Three Billion Birds revisited: Finding powerful new solutions for saving birds

Fourth in a series

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ran into a problem when it came time to update the total number of Bald Eagle across the country four years ago. The planes that federal researchers use to fly overhead and count the birds and their nests had to be grounded unexpectedly.

They scrambled to find an alternative and in the process launched a new chapter in avian research.

The agency decided to experiment with using eBird, the app birders use to keep track of the species they see and hear. When the results came in, not only did they provide the most complete and granular portrait of the country’s eagle population, the count found a record number of the raptors in the U.S. The service decided to use eBird data for its ongoing research.

This was a coming-of-age moment for the role of this citizen science technology in studying birds. And it happened to coincide with groundbreaking 2019 research that found a third of North America’s breeding bird population – a breathtaking three billion birds — had been lost over the past 50 years.

The Three Billion Bird research laid out the nature of the problem as never before. At the same time, some of the most promising solutions for how to respond are coming from innovations like eBird.

Amanda Rodewald, senior director at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology who oversees the lab’s eBird operation, talked to us about how an app born as a simple tool for birders has grown into a scientific powerhouse at a time when it’s especially needed. This interview is part of a series of conversations this past year exploring developments at the five-year anniversary of the Three Billion Bird research. We’re republishing this segment — the most encouraging in this series — as part of our wrap up of our favorite posts of the last 12 months.

The interview is the most hopeful because it explores exactly how the evolution of data about birds can help save them with precision never possible before. Rodewald goes into detail on how eBird data can pinpoint exactly where birds are thriving and where they’re not. The data are empowering government agencies and nonprofits to be far more targeted in rescue efforts. They’re helping private industries to incorporate conservation into their practices. And they’re enlisting hundreds of thousands of average people as contributors to avian science, which in turn raises public support for conservation.

Here’s the full interview with Rodewald, the Gavin Professor at Cornell, senior director of the lab’s Center for Avian Populations Studies and a leading proponent of innovative conservation:

Question: What do you think the impact of the three billion bird research has been beyond the specific numbers of lost birds? What are the practical effects of this extraordinary research? 

Rodewald: I think the most tangible impacts have really been sounding that alarm and raising awareness. And I would say another tangible outcome is the formation of the Road to Recovery (a new nonprofit working to identify and study troubled species) and the refinement of the “tipping point” species, (a new list of more than a hundred birds in need). It’s very useful to have clearly identified species that we’re saying are the priorities.

But I would say just more generally, the paper was a reminder that we can’t be complacent. Here in North America, we have stories like the Passenger Pigeon. (Once the most plentiful species, the pigeon went extinct in 1914 after widespread hunting wiped out billions of birds.) It seems unthinkable that ever could happen again. But the Three Billion Bird paper really highlighted the extent to which our common species are declining, and so that’s a reminder that we could be in that situation again if we’re not really careful. 

Question: When you look across the spectrum of reactions to the Three Billion Bird report, has it been equal to the dimensions of challenge this research uncovered?

Rodewald: I think most of us working in this field would like to see more action. That’s pretty safe to say. However, I do think that these agencies and the nonprofits are really facing a very challenging environment. We’re facing so many different demands on our time and our resources, not just related to birds.

So while there may be the sense that we’re not seeing the action we’d like within these five years, the reality is that many of these agencies and nonprofits are spread very thin because they need to address other societal issues, whether it’s environmental justice or human health and well-being. So I’m very empathetic to the demands they’re facing. My sense in talking with a lot of biologists and decision makers within these agencies and organizations that work on conservation is that there is indeed a real sense of urgency.

Question: The Three Billion Birds project was this huge acceleration of the knowledge of birds. What kind of advancements and research do you think are needed to follow this up? 

Rodewald: We’ve really clearly pointed to which species are data deficient. So we now have a much better sense of the species for which we know we’re missing information. One follow up is just very practical: We need to improve the quality and the quantity of data available to track species and the population changes and to be able to diagnose them.

Some of the big questions that we still have are trying to understand better which factors are regulating these populations of birds over space and over time. We still don’t have an understanding of population structure and the extent to which the populations are mixing or not on the non-breeding grounds that can affect the way we direct our management interventions. Certainly right now there’s a lot of interest in forecasting the response of species to climate and land use changes.

We need to have a better sense of how and where and when we can realize co-benefits from bird conservation or other pressing problems facing our global community. What are the co-benefits from other actions that address issues like poverty alleviation, food security and water security. How can we best address those problems while delivering co-benefits for bird conservation.

It’s just so obvious that we don’t have the luxury anymore of tackling one problem at a time. We need to be strategic and really prioritize efforts that are delivering positive outcomes for multiple problems.

Question: Is there a good example of a solution that can be applied to several problems at the same time?

Rodewald: Sure. Take the problem of rising temperatures in cities. We know that a lot of disadvantaged, underserved populations are disproportionately exposed to heat and then they’re suffering health consequences. So we know we need to make our cities cooler. One of the big interventions that can be done is planting trees, right? Trees cool temperatures and also can help to sequester carbon, so they can help to mitigate elements of climate change. They can help keep water clean because more vegetation prevents run off. At the same time, all those trees provide important habitats for migratory birds. So it’s a win-win — co-benefits of planting and maintaining trees in urban areas.

Where and how we apply those interventions is going to be really different if we’re only focused on one of those problems. But if we’re saying we have all these needs, let’s look where we can implement that intervention to get the best return for the multiple challenges we face.

Question:  You have some important developments that follow the Three Billion Bird report. Can you talk about what the focus is?

Rodewald:  At the Cornell Lab, we’re very excited about a new data product called eBird Trends that we think has the potential to transform conservation and population monitoring. Why this is so revolutionary is that in the last decade or so, we’ve been able to estimate population trends at fine spatial resolution – within small landscapes that are 27-square kilometer areas. For the first time, we are able to estimate trends at a fine scale across such broad geographies, like the whole of North America. That’s just never been done before.

What we are learning from eBird Trends is even when we talk about species that are declining overall at the country or continental scale, we’re actually masking a lot of the variation in those trends. Almost all species are actually increasing in some areas and decreasing in others, and that gives us a new lens to understand what’s driving those changes.

Question: I think you used the example of Great Blue Heron in one of your recent talks as a species that’s overall in decline. But it’s a much more complex situation on the ground. In some places they’re doing better, some places they are not doing well. Then you have to figure out what conservation steps might help influence this? 

Rodewald: Absolutely. If you were to go to the eBird status and trends prompt (section of the Cornell Lab site rich with maps and animations of almost all species) and look at trends, you can really see that for some species there are pockets of strong declines in some areas and pockets of increases in others. And that’s critical. If we’re estimating population changes only at broader scales like the U.S., we might miss something really important. EBird Trends allows us to detect those finer patterns.

Three Billion Birds Revisited: Here’s a link to our full library of posts on the five-year anniversary of this discovery of bird losses and what leading players have to say about what’s being done — and what isn’t — to respond to these profound shifts in populations.

Question: The point you frequently make is that scientific study needs to shape conservation. What are some examples of where you’re seeing impressive results delivered with science-driven conservation?

Rodewald: I’ll put a little bit of a finer point on that too. I do think science has been driving conservation and action for decades. Now the kind of information we have is just so different than what was available in the past, and that’s changing the kind of science and solutions that we can do.

This allows us to be much more precise in the conservation we’re doing and to kind of thread the needle in how we can both protect species and safeguard ecosystems to accommodate human activities.

An example would be with renewable energy. We’re now able to combine the aerial surveys and data sets traditionally used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with eBird data. When a wind development company is applying for a permit about where to site its wind facility, in the past they relied on just those other data sets. Now by including eBird data, we can identify much more precisely the locations most frequented by eagles.

What this does is it allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists to strategically focus their attention because they’re dealing with so many permits and they’re chronically underfunded and short staffed. Now they can spend more time on those permits that are likely to threaten eagles. So that’s one way precision makes a difference.

Another example is dynamic conservation, which is an option when you don’t need to have interventions that are permanent on the landscape. Temporary measures can actually be really effective ways to accommodate human activities, protect livelihoods, but also protect birds. So we have the example of “Bird Returns.” (Here’s our Washington Post story on how wildlife managers created several weeks of flooding in California rice fields to provide migratory birds stopover habitat only during their seasonal flights.)

Another one is where we’re now working with eBird data and different groups with hay field management. If we look across space, we can identify those times where we’re most likely to see conflict between grasslands and birds that are nesting in a hay field and the mowing and combine that with local estimates of abundance of birds. Various groups, whether it’s wildlife agencies or land trusts, or nonprofits, are offering payments to farmers to coordinate mowing with the bird nesting schedules.

We also have the “Lights Out” programs. Our weather radar project Birdcast can estimate the flights and forecast at three day intervals to coincide with migration flights. We’re able to issue real-time alerts to people and cities to turn their lights out during that time.  

Question: The Cornell Lab is working with private industry on some really interesting fronts, from coffee farms to other agriculture fronts. To what extend do you think corporate players are tuning into these methods that can measure in some instances how well they’re delivering on sustainability?

Rodewald: I think a lot of the private sector is engaged in these global efforts to address climate change and biodiversity loss. Now there’s growing demand among consumers and investors, lenders and insurance companies, as well as their boards of directors to monitor the outcomes of sustainability initiatives.

Question: Particularly on agricultural fronts, because that’s such a big factor with when it comes to birds, do you think it’s reaching the point where you can begin to see sustainability impacting these global population numbers?

Rodewald:  I’m not sure about that, but you can see that there’s interest in tracking and monitoring. We can’t fix what we can’t measure. And so that’s a positive thing. There is a lot of interest there. 

Question: And consumers can play a big role in in putting pressure and helping push this whole concept?

Rodewald:  Right and if you look at millennials, sustainability is an important part of their consumer choices. That’s going to be a major factor in their buying behavior. So companies are going to listen to that.

Question: The Three Billion Bird study was a great example of public agencies, universities and nonprofits working together. And that has not always been the easiest thing to make happen. Many of the things we’ve talked about do require cooperation and have a lot of complexity. How would you assess where things are now in terms of cooperation between the many players?

Rodewald: There’re all kinds of examples of public private partnerships that have resulted in important information. But a lot of times those kinds of partnerships fall on people who are employed within their different organizations and agencies, which means the partnership side is voluntary. It tacks on to peoples’ additional duties.

Like right now we’re working on the 2025 State of the Birds Report. This is just on the top of the work everyone is already doing. It’s not even part of their official jobs. I think that ends up being really being one of the big challenges sometimes.

I think with partnerships among nonprofits sometimes that can be a little tricky on either side when it’s multiple nonprofits. There can be challenges because they’re all trying to raise funds from many of the same donors and foundations. 

One challenge is sort of the sign of our times: there are just so many demands on people’s time. You know, the information revolution is a paradox of sorts because we have more information to act than ever before. But now, because we have so much darn information, we have less time to act. I’ve never met a biologist or a decision maker or manager who has not wanted to coordinate or collaborate when they see the opportunity? It’s just when and how, right? I think that’s the constraint. 

Question: The last question I wanted to ask is that we’re in an era, as you’ve mentioned, with a lot of demands, a lot of conflict, war and economic struggles. How do you make the argument that birds are should be a higher priority than they seem to be? As you’ve said, it’s not just birds that are at stake with these conservation efforts. What’s your best argument on behalf of birds?

Rodewald: I wouldn’t say that bird should be a higher priority. I think there’s a growing recognition out there that the same steps we need to protect birds and biodiversity generally are also the steps we need to take to protect human health and well-being. The conversation should shift to look for the alignment of those different actions and solutions that allow us to reach a much broader group of agencies, organizations, communities and people and get them interested.

It’s funny. I like to say I’m more optimistic now because I feel like I no longer need to convince people to care about birds. We’re facing so many problems out there that I think most people feel there is an imperative to act. Whatever the issue it is they care about — human health, water security, food security, poverty, diseases — you name it, almost all of those come down to environmental health.

So I think it’s about really trying to show people those connections, authentic connections between what they care about and what I care about with birds rather than trying to shift everyone to care about the same thing.