In the past, the academic field of „economic ornithology'' was widely known, emphasizing the role that birds play in reducing insects and weeds, and the economic benefits they bring to agriculture. However, with the advent of pesticides, economic ornithology had become obsolete by his 1940s. Robert Francis said: His „History of Birds“ substack: „Economic Ornithology: Before the advent of pesticides, birds were farmers' best defense against insects. And government economic ornithologists determined the value of each bird. It will tell you exactly.” (January 10, 2024).
Francis points out:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture established the Division of Economic Ornithology in 1885. The following year, it became the Department of Biological Research and in 1905 was elevated to the Bureau of Biological Research. … In 1903, for example, the Saturday Evening Post reported that “all persons who kill birds in the United States are requested by the United States Government, as a courtesy, but not by force, to send the stomach and its contents to Washington.” A request was issued. By 1916, the Bureau of Biological Research had collected and analyzed the contents from the stomachs of over 60,000 birds, and each of his 400 species studied was either beneficial or harmful to humans in aggregate. It was used to determine whether The researchers categorized the stomach contents into „good,“ „bad,“ and „neutral“ categories based on whether the partially digested insects and plants were beneficial or harmful to farmers. …
According to the Bureau of Biological Research, native sparrows, which are „particularly effective at destroying weed seeds,“ saved farmers $35 million in 1906 by eating ragweed and crabgrass seeds. And during the Rocky Mountain locust outbreak in Nebraska in 1874, it was calculated that one wren provided enough locusts for its chicks, saving $1,743.97 worth of crops. The Bureau of Biological Research has also helped restore the reputation of some birds that were historically seen as enemies of farmers. After examining the stomachs of more than 1,000 crows, the agency found that the crows were actually eating more „harmful insects and rodents“ while pulling out the germinating corn and nibbling on the stalks. discovered. Owls, long thought to be poultry thieves, have been shown to eat enough mice to recoup the „small commissions they collect“ by catching the occasional chicken.
This type of information was distributed not only by the U.S. Department of Agriculture but also through organizations such as the Audubon Society and the American Federation of Sportsmen. For those interested in learning more about the history of economic ornithology, Theodore S. Palmer of the USDA provides an overview of the development of the field from the 1850s to the end of the 19th century in his 1899 book.A review of economic ornithology in the United States. ” HJ Taylor (no relation) offers five pocket autobiographies. „Pioneers of economic ornithology“ (wilson breaking newsSeptember 1931).
It wasn't just pesticides that killed off economic ornithology. An even more serious problem was that it was not clear, at least not in a reliable way, whether adding birds to farmland actually reduced insect and weed populations. However, modern research occasionally suggests that certain birds living in particular environments have considerable economic value.
My recent favorite example is “Social costs of keystone species are collapsing: Evidence from vulture declines in India” By Eyal G. Frank and Anant Sudarshan (Becker Friedman Institute Research Brief, February 2, 2023). They tell the story of how a painkiller called diclofenac went off patent, its price plummeted, and how veterinarians in India began administering the drug to sick cows. Although the drug was safe for cows, it is seriously toxic to vultures. Therefore, when some of these cattle died and their carcasses were eaten by vultures, the vultures in this area became almost extinct. The authors write:
Vultures are efficient scavengers and feed only on carrion. In India, which has more than 500 million livestock, these birds provided an important public health service by removing livestock carcasses from the environment. In the mid-1990s, vultures experienced the fastest population decline of any bird species in recorded history. The cause of death was unknown until 2004, when it was determined that he had been poisoned by ingesting carcasses that contained traces of the common painkiller diclofenac. Due to patent expiration, the price of medical diclofenac dropped significantly, and a generic variant was developed and entered the veterinary drug market in 1994. We are using this event to study the costs of losing vultures. Using habitat range maps of affected species, we compare districts with high and low suitability for vultures before and after veterinary use of diclofenac. He found that after vultures became nearly extinct, human mortality from all causes increased by more than 4% on average in areas suitable for vulture habitat. …As vultures became extinct, the scavenging services they provided also disappeared, leaving carrion left out in the open for long periods of time. Ecologists claim this may have led to an increase in the population of rats and stray dogs, which are the main sources of rabies in India. Rotting carcasses can also transmit pathogens and diseases, such as anthrax, to other scavengers. Additionally, these pathogens can enter water sources when people dump carcasses into rivers or through erosion by surface flows.
More generally, there remains a modest literature in environmental economics that continues the tradition of 'economic ornithology', which considers birds as providers of ecosystem services. Christopher J. Whelan, Çağan H. Şekercioğlu, and Daniel G. Wenny provide an overview. “Why Birds Matter: From Economic Ornithology to Ecosystem Services” (ornithology journal, 2015, 156:227-238). They point to some specific studies.
For example, Mols and Visser (2002) investigated the effectiveness of bird control of herbivorous insects in Dutch apple orchards and found that increasing bird density through the deployment of nest boxes reduced apple damage by 50%; reported an increase of approximately 60%. Total apple yield. Koh (2008) attributed avian pest control to the prevention of her 9-26% fruit loss in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis). Johnson et al. (2009) found that birds significantly reduced damage from the coffee flea borer (Hypothenemus hampei) and that income increased from US$44 to US$310 per hectare when coffee yields increased.
The authors also point out that birds provide pollination and seed dispersal services, control mouse and rat populations, and other services. However, the overall tone of this article is not the dissection of a bird's stomach, but rather the role of birds within the ecosystem, particularly as bird populations rise and fall and the ecosystem adjusts accordingly. There is still much research to be done in understanding the role of The authors write:
However, the economic relevance of birds is not widely recognized, and their ecological role and economic relevance to human society is even less understood. Quantifying the services provided by birds is critical to understanding their importance to ecosystems and the people who benefit from them. This paper briefly reviews the rise and fall of economic ornithology and calls for a new economic ornithology that raises standards and has an overall focus within an ecosystem services approach. The ecological role of birds, and therefore their ecosystem services, is important to the health of many ecosystems and human well-being.
To my birdwatching friends, I am not suggesting that all birds should be reduced to quantifiable factors of production. But when it comes to protecting and restoring bird habitat, it doesn't hurt to have a little money on your side in the debate.