| BCNBIRDS.ORG | |
PROJECT LINKS: | HOME | OVERVIEW | SPECIES TRENDS | CONCERN LIST | METHODS | FAQ'S | CONTACT US | |
| INDEX OF TERMS | |||
|
|
|
|
|||
| Conservation Status: | ||||||
| The Conservation Status highlights species of regional importance in the Chicago Wilderness Region that should receive priority attention and careful management. The status is based heavily on Partners in Flight scores and classifications for BCR Regions 22 and 23. Because the Chicago Wilderness Region falls on the edge of these two regions, the scores between BCR 22 and 23 are often different. When the two regions differed, scores were manually assigned on a species by species basis. Decisions were made by taking into account the Chicagoland area's importance for the species in question - including the species range, trend in the CW region, local population size, and historic status in the area. | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
| CW Priority: | ||||||
 |
Priority 1: A species of high regional importance and also national concern with strong declines and severe threats to breeding. Immediate conservation attention & priority, species-specific management. | |||||
 |
Priority 2: A species of moderate regional importance or national concern with moderate to large declines. Some individualized attention. Moderate conservation and management priority. | |||||
 |
Priority 3: A species of moderate importance with a population that should be maintained to prevent growing threats and future declines. Generalized management should include planning for the species. | |||||
 |
Species classified as Endangered in Illinois (in danger of extinction as a breeding species in the state). | |||||
 |
Species classified as Threatened in Illinois (likely to become a state endangered species). | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
| Additional classifications also listed on the individual species pages and : | ||||||
| Endangered | Species classified as Endangered in Illinois (in danger of extinction as a breeding species in the state) | |||||
| Threatened | Species classified as Threatened in Illinois (likely to become a state endangered species) | |||||
| WL-R | Audubon Watchlist Red (declining rapidly and/or have very small populations or limited ranges, and face major conservation threats. Typically species of global concern.) | |||||
| WL-Y | Audubon Watchlist Yellow (Species that are either declining or rare. Typically species of national conservation concern.) | |||||
| SCC | Midwest US Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Conservation Concern. Species in likely need. Needs can range from careful monitoring to consideration for Federal threatened or endangered status. | |||||
| PIF (#) | Partners in Flight regionally important species. Based on distribution, pop. size, regional trends, rel. density, and regional threats. Includes relative scores between 13 (important) and 21 (most important) | |||||
| # of Points: | ||||||
| The number of point count locations where a species was encountered. Only points with at least two years of data are included. Each point in a preserve where someone monitors birds is counted individually. | ||||||
|
# of Records: |
|
|
|
||
| A count of the total number of times that a species was recorded as present (each year at each point) AND the number of times that the species was recorded as absent at a point where it was present during at least 1 other year in the analysis. | ||||||
| Pct. Error: | ||||||
| The calculated percent error (measure of accuracy) of a trend. The percent error is calculated at 1.96 times the standard error to obtain 95% CI's. If a species has an estimated Trend (Annual Change) of +4% with a margin of error of + or - 5%, there is a significant chance (95%) that the actual trend is between -1% and 9% (4+5 = 9, 4-5 = -1). When the amount of error is excessively high and does not even fit in the space provided, an "ER" is displayed instead. Statistical note: The percent error calculated in this analysis accounts for issues related to serial correlation and overdispersion. | ||||||
| Credibility: | ||||||
| A general classification of the credibility of a species trend. The credibility rating notes trends that may not be accurate due to moderate or large deficiencies. The classification looks at the number of points monitored, the percent error of the trend, and whether or not the Model / estimated trend "fits" (is significantly similar to and accurately summarizes the year to year changes). | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
| Normal | --No notable deficiencies. | G.O.F. test indicates that the Model Fits, Good Sample Size, Low Std. Error. |
||||
| Normal* | --See individual trends for each habitat or time periods before and after a significant event. | G.O.F. test indicates that the Model Fails, but is explained by significantly different trends in dif. habitats (Wald-Test) or a sudden, significant change in trend (Time-Effects) |
||||
| Mod. | --Moderate deficiencies. Usually associated with nomadic or congregatory species. |
G.O.F. test indicates that the Model Fails. Failures cannot be explained by an event-caused, sudden change in trend or two or more significantly different trends in dif. habitats. | ||||
| Poor | --Large deficiencies. Usually rare species or species using poorly monitored habitats |
The trend is based on records from fewer than 30 points or has more than a +/- 20% error (40% range of error). | ||||
| ** | Classification was manually adjusted. Near significant data or other causes of error were incorporated. | |||||
| Goodness of Fit: | ||||||
| The Goodness-of-Fit test indicates how well the "model" describes the observed counts. The model can be thought of in very general terms as a "best fit" line on a graph that attempts to connect all the dots. The model in actuality is a complex, estimated overall trend calculated from the observed counts. The fit is calculated using the Pearson’s chi-squared statistic and the corresponding p-value, probability measure, is listed. The lower the P-value, the more likely the model is significantly different from the observed counts (bad). | ||||||
 Estimated model fits and describes the observed counts with relative accuracy. |
||||||
 Estimated model does not fit and is significantly different from the observed counts. |
||||||
| Annual Change (Trend): | ||||||
| The annual change is a percentage showing how much the species is increasing or decreasing on average each year. Trends have also been given general classifications based on their 95% confidence intervals (p <0.05). | ||||||
 A significant increase of more than 5% a year (lower CI > 1.05) |
||||||
 A significant increase of less than 5% a year ( 1.00 < lower CI < 1.05) |
||||||
 Population is stable (0.95 < CI < 1.05, CI encloses 1) |
||||||
 A significant decline of less than 5% a year ( 0.95 < upper CI < 1.00) |
||||||
 A significant decline of more than 5% a year (upper CI < 0.95) |
||||||
 Trend is uncertain (0.95 > lower CI or 1.05 < upper CI, CI encloses 1) |
||||||
| 20 Year Est. Trend | ||||||
| A general classification of the estimated trend for a species during the past twenty years in the Chicago Wilderness region based on the BCN Survey, Breeding Bird Survey for Illinois and Upper Midwest, and other data sources. | ||||||
| ↑↑ - Estimated increase of more than 5% a year & significant increase during the BCN Survey period (1999-2007) | ||||||
| ↑ - Estimated increase of more than 5% a year, BCN Survey trend is poorly known but typically agrees. | ||||||
| <> - Population is stable (<5% change a year) & stable during the BCN Survey period (1999-2007) | ||||||
| ↓ - A Estimated decline of more than 5% a year, BCN Survey trend is poorly known but typically agrees. | ||||||
| ↓↓ - A significant decline of more than 5% a year & significant decline during the BCN Survey period (1999-2007) | ||||||
| ? - Poorly known. Typically a very rare species. There are uncertainties about the trend if it is still listed but has a ? | ||||||
| - - No Trend. Species is not known to currently breed in the area. | ||||||
| Frequency: | ||||||
| The percentage of all monitoring points where the species was detected during at least one year of the analysis. This is a conservative way of comparing how widespread each species is in the area. The dots (•) simply represent the percentage more visually in simple 5% intervals (0-5% = •, 5-10% = ••, etc.). For comparisons, note that the most common species on the BCN Survey like American Robin and Red-winged Blackbird have a frequency of just over 50% (or 10-11 dots). | ||||||
| IND. (Indicator Species): | ||||||
| Species with a * in the IND. column are proposed Chicago Wilderness indicator species. Indicator species are selected species that can be used individually or more ideally collectively as a tool to classify habitats and measure the state of health of a habitat over time. Most indicator species utilize very specific habitat types and can be readily monitored. Many are also sensitive to habitat changes and can be used to quickly gauge the level of success of restoration efforts. By focusing on these species and excluding habitat generalists (species that use multiple, and often marginal and poor quality habitats), we can obtain more accurate measures of habitat quality and assess changes over time. | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
