On 2024-12-09 01:41:58, user avtrader wrote:
Science Discussion
The multiple modern, peer reviewed papers on the field status of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO) are dominated by visual media depicting putative or actual Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. The most important and impactful data sets determining that the species is extant is the collection of thousands of video and picture frames taken by discreet researchers with various cameras.
Since there is only one other large woodpecker in the USA, which is not a congeneric, using visual evidence is effective as the two species are quite different in plumage, movements, and behavior. Visual evidence of putative or actual IBWOs shows that the subjects are clearly not Pileateds when plumage, movements and behavior are examined.
Elevating the veracity of acoustical evidence firmly indicating IBWO presence, as this paper concludes, is problematic since there are several known and hypothetical avian and other vertebrate sources of kent calls.
A major, glaring omission is that the putative IBWO kent data set is only compared to one Blue Jay kent when it is well known that several species of vertebrates, including birds, amphibians and mammals, are accepted as producing Ivory-billed-like kent sounds. Even if the author establishes or approaches establishing that the putative IBWO kents are not blue jays, which is not accomplished, he has not addressed any other competing species.
Note that the 2024 peer reviewed paper "Echo of extinction: The Ivory-billed Woodpecker's tragic legacy and its impact on scientific integrity", P. Michalak employs a much more sophisticated spectrogram analysis than the prepaper and found the putative IBWO kents from LA did not match with known IBWO kents. (Bio Science, Volume 74, Issue 11, November 2024, Pages 740–746, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae072
Compounding the impediments to a firm acoustical ID, the only widely accepted kents of IBWOs recorded were of agitated birds (n =2), 90 years ago from the Singer Tract, LA. Alerted or stressed individual birds can have frequencies different than nominal productions of the same song or call type. This prepaper fails to even acknowledge these major and other issues yet somehow has very strong conclusions that are therefore unsupported, metaphysical and proselytizing in nature rather than scientifically anchored.
One well known competing source of IBWO-like kents is the Blue Jay (BLJA). For decades it has been understood that some spectrograms of Blue Jay kents have shown differences with Singer Tract, LA, Ivory-billed kents.
At a minimum any research paper that attempts to address and dispositively conclude this issue will need careful spectrogram analysis of many examples of these Blue Jay kents and then compare them to IBWO kents or putative IBWO kents. The biological context of the putative jay kents must be detailed; not ignored. Many would concur with the prepaper author including Choctawhatchee River, FL kents in the set of putative Ivory-billed kents since these were spatiotemporal to hundreds of other IBWO supporting data points in key data sets such as---suggestive videos, IB sightings some by 2 observers, recorded and heard Campephilus-like double knocks near the kents, IB-like roosts holes. etc.
I have line surveyed the Choctawhatchee River over 120 hours and found Blue Jays to be non-existent to rare since this river bottom corridor has few oaks. Unfortunately the author's standards for most of the non-Choctawhatchee, FL, alleged IBWO kents in his set is minimal and nebulous.
The prepaper has so many biases, omissions, and basic scientific flaws that a rewrite is needed. A terse comment here however would not help the conservation of the few Ivory-bills likely left.
The following observations and recommendations are offered.
The data in this prepaper includes only one Blue Jay kent call spectrogram which was recorded and commented on by many over the decades. The author then inserts an unprecedented, unfounded and unsound comparative method, not found in the ornithological literature. The data includes ~ 136 Blue Jay calls, of which none are kent calls, to claim the establishment of an unabridged frequency capability for all types of Blue Jay calls. The author erroneously takes his incomplete set, in regards to the species extensive repertoire of Blue Jay and any hypothetical spectrograms and concludes that this eliminates all possible frequencies, tonality or partials/harmonics that may be produced when a Blue Jay kents.
The author takes the actually abridged set of Hz and illogically and awkwardly states in the Abstract "Differences are seen such that these two species cannot be mistaken for each other". In the Conclusion sections he supports the hyperbole by stating that interspecific physiological differences make it impossible for a BLJA to produce the Hzs he found in the putative IBWO set of kents he examined. "Because of different morphology and functional anatomy, Blue Jays and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are going to make different quality sounds."
He continues that all Blue Jay kents cannot be IBWO kents and the reverse but the scientific premise he employs is unprecedented in ornithological research. The text or bibliography does not include one reference that uses body length as a driver or predictor of avian Hz range capabilities. During an on-line comment exchange with the author pivotal parts of his concept are formed by the idea that a larger bird cannot possibly be matched by smaller birds as far as Hz convergence. In this case the birds are of relatively similar size of 20 inches and 12 inches. There is no Ostrich to Hummingbird length disparity involved here. The author may have no field experience with any members of the genus genus Procnias (bellbirds) with a 125 decibel level with a body length of 11 inches. Volume or Hz range may have little to no correlation with body size. I have searched the literature unsuccessful to discover what the author is possibly using as a prerequisite to his sweeping Bergmann's rule-like conclusions that correlate acoustical Hz and moderate changes in avian body size. This is an example of common sense bias that a 20 inch bird cannot produce at least some of the same Hz as a 12 inch bird. These biases and assertions seem unsupported and unlikely hypotheses let alone conclusions by the author.
The author is responsible for doing a literature search, not readers, before prepapers are posted; the text and bibliography portray minimal research was done to support the presented hyperbolic declarations.
Most publication submittals are rejected because the literature search was poor. This prepaper's bibliography verifies that not even one adequate reference let alone comprehensive work on Blue jay ecology, mimicry, relative high intelligence, syrinx, physiology, vocalizations, point surveys for Blue Jays in the alleged IBWO kent areas, etc. was read or done .
Blue Jay' hypothetical acoustical capabilities have as a pretext a species possessing a syrinx with broad capabilities, high avian intelligence, wide repertoire, strong memory and substantial mimicry ability. Years ago I checked the literature on the subject species and at these rather mid value frequencies and harmonics there is no physiologically based reason that IBWO kents and Blue Jay kents must always be at different Hzs. In addition the literature does generalize that there is often sexual intraspecific differences in a species Hz for the same general call, such as a kent. Extrapolating from known ornithological literature, no one knows how a male blue jay would mimic a modern female IBWO it ambiently heard kenting; how a female blue jay would imitate a male IBWO, etc. It is not known how a blue jay would mimic a nuthatches kent vs an IBWO it heard kenting.
A major, glaring omission is that the putative IBWO kent data set is only compared to one Blue Jay kent when it is well known that several species of vertebrates, including birds, amphibians and mammals, are known to produce IBWO-like kent sounds.
Brief info on Hz
Within a single bird species, different calls can have varying frequencies. This variation can depend on several factors:
-
Type of Call: Different calls serve different purposes (e.g., alarm calls, mating calls, contact calls) and can have distinct frequency ranges.
-
Individual Variation: Just like humans have unique voices, individual birds may produce calls with slightly different frequencies due to physiological differences.
-
Context and Situation: The context in which a call is made can influence its frequency. For example, a bird may alter its call if it's trying to signal alarm in a crowded area versus calling to a mate.
-
Environmental Factors: The surrounding environment can affect how calls are produced and perceived. For instance, birds may adjust their calls in dense forests versus open areas.
The Abstract is ambiguous and misleading; also inconsistent with the rest of the paper. The Abstract does not mention many of the strong conclusions and constructs that accumulate as the paper proceeds. The constructs and conclusions, if true, would be quite compelling, with scientific value; the issue of distinguishing recorded Ivory-billed Woodpecker kent calls from other species kent calls is a complex issue. Unfortunately this paper ineffectively addresses the issue with a short, terse incomplete Abstract that is subsequently followed by unsubstantiated and unsupported conclusions and erroneous, sweeping ornithological assertions.
Ambiguity---the paper’s central theme is initially thought to be that IBWO kents can be distinguished from Blue Jay kents. The short Abstract mentions ~ 136 Blue Jay calls have been examined; after quite a bit of reading one finds out that only one of the ~136 Blue Jays calls examined is a jay kent call ( Blue jay calls, n = 137, Blue jay kent call n = 1). At this point some readers will realize the omission in the Abstract is an intended pathway to one of the papers eventual conclusions that Blue Jays are physiologically incapable of producing the Hz found in the putative IBWO putative kent call spectrograms.
Misleading---the Title and Abstract concentrate on Blue Jay kents; the latter highlighting n’s of 136 and n = 200, but these numbers are for data sets that do not include any Blue Jay kents. Actual Blue Jay kents spectrograms examined closely by this paper is n = 1.
Inconsistent --- The Abstract is overstated yet some of the subsequent constructs and conclusions are bold and somewhat hyperbolic. Conclusions presented are unsupported and are more correctly described as hypothesizes or unsupported hypothesizes.
The paper has n = > 200 for putative IBWO kent calls but fails to call them putative. This omission leads to concerns of circular logic. The paper provides no supporting evidence that some of these putative IBWO kent calls were derived from birds that were field IDed as IBWOs or for some reason likely IBWOs. Acceptable reasons could be that the subject kent call were associated with a tempospatially IBWO sighting or double knocks. Field details are needed for all kents that were not from Choctawhatchee River, FL. Kents in that study were spatiotemporal to hundreds of others IBWO supporting data points in data sets.
It is possible that a hypothesis that all IBWO and BLJA kents can be differentiated by spectrograms is correct. I propose it as a hypothesis. However jumping to premature conclusions with so much missing is not the way to proceed. We have delayed the erroneous extinction proposal with solid field techniques that had little if anything to do with Blue Jays and exaggerations but did truthfully present the videos, game cams, sighting notes, etc.
IBWO conservation will not be prodded by examining characteristics such as acoustical Hz with flawed methods. Some will rightfully suspect that these odd assertions are designed to proselytize rather than establish the truth.