Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 17;18(2):e0279899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279899

Counting young birds: A simple tool for the determination of avian population parameters

Werner Oldekop 1, Gerd Oldekop 1, Kai Vahldiek 2, Frank Klawonn 2, Ursula Rinas 1,*
Editor: M Andreína Pacheco3
PMCID: PMC9937500  PMID: 36800348

Abstract

Population parameters are usually determined from mark-recapture experiments requiring laborious field work. Here, we present a model-based approach that can be applied for the determination of avian population parameters such as average individual life expectancy, average age in the population, and generation length from age-differentiated bird counts. Moreover, the method presented can also create age-specific results from lifetime averages using a deterministic exponential function for the calculation of parameters of interest such as age-dependent mortality and age distribution in the population. The major prerequisites for application of this method are that young and adult birds are easily distinguishable in the field as well as the existence of sufficiently large data sets for error minimization. Large data sets are nowadays often available through the existence of so-called “citizen science” databases. Examples for the determination of population parameters are given for long-living migratory birds which travel as families in large groups such as the Common Crane and the Whooper Swan. Other examples include long-living partially migratory birds staying together in large flocks which do not travel as families such as the Black-headed Gull, and also short-living songbirds where at least from one sex young and adult birds are easily differentiable such as the male Black Redstart.

Introduction

Nowadays, the mark-recapture method is the most commonly used method to determine population parameters such as abundance, mortality, survival, and others. The method is based on marking animals and their re-encounter at a later time [1]. This method is continuously refined (e.g. [2], http://www.phidot.org/software/mark/) and is nowadays not only applied to study avian population dynamics but also to study any animal—even small ones such as insects—if species-adapted markings are available. Although this method is considered as the gold standard it has also some drawbacks. Most obviously, it depends on animal markings and their recaptures/resightings, thus, requiring laborious and specialized field work. For example, bird marking by ringing or tagging is an intrusive process and requires permissions and dedicated trained persons.

Here we present a simple method that allows the determination of population parameters such as the average individual life expectancy, L, the average age in the population, A, and the generation length (defined here as the average age of the breeding population), G, from counts of young and adult birds.

Moreover, among others the following age-dependent variables can be determined:

  1. the age-dependent mortality, i.e. the probability of dying at a certain age, M(a)

  2. the age distribution in the population, P(a)

  3. the remaining life expectancy at a certain age, Le(a)

  4. and the relative mortality, i.e. the probability of dying in the following year (a+1) when a certain age has been reached, rM(a)

The main prerequisites of this method encompass that young and adult birds are easily distinguishable in the field and the existence of large data sets. The latter is nowadays often available through citizen science databases. The central input data into the calculations are the portion of young or juvenile birds in the population, g = juv/juv+ad. In the following sections we shortly introduce the mathematical background of the method, present some examples and discuss the pro and cons of this approach. The details of the mathematics are given in the Supporting Information.

Mathematical background

The basic concept of this method is simple and best explained by imaging a huge water tank, e.g. containing a water volume of 100 m3 with green and red colored particles (corresponding to the bird population of young (green) and adult birds (red), respectively) into which there is an annual inflow of 20 m3 fresh water on top containing only green particles. With time green particles turn into red particles in the tank, i.e. young birds become adult birds. If the same amount of particle containing water (here 20 m3) is removed each year from the bottom of the tank (corresponding to the portion of birds which die) and if the particle concentration in the inflow (green particles) is identical to the particle concentration in the tank (green and red particles) then we have a situation which mimics a state where the mortality rate equals the birth rate i.e. there is no population growth or population decline. If there would be no mixing in the tank we would have in the example given above with 20% annual inflow a portion of young (green) “birds” of g = 0.2 and all “birds” would die at the age of 5 years. With mixing the average individual life expectancy L is also 5 years, but some “birds” stay longer in the tank, i.e. die at later age, and some shorter, i.e. die younger.

Thus, in a constant population with a constant ratio of young birds the average individual life expectancy can be—independent of all other parameters—calculated as follows:

L=1/g (1)

With this basic input information and a mathematical model mainly based on mass balances, population parameters can be determined such as the age-dependent mortality i.e. the probability of dying at a given age, the age distribution within the population, the remaining life expectancy at a given age and the relative mortality i.e. the probability of dying when a certain age has been reached. Details of the mathematical background are described in the S1 File. Moreover, explanations and tools to calculate population parameters including corresponding confidence intervals using Excel or R are also given in the Supporting Information (Excel: S1 and S2 Files; R: S1 File, S3 and S4 Files).

Examples

In the following section we want to apply the described method to determine population parameters for a set of different bird types including long-living migratory birds which travel as families (Common Crane and Whooper Swan), long-living partially migratory birds where young birds tend to separate from the adults (Black-headed Gull), and also short-living (partially migratory) songbirds (Black Redstart). In all these examples birds in their first year are easily distinguishable from adult birds (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Plumage of young and adult birds during census time.

Fig 1

(A) Common Crane: In the foreground four adult birds with distinctive facial markings and a young bird at the left side with a plain brownish face (Photo: Frank Hessing, Wietingsmoor, Germany, 30.10.2021). (B) Whooper Swan: Five adult birds with white plumage and six young birds with a grayish plumage and paler yellow beaks (Photo: Ursula Rinas, Polder Lenzen, Germany, 20.01.2019). (C) Black-headed Gull: Main image with two adult and two young birds. Adult birds have bright red beaks and legs. Young birds have more orange beaks and legs and remaining brownish juvenile coverts and tertials and a black tail band. The insert shows a side view of a young bird. Arrows are pointing to the differences of young bird plumage (Photos: Ursula Rinas, Steinhude, Deutschland, 12.11.2016). (D) Black Redstart: The left-hand image displays a contrast rich adult male with a prominent white wing panel and the right-hand image a young male (approx. one year old) with a duller female-like coloration (cairii plumage type, [35]). The insert in the right image shows a young male of the more advanced paradoxus-plumage type [35] (Photos: Bernd Nicolai, Halberstadt, left: 21.04.2006, right; 21.07.2005, insert: 12.07.2015).

Thus, age-differentiated bird counts can be taken e.g. directly after fledging and also later in time. This is important as the mortality of very young birds in their first weeks or months is higher than during later stages of their life and thus, data sets including hatchlings, fledglings or very young birds have to be considered differently for the determination of these parameters. Examples presented here relate to birds which already survived the first most vulnerable part in their life. However, for the last example, the Black Redstart, we will also consider the higher mortality during the first part of a bird’s life. All calculations shown for the following examples are based on published data or the database ornitho.de.

Common Crane (Grus grus)

The Common Crane is a migratory bird [6]. The main breeding regions encompass the Scandinavian countries Sweden and Finland as well as Eastern Europe and Russia. Birds from the European breeding range spend the winter mainly in the Iberian Peninsula where families stay together at least until spring migration. Young birds are easily distinguished from the adults in the field; adult birds have distinctive facial markings while young birds have a plain brownish face (Fig 1A). The portion of young birds in the population can be nicely determined during autumn migration when Common Cranes pause in huge numbers at traditional stopover places, e.g. in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany. Birds resting in autumn in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern originate mainly from Fennoscandian breeding regions [7] where breeding starts in late April and hatching around one month later [8]. This breeding population is still slightly increasing in size [6]. For the determination of the portion of young cranes, data collected during the main stopover month October from 2012 until 2020 deposited at the database ornitho.de were used (data set and calculations in Excel accessible in S2 File, calculations in R can be performed using S3 and S4 Files, for detailed explanations see S1 File). Employing the modified exponential mortality function as described in the S1 File with the following input variables: portion of young birds g = 0.095, population growth r = 0.02 (2% per year), maximum age amax = 30 years (oldest bird determined from ringing data as 24 years and 3 months [9]) the following population parameters were identified:

  • average life expectancy, L      12.3 years (from October)

  • average age in the population, A  7.6 years (in October)

  • generation length, G       approx. 11.5 years (first breeding with 5 years, [8])

Please have in mind that the average life expectancy relates to a bird that already survived the time until his first autumn migration. Moreover, the age-dependent mortality i.e. the probability of dying at a given age, the age distribution within the October population, the remaining life expectancy at a given age and the relative mortality i.e. the probability of dying when a certain age has been reached are determined (Fig 2) based on the model specified in S1 File.

Fig 2. Population dynamics of Common Cranes.

Fig 2

(A) Mortality, M(a) (probability of dying at a given age), (B) age distribution in the October population P(a), (C) remaining life expectancy at a given age Le(a), and (D) relative mortality rM(a) (probability of dying when a certain age has been reached) of the Common Crane. Calculations are based on age-differentiated bird counts determined during October in Germany (2012–2020) north-east of the geographic coordinates 12°00 E, 53°00 within Germany (mainly Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and the northern part of Brandenburg). Raw data are from the database ornitho.de.

Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus)

The Whooper Swan is also a migratory bird with a distinct breeding and wintering range, e.g. the majority of birds wintering in Germany are known to breed in Northern and Eastern Europe as well as in Western Siberia [7] where breeding starts in May and hatching around one month later [8]. Whooper swans also stay together as families in the wintering area and the young swans can be easily distinguished during this time from the adults as young swans have a more grayish plumage and their beaks are more pale yellow (Fig 1B). In Germany wintering Whooper Swans reach their highest numbers in January/February [7, 10] Thus, population parameters were determined from the age-differentiated counts of Whooper Swans in January (2012–2020) available through the database ornitho.de (data set and calculations in Excel accessible in S2 File, calculations in R can be performed using S3 and S4 Files, for detailed explanations see S1 File). Employing the modified exponential mortality function as described in S1 File with the following input variables (portion of young birds g = 0.17, population growth r = 0, maximum age amax = 30 years (maximum age determined through ringing data as 26 years and 6 months [9]) the following population parameters were identified:

  • average life expectancy, L      5.9 years (from January)

  • average age in the population, A  4.7 years (in January)

  • generation length, G       approx. 9 years (first breeding with 5 years, [8])

Again, it should be noted that the average life expectancy relates to a bird that already survived until its first mid-winter. In addition, the age-dependent mortality i.e. the probability of dying at a given age, the age distribution within the January population, the remaining life expectancy at a given age and the relative mortality i.e. the probability of dying when a certain age has been reached are shown (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Population dynamics of Whooper Swans.

Fig 3

(A) Mortality, M(a) (probability of dying at a given age), (B) age distribution in the January population P(a), (C) remaining life expectancy at a given age Le(a), and (D) relative mortality rM(a) (probability of dying when a certain age has been reached) of the Whooper Swan. Calculations are based on age-differentiated bird counts determined during January in Germany (2012–2020, whole country of Germany). Raw data are from the database ornitho.de.

Black-headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus syn. Larus ridibundus)

Black-headed Gulls are found year-round in Germany, however, in winter breeding birds from Germany move south-west and birds wintering in Germany originate from north-eastern countries [7]. Young and adult Black-headed Gulls are easily distinguishable in the field close to the end of their first year (Fig 1C, [11]).

Different from the examples shown above young and adult birds do not stay together as families. Moreover, young and adult birds even tend to segregate. This segregation has been interpreted in such a way that younger birds gather together to avoid competing with the older birds, which are e.g. more experienced in catching food [12]. Earlier studies revealed that this particular behavior requires a sufficiently large data set for reliable determination of population parameters as well as the appropriate time in the year for the bird counts [11]. During the first two months after fledging, July and August, the portion of young birds is considerable higher in the population compared to the remaining time until the next breeding season revealing the higher mortality in the first period of life [11]. Moreover, during July and August Black-headed Gulls also strongly tend to segregate into clusters of different age groups [11]. Thus, it is recommended to utilize the data from age-differentiated bird counts later on in the year when the groups show a more even age distribution. Finally, the amount of age-differentiated bird counts for the Black-headed Gull is considerably lower compared to the available data for the Common Crane and the Whooper Swan, thus data should be utilized from a more extended time period. Considering the above points bird counts were taken from September until November (2012–2020) available through the database ornitho.de (data set and calculations in Excel accessible in S2 File, calculations in R can be performed using S3 and S4 Files). By employing the modified exponential mortality function as described in S1 File with the following input variables (portion of young birds g = 0.2, population growth r = 0, maximum age amax = 30 years (maximum age determined through ringing data as 32 years and 9 months [9]) the following population parameters were identified for those birds which survived the first 2–3 vulnerable months after fledging.

  • average life expectancy, L      5 years (from autumn)

  • average age in the population, A  3.9 years (in autumn)

  • generation length, G       approx. 7 years (first breeding with 3 years, [8])

Moreover, the age-dependent mortality i.e. the probability of dying at a given age, the age distribution within the autumn population, the remaining life expectancy at a given age and the relative mortality i.e. the probability of dying when a certain age has been reached are given (Fig 4). Again, the average life expectancy as well as the other variables determined for the Black-Headed Gull as well as for the other two examples given (Common Crane and Whooper Swan) relate to those birds which have survived the first most vulnerable parts in their life after hatching and fledging.

Fig 4. Population dynamics of Black-headed Gulls.

Fig 4

(A) Mortality, M(a) (probability of dying at a given age) determined using age-differentiated bird counts (red bars, this study) in comparison to mark-recapture data (351 ring recoveries) as determined by Flegg and Cox [13] (blue bars), (B) age distribution in the autumn population P(a), (C) remaining life expectancy at a given age Le(a), and (D) relative mortality rM(a) (probability of dying when a certain age has been reached) of the Black-headed Gull. Calculations are based on age-differentiated bird counts determined from September—November in Germany (2012–2020, whole country of Germany). Raw data are from the database ornitho.de.

A comparison of the age-dependent mortality of the Black-Headed Gull determined by the method described here or by utilizing mark-recapture data [13] revealed an almost identical profile except for the first year mortality (Fig 4A). The discrepancy for the first year mortality is expectable in this case as we did not consider the high mortality in the first months after hatching. Considering the high first year mortality requires age-differentiated bird counts in different time-segments starting with the first segment after hatching and fledging until age-differentiated bird counts reach constant values [11].

In the following an example is given, a little songbird, where we also consider the risky time directly after fledging.

Black Redstart (Phoenicurus ochruros)

The Black Redstart is a little songbird originally living in rocky mountainous regions but nowadays mainly found in residential areas close to houses [14]. Young and old male Black Redstarts are easily distinguishable from each other in the breeding season as old male Black Redstarts show a white wing panel which the young males hatched in the year before do not show (Fig 1D, [3, 4]). The white wing panel appears the first time in male second calendar year birds (cy2) after the breeding season and their first complete molt in late summer. Moreover, young males appear in two different plumage types with the majority having a female like appearance (cairii plumage-type) and a smaller part carries an advanced so-called paradoxus plumage-type ([3, 4], Fig 1D). Both young and old males show territorial behavior during the breeding season [15] and, thus, the portion of young males can be determined by counting singing birds without (young males) and with a white wing panel (adult males).

The following calculations are based on a data set of counts of young and adult males during the breeding season from Halberstadt (Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany, from 1982 until 2015, [15, 16]). The analysis of these data revealed an average portion of young birds g = 0.49 (~0.5) assuming that males and females occur in equal numbers. The total population can be taken as stable as there was no trend in the data during the period considered.

From this data the average life expectancy L = 1/g can be determined as two years for a bird from his first breeding season onwards translating into an average total life expectancy of 3 years for those birds which survived their first year.

Birds within their first year have on average a much lower life expectancy, in particular within their first weeks and months. An estimation of the average life expectancy in the first year is possible if the average breeding success of the birds is known. For Black Redstarts 6.5 fledglings have been determined per year and breeding pair [15] translating into a portion of fledglings in the post-breeding population of gf = 0.76 and an average (total) life expectancy for a fledgling of Lf = 1/gf = 1.3 years. Assuming again equal numbers of fledging males and females, a constant total population and an average portion of 50% last year birds (g = 0.5) in the pre-breeding population, only approx. 15% of the fledglings reach their first breeding season.

Based on these data the average age in the population directly prior to breeding (pre-breeding population) can be determined as 2 years and the generation length also as approx. 2 years (first breeding with one year). However, the average age in the population directly after the breeding season including all fledglings (post-breeding population) amounts to just 0.5 years.

  • average (total) life expectancy of pre-breeding population members, L       3 years

  • average (total) life expectancy of fledgling (post-breeding population members), Lf  1.3 years

  • average age in the pre-breeding population, Apre                  2 years

  • average age in the post-breeding population, Apost               0.5 years

  • generation length, G                           approx. 2 years (first breeding with 1 year)

Employing now the modified exponential mortality function as described in S1 File with the following input variables (portion of fledglings in the post-breeding population gf = 0.76, mortality in the first year M1 = 0.85, population growth r = 0, maximum age amax = 10 years, maximum age determined through ringing data as 10 years and 2 months [9]), the age-dependent mortality i.e. the probability of dying at a given age, the age distribution within the (post-breeding) population, the remaining life expectancy at a given age and the relative mortality i.e. the probability of dying when a certain age has been reached can be determined (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Population dynamics of Black Redstarts in Halberstadt (Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany) based on data including all fledglings.

Fig 5

(A) Mortality M(a) (probability of dying at a given age), (B) age distribution in the post-breeding population (directly after fledging) P(a), (C) remaining life expectancy at a given age Le(a), and (D) relative mortality rM(a) (probability of dying when a certain age has been reached) of the Black Redstart. Calculations are based on age-differentiated bird counts taken from [15].

These results are quite different compared to those obtained for the other examples. The life expectancy is much shorter, particularly noticeable the high mortality in the first year and the resulting low life expectancy after fledging. Only birds which already reached their first birthday have an additional average life expectancy of two more years but their probability to die in the following year is also 50%. Only 0.8% of the Black Redstarts will get older than five years.

Discussion

The mark-recapture method is certainly the most utilized method for the determination of avian population parameters. However, the method described here can complement the mark-recapture approach in particular if mark-recapture data are not existing. In the approach described here, age-specific results are derived from input data that are not age-specific (i.e. multi-year averages of the ratio of young to adult birds, population growth rate, as well as a single assumed or known maximum life span). These input data are then processed through an indirect deterministic exponential function to calculate the parameters of interest. In contrast to the mark-recapture approach which provides age-specific input data (and therefore estimates of mortality that actually reflect age-specific information) the method presented here creates age-specific results from lifetime averages.

Prerequisite for the approach described is that young and adult birds are easily distinguishable in the field. Additionally, this difference should be detectable in the field for a longer period of time or at least up to an age of the young birds at which they survived their more vulnerable periods of life. Moreover, there is also a need to have access to sufficiently large data sets. These data are becoming nowadays more frequently available in so called “Citizen Science” portals. Prerequisite for the applicability of these portals is that they are also paying attention to the collection of quantitative data. For example, the German portal “ornitho.de” pays special attention to determine age and sex differentiated bird numbers and also develops more tools for contributing data to e.g. the “International Waterbird Census” and other quantitative bird censuses. A potential insufficient accuracy of a single data set (one count of young and adult birds at a specific time and a specific place) collected by volunteers is balanced by the large number of data sets. For example, the determination of population parameters for the Whooper Swan is based on 14.923 single data sets collected in nine years (2012–2020) with a confidence interval of approx. 95% (see S2 File).

Furthermore, there might be other age-differentiated data sets collected for other purposes e.g. for the determination of breeding success that can now be easily re-evaluated using the described approach.

Of course, the method presented here but also the mark-recapture approach will not yield universal constants as, for example, the average life expectancy or the average first breeding age may change with changing conditions, e.g. climate or other changes affecting bird habitat and fitness. For example, when applied to birds living in captivity where abundant food, absence of predators, and even advanced medical care allows more birds to approach or reach their maximum possible age, numbers determined will be different from those determined for wild birds. Thus, all population parameters determined are only applicable to a defined population (e.g. time period and area).

The time period investigated should at least encompass several years to compensate for varying breeding success in different years. Also, the best time of the year for the census needs to be evaluated (see as examples the sections on the Black-headed Gull and also the Black Redstart).

Moreover, it is necessary to know if the total population considered is increasing, decreasing or stable in size. However, it should also be noted that the population parameters are not that sensitive to changes in the population size. For example, an erroneous assumption of a population increase (r = 0.02 corresponding to a doubling of the population in 35 years) will only change, for example, the determined average age in the population from A = 7.4 years (g = 0.1, constant population r = 0, amax = 30 years) to A = 7.3 years (g = 0.1, increasing population r = 0.02, amax = 30 years). However, the average individual life expectancy L depends more strongly on a change in the population size than the average age in the population. Finally, the maximum age of the bird species needs to be known. But again, the population parameters are not that sensitive to changes of the maximum age. For example, a change in the maximum age in the population from 25 to 30 years would change the determined average age A in the population from 6.8 to 7.4 years (g = 0.1, r = 0). The most important input parameter, however, is the determined portion of young birds in the population which, considering an uncertainty of 5%, will affect all other results accordingly.

Another point that needs to be considered is the increased mortality of very young birds. Thus, counts are best carried out when the young birds survived the most dangerous period in their life. From this time on it can be assumed that the probability to die is approximately equal for young as well as for adult birds. This approach is applicable for Common Cranes and Whooper Swans which travel as families and where young birds benefit from the experience of the adults. On the other hand, comparative counts before breeding and after fledging will give additional information, for example on the enhanced mortality in the first year of a bird as shown in addition for the example of the Black Redstart.

A higher mortality in the first year affects the calculation more strongly as the portion of these birds in the population is larger than any other age group of adult birds. A higher mortality of birds in the first year through enhanced predation, bad weather and other environmental hazards is thus implemented in our approach. For all other age groups, we consider an equal average mortality. However, very old birds most likely have a higher average mortality and are more prone to die of bad weather conditions or other environmental hazards. But very old birds are only a minor part of the population and thus, their numbers do not affect the calculations strongly. If we would consider for all age groups different mortalities, we could not solve the equations with the input data of g = portion of young birds, r = growth of the population and amax = maximum known age. Of course this could be implemented in the calculations at the cost of more complexity and additional age-specific field data (see also the last section in the S1 File). The approach presented here uses indirect estimators and can be applied in circumstances where age-specific data are not or not easily accessible. Indirect estimations have been used before for the determination of other population parameters and proven their validity also in situations that otherwise could not be resolved, such as analysing survivorship of extinct animals from fossil data [17].

The best test for the validity of an indirect approach is agreement with the results obtained from direct methods, in our case from mark-recapture data. Unfortunately, we could not find published data concerning mortality and life expectancy for Common Cranes, Whooper Swans and Black Redstarts based on the mark-recapture method. However, we were able to find data on the mortality of Black-headed Gulls based on 351 ring recoveries [13]. Mortality determined by the method presented here and by using ring recoveries revealed—except for the first year mortality—a very good agreement. Thus, our approach to use age-differentiated bird counts for der determination of population parameters can nicely complement the mark-recapture approach or can be used at least for an approximation if mark-recapture data are not existing. The discrepancy for the first year mortality for the Black-headed Gulls was expectable as the high first year mortality was not considered in our calculations but incorporated in the analysis using mark-recapture data. Considering the high first year mortality in our approach requires age-differentiated bird counts in different time-segments starting with the first segment after fledging until age-differentiated bird counts reach constant values [11]. In most cases the high-first year mortality might be neglectable for first approximations but can be easily incorporated by simply using more age-differentiated bird counts from more time segments directly after fledging or even directly after hatching. Finally, it should be noted that the approach presented here might not only be useful for population parameter determinations but could be also used for prediction; for example, for estimating the minimal long-term portion of young birds which is required to guarantee a stable population. And moreover, the method is not restricted to study bird populations, but can be applied to other species as well. Prerequisite in any case is the access to large data-sets of age-differentiated animal counts.

Supporting information

S1 File. Detailed description of the mathematical model background and instructions for calculations.

(PDF)

S2 File. Excel worksheet for the determination of population parameters including instructions for use and data sets for the determination of population parameters for the Common Crane, the Whooper Swan, the Black-headed Gull, and the Black Redstart.

(XLSX)

S3 File. The R file provided can be opened directly in R.

At the top of the file, parameters are given for the example of the Black-headed Gull (population growth “r = 0”, first year mortality “M1 = 0”, maximum age “amax = 30”, and first breeding age “B1 = 3”). The R file can be opened with any text editor and the parameters can be changed for other bird species.

(R)

S4 File. Format of excel input file of counts of young and adult bird for calculations in R (counts of young and adult birds with the example of the Black-headed Gull).

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to far more than 500 observers who reported more than 16,000 age-differentiated counts of Common Cranes, Whooper Swans and Black-Headed Gulls in ornitho.de. We are also grateful to Frank Hessing for his photo of Common Cranes and Bernd Nicolai for his photos of Black Redstarts and his comments on their molting pattern. And finally, we want to thank both reviewers who helped us to improve this manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.White GC, Burnham KP. Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study. 1999; 46:S120–S139. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.McClintock BT, White GC. From NOREMARK to MARK: software for estimating demographic parameters using mark-resight methodology. J Ornithol. 2012; 152 (Suppl 2):S641–S650. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nicolai B, Schmidt C, Schmidt FU. Gefiedermerkmale, Maβe und Alterskennzeichen des Hausrotschwanzes Phoenicurus ochruros. Limicola. 1996; 10:1–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jenni L., Winkler R. Moult and ageing of European Passerines. 2nd ed. London: Helm; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Winkler R. Woher kommen die Namen cairii, cairei und paradoxus für die Kleider junger Hausrotschwanz-Männchen Phoenicurus ochruros. Vogelwarte. 2021; 59:29–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Prange H. Die Welt der Kraniche: Leben, Umwelt, Schutz—Verbreitung der 15 Arten. Christ Media Natur; 2016.
  • 7.Bairlein F, Dierschke J, Dierschke V, Salewski V, Geiter O, Hüppop K, et al. Atlas des Vogelzuges—Ringfunde deutscher Brut- und Gastvögel. Wiebelsheim: Aula-Verlag; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bauer HG, Bezzel E, Fiedler W. Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas—Nonpasseriformes. Wiebelsheim: Aula-Verlag; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fransson T, Jansson L, Kolehmainen T, Kroon C, Wenninger T. EURING list of longevity records for European birds. https://euring.org/. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rinas U, Oldekop W. Bestimmung populationsdynamischer Kenngröβen aus den Jungvogelanteilen in Deutschland überwinternder Singschwäne. AVES Braunschweig. 2019; 10:44–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Rinas U, Oldekop W. Altersdifferenzierte Zufallsbeobachtungen der Lachmöwe (Larus ridibundus): Erkenntnisse zu Lebenserwartung, Bruterfolg und Alterssegregation. AVES Braunschweig. 2017; 8:38–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Källander H, Rosenkvist L. Differential daytime distribution by age in black-headed gulls Larus ridibundus: adult physical dominance or competitive superiority. Ibis. 2000; 142:491–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Flegg JJM, Cox CJM. Mortality in the black-headed gull. Brit Birds. 1975; 68:437–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Landmann A. Der Hausrotschwanz. Vom Fels zum Wolkenkratzer—Evolution eines Gebirgsvogels. Wiesbaden: Sammlung Vogelkunde im Aula-Verlag; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Nicolai B, Oldekop W. Zum Lebenslauf der Hausrotschwänze Phoenicurus ochruros. Ornithol Jber Mus Heineanum. 2017; 34:29–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nicolai B. Ökologie und Brutbiologie des Hausrotschwanzes Phoenicurus ochruros gibraltariensis (S.G. Gmelin 1774) in Halberstadt. Ornithol Jber Mus Heineanum. 2002; 20:3–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Erickson GM, Currie PJ, Inouye BD, Winn AA. A revised life table and survivorship curve for Albertosaurus sarcophagus based on the Dry Island mass death assemblage. Can J Earth Sci. 2010; 47:1269–75. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

M Andreína Pacheco

21 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-11340Counting young birds: a simple tool for the determination of avian population parametersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rinas,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 05 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Maria Andreína Pacheco, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments:

My apologies for the delay to send you the response.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript titled “Counting young birds: a simple tool for the determination of avian population parameters” is an interesting approach to the issue of obtaining valuable demographic parameters from limited count data. The basic premise of using age-differentiated count data rather than mark-recapture data to calculate things like age-specific life expectancy or the age distribution of a population is potentially very useful for conservation managers.

I did not have any concerns about the actual mathematical approach, but I do provide several general comments about the manuscript. Specifically, I was concerned about how the approach is laid out and how it is differentiated from other methods to obtain similar results. There were also a few aspects of the data used in the analysis that I believe the authors may want to expand upon in their discussion. I describe those general comments first, and then end with several minor comments about specific lines of text in the manuscript that could be improved.

The general analytical approach laid out in the manuscript seems good, however there are important limitations to the method that should be more clearly explained, particularly in the Abstract and Introduction. Most importantly, if I understand correctly, the major age-specific results displayed in the manuscript’s figures are derived from a few inputs that are not age-specific (i.e., multi-year averages of the ratio of young:adult birds and population growth rate, as well as a single assumed maximum life span), which are then run through a deterministic exponential function to calculate the parameters of interest. The authors compare their method to a mark-recapture approach, but a mark-recapture approach provides age-specific data (and therefore estimates of mortality that actually reflect age-specific information), whereas the authors’ method creates age-specific results from lifetime averages. The authors allude to the fact that a mark-recapture approach is different in the first line of the discussion but are vague about exactly how. I believe that many readers will see the age-specific results in the figures without appreciating that the differences among years are not a result of data, but rather simply reflect output from a deterministic function. Of course, this does not mean that the authors’ method does not provide useful results (especially if age-specific data are not available), but I feel that there should be more detail—certainly in the discussion, but perhaps also in the Introduction—describing how the results from this method use a function to calculate estimates of these age-specific demographic parameters, rather than obtaining such estimates from age-specific data.

When reading the manuscript, one initial question I had was: why are the majority of the methods summarized in the manuscript on L70 as “some additional mathematics”, and then laid out in detail in a supplement, rather than included in the main manuscript as a methods section? I suspect that this may relate to the description of the manuscript as a “communication” on L 42, perhaps suggesting that the manuscript was originally intended as a shorter-format paper in a different journal. I recommend moving much of S1 to a methods section in the manuscript, perhaps leaving some ancillary sections (such as 3.2.2 through 3.2.3, 3.3.1 through 3.3.2, and 3.4) in a supplement.

Within those methods (S1), I struggled to determine what part of the material came from existing literature on more traditional life table calculations, and what part came from novel work by the authors. Part of my struggle could have been due to differences in the notation. It may be helpful for the authors to cite some existing literature for steps/equations that were known prior to this work (and perhaps explain when notation differs from those sources), and then explicitly describe which steps in the mathematical logic were developed for this manuscript. This is important, I believe, because some of the equations are difficult to understand based solely on those that come before, without also having access to the more comprehensive theory of life table mathematics.

My final general comments concern the nature of the bird data that the authors suggest may be used with their methods by others, particularly the use of the term “citizen science”. I am not very familiar with the protocols for ornitho.de data, however citizen science programs are extremely variable in both precision and accuracy of bird count data, largely contingent on what effort data are collected, the amount of volunteer training, and the procedures for data verification. Observers will almost invariably have less-than-perfect detection for birds they are counting (although that applies to professional researchers as well). The current manuscript would benefit from at least a discussion of potential bias from differences in detection of young vs. adult birds, as uncertainty in that ratio was mentioned as having an important effect on the results. Even if the counts of species used as examples here are believed to have relatively little difference in the detection of young vs. adult birds, such differences may limit the use of this method for other species or with data from other citizen science programs.

Minor comments:

L39: The phrase “insects up to mammals” implies a natural hierarchy of importance among animals, which may exacerbate existing biases for the study of charismatic species. I recommend changing the sentence to read: “…can be marked, such as insects and mammals.”

L46: This is the first use of the word “respectively” in the text, which I believe the authors are using incorrectly. I believe what they intended to mean with the word is “that is” (or “i.e.”).

L58-66: Although I did appreciate the analogy of a tank of water, it seemed odd to introduce the analogy before simply explaining the relationship in direct terms. It is also simple enough that I don’t know if the analogy is actually necessary (perhaps a diagram could do the same job?). I think that many biologists reading that paragraph will, as I first did, begin to think of all the reasons why a bird population will not behave as a tank of water, even though that is one of the points of the approach: to make several simplifying assumptions about the birds, allowing us to estimate the demographic parameters with only age-ratio data.

S1; 3.0: The authors state that “…predation, shooting, extreme weather, accidents and infections. These causes usually strike the birds independent of their age, so that each year a certain proportion of birds dies from all age groups.” I would disagree; in many species (likely including the example species), susceptibility to all of these factors could easily be dependent on a bird’s age. However, most of those factors will likely increase in importance as a bird ages, so as long as the exponential model provides a good fit to the data, the authors’ approach should still be appropriate. This is probably one of the biggest reasons why, as the authors suggest, their method is not able to completely replace a mark-recapture study, which could provide data to address those factors.

Reviewer #2: The proposed method is creative, novel, and potentially applicable in many other studies and situations. The example of the water tank is simple but pedagogic. I found no problems either in the system of equations or the rationale behind it. However, some aspects can be improved. In conclusion, the study is worth to be published after some major changes.

INTRODUCTION

1) The authors should consider modifying the manuscript to target a broader audience. For example, regarding the mark/recapture method, they simply mention that “Although this method is certainly the gold standard it has also some drawbacks. Most obviously, it depends on animal marking and their recaptures/resightings” (lines 39-41) which is not necessarily an evident problem for many readers.

2) The authors simply mention the “citizen science databases”, without explaining what these databases are or citing examples where they have been successfully applied. Both aspects, including the drawbacks associated with this source of information, must be commented/discussed at some point.

3) The authors mention that “The main prerequisites of this method encompass that young and adult birds are easily distinguishable in the field and the existence of large data sets” (lines 39-41). However, and keeping in mind the water tank example (and their statemen in S1 that “counting year is usually not the first of January but the month when migration starts”), a question comes in mind: can this method be applied to tropical species (that is, to the largest bulk of the bird biodiversity) with much less synchronized reproductive events?

4) Kindly remove “Sweden and Finland” (line 94).

5) Kindly include composed photos or pictures illustrating the age-related differences of each one of the species studied.

MATHEMATICAL BACKGROUND

6) The authors include some confidence measurements in the S2, but these are omitted in the main text. Confidence intervals are important to avoid imprecisions such as “there is also need to have access to sufficiently large data sets” (lines 285-286) or “the time period investigated should encompass several years” (lines 298-299). At this point, it’s impossible to know what “sufficiently large” or “several years” represents with precision.

7) Mortality may be affected by many different factors across species, for which I would expect differences in the probability distributions of the respective mortalities among the species studied (and, of course, divergencies from the modified geometric one used in the present study). Considering this and given that (a) the inclusion of confidence intervals improves the life tables and (b) the mathematics involved in the present study are not complicated, I would strongly suggest using bootstrap to approximate the shape of the sampling distribution and calculate the tables at each run. This approach is computationally more intensive, but the modern computers and the widely available resources, such as Python or R, should be easily up to the task.

DISCUSSION

8) The authors highlight the limitations regarding the information available measured in the field for the species considered in the study (lines 324-325). However, they could enrich the discussion by comparing their results against other studies on phylogenetically related species of cranes, swans, gulls and chats.

9) The authors should highlight the validity and relevance of using indirect estimators for populations parameters by discussing how this approach has successfully been used in other studies, including situations that otherwise could not be resolved, such as fossils (https://doi.org/10.1139/E10-051)

10) Figures should be improved, by reducing the space among plots and highlight the letters and terms referring to some parameter.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

11) Please, kindly highlight the letters referring to parameters in the text (by italicizing them or using an alternative font). Sentences such as “The residual life expectancy of a bird that has reach already age a…” can be misleading.

12) In the previously cited sentence, please change “has reach” by “has reached”.

13) Please, clearly define the formula terms the first time they appear. For example, “k” in formula F8.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Michael Schrimpf

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 17;18(2):e0279899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279899.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Nov 2022

Many thanks to the reviewers for useful comments helping us to improve the manuscript. The response to the comments is included in red.

Moreover, all changes in the revised version of the manuscript are indicated in red.

Submission ID [PONE-D-22-11340] - [EMID:bcb6167ad3dbac2f]

Reviewer #1:

The manuscript titled “Counting young birds: a simple tool for the determination of avian population parameters” is an interesting approach to the issue of obtaining valuable demographic parameters from limited count data. The basic premise of using age-differentiated count data rather than mark-recapture data to calculate things like age-specific life expectancy or the age distribution of a population is potentially very useful for conservation managers.

I did not have any concerns about the actual mathematical approach, but I do provide several general comments about the manuscript. Specifically, I was concerned about how the approach is laid out and how it is differentiated from other methods to obtain similar results. There were also a few aspects of the data used in the analysis that I believe the authors may want to expand upon in their discussion. I describe those general comments first, and then end with several minor comments about specific lines of text in the manuscript that could be improved.

Thank you very much for these encouraging comments.

The general analytical approach laid out in the manuscript seems good, however there are important limitations to the method that should be more clearly explained, particularly in the Abstract and Introduction. Most importantly, if I understand correctly, the major age-specific results displayed in the manuscript’s figures are derived from a few inputs that are not age-specific (i.e., multi-year averages of the ratio of young: adult birds and population growth rate, as well as a single assumed maximum life span), which are then run through a deterministic exponential function to calculate the parameters of interest. The authors compare their method to a mark-recapture approach, but a mark-recapture approach provides age-specific data (and therefore estimates of mortality that actually reflect age-specific information), whereas the authors’ method creates age-specific results from lifetime averages. The authors allude to the fact that a mark-recapture approach is different in the first line of the discussion but are vague about exactly how. I believe that many readers will see the age-specific results in the figures without appreciating that the differences among years are not a result of data, but rather simply reflect output from a deterministic function. Of course, this does not mean that the authors’ method does not provide useful results (especially if age-specific data are not available), but I feel that there should be more detail—certainly in the discussion, but perhaps also in the Introduction—describing how the results from this method use a function to calculate estimates of these age-specific demographic parameters, rather than obtaining such estimates from age-specific data.

This general comment is certainly true and very important! We include and discuss this point more thoroughly in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript and also mention this point in the Abstract of the revised manuscript. Thank you for directing us to this point!

When reading the manuscript, one initial question I had was: why are the majority of the methods summarized in the manuscript on L70 as “some additional mathematics”, and then laid out in detail in a supplement, rather than included in the main manuscript as a methods section? I suspect that this may relate to the description of the manuscript as a “communication” on L 42, perhaps suggesting that the manuscript was originally intended as a shorter-format paper in a different journal. I recommend moving much of S1 to a methods section in the manuscript, perhaps leaving some ancillary sections (such as 3.2.2 through 3.2.3, 3.3.1 through 3.3.2, and 3.4) in a supplement.

We have carefully considered this comment but do not feel comfortable to split the mathematics into a section that is included in the main manuscript and another section found in the Supporting information. Even with splitting the mathematics would be a very large section in the main manuscript. We feel that it is better to present the results of the calculations in the main manuscript and address those readers to the Supporting information which are interested in the mathematical background and which are interested to perform these calculations themselves with other bird count data.

Within those methods (S1), I struggled to determine what part of the material came from existing literature on more traditional life table calculations, and what part came from novel work by the authors. Part of my struggle could have been due to differences in the notation. It may be helpful for the authors to cite some existing literature for steps/equations that were known prior to this work (and perhaps explain when notation differs from those sources), and then explicitly describe which steps in the mathematical logic were developed for this manuscript. This is important, I believe, because some of the equations are difficult to understand based solely on those that come before, without also having access to the more comprehensive theory of life table mathematics.

The method described is based on a “chemical/reactor engineering approach” mainly using mass balances and kinetic equations. We treat birds as molecules/particles which are put as young birds (inflow of particles into a tank) into a system (bird population = a tank) where they transform into adult birds, leaving the system is considered as death (outflow). We have tried to clarify this approach more clearly in the revised version of the manuscript.

My final general comments concern the nature of the bird data that the authors suggest may be used with their methods by others, particularly the use of the term “citizen science”. I am not very familiar with the protocols for ornitho.de data, however citizen science programs are extremely variable in both precision and accuracy of bird count data, largely contingent on what effort data are collected, the amount of volunteer training, and the procedures for data verification. Observers will almost invariably have less-than-perfect detection for birds they are counting (although that applies to professional researchers as well). The current manuscript would benefit from at least a discussion of potential bias from differences in detection of young vs. adult birds, as uncertainty in that ratio was mentioned as having an important effect on the results. Even if the counts of species used as examples here are believed to have relatively little difference in the detection of young vs. adult birds, such differences may limit the use of this method for other species or with data from other citizen science programs.

We have discussed this point more thoroughly in the Discussion section.

Minor comments:

L39: The phrase “insects up to mammals” implies a natural hierarchy of importance among animals, which may exacerbate existing biases for the study of charismatic species. I recommend changing the sentence to read: “…can be marked, such as insects and mammals.”

We have changed the wording. It was not our intention to strengthen a negative bias against certain animals but to point out that the method can be used for all kinds of animals (even small ones such as insects) if species specific markings are available.

L46: This is the first use of the word “respectively” in the text, which I believe the authors are using incorrectly. I believe what they intended to mean with the word is “that is” (or “i.e.”).

It is now corrected.

L58-66: Although I did appreciate the analogy of a tank of water, it seemed odd to introduce the analogy before simply explaining the relationship in direct terms. It is also simple enough that I don’t know if the analogy is actually necessary (perhaps a diagram could do the same job?). I think that many biologists reading that paragraph will, as I first did, begin to think of all the reasons why a bird population will not behave as a tank of water, even though that is one of the points of the approach: to make several simplifying assumptions about the birds, allowing us to estimate the demographic parameters with only age-ratio data.

We used this analogy as we (or some of us) are chemical engineers and are used to calculate the “aging” of molecules in reaction tanks. We thought that this simple analogy is helpful for those readers which are not so familiar with mathematics. We kept this analogy in the revised manuscript but introduced the idea of “coloured particles” as birds to make it more descriptive and better understandable.

S1; 3.0: The authors state that “…predation, shooting, extreme weather, accidents and infections. These causes usually strike the birds independent of their age, so that each year a certain proportion of birds dies from all age groups.” I would disagree; in many species (likely including the example species), susceptibility to all of these factors could easily be dependent on a bird’s age. However, most of those factors will likely increase in importance as a bird ages, so as long as the exponential model provides a good fit to the data, the authors’ approach should still be appropriate. This is probably one of the biggest reasons why, as the authors suggest, their method is not able to completely replace a mark-recapture study, which could provide data to address those factors.

We have clarified this point in the Discussion section. A higher mortality is considered in our calculation for young birds (higher mortality in the first year) in the example of the Black Redstarts. A higher mortality in the first year affects the calculation more strongly as the portion of these birds in the population is larger than any other age group of adult birds. A higher mortality of birds in the first year through enhanced predation, bad weather and other environmental hazards is thus implemented in our approach. If we consider for all other age groups also different mortalities, we can not solve the equations with the input data of g=portion of young birds, r=growth of the population and amax=maximum known age. Of course this could be implemented in the calculations at the cost of more complexity and additional age-specific field data (see also the last section in the Supporting Information S1: 3.5 Other approaches and further perspectives). Again, we consider our approach as a reasonable simple approach complementing but not replacing the mark-recapture method.

Reviewer #2:

The proposed method is creative, novel, and potentially applicable in many other studies and situations. The example of the water tank is simple but pedagogic. I found no problems either in the system of equations or the rationale behind it. However, some aspects can be improved. In conclusion, the study is worth to be published after some major changes.

Thank you very much for these encouraging comments.

INTRODUCTION

1) The authors should consider modifying the manuscript to target a broader audience. For example, regarding the mark/recapture method, they simply mention that “Although this method is certainly the gold standard it has also some drawbacks. Most obviously, it depends on animal marking and their recaptures/resightings” (lines 39-41) which is not necessarily an evident problem for many readers.

We have extended the discussion regarding this point in the introduction.

2) The authors simply mention the “citizen science databases”, without explaining what these databases are or citing examples where they have been successfully applied. Both aspects, including the drawbacks associated with this source of information, must be commented/discussed at some point.

We have discussed this point more thoroughly in the Discussion part of revised version of the manuscript. Our data were all taken from the german database “orrnitho.de” which pays special attention to age and sex differentiated bird counts. For example, this database is now also utilzed to contribute data to the “International Waterbird Census” and other quantitative Birds censuses.

3) The authors mention that “The main prerequisites of this method encompass that young and adult birds are easily distinguishable in the field and the existence of large data sets” (lines 39-41). However, and keeping in mind the water tank example (and their statemen in S1 that “counting year is usually not the first of January but the month when migration starts”), a question comes in mind: can this method be applied to tropical species (that is, to the largest bulk of the bird biodiversity) with much less synchronized reproductive events?

This is an interesting point which we have not considered. If breeding is not or less synchronized our approch should be even easier to adapt. However, we believe that for each specific bird species the circumstances have to be evaluated.

4) Kindly remove “Sweden and Finland” (line 94).

We prefer to keep Sweden and Finland as e.g. Norway is also a Scandinavian Country but Norway has no important breeding population of Common Cranes.

5) Kindly include composed photos or pictures illustrating the age-related differences of each one of the species studied.

We have included now for all species photos of young and adult birds pointing to the differences between both of them.

MATHEMATICAL BACKGROUND

6) The authors include some confidence measurements in the S2, but these are omitted in the main text. Confidence intervals are important to avoid imprecisions such as “there is also need to have access to sufficiently large data sets” (lines 285-286) or “the time period investigated should encompass several years” (lines 298-299). At this point, it’s impossible to know what “sufficiently large” or “several years” represents with precision.

We have now mentioned confidence intervals also in the main manuscript.

7) Mortality may be affected by many different factors across species, for which I would expect differences in the probability distributions of the respective mortalities among the species studied (and, of course, divergencies from the modified geometric one used in the present study). Considering this and given that (a) the inclusion of confidence intervals improves the life tables and (b) the mathematics involved in the present study are not complicated, I would strongly suggest using bootstrap to approximate the shape of the sampling distribution and calculate the tables at each run. This approach is computationally more intensive, but the modern computers and the widely available resources, such as Python or R, should be easily up to the task.

We have now implemented a tool to calculate the main parameters using R providing confidence intervals based on 10 000 bootstrap simulations. Kai Vahldiek who implemented the R-Code is now also included in the author list.

DISCUSSION

8) The authors highlight the limitations regarding the information available measured in the field for the species considered in the study (lines 324-325). However, they could enrich the discussion by comparing their results against other studies on phylogenetically related species of cranes, swans, gulls and chats.

We have discussed the results obtained by our approach for the Black-Headed Gull to data obtained by the mark-recapture method.

9) The authors should highlight the validity and relevance of using indirect estimators for populations parameters by discussing how this approach has successfully been used in other studies, including situations that otherwise could not be resolved, such as fossils (https://doi.org/10.1139/E10-051)

We have extended our discussion on utilizing indirect estimations for population parameter estimations.

10) Figures should be improved, by reducing the space among plots and highlight the letters and terms referring to some parameter.

We have reduced the space among the graphs. Letters and terms are given in the Figure and also explained in the Figure captions.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

11) Please, kindly highlight the letters referring to parameters in the text (by italicizing them or using an alternative font). Sentences such as “The residual life expectancy of a bird that has reach already age a…” can be misleading.

We have now utilized bold letters in brakets for the parameters in the text (main manuscript and Supporting Information).

12) In the previously cited sentence, please change “has reach” by “has reached”.

This is corrected in the revised version of the Supporting Information.

13) Please, clearly define the formula terms the first time they appear. For example, “k” in formula F8.

This has been changed in the revised version as suggested by this reviewer.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer comments.docx

Decision Letter 1

M Andreína Pacheco

19 Dec 2022

Counting young birds: a simple tool for the determination of avian population parameters

PONE-D-22-11340R1

Dear Dr. Rinas,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

M. Andreína Pacheco, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: After carefully reading this second version of the manuscript "Counting young birds: a simple tool for the determination of avian population parameters. (PONE-D-22-11340R1) as well as the authors' responses to my comments, I conclude that the authors have adequately responded to my observations to the previous version, so I consider that this manuscript is now publishable.

I thank the authors for having included all the observations that I consider fundamental and for having satisfactorily explained to me those that were not included in this version.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Paolo Ramoni Perazzi

**********

Acceptance letter

M Andreína Pacheco

9 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-11340R1

Counting young birds: a simple tool for the determination of avian population parameters

Dear Dr. Rinas:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. M. Andreína Pacheco

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Detailed description of the mathematical model background and instructions for calculations.

    (PDF)

    S2 File. Excel worksheet for the determination of population parameters including instructions for use and data sets for the determination of population parameters for the Common Crane, the Whooper Swan, the Black-headed Gull, and the Black Redstart.

    (XLSX)

    S3 File. The R file provided can be opened directly in R.

    At the top of the file, parameters are given for the example of the Black-headed Gull (population growth “r = 0”, first year mortality “M1 = 0”, maximum age “amax = 30”, and first breeding age “B1 = 3”). The R file can be opened with any text editor and the parameters can be changed for other bird species.

    (R)

    S4 File. Format of excel input file of counts of young and adult bird for calculations in R (counts of young and adult birds with the example of the Black-headed Gull).

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES