Thus far, we have been concerned with identifying species of management concern, as mandated by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. However, we recognize that there may be occasions when it would be useful for land managers to know if there are certain species groups that are generally considered by the "experts" to be of greater concern than others. This question was addressed by examining the distribution of 10,250 scores submitted by participants in the Delphi exercise. The 599 species evaluated by the 60 participants were aggregated into 40 taxonomic groups (orders, families, or subfamilies) of varying sizes, and the proportion of Moderate and High scores in each group was compared to the expected value of 22%. For example, 43% of the scores submitted for five species of loons were Moderate or High. Since this proportion is much larger than expected by chance (P < 0.01), loons might be considered a species group of management concern. Similar calculations revealed that 10 other species groups also had larger-than-expected proportions of Moderate or High scores, and therefore might also be considered of concern (except where indicated, all P values are < 0.01): grebes (32%), ciconids and non-harvested anserids (34%), rails and limpkins (84%), terns (41%), alcids (28%, P < 0.05), columbids (53%), cuculids (37%), owls (33%), caprimulgids (43%, and shrikes (58%). Twelve species groups had lower-than-expected proportions of Moderate or High scores, and might be considered to be of little or no concern (except where indicated, all P values are <0.01): sandpipers (17%), gulls (4%), woodpeckers (12%), larks and swallows (12%), corvids (5%), parids and relatives (12%), nuthatches and creepers (5%), sylviids (9%), waxwings and phainopeplas (0%), tanagers (12%, P < 0.05), icterids (16%), and finches (8%). The proportion of Moderate and High scores in the following 17 species groups did not differ from the expected value of 22% (all P values are > 0.10): albatrosses and procellarids, storm-petrels, pelecanids, falconids, plovers and relatives, swifts, hummingbirds, trogons and kingfishers, tyrannids, wrens and dippers, turdids, mimids, motacillids, vireos, warblers, cardinalids, and emberizids.
Once again the reader is cautioned against placing too much importance on the results of these preliminary analyses. We present this information merely for comparison with the list of species of management concern, and as an alternative way of assessing species groups at risk, and encourage others to undertake similar, but more rigorous, exercises to identify avian species groups in need of priority management attention.
[Discussion Contents]