The Questionnaire

EURING Newsletter - Volume 3 - July 2001

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Introduction

A questionnaire on different aspects of the present situation of the different ringing schemes has been circulated last year, and eventually produced a good percentage of replies. Some of these are listed in table 1, together with a very rough comparison with the data gathered with the first questionnaire circulated in 1996 (see newsletter 1). The overall situation seems quite encouraging, with a positive increase both for staff, ringing activities and data management from what reported in the first newsletter. However, training is an aspect which might be improved further, as just about half of the schemes which replied to the questionnaire hold ringing courses and exams. Aside to a most positive improvement in the computerisation of data (also directly by the ringers), an aspect which might be further improved is represented by the set of variables which are collected and routinely entered by the ringers to the national data banks. It is in fact still very low the number of schemes whose ringers enter also data on morphometrics (wing length, third primary, tarsus) and conditions (fat, muscle, body mass). It is surely important to improve the quality of the ringing data by adding also these most important variables to the standard formats gathered by the ringing schemes, as these are important covariates in most analyses. The positive role EURING has had in introducing standardised field protocols in data collection should now offer the opportunity to build up a data base also on morphological variability of European birds, as these data are often regularly collected by the ringers, who are now able and ready to computerise and transfer their data to the national schemes.

1. Staff (table 1, Fig. 1): all schemes have got some permanent staff, although with few cases of one-man situations. A good proportion of schemes rely on 2-3 staff members, and over 40% have more than 4 people working for the scheme, with 2 cases of over 10 staff; the average situation is just close to 4 people staff.

2. Ringers (table 1, Fig. 2): the highest number of cases refers to small schemes, with up to 50 ringers, and only one case has more than 700 (2000 in fact, the UK case!). The second most frequent situation refers to quite large schemes, with 300 to up to 700 ringers. On average, EURING schemes have 260 ringers.

3. Ringing totals (table 1, Fig. 3): one third of the schemes which replied to the questionnaire ring at least 100,000 birds/year (out of which 7 are above 250,000); another third score between 10- to 50,000, and 7 between 50- to 100,000. A total of 4 centres reach 10,000 ringed individuals. Very good annual samples are collected across Europe, with an average total of just above 108,000 per scheme

4. Birds ringed per ringer (table 1, Fig. 4): European ringers handle and mark most frequently between 300-400 birds annually, with a wide variability across schemes, and an average total of just above 700 ringings.

5. Own recoveries (table 1, Fig. 5): the most frequent situation refers to less than 100 own recoveries processed by a given scheme on an annual basis. There is then a wide variability, also due to the fact that several schemes did not include retraps in this calculation. Several schemes are treating some thousands own recoveries, which is a very good annual sample.

6. Foreign recoveries (table 1, Fig. 6): nearly half of the schemes handle less than 200 foreign recoveries per year, with few cases of over 1,000 data. Overall, EURING gathers over 144,000 recoveries/controls of ringed birds annually, which represents a significant regular improvement for our central Data Bank.

7. Computerised recoveries (table 1, Fig. 7): the vast majority of schemes routinely computerise recoveries (less than 10% still have to start). In an increasingly number of cases recoveries are computerised by the ringers. Since the first questionnaire, the computerisation of recoveries by ringers has more than doubled, and this is surely a situation which will soon further improve, reducing the work load for ringing schemes.

8. Computerised ringings (table 1, fig. 8): an impressive improvement in data management from what reported through the first questionnaire is represented by the computerisation of ringing data by ringers. Nearly 70% of ringings are in fact entered by ringers, which represents the opposite of the situation found in 1996. This fast and positive improvement offers a new potential for ringing/recovery analyses, as models increasingly require ringings being computerised.

Final remarks: the questionnaire is a useful tool to monitor changes in the general situation in the organisation of the ringing schemes and in bird ringing in general. Even the very basic aspects summarised here confirm, when compared with the situation reported in 1996, a positive interest for bird ringing across Europe. The increasing efficiency in data management, and the improvement of the quality of data gathered through the vast network of our ringers, are also important aspects to show how ringing is being able to evolve towards a positive tool for bird population monitoring. Further aspects of the management of ringing activities at the national and international level will be discussed at the next General Assembly. I wish to thank all schemes who filled the questionnaire.

Table 1 - Staff, ringers courses and exams, birds and species ringed and recoveries

Figures

Fig. 1 - Staff Members

Questionnaire graph