Rufous Antpitta, as photographed by Renato Espinosa.
How many times have you been out in the field, failing to find the bird you were looking for, a bird you were certain was there? Maybe you heard it chattering way up in dense foliage, but needed a visual sighting to feel satisfied. In this situation, you might have reached for your smartphone to broadcast a call to which you know your target bird would respond.
It’s a tactic that many birders have taken to, what with the advent of technology that allows access to thousands of bird vocalizations at the touch of a button. I know I never would have been able to tick a Pileated Woodpecker off my life list had not one of the birders in my party whipped out a phone to play the Pileated’s call. As awesome as the momentary glimpse of this elusive bird was, however, I did feel conflicted immediately afterward—tricking it into appearing seemed unfair and possibly damaging, if every birder that came along followed suit.
And so I was a bit chastened—though not entirely surprised—to have these second thoughts confirmed by a new study (thanks to Mike for the tip). Researchers from Princeton University and the University of the South (both in the U.S.) studied how Plain-tailed Wrens and Rufous Antpittas in Ecuador reacted to audio playback of their songs versus playback of general background noise. The scientists noted how birds responded for an hour after a single playback, and also what the cumulative response was to daily playback for almost three weeks.
The results are pretty much what you’d expect. When playbacks were used, birds responded vociferously, particularly the antpittas. The long-term component of the study revealed that the wrens largely stopped responding by day 12 of daily playbacks. Some even built a nest near a playback site.
According to the researchers, their findings may mean that the use of playback could have negative effects on birds. That is, birds which are attracted by audio playback and respond in kind are distracted from doing other things they need to do—take care of babies, woo a mate, or defend territory from real threats (and not the artificial threats suggested through the recordings). They may experience undue stress and/or needlessly expend energy. The fact that the wrens eventually became habituated to repeated playback also may demonstrate that multiple birders using this practice in the same spot could alter birds’ behavior, and that researchers should take this into account when choosing study sites. In a press release, the authors propose that pending future research, “it might make sense to minimize the use of playback with endangered species or in areas that host a lot of birdwatchers.”
To some birders, them’s likely to be fightin’ words. To others, it may seem like common sense. But one way or another, many of you have an opinion about this important topic. So let the games begin: tell us in the comments what you think about the use of playback.
Thank you for bringing up this topic, Meredith. I’ve noticed more and more use of playback with birders, even though nobody needed it before it was invented. It has always felt intrusive to me to lure birds out with playback, and this research confirms the damage in more ways than I had considered. I really like Mark Justice Hinton’s suggestion above to use playback with an earpiece for your own confirmation.
We don’t & won’t use playback as we have always thought it was wrong. If you want to listen & learn calls at home then that is OK, but not in the field. You should be happy with what is there naturally & return if you don’t find what you had hoped for.
Nature conservation laws in Germany prohibit the use of playback unless a special permit is obtained for scientific purposes. Some birders use playback to lure in birds, but this method is generally rejected by the German birding community. I was thus very surprised by the rather permissive stance of the ABA.
As a birder, I am perfectly happy with “heard-only” although a sight is always prefered. I have never used and will never use playback to lure in birds just to see them. I think it is hypocritical to claim putting the welfare of birds first – as we all do or are obliged to do by the rules of the societies we are members of – and then use playback. Also, it is “unsportsmanlike” to me.
I can see a limited and strictly regulated use of playback to induce birds to call e.g. during a survey where time is limited and the species is known to call only reluctantly, but only if the scientific benefits are carefully vetted and the limits of playback use are clearly defined.
Inducing a bird to call or luring it in only to catch a glimpse for purely recreational purposes is something I reject.
I think you misinterpreted the results of the Harris and Haskell paper. The final two lines of the abstract are: “Increased vocalizations after playback could be interpreted as a negative effect of playback if birds expend energy, become stressed, or divert time from other activities*. In contrast, the habituation we documented suggests that frequent, regular birdwatchers’
playback may have minor effects on wren behavior.”
*But such negative effects were not actually observed in the present study (comment mine, based on the evidence presented in the paper).
This means, that although many might *think* that playback may have negative effects on birds, the authors did not see such negative effects with the two species they were studying. Instead, the birds learned to ignore playback. This jives well with my own experience. I think many folks are overly sensitive to playback, but from the birds’ point of view, it is really a far less disturbing behavior than most critics think. Playback has a stronger effect on the experiences of other observers (who may try to see birds with responses already ‘dulled’ to playback), but the birds themselves are relatively unaffected by playback.
Thank you Jochen….the “silence was deafening” on this subject. “Heard only” is OK as you should not try and flush birds out to tick them off. Also “deceased birds” should be recorded as their presence in a particular location may well be significant and they really won’t respond to playback! 🙂
It’s unethical to use playback in order to get a photograph, satisfy one’s curiosity or tick a bird off a list. Unethical and wrong. I’m donating my dollars to the birding organizations that do right by birds, display leadership and make it clear to their members and the public that playback is unacceptable.
@Dan: Regardless of scientific studies, I think it is wrong to disturb a bird on purpose (unlike e.g. unintentional flushing during a walk) for the sake of a hobby, even if that disturbance might not decrease the overall survival rate or general fitness of the birds. Was a detailed scientific study necessary to convince people that dragging chains through swamps in order to flush rails had a significant impact on the rails? What if a study had shown that it was not decreasing the birds’ fitness or harming the vegetation?
Playback is disturbing birds on purpose, which means the welfare of the bird is not put first.
Great post! I share your feelings in regards to playback and feel caution is key when it comes to playback. In a similar vein, I would be interested to hear people’s thoughts on pishing. I’ll admit that I love it, partly because it makes one feel like the bird whisperer when you can conjur a thrush or warbler out of dense vegetation.
However, the principals are the same as with playback. If it IS acceptable, is it only because we’re not imitating the target species’ call? It seems like a very fine line, if the goal is to observe and not agitate. More accomplished pishers than myself are able to imitate Screech Owls to really get a rise out of a target. Is that ethical? I suppose pishing isn’t going to prompt a target to build a nest, but all the other effects seem to be the same as with playback.
First I want to clarify that the picture above was not obtained by the use playback as the caption insinuates.
In contrast to the post presented here it is interesting to consider all of the damage that humans do to the birds due to our own needs that place gigantic pressure on the resources and the environment. I don’t think a single bird has died from playback but how many millions of birds have died due to oil spills? So all of you hardcore bird-protecting people may want to get rid of your cars if you really care about our winged friends.
I use playback for myself and also for my clients only if they are not opposed to the technique. I try to use it very little and usually just enough to get some cooperation only if needed. Although I have been with other guides who will just call and call for a particular bird with very large speakers to get the payed-for and highly desired tick.
@Renato: Sorry, I didn’t mean for the caption to imply that the Antpitta you photographed was through playback. Please forgive me, and thank you for letting 10,000 Birds use the lovely shot.
@Joel: Interesting point on pishing. I’ve wondered about the same question myself. What does everyone else think?