This time last week I was basking in the warm Norfolk sun enjoying the last day of the 9th meeting of the European Ornithologists Union at the East Anglia University at Norwich.

My photo of the presenters at the “European ethno-ornithology and conservation” symposium (co-chaired by Andy Gosler and Maris Strazds) does no credit to them – they really are a much nicer group that this fuzzy photo shows!.

From left – Alison Greggor from the University of Cambridge, Nigel Hopper from the University of Birmingham, Wouter Vansteelant from the University of Amsterdam, Maris Strazds of the University of Latvia and Andy Gosler of the Edward Grey Institute at Oxford University. I’ve listed affiliations and contacts below if you want to contact any of the presenters* and I have interviews with Wouter Vansteelant and Andy Gosler that I will post here once they have been transcribed.

Here are the Abstracts presented at the symposium, which opened with a joint presentation by myself and Andy Gosler entitled “A Brief Introduction To European Ethno-ornithology and Conservation.”

Three issues of major strategic concern to conservationists in Europe and North America are: 1) a growing sense of human disconnectedness from nature as populations become increasingly urban; 2) that biodiversity loss globally parallels a loss of human cultural diversity; and 3) the ‘Shifting Baseline Syndrome’ whereby successive generations fail to recognise the scale of change in biodiversity that had occurred over a significant period greater than that of their own generation’s span (e.g. since industrialization). Globally, the extinction of cultures and species share similar causes in globalization, and with the loss of cultural diversity goes a loss of ethnobiological knowledge, which may be uniquely valuable for nature conservation. Consideration of this issue also offers potential for addressing the first issue of human disconnection from nature, which in the West is reflected in a decline in peoples’ basic natural history knowledge. Relevant to this complex of issues, is the growing recognition that birds are of unique value in addressing the need to reconnect people with nature, and indeed in many cases with their own cultural roots.

In this paper we present an overview of the recent international revival of interest in the ethnobiological sub-discipline of ethnoornithology. Since the Australasian Ornithological Conference of 2005, which hosted the first day-long session dedicated to ethnoornithology at an international conference, numerous similar sessions and symposia have occurred at national and international conferences in a variety of disciplines. We discuss some aspects of the growing interest in ethnoornithology as an area for study, with particular emphasis on the practical application of ethnoornithological knowledge to indigenous and non-indigenous land management, the relevance of ethnoornithological research to European birds – both migrants and endemic – and its potential value to European bird habitat and conservation projects.

As an example, a recent study is described which demonstrates how the 3,291 English folk names of 78 passerine birds collected by ornithologists in the 19th century demonstrates the intimate knowledge of birds \held by lay people in England at that time, and how this provides a stable baseline against which the decline in natural history knowledge of the population since that time might be compared. The conservation potential of this is described in terms of the three specific issues raised above. We shall also consider the opportunities that ethnoornithology can offer students, emergent and mid-career biologists.

Next up was Maris Strazds, with his fascinating presentation on the role of birds and house names – and more – “A History of Bird Names in Latvia: From Folk Songs to Company Logos and Press-releases; Do They Reflect Attitudes to the Environment?“

Birds have been important in the lives of Latvian people: predominantly sedentary farmers who had limited contact with their neighbours. About 70% of more than 250 single-word bird names (of 262 analysed) representing 163 species recognisable today are used as site names. The majority of these are names of homesteads from which most of the family names originated, and about 100 persist as family names today. Homestead names reflect knowledge of bird species, and indicate past distribution or presence of certain species, such as Capercaillie and Willow grouse. Latvian folklore incorporates much information about all aspects of human life (in the 19th century and earlier).

By 1945 there were 2,308,348 collected folklore units of all sorts – folk songs, fairy-tales etc – but most of these are folk songs. We have analysed the prime source of folk songs – an initial collection by K. Barons, consisting of 268,815 records, which are now digitalised. More than 3000 songs mention one or more bird species. In total at least 76 species are mentioned. In some songs, birds are used as guides (e.g. indicating when to start some agricultural activities), while others reflect the use of the birds themselves (e.g. as food) etc. In most instances however, birds are used for “talking through birds” – different bird species and their relations were used to describe human relationships, both in work and particularly in peoples’ personal lives, such as when evaluating or selecting a partner etc.

Of particular interest is why the use of various bird species differs strikingly between folk songs and elsewhere – e.g. in site names. The analysed folk songs show very high accuracy in terms of mentioned species, their respective features (if visual), voice quality or behaviour in general.

For example, more than 80% of statements made in the songs analysed so far were correct. In a further 10% the chain of logic was not comprehensible, probably because the background of the peoples’ lives is unfamiliar to us, although, the observations described were correct. Without understanding such background, the entire meaning of songs (as well as other means of communication “through birds”) is entirely lost.

However, the tradition to use birds as “comparisons” persists today in Latvian culture, but it exists within a culture that has lost much of its connection with nature; a fact which gives rise to various curiosities. Of particular note is that fact that currently selected random examples (logos of companies, public statements using birds, news messages about them etc.) contain numerous errors of species, use, names, etc.

We discuss how important these differences are and whether the overall ignorance of society towards nature (and birds in particular) is related to level of understanding and knowledge of birds.

The next session was a very interesting presentation on an interesting intersection of geographical circumstances and cultural knowledge and exploitation of migrating raptors from Wouter Vansteelant entitled “One Million Raptors Over a Georgian Village.”

During migration, raptors conserve as much energy as possible by soaring on atmospheric updrafts. Consequently, raptor flyways have evolved to circumvent water bodies above which atmospheric updrafts do not form, or to follow geographical leading lines where suitable soaring conditions are regularly available. In some areas, barriers and leading lines may converge into a geographical bottleneck for migrating raptors, and large proportions of regional populations can seasonally aggregate there. Bottleneck raptor migration sites west of the Black Sea and around the Mediterranean basin are often well studied.

However, migration east of the Black Sea has remained largely unexplored, despite the global importance of raptor populations breeding in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and the important potential of bottleneck sites for monitoring those populations. However, since 2008, Batumi Raptor Count (BRC) has been studying one of the largest bottlenecks for raptor migration in the world: the Turkish – Georgian eastern Black Sea coast.

Up to a million buzzards, harriers, eagles and falcons can be seen during a single season. Unfortunately, (illegal) hunting is a widespread and intensively practiced tradition in the area which may have a far-reaching impact on regional raptor populations considering the extent to which these populations converge in the bottleneck.

In order to reduce this problem, BRC has developed a unique approach, which studies the reasons why hunters engage in their harmful activities and which works with these individuals, rather than against them, to secure sustainable conservation attitudes. This approach involves local communities through a combination of education, capacity-building and ecotourism development which simultaneously improves the intrinsic and economic valuation local community members place on to migratory birds.

In this presentation we show that this community-based conservation approach has already proven effective in diminishing hunting pressure. We further present a recently developed project through which BRC will conduct long-term monitoring of our conservation impact by studying how different types of community-based incentives affect the local valuation of migrating birds as well as the receptiveness and sense of responsibility of local communities towards nature protection.

More information about the project can be found here: www.batumiraptorcount.org.

Alison Greggor presented her research on the “Cultural Interactions Between Bird And Human Populations,” a particularly relevant analysis of one element of the physical relationships between birds and people.

Unprecedented levels of urbanization have changed the evolutionary landscape for bird species. Humans shape selection pressures by transforming habitats, modifying the type and distribution of resources, and altering species interactions. Certain species are more able to cope with these changes than others.

While no single trait governs the success of birds alongside humans, a tolerance to the physical presence of people, as measured by a reduced flight initiation distance (FID), is often assumed to serve as a helpful adaptation that allows for urban colonization. In theory, a reduced sensitivity to human disturbance would enable birds to expended less energy fleeing people unnecessarily, and allow for foraging on food items in highly trafficked areas. However, the split between human-tolerant and intolerant species may be complicated by the attitude of humans towards specific bird species.

Efforts such as culling schemes and garden feeding are often culturally motivated, but have drastic consequences for the success of species in contact with these policies. Species from the family Corvidae occupy an especially polarized place within British culture as some species are categorized as vermin, yet others are found fascinating for their intelligence and problem solving abilities. Whether species distributions respond to areas of intense belief has yet to be investigated thoroughly. I will present the results of one of the first efforts to integrate species distributions with human cultural attitudes, based on a large-scale study of FID measures and questionnaires in urban and rural areas of the UK.

Given that separate corvid species are perceived differently by human populations, the skills and traits that favour their survival may differ across human-altered landscapes.

The final presentation was by Nigel Hopper from the University of Birmingham who in a fascinating piece of research examined the rich history of localised knowledge – and how that knowledge may be used in broader conservation efforts involving school-aged children – of the Magpie (not the Australian bird of the same name) in his paper “The Meaning of Magpies Pica pica – Avian Cultural Heritage as Motivation For Avian Conservation.”

Within the ecosystem services framework, birds are assigned an explicit monetary value, and an implicit conservation priority, according to the services they are deemed to provide for human beings. That is, what they do for people. What about what birds mean to people, quite apart from the utility we derive from them? Arguably, the ecosystem services approach emphasises the cultural services provided by birds at the expense of any meaningful consideration of the cultural significance of birds.

There is a rich cultural heritage surrounding birds among virtually all the world’s population groups. Much of this exists as folklore and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK).

What might be the value of this heritage for inspiring positive attitudes towards avian conservation, and what might be the implications for conservation education? This study addresses the above questions using the magpie (Pica pica) as a focal species in the UK context. The magpie is a widely recognised species in both urban and rural contexts, and is steeped in folklore and tradition.

Furthermore, with it dividing public opinion, its focus as a driver for conservation is far from assured. We surveyed the attitudes of 450 10 and 11 year-old schoolchildren towards magpies and their conservation. Classes of children were randomly assigned to one of four groups asked about magpies after receiving: (1) scientific information; (2) cultural heritage information; (3) scientific and cultural heritage information; and (4) no information. Groups one to three received the same total amount of information about magpies.

Findings from the survey revealed that cultural heritage information had a significant effect on their attitude towards magpies. We consider the implications for conservation action and education, and make recommendations accordingly.

We show that ethno-ornithology can be employed within an experimental paradigm. Furthermore, we suggest that our methodology could be applied to other avian species in quantifying how avian cultural heritage might inspire positive attitudes towards conservation.

Presenter details and contacts:

1 – A Brief Introduction To European Ethno-ornithology and Conservation.

GOSLER, A.G. – Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford, UK, Department of Zoology, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK. Email: andrew.gosler@zoo.ox.ac.uk

GOSFORD, R. A. – Ethnoornithology Research & Study Group, GPO Box 4589, Darwin, NT 0801 Australia. Email: bgosford@gmail.com

2 – A history of bird names in Latvia: from folk songs to company logos and press-releases; do they reflect attitudes to the environment?

STRAZDS, M. – Faculty of Biology, University of Latvia, 4, Kronvalda Blvd., Riga, Latvia, LV-1586. Email: mstrazds@latnet.lv

RATKEVIČA, M. – University of Liepāja, Lielā ielā 14, Liepāja, Latvia, LV-3401. Email: marta.ratkevica@gmail.com

MĀRDEGA, I. – Latvian Ornithological Society, P.O.Box 105, Rīga, LV-1046. Email: ieva@lob.lv

3 – One million raptors over a Georgian village.

VERHELST, B. – Batumi Raptor Count, Sakhalvasho, Kobuleti District, Republic of Georgia & University of Oxford, Department of Zoology, South Parks Road, OX1 3PS, Oxford. Email: brechtverhelst@gmail.com

VANSTEELANT, W.M.G. – Batumi Raptor Count, Sakhalvasho, Kobuleti District, Republic of Georgia & Computational Geo-ecology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94248, 1090 GE Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Email: w.m.g.vansteelant@uva.nl

JANSEN, J. – Batumi Raptor Count, Sakhalvasho, Kobuleti District, Republic of Georgia & Dept. Biology, University of Antwerpen, 2610, Antwerpen, Belgium

WEHRMAN, J. – Batumi Raptor Count, Sakhalvasho, Kobuleti District, Republic of Georgia.

4 – Cultural interactions between bird and human populations.

GREGGOR, A. – University of Cambridge, Department of Psychology, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB. Email: alg61@cam.ac.uk

5 – The meaning of magpies Pica pica – avian cultural heritage as motivation for avian conservation.

HOPPER, N.G. – Centre for Ornithology, University of Birmingham, UK, School of Biosciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT. Email: nigelghopper@yahoo.co.uk

REYNOLDS, S.J. – Centre for Ornithology, University of Birmingham, UK, School of Biosciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT. Email: j.reynolds.2@bham.ac.uk

GOSLER, A.G. – Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford, UK, Department of Zoology, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK. Email: andrew.gosler@zoo.ox.ac.uk