been in process, with many members of national societies, such as BirdLife Australia and the US National Audubon Society, constituting a vast army of enthusiastic observers. Professional ornithologists who study bird populations in the wild could do little without them.
There’s a strong role for such volunteer organisations in this field; this is one area of human activity where someone who has absolutely no formal training in science can make a very real contribution. There’s great potential here for “citizen science” that is also greatly enhanced by the ubiquitous cameras on mobile phones and access to social media.
Though I don’t work with them directly, birds also figure in my professional life, which focuses on immunity to infection, particularly influenza. None of us can be unaware of the terrible bird flu, but few will be familiar with the back-story of how such viruses reach the human population.
In nature, flu viruses are basically infections of water birds that occasionally jump the species barrier to establish in seals, horses, dogs, pigs and humans. Then, there are other pathogens, such as West Nile virus and Murray Valley encephalitis virus, from which humans suffer occasional collateral involvement, and even death, as a consequence of being bitten by a mosquito that happens to have fed on an infected bird.

But for birds themselves, such viruses can pose a much greater threat. The introduction of West Nile virus into the United States more than a decade ago, for instance, led to massive losses in crow, jay and magpie populations.
Epidemiologists park flocks of “sentinel chickens” round the countryside, for regular sampling to monitor the extent of West Nile virus and Murray Valley encephalitis spread. Like us, when bitten by a virus-carrying mosquito, birds make antibodies that circulate thereafter, providing “footprints” of the infection that are readily detected by testing a blood sample.
Birds also have their own infectious disease problems that can reflect our behaviour, such as migration and smuggling, but do not directly affect us. The inadvertent European introduction of the mosquito vector for avian malaria, for example, is considered to have wiped out more than 40% of native Hawaiian species over the past 150 years or so.
Ronald Ross, who was awarded the 1902 Nobel Prize for establishing the life cycle of malaria, did his key experiments in birds. Studies of a chicken pathogen, Rous Sarcoma virus, have illuminated our understanding of human cancer, in experiments that were recognized by three Nobel Prizes.
In the main, bird enthusiasts don’t know these stories and are intrigued by them.
Though most of my career has been in basic medical research, I trained initially as a vet and am frequently asked to visit veterinary schools. One such trip was to Ondersterpoort, near Pretoria in South Africa, where I heard how a familiar drug that works well in people has, when used to relieve inflammatory conditions in cattle that sometimes die, wiped out some 95% of Indian Gyps vultures. The impact on this population of carrion eaters has, in turn, led to greatly increased numbers of wild dogs, with the consequence that many more people are contracting rabies.

There are also well-documented cases (in Australia and elsewhere) of massive bird “wrecks” that provided an early warning of environmental lead and mercury pollution.
From oil drilling, transport, and the positioning of skyscrapers, power lines and houses, to the inappropriate disposal of degradable plastic bags, and hunting and fishing with lead shot and sinkers, human inattention and carelessness has major deleterious consequences for bird populations.
Early indications of the effects of climate change are being seen in modified migration patterns and in the operation of Bergmann’s rule (heat stress leads to decreased body size) for some avian species, while the consequences of injudicious commercial development in sensitive habitats and effects on food availability (over-fishing) are increasingly obvious.
Apart from their obvious aesthetic value, birds control insects, distribute seeds and pollens, clean up the environment and move nutrients from the oceans to the land. They are our not-so-distant relatives and deserve our regard. And it’s time to give them more consideration, because as the birds go, so ultimately will we.
Peter Doherty’s latest book, Sentinel Chickens: what birds tell us about our health and the world is being launched today by Melbourne University Publishing.
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author
Interesting that you list a whole bunch of tiny impacts that other people have on birds ... skyscraper, hunting with lead shot, plastic bags ... but fail to mention the thing that you yourself most likely do which is totally unnecessary but which has orders of magnitude bigger impact on birds and all other wildlife ... eating meat and dairy products. Consider plastic bags ... there are x animals impacted for every billion plastic bags discarded ... x is quite small. But for every single bag that…
Read moreByron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
A study published a couple of months ago found that 36 species of European farmland birds have declined from a total of 600 million to 300 million since 1980, largely due to agricultural policies. Staggering. "We have been sleepwalking into a disaster."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/26/eu-farming-policies-bird-population
Two more significant anthropogenic factors in declining bird populations are cats (both domestic and feral) and high tension electric wires, each of which likely contributes to hundreds of millions of bird deaths annually. Cars also kill in the tens of millions.
Let's Not Pretend
logged in via Twitter
Other introduced predators also take a huge toll - foxes especially. Across the ditch it's possums, rats, cats and mustelids. Undoubtedly birds are a useful sentinal species. I guess it all started with Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.
Peter C. Doherty
Laureate Professor at University of Melbourne
The book does discuss the disaster that results when birds mistake plastic bags for food and feed them to their chicks. Deforestation proceeds for all sort of reasons to do with both animal and plant agriculture. What you're talking about here is surely the impact of human numbers on all aspects of biodiversity.
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author
"all sorts of reasons" yes, but the impact of various reasons can be quantified. How many birds suffer from plastic bags and how many suffered when the Queensland cattle industry deforested 8 million hectares? Which is bigger? Globally beef provide about 1.4 percent of calories, it's really an insignificant source of food, but the devastation is enormous. Fish is even worse, ocean fish are below 1 percent of global calories ... but their consumption is dominated by the wealthy
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1768.abstract
So rich environmentalists who want to keep eating fish prefer to target small issues that they are not complicit in. I'm not defending plastic bags, I'd just prefer people tackle issues roughly proportion to their importance. Quantify and minimise impacts, rather than get carried away by real (but small) problems.
Peter C. Doherty
Laureate Professor at University of Melbourne
It would be great if carbon credits lead to substantial reforestation, though that's not likely to be with native trees. And what's happening with palm oil plantations and tropical rainforest clearance in our region is pretty dispiriting. With regard to fish, properly regulated native fisheries (such as those in Alaska) achieve some sort of balance, but then there's the "scrap fish" fed to Salmon and the like in fish farms, and the massive over-fishing associated with piracy. And there's the likely effect of climate change on the north west (USA) salmon fisheries.
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author
Anything is sustainable if hardly anybody does it ... including blue whalemeat or tiger pen*s soup. The interesting question is whether "normal" (eg Australian) levels of meat are globally sustainable (ie sustainable if everybody lives that way). The answer is resoundingly no.
There is a long term sustainable level of greenhouse gas emissions and it's only about 1 tonne per person per annum (http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/). This is a budget. Currently Australians have a diet that generates…
Read moreTrevor S
Jack of all Trades
" I guess it all started with Silent Spring by Rachel Carson."
Not at all, IMO it started with Henry David Thoreau
Trevor S
Jack of all Trades
"Maybe it’s just a normal part of growing older and “taking the time to smell the roses”, but I’ve been finding over the past few years that I’m much more interested in birds. That hasn’t yet turned me into a “twitcher”"
I had to smile in agreement. We purchased 50 acres, (1 for us and 49 for the wild animals) abutting a State Forest, live in a mud brick cottage, off the grid, we go to the "big smoke ie Grafton" once a month or so. We spend an hour each morning on the porch, watching the honey…
Read moreLet's Not Pretend
logged in via Twitter
It sounds great. But is it possible to live your way of life without accumulating savings or deriving income directly or indirectly from money generated in the 'Western model of existance'? For a start, the cost of land is prohibitive for many people.
I mean, one acre of land isn't enough to provide food, fuel and fibre for a family living in poverty. On top of that, everyone aspires to have enough resources to do more than simply survive. That one acre plot would also need to generate income that could be used to take time off for leisure, international travel, owning a vehicle, etc.
It seems to me that if everyone had 50 acres, went off the grid and set aside 95% of their land for wildlife we would all be living like peasants? Or starved to death?
Geoff Russell
Computer Programmer, Author
The sustainability of a lifestyle should be measured by the number of people that can be supported living that lifestyle. 22 million Australians with 0.4 hectares is about 9 million hectares and we currently only occupy about 1.6 million and crop about 24 million and graze about 400 million. Work it out. The most sustainable lifestyle is to pack people in cities as densely as they can enjoy ... which probably doesn't include the worst of high rise living, but probably the best. Being off-grid is definitely the least sustainable energy choice ... despite its undoubted pleasures. Try calculating the cost of having 22 million people off grid? What a nightmare.
Peter Kurz
Peter Kurz is a Friend of The Conversation.
Tourism
Birds are more than simple objects for human discussion, or to gauge and mark our bad behaviour on this planet.
They are also wonderful fellow travellers on this beautiful world and need to be acknowledged as such.
Further, the assumption that birds have 'bird brains' has been disputed, I think the newest discoveries AND old thoughts is that birdbrains do simply compress neural activities; a little like on the Internet, - information is compressed and released when needed. More reason to give birds full respect and our protection.
We live with native animals, especially birds, every day and I can only say they feel more like family, family that need to be loved, protected and appreciated.
Peter Kurz