Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Summary The global population and status of Snowy Owls Bubo scandiacus are particularly challenging to assess because individuals are irruptive and nomadic, and the breeding range is restricted to the remote circumpolar Arctic tundra. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) uplisted the Snowy Owl to “Vulnerable” in 2017 because the suggested population estimates appeared considerably lower than historical estimates, and it recommended actions to clarify the population size, structure, and trends. Here we present a broad review and status assessment, an effort led by the International Snowy Owl Working Group (ISOWG) and researchers from around the world, to estimate population trends and the current global status of the Snowy Owl. We use long-term breeding data, genetic studies, satellite-GPS tracking, and survival estimates to assess current population trends at several monitoring sites in the Arctic and we review the ecology and threats throughout the Snowy Owl range. An assessment of the available data suggests that current estimates of a worldwide population of 14,000–28,000 breeding adults are plausible. Our assessment of population trends at five long-term monitoring sites suggests that breeding populations of Snowy Owls in the Arctic have decreased by more than 30% over the past three generations and the species should continue to be categorised as Vulnerable under the IUCN Red List Criterion A2. We offer research recommendations to improve our understanding of Snowy Owl biology and future population assessments in a changing world.
Summary The global population and status of Snowy Owls Bubo scandiacus are particularly challenging to assess because individuals are irruptive and nomadic, and the breeding range is restricted to the remote circumpolar Arctic tundra. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) uplisted the Snowy Owl to “Vulnerable” in 2017 because the suggested population estimates appeared considerably lower than historical estimates, and it recommended actions to clarify the population size, structure, and trends. Here we present a broad review and status assessment, an effort led by the International Snowy Owl Working Group (ISOWG) and researchers from around the world, to estimate population trends and the current global status of the Snowy Owl. We use long-term breeding data, genetic studies, satellite-GPS tracking, and survival estimates to assess current population trends at several monitoring sites in the Arctic and we review the ecology and threats throughout the Snowy Owl range. An assessment of the available data suggests that current estimates of a worldwide population of 14,000–28,000 breeding adults are plausible. Our assessment of population trends at five long-term monitoring sites suggests that breeding populations of Snowy Owls in the Arctic have decreased by more than 30% over the past three generations and the species should continue to be categorised as Vulnerable under the IUCN Red List Criterion A2. We offer research recommendations to improve our understanding of Snowy Owl biology and future population assessments in a changing world.
We recently published a study discussing the pitfalls of non‐probability sampling when selecting monitoring sites. We demonstrated that selecting sites based on abundance can often lead to biased inference, and we suggested that researchers use probability sampling. We also called for nuance when interpreting results of monitoring programs that use non‐probability sampling. We suggested that inference from sites of great abundance might still be useful for inference into population dynamics of long‐lived species such as raptors. Perret et al. seem to misinterpret our call for nuance as advocating for non‐probability sampling. They state that we concluded the general recommendation of using probability sampling should be revised. We did not conclude this. In fact, we agree with their recommendation. Perret et al. implemented simulations that are unrealistic within the context of our study. We use empirical data for 12 raptor species to demonstrate that our previous results are valid and that simulations implemented by Perret et al. do not reflect the biology of long‐lived raptors. The time series simulated by Perret et al. fluctuated greatly in abundance with populations often more than doubling within a year. This is extremely unlikely for populations of long‐lived species having high site fidelity. Many historical programs monitor sites of great abundance and thus risk biased results. We demonstrate that this risk is minimal under some important conditions and our results likely apply to other long‐lived species. Acknowledging this nuance could rescue many long‐term monitoring programs and their data thereby preserving efforts of costly conservation programs. Consistent with our original study, these exceptions do not invalidate the general recommendation to avoid non‐probability sampling; however, they do support our call for nuance when interpreting results of studies that monitored animals at sites of great abundance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.