Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 417

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 130 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Need to Quantify Ecosystem Services Provided by Birds

Open access
Wenny, Daniel G., DeVault, Travis L., Johnson, Matthew D., Kelly, Dave, H. Sekercioglu, Cagan, Tomback, Diana F., Whelan, Christopher J.·2011·The Auk

Abstract

WHAT ARE BIRDS worth—what is their actual dollar value to human society? To most of us in the ornithological community, birds are invaluable. But in these times we need more specific rationales to convince policy makers and business leaders to include bird conservation in land-use and development decisions. Over the past two decades, awareness of our dependence on a variety of ecosystem services (natural ecological processes that benefit human society) and of their importance and prevalence has progressed toward the goal of making conservation a mainstream value (Ehrlich and Kennedy 2005, Perrings et al. 2010, Rands et al. 2010, Sodhi and Ehrlich 2010). Building strategies for the protection of ecosystem services into conservation and land-use planning is essentially the promotion of human survival, although many policy makers misinterpret conservation efforts as luxury. Several previous reviews have identified ecosystem services that benefit human society (Costanza et al. 1997, Daily 1997, Pimentel et al. 1997, Sekercioglu 2010). The challenge, however, is to calculate the value of ecosystem services in meaningful and relevant ways that can be used to justify the protection of ecosystem services in land-use recommendations and policy decisions (Daily et al. 2000, 2009). As the case studies below illustrate, recent work on the ecosystem services provided by birds has made good progress toward this goal, but much remains to be done. Our objectives here are to describe the ecosystem services provided by birds, highlight recent steps toward quantifying those services, and, finally, suggest directions for future research. Overall, we emphasize that global efforts to conserve bird populations and sustain avian biodiversity also preserve the diverse ecosystem services provided by birds, thus contributing to human well-being. Ecosystem services are divided into four categories (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). Provisioning services refer to natural products that are directly used by humans for food, clothing, medicines, tools, or other uses. Cultural services provide recreational opportunities, inspiration for art and music, and spiritual value. Regulating services include pest control and carcass removal. Supporting services, such as pollination, seed dispersal, water purification, and nutrient cycling, provide processes essential for ecological communities and agricultural ecosystems. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment's description of ecosystem services (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2003) is widely cited, but considerable debate continues on what constitutes an ecosystem service and how each should be quantified (Boyd 2007, Boyd and Banzhaf 2007, Matero and Saastamoinen 2007, Nijkamp et al. 2008, Bartelmus 2010, Farley and Costanza 2010, Kontogianni et al. 2010, Norgaard 2010, Wainger et al. 2010). The main issues include how to value nonmarket services, how to avoid double counting a process and its end product, and how to incorporate ecosystem valuation into policy and land-use decisions. We do not advocate any particular method of valuation here, but we argue that a consistent methodology for calculating units of ecosystem services is needed (as with any system of weights and measures; Boyd 2007). Birds are the best-known class of vertebrate animals, occur world-wide in nearly all habitats, and provide many services (Sekercioglu 2006a, b; Whelan et al. 2008). Thus, they are an ideal group to examine for ecosystem service valuation. Yet, surprisingly, little ornithological research has been done in an ecosystem-services context. Much ecosystem-services work has been focused on watersheds and insect pollination, perhaps because market value can readily be assigned to both fresh drinking water and agricultural crops that require pollination (Kremen et al. 2007, Brenner et al. 2010). Similarly, economic aspects of some cultural and provisioning services such as bird watching and hunting have been quantified (Sekercioglu 2002, LaRouche 2003, Leonard 2008, Carver 2009). Other historical and cultural aspects of birds have been reviewed and quantified in a general way (Diamond and Filion 1987, Podulka et al. 2004, Mynott 2009). Most of the important ecological roles that birds fill, however, involve supporting and regulating services, such as insect pest control and seed dispersal, and these types of services are the most difficult to quantify (Farber et al. 2006; Sekercioglu 2006a, b; Whelan et al. 2008, 2010). As we describe below, many of the most important ecosystem services that birds provide result from their foraging behavior. Through their foraging, birds act as mobile links that transfer energy both within and among ecosystems, and thus contribute to ecosystem function and resilience (Lundberg and Moberg 2003). We know that birds are important ecologically; the challenge is to quantify that importance in terms that are currently meaningful to humans. Pest control.—The regulating and supporting servi

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1525/auk.2011.10248

Cites

130 of 130 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 130 references

Research works printed but not linked: 112

  1. Anderson S. H., 2003, New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 27, 83
  2. Anderson S. H., 2011, Science 331: in press
  3. 10.2307/4222245 · doi:10.2307/4222245
  4. 10.2307/3878229 · doi:10.2307/3878229
  5. 10.1080/09670870110065235 · doi:10.1080/09670870110065235
  6. 10.2307/2386453 · doi:10.2307/2386453
  7. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.019 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.019
  8. 10.2307/2641158 · doi:10.2307/2641158
  9. 10.2307/3505754 · doi:10.2307/3505754
  10. 10.2307/40061689 · doi:10.2307/40061689
  11. 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00124.x · doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00124.x
  12. Boyd J., 2007, Ecological Economics, 61, 716
  13. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.10.008 · doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.10.008
  14. Britton J. C., 1994, Oceanography and Marine Biology, 32, 369
  15. Burrows C. J., 1994, New Zealand Journal of Botany, 32, 349, 10.1080/0028825X.1994.10410478 · doi:10.1080/0028825x.1994.10410478
  16. Carver E., 2009, Report 2006-4.
  17. 10.2307/40863755 · doi:10.2307/40863755
  18. Cirne M. P., 2005, Journal of Field Ornithology, 76, 411, 10.1648/0273-8570-76.4.411 · doi:10.1648/0273-8570-76.4.411
  19. 10.2307/3868789 · doi:10.2307/3868789
  20. Conner R. N., 1997, Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society, 30, 11
  21. 10.2307/3148910 · doi:10.2307/3148910
  22. 10.2307/25592590 · doi:10.2307/25592590
  23. 10.2307/4091857 · doi:10.2307/4091857
  24. 10.1079/9781845931650.0523 · doi:10.1079/9781845931650.0523
  25. 10.2307/3841888 · doi:10.2307/3841888
  26. 10.2307/25462994 · doi:10.2307/25462994
  27. 10.2307/25595034 · doi:10.2307/25595034
  28. 10.2307/3077353 · doi:10.2307/3077353
  29. 10.2989/00306520309485391 · doi:10.2989/00306520309485391
  30. 10.2307/3548025 · doi:10.2307/3548025
  31. Diamond A. W., 1987, ICBP Technical Publication 6
  32. 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1990.tb01048.x · doi:10.1111/j.1474-919x.1990.tb01048.x
  33. 10.2307/40863785 · doi:10.2307/40863785
  34. 10.2307/3842330 · doi:10.2307/3842330
  35. Elliott C. C. H., 1989, Quelea quelea: Africa’s Bird Pest, 17
  36. 10.2307/20146837 · doi:10.2307/20146837
  37. 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.054 · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.054
  38. Gates J. E., 1975, Wilson Bulletin, 87, 421
  39. 10.2307/3801939 · doi:10.2307/3801939
  40. 10.2307/3505796 · doi:10.2307/3505796
  41. 10.2307/177321 · doi:10.2307/177321
  42. 10.1016/j.cropro.2008.07.006 · doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2008.07.006
  43. 10.2307/20493624 · doi:10.2307/20493624
  44. 10.2193/2006-491 · doi:10.2193/2006-491
  45. 10.2307/2097067 · doi:10.2307/2097067
  46. 10.1007/BF00384487 · doi:10.1007/bf00384487
  47. 10.2307/40208423 · doi:10.2307/40208423
  48. Jirinec V., 2011, Bird Conservation International
  49. 10.2307/3677709 · doi:10.2307/3677709
  50. Johnson W. C., 1989, Journal of Biogeography, 16, 561
  51. 10.1071/WR9940095 · doi:10.1071/wr9940095
  52. 10.2307/20183512 · doi:10.2307/20183512
  53. Kelly D., 2007, Austral Ecology, 32, 850
  54. Kelly D., 2010, New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 34, 66
  55. Kelly D., 1990, The Biology and Control of Invasive Plants, 72
  56. Kelly D., 1995, Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Biological Control of Weeds, 205
  57. LaRouche G. P., 2003, Report 2001-1
  58. Leonard J., 2008, Report 2006-1
  59. 10.1146/annurev.en.18.010173.001005 · doi:10.1146/annurev.en.18.010173.001005
  60. Lowney M. S., 1999, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27, 715
  61. 10.2307/3658796 · doi:10.2307/3658796
  62. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.006 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.006
  63. 10.2307/27646002 · doi:10.2307/27646002
  64. 10.1017/S0376892904001213 · doi:10.1017/s0376892904001213
  65. 10.2307/4496021 · doi:10.2307/4496021
  66. 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.017 · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.017
  67. 10.2307/30044950 · doi:10.2307/30044950
  68. Mynott, J. 2009. Birdscapes: Birds in Our Imagination and Experience. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. · doi:10.1515/9781400832835
  69. Nabhan G. P., 1997, Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, 133
  70. Nadeau R. L., 2010, Synesis, 1, 3
  71. 10.2307/25595032 · doi:10.2307/25595032
  72. Neubig J. P., 1999, Wilson Bulletin, 111, 269
  73. Otzen W., 1980, Zoologische Jahrbuecher Abteilung fuer Systematik Oekologie und Geographie der Tiere, 107, 435
  74. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.033 · DOI
  75. 10.2307/40385231 · doi:10.2307/40385231
  76. 10.2307/30044943 · doi:10.2307/30044943
  77. 10.2307/40931599 · doi:10.2307/40931599
  78. 10.2307/40005587 · doi:10.2307/40005587
  79. 10.2307/25595036 · doi:10.2307/25595036
  80. Podulka S. G., 2004, Handbook of Bird Biology, H1
  81. 10.2307/2463215 · doi:10.2307/2463215
  82. 10.2307/41075795 · doi:10.2307/41075795
  83. Remsen J. V., 2003, Handbook of Birds of the World, vol. 8: Broadbills to Tapaculos, 162
  84. Roberge J. M., 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 2479
  85. 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2005.01474.x · doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2005.01474.x
  86. 10.2307/4220070 · doi:10.2307/4220070
  87. 10.1111/j.1439-0329.2010.00656.x · doi:10.1111/j.1439-0329.2010.00656.x
  88. Sekercioglu, C. H. 2006a. Ecological significance of bird populations. Pages 15–51 in Handbook of Birds of the World, vol. 11: Old World Flycatchers to Old World Warblers (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, and D. Christie, Eds.). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.
  89. 10.2307/25223897 · doi:10.2307/25223897
  90. 10.2307/29738788 · doi:10.2307/29738788
  91. 10.2307/20536548 · doi:10.2307/20536548
  92. 10.1139/cjz-79-3-380 · doi:10.1139/cjz-79-3-380
  93. 10.2307/27650841 · doi:10.2307/27650841
  94. Suyin H., 1959, (10 October), 43
  95. Takekawa J. Y., 1984, Journal of Forestry, 82, 426, 10.1093/jof/82.7.426 · doi:10.1093/jof/82.7.426
  96. 10.1017/S1367943004001258 · doi:10.1017/s1367943004001258
  97. 10.2307/27650681 · doi:10.2307/27650681
  98. Tomback D. F., 1978, Living Bird, 16, 123
  99. Tomback D. F., 2005, Mountain Ecosystems: Studies in Treeline Ecology, 181, 10.1007/3-540-27365-4_7 · doi:10.1007/3-540-27365-4_7
  100. 10.2307/2679938 · doi:10.2307/2679938
  101. 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00598.x · doi:10.1111/j.1474-919x.2007.00598.x
  102. 10.2307/27651631 · doi:10.2307/27651631
  103. 10.1007/BF02857850 · doi:10.1007/bf02857850
  104. Vila M., 1998, Ecology, 79, 1053, 10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[1053:FCASDO]2.0.CO;2 · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[1053:fcasdo]2.0.co;2
  105. 10.1071/MF9900027 · doi:10.1071/mf9900027
  106. 10.2307/2403281 · doi:10.2307/2403281
  107. Whelan C. J., 2010, Synesis, 1, 11
  108. Williams P. A., 2006, New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 30, 285
  109. 10.1139/cjz-77-4-535 · doi:10.1139/cjz-77-4-535
  110. 10.1016/S0261-2194(02)00207-7 · doi:10.1016/s0261-2194(02)00207-7
  111. 10.2307/30044941 · doi:10.2307/30044941
  112. 10.2307/4089586 · doi:10.2307/4089586

Cited by

See all 417

Metadata

Authors
Wenny, D. G., DeVault, T. L., Johnson, M. D., Kelly, D., H. Sekercioglu, C., Tomback, D. F., & Whelan, C. J.
Venue
The Auk
Published
2011-01
Volume
128
Issue
1
Pages
1-14
ISSN
  • 0004-8038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-4254
OpenAlex
W2133049700
Cited by
417
References
130
FWCI
17.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Need to Quantify Ecosystem Services Provided by Birds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1525/auk.2011.10248
The paper
Wenny, D. G., DeVault, T. L., Johnson, M. D., Kelly, D., H. Sekercioglu, C., Tomback, D. F., & Whelan, C. J. (2011). The Need to Quantify Ecosystem Services Provided by Birds. The Auk. https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2011.10248

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.