PERSPECTIVES IN ORNITHOLOGY THE NEED TO QUANTIFY ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY BIRDS

he Auk An International Journal of Ornithology Vol. 128 No. 1 January 2011 he Auk 128(1):1–14, 2011  he American Ornithologists’ Union, 2011. Printed in USA. PERSPECTIVES IN ORNITHOLOGY THE NEED TO QUANTIFY ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY BIRDS DANIEL G. WENNY,1,8 TR AVIS L. D EVAULT, 2 M AT THEW D. J OHNSON, 3 DAVE K ELLY,4 C AGAN H. S EKERCIOGLU, 5,9 D IANA F. TOMBACK ,6 AND C HRISTOPHER J. WHELAN7 1 Jo Daviess Conservation Foundation, 126 N. Main Street, Elizabeth, Illinois 61028, USA; U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, Ohio 44870, USA; 3 Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521, USA; 4 Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand; 5 Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA; 6 Department of Integrative Biology, University of Colorado Denver, P.O. Box 173364, Denver, Colorado 80217, USA; and 7 Illinois Natural History Survey, c/o Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 W. Taylor Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607, USA 2 What are birds worth—what is their actual dollar value to human society? To most of us in the ornithological community, birds are invaluable. But in these times we need more speciic rationales to convince policy makers and business leaders to include bird conservation in land-use and development decisions. Over the past two decades, awareness of our dependence on a variety of ecosystem services (natural ecological processes that beneit human society) and of their importance and prevalence has progressed toward the goal of making conservation a mainstream value (Ehrlich and Kennedy 2005, Perrings et al. 2010, Rands et al. 2010, Sodhi and Ehrlich 2010). Building strategies for the protection of ecosystem services into conservation and land-use planning is essentially the promotion of human survival, although many policy makers misinterpret conservation eforts as luxury. Several previous reviews have identiied ecosystem services that beneit human society (Costanza et al. 1997, Daily 1997, Pimentel et al. 1997, Sekercioglu 2010). he challenge, however, is to calculate the value of ecosystem services in meaningful and relevant ways that can be used to justify the protection of ecosystem services in land-use recommendations and policy decisions (Daily et al. 2000, 2009). As the case studies below illustrate, recent work on the ecosystem services provided by birds has made good progress toward this goal, but much remains to be done. Our objectives here are to describe the ecosystem services provided by birds, 8 9 highlight recent steps toward quantifying those services, and, inally, suggest directions for future research. Overall, we emphasize that global eforts to conserve bird populations and sustain avian biodiversity also preserve the diverse ecosystem services provided by birds, thus contributing to human well-being. D EFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND Ecosystem services are divided into four categories (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). Provisioning services refer to natural products that are directly used by humans for food, clothing, medicines, tools, or other uses. Cultural services provide recreational opportunities, inspiration for art and music, and spiritual value. Regulating services include pest control and carcass removal. Supporting services, such as pollination, seed dispersal, water puriication, and nutrient cycling, provide processes essential for ecological communities and agricultural ecosystems. he Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s description of ecosystem services (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2003) is widely cited, but considerable debate continues on what constitutes an ecosystem service and how each should be quantiied (Boyd 2007, Boyd and Banzhaf 2007, Matero and Saastamoinen 2007, Nijkamp et al. 2008, Bartelmus 2010, Farley and Costanza 2010, Kontogianni et al. 2010, Norgaard 2010, Wainger et al. 2010). he main issues include Present address: Loras College, 1450 Alta Vista, Dubuque, Iowa 52004, USA. E-mail: harrier2@mchsi.com Present address: Department of Biology, University of Utah, 257 South 1400 East, Room 201, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA. he Auk, Vol. 128, Number 1, pages 1−14. ISSN 0004-8038, electronic ISSN 1938-4254.  2011 by he American Ornithologists’ Union. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, http://www.ucpressjournals. com/reprintInfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/auk.2011.10248 —1— 2 — WENNY how to value nonmarket services, how to avoid double counting a process and its end product, and how to incorporate ecosystem valuation into policy and land-use decisions. We do not advocate any particular method of valuation here, but we argue that a consistent methodology for calculating units of ecosystem services is needed (as with any system of weights and measures; Boyd 2007). O VERVIEW OF E COSYSTEM S ERVICES P ROVIDED BY B IRDS Birds are the best-known class of vertebrate animals, occur worldwide in nearly all habitats, and provide many services (Sekercioglu 2006a, b; Whelan et al. 2008). hus, they are an ideal group to examine for ecosystem service valuation. Yet, surprisingly, little ornithological research has been done in an ecosystem-services context. Much ecosystem-services work has been focused on watersheds and insect pollination, perhaps because market value can readily be assigned to both fresh drinking water and agricultural crops that require pollination (Kremen et al. 2007, Brenner et al. 2010). Similarly, economic aspects of some cultural and provisioning services such as bird watching and hunting have been quantiied (Sekercioglu 2002, LaRouche 2003, Leonard 2008, Carver 2009). Other historical and cultural aspects of birds have been reviewed and quantiied in a general way (Diamond and Filion 1987, Podulka et al. 2004, Mynott 2009). Most of the important ecological roles that birds ill, however, involve supporting and regulating services, such as insect pest control and seed dispersal, and these types of services are the most diicult to quantify (Farber et al. 2006; Sekercioglu 2006a, b; Whelan et al. 2008, 2010). As we describe below, many of the most important ecosystem services that birds provide result from their foraging behavior. hrough their foraging, birds act as mobile links that transfer energy both within and among ecosystems, and thus contribute to ecosystem function and resilience (Lundberg and Moberg 2003). We know that birds are important ecologically; the challenge is to quantify that importance in terms that are currently meaningful to humans. Pest control.—he regulating and supporting services provided by birds result mostly from foraging (i.e., consuming and processing resources; Table 1). he prime example is insectivory, which can provide the ecosystem service of pest control. More than 50% of bird species are predominantly insectivorous, and nearly 75% eat invertebrates at least occasionally (Sekercioglu 2006b; Table 1). he beneicial role of birds in consuming arthropods, and especially their responses to and inluence on insect outbreaks (e.g., spruce budworms [Choristoneura spp.], cicadas [Magicicada spp.], and Mormon Crickets [Anabrus simplex]), is well documented (U.S. Biological Survey reports, summarized by Whelan et al. 2008). Furthermore, numerous studies in both natural and agricultural habitats show not only that birds reduce herbivorous insect populations, but also that plants respond with higher growth rates or crop yields (see Whelan et al. 2008: Table 1), a classic “trophic cascade” (Terborgh and Estes 2010). To cite an anecdotal example, the 1958 extermination campaign in China against the Eurasian Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus) ultimately contributed to insect pest outbreaks rather than rice yield increases, demonstrating indirectly that the sparrows’ control of insects beneited the crop (Suyin 1959, Becker 1996). Other trophic cascades that involve birds potentially beneit agriculture, but they have seldom been studied. For example, ET AL . — AUK , VOL . 128 although many raptors (both hawks and owls) consume rodents, we know of no study that has examined this predator–prey interaction from the perspective of economic value or trophic cascades. A few studies have directly assessed birds of prey as agricultural rodent-control agents, and the results are somewhat ambiguous. Wood and Fee (2003) reviewed measures to control rats in Malaysian agroecosystems, including deployment of nest boxes to raise populations of Barn Owls (Tyto alba). hey concluded that the evidence was inconsistent and that the efect of owls warrants further investigation. Kay et al. (1994) reported that perches placed around soybean ields in Australia increased the number of diurnal raptors around and over the ields, which in turn decreased House Mouse (Mus musculus) population growth rate and maximum population density in the ields. Perches placed 100 m apart were more efective than those placed 200 m apart. Other studies demonstrated that providing artiicial perches attracts various birds of prey, including American Kestrels (Falco sparverius), which also suggests that this method may enhance or concentrate foraging in potentially beneicial ways (Wolf et al. 1999, Sheield et al. 2001). Clearly, more research is needed on the potential for birds of prey to drive trophic cascades in natural and agricultural ecosystems. he role of granivorous birds in control of agricultural weeds is essentially unknown, but one example is suggestive. In New Zealand, a granivorous bird introduced for aesthetic reasons, the European Goldinch (Carduelis carduelis), destroyed 10× more seeds of the aggressive pasture weed Carduus nutans than a weevil (Curculionidae: Rhinocyllus conicus) that was introduced to provide biological control of C. nutans (Kelly and McCallum 1990). In fact, the 32% of seed destroyed by goldinches at that site compares favorably to the highest well-documented seed losses attributed to R. conicus (30–40%) at sites where the insect provided efective biological control (Kelly and McCallum 1995). While it is likely that most species of avian granivores are beneicial in agroecosystems, especially because most species also eat considerable quantities of invertebrates during the breeding season, the most prominent studies of granivores are those on birds as agricultural pests (Weatherhead et al. 1982, Elliott and Lenton 1989, Dolbeer 1990, Basili and Temple 1999, Avery et al. 2001, Blackwell and Dolbeer 2001, McWilliam and Cheke 2004, Cirne and Lopez-Iborra 2005, Hagy et al. 2008). Future research should examine more fully the costs and beneits of avian granivory in agricultural settings. Bird–plant mutualisms.—he bird–plant interactions of pollination and seed dispersal have potentially large efects on ecosystems. Nearly 33% of bird species disperse seeds, primarily through fruit consumption, but also through scatter-hoarding of nuts and conifer seed crops (Vander Wall 2001, Sekercioglu 2006b). It is dificult to estimate the number of plant species dispersed by birds, because of overlap with seed-dispersing mammals and incomplete knowledge of many habitats. In the temperate zone (i.e., Europe, North America, Japan, and New Zealand), 36–55% of woody lora are leshy-fruited (Burrows 1994). Nonwoody species are less likely to have leshy fruit, so the average across whole loras is lower; for example, in New Zealand, leshy fruits are found in 59% of trees (Kelly et al. 2010) and 48% of all woody species (Burrows 1994), but in only 12% of the whole lora (Lord et al. 2002). hese temperate-zone totals exclude dry (lacking a leshy covering), scatterhoarded tree nuts and conifer seeds, which are common in the Northern Hemisphere (Tomback and Linhart 1990, Vander Wall J ANUARY 2011 — P ERSPECTIVES IN O RNITHOLOGY — 3 TABLE 1. Relative importance of dietary categories among avian orders (+ indicates primary item, – indicates less important item, blank indicates an item rarely or never eaten at family level within orders). List based on Gill and Donskar (2010). Diets from Harris (2009). Terrestrial Order Tinamiformes Struthioniformes Rheiformes Casuariiformes Apterygiformes Galliformes Anseriformes Gaviiformes Sphenisciformes Procellariiformes Podicipediformes Phoenicopteriformes Phaethontiformes Ciconiiformes Pelecaniformes Suliformes Accipitriformes Falconiformes Otidiformes Mesitornithiformes Cariamiformes Eurypygiformes Gruiformes Charadriiformes Pteroclidiformes Columbiformes Psittaciformes Opisthocomiformes Musophagiformes Cuculiformes Strigiformes Caprimulgiformes Apodiformes Coliiformes Trogoniformes Leptosomiformes Coraciiformes Bucerotiformes Piciformes Passeriformes Families Genera Species Inverts Verts 1 1 1 2 1 5 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 6 19 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 4 4 1 1 1 6 4 9 120 9 1 2 2 1 83 51 1 6 26 6 3 1 6 35 8 72 11 11 2 2 2 42 94 2 42 86 1 6 32 27 21 128 2 7 1 35 17 67 1278 47 2 2 4 5 297 169 5 19 134 21 6 3 19 111 55 260 65 27 3 2 2 162 379 16 321 373 1 23 146 220 117 454 6 42 1 157 73 431 6237 + – – + + + + – – + – + + + + – + – – – + + + + + + + + Inverts Verts – – – – + – + + Aquatic Carrion – + – + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Fruit Seeds Vegetation – – – + – – + + – + + + + + – + – – + – – – + – + – – – – + + + – + – – – + + – + – – + – – – + + + + 2001). Also, the tropics hold most plant species diversity, and tropical loras are disproportionately woody and leshy-fruited (Howe and Smallwood 1982, Willson et al. 1989, Fleming 1991). hus, probably 30–50% of all plant species have vertebrate-dispersed fruit (80,000–140,000 species). Certainly, many tens of thousands of plant species beneit from bird dispersal in terms of gene low, colonization of open sites, escape from predators, directed dispersal to favorable sites, or enhanced germination (Vander Wall and Balda 1981, Howe and Smallwood 1982, Johnson and Webb 1989, Tomback and Linhart 1990, Jordano 2000, Tomback 2005). Birds disperse the seeds of many woody plant species with direct value to humans for timber, medicine, food, or other uses; + – – + – – – + + + – – – – – Nectar + + – – – – + + + + – – + + – – + yet the dependence of these plants on birds for dispersal and the anthropogenic inluences on the seed-dispersal pathways are in many cases poorly understood. he great declines in abundance of large frugivorous birds and mammals have resulted directly or indirectly from human activities, and some have been extirpated from regions or have become extinct (Cordeiro and Howe 2003, Sekercioglu et al. 2004, Peres and Palacios 2007, Terborgh et al. 2008). Large-seeded plants are most at risk because they require large-bodied dispersers, which are more vulnerable to anthropogenic efects (Hansen and Galetti 2009, McKinney et al. 2009). As a result, the number of relatively large-seeded plants with few or no dispersers is now rising, especially on islands, which have lower 4 — WENNY diversity and less ecological redundancy than continental areas (e.g., Kelly et al. 2010). Lower densities of frugivores may disperse a smaller fraction of the fruit crop, which can result in fewer seedlings or in seedlings being more concentrated under the parent plants (Cordeiro and Howe 2003, Terborgh et al. 2008, Cordeiro et al. 2009, Sethi and Howe 2009, Sharam et al. 2009, Chimera and Drake 2010). hese efects generally result in changes in plant community composition rather than the local extirpation of plant species (Wright and Duber 2001; Cordeiro and Howe 2003; Muller-Landau 2007; Wright et al. 2007a, b; McKinney et al. 2009; Sharam et al. 2009). It is unknown how these changes will afect plant populations, or even entire forest communities, that are important to humans. More experimental work is needed to determine the ecological processes involved and their outcomes. Fewer bird and plant species are involved in bird-pollination mutualisms (~900 bird species and ~5% of regional loras; Stiles 1985, Nabhan and Buchmann 1997), but recent evidence suggests that bird-pollination failure still poses important risks. he relationships tend to be more specialized than with seed dispersal, and the outcome of a failed mutualism is unambiguously negative (failure to produce seed; Kelly et al. 2004). For some plants in New Zealand, insects were regarded as efective substitutes for missing birds, but data do not support this belief (Kelly et al. 1996, Robertson et al. 2005), even for some temperate-zone plant species with apparently insect-adapted lowers (Anderson 2003). As with seed dispersal, plant extinction may not follow loss of pollinators, but we have few good measures of such efects, especially in cases where birds have declined rather than become extinct. One recent study provides a cautionary example: Anderson et al. (2011) showed a terrestrial trophic cascade in New Zealand whereby mammalian carnivores reduced densities of pollinating birds, resulting in an 84% reduction in seed output of the bird-pollinated shrub Rhabdothamnus solandri and a 55% reduction in shrub regeneration. he authors stress that gradual plant declines might frequently pass unrecorded. Where comparisons have been made within a single region, bird-pollinated plants seem to be more pollen limited than dispersal limited; thus, the efects of mutualism breakdown may be greater and faster-acting for bird-pollination than for seed-dispersal systems (Kelly et al. 2004, 2010). However, where pollination is primarily by insects, seed dispersal is probably the mutualism more at risk (Corlett 2007). Scavenging and nutrient cycling.—he ecological importance of scavenging birds is often underappreciated. Despite the common assumption that decomposers (i.e., microbes and insects) are primarily responsible for recycling carrion biomass, DeVault et al. (2003) demonstrated that vultures and other vertebrate scavengers usually consume most available carcasses in terrestrial ecosystems. Although vultures are one of the most recognizable types of birds to non-ornithologists, this familiarity is often not accompanied by appreciation of the services they provide. By scavenging, vultures and other carnivorous vertebrates contribute to waste removal, disease regulation, and nutrient cycling (Houston 1979, DeVault et al. 2003). In addition to vultures, many other bird species scavenge animal carcasses at least occasionally, including raptors, seabirds, gulls, herons, rails, shorebirds, woodpeckers, and passerines (DeVault et al. 2003). Seabirds, in particular, are accomplished scavengers, often feeding on ishery discards (Hill and Wassenberg ET AL . — AUK , VOL . 128 1990, 2000; Wassenberg and Hill 1990; Jennings and Kaiser 1998). Among passerines, corvids—especially American Crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and Common Ravens (C. corax)—are the most conspicuous scavengers (DeVault et al. 2003). More research is needed on the ecological consequences of obligate and facultative scavenging, particularly on how these processes are afected by contemporary human activities such as transportation (Dean and Milton 2003, Antworth et al. 2005) and commercial isheries (Britton and Morton 1994), which make many dead animals and byproducts available for scavengers. Birds contribute to nutrient cycling in all habitats, but most impressively where aquatic birds nest colonially on islands (Polis and Hurd 1996, Anderson and Polis 1999). Seabirds often nest in dense colonies both in coastal areas and on islands where they process large amounts of food in small areas. In this manner, seabirds transport nutrients from the aquatic zone to the terrestrial zone. Such large inputs of phosphate-rich guano can inluence the structure and composition of plant communities (Ellis 2005). Conversely, removal of nesting birds after introduction of a predator fundamentally alters the plant community (Croll et al. 2005, Bellingham et al. 2010). Birds as ecosystem engineers.—Ecosystem engineering is the one supporting service provided by birds that does not result from foraging but involves construction of nests that are later used by many other organisms. Nests vary greatly in building materials, structure, complexity, size, longevity, and usefulness to other organisms. Examples include excavated cavities or burrows, cup nests, platform nests, mud nests, and domed nests (see Ehrlich et al. 1988). Open-cup and domed nests, the most common nest types (Collias and Collias 1984, Collias 1997), are often taken over by small mammals (Gates and Gates 1975), overwintering spiders (Otzen and Schaefer 1980), and bumble bees (Dame et al. 2002). Many animals, including insects like beetles and social wasps, rodents, lizards, snakes, frogs, and even other bird species, use the domed ground nests of tropical ovenbirds (Furnariidae; Remsen 2003). Woodpecker cavities are used by other birds and by many other animal species, including mammals, amphibians, and arthropods (Conner et al. 1997, Neubig and Smallwood 1999, Monterrubio-Rico and Escalante-Pliego 2006). Nest burrows are excavated by many bird taxa, including penguins, seabirds, alcids, parrots, owls, kingishers, and passerines. hese nests alter soil properties and thus afect nutrient cycling (see above), and, like woodpecker cavities, they are used by many other taxa, including birds, snakes, mammals, and amphibians (Casas-Criville and Valera 2005). Summary: Indirect services.—Birds are highly mobile, occur globally, ill many ecological roles, and respond rapidly to environmental change. As described in the overview above, bird activities provide links within and between ecosystems and can have large efects on other species. he ecosystem services that birds provide are largely indirect and support or enhance other services. For example, insectivory, pollination, seed dispersal, and nutrient cycling beneit plants that then produce oxygen, food, lumber, medicine, lood and erosion control, aesthetics, recreation, and other beneits for human society. Birds may act as densitydependent consumers that exert strong top-down efects on food webs, which can result in prey population regulation, pest control, and corresponding changes in plant communities. herefore, in J ANUARY 2011 — P ERSPECTIVES IN the context of ecosystem services, population decline among birds may lead to changes that cascade through ecosystems and cause subsequent declines in beneits to humans. Because the services are usually indirect, neither birds nor their services are generally included in ecosystem-valuation models. herefore, birds are only indirect beneiciaries of any conservation actions advocated by economic models. his approach implies an indicator-species model of conservation in which a limited subset of species or other environmental indicators are the basis for conservation planning and land-use decisions. Such indirect beneits may be suicient for bird conservation in some cases, but to date, the indicator-species model has had inconsistent success in predicting abundance and diversity of other species (Roberge et al. 2008, Larsen et al. 2009, Cushman et al. 2010). Data that enable valuation of bird services will improve the models of ecosystem valuation and increase bird-conservation eforts as well as the beneits to humans. At the same time, eforts to establish valuation will promote additional research on many fundamental and important ecological questions. Q UANTIFYING E COSYSTEM S ERVICES he overall goal of determining the value of ecosystem services can be divided into three components. First is the need to describe and quantify the services themselves at local and regional levels. he goal of describing ecosystem services is largely accomplished (Sekercioglu 2006a, b; Whelan et al. 2008), and we know considerable natural-history details that are relevant to many ecosystem services. But we need more detail at local levels from a variety of sites to make global comparisons; in this way we can minimize the problems associated with “beneit transfer” (i.e., assuming that value estimates from one site are equivalent to those at a similar habitat elsewhere; Farber et al. 2006, Plummer 2009, Eigenbrod et al. 2010). Data from multiple sites will also allow an assessment of the extent and sources of variation in ecosystem services. Understanding the variation in services among sites will lead to more robust estimates of the value of ecosystem services and more effective conservation plans. Second, we need methods to quantify the direct or indirect values of ecosystem services provided, and to test these methods with case studies. Finally, we need to combine the information from multiple ecosystem services to form a metric or model of values to assess how ecosystem services can be maximized under different land-use scenarios or policy changes. We need this type of modeling approach because a given service (e.g., seed dispersal) will not be protected successfully by itself, but rather as part of a comprehensive conservation strategy. Several models incorporating some ecological input have been developed (Daily and Matson 2008, Ranganathan et al. 2008, Daily et al. 2009, Nelson et al. 2009). Most of the supporting and regulating ecosystem services are not traded in traditional markets, and in that sense they are public goods with approximately the same cost (usually “free”) and value to all users. However, the value of some public ecosystem services or resources may decline with level of use. For example, intensive birdwatching at a given site may disturb the birds to the point that they leave or alter their behavior, thus rendering the resource unavailable or less worthwhile for additional viewers (Blumstein et O RNITHOLOGY — 5 al. 2005). As public goods, ecosystem services are susceptible to “externalities,” such as uncompensated side efects from other users of a common resource. For example, extensive habitat modiication by one landowner may negatively afect pollination or pest control for an adjacent landowner. An additional complication is that the economic value in environmental markets that are driven by regulations (e.g., those mandated by the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act) is not determined by production functions or the value to the end users, as in traditional markets. Instead, regulators set the value. For all of these reasons, market failure (i.e., the failure of market value to relect full social cost), is more often the rule than the exception for ecosystem services. hese problems raise fundamental concerns about the ability of neoclassical economic theory to adequately address environmental issues (Hall et al. 2000, Lux 2003, Nadeau 2010), and in that sense ecosystem valuation is a step toward bridging the divide between economics and natural sciences. A variety of methods have been used in valuation of ecosystem services (Farber et al. 2002, 2006). Here, we briely review the methods that are useful for quantifying services provided by birds. All of these methods are conventional in that the output is an economic value and therefore represents the “marginal value” people are willing to pay for an item or service. Non-monetary valuation methods such as ranking or stakeholder analysis have promise for community-level decisions, but they have not yet been applied to the services discussed here. he value of birds in pest control can be estimated as the costs avoided by using birds instead of pesticides. hese valuations have been determined for bats (Cleveland et al. 2006) and insects (Losey and Vaughan 2006). Data necessary for this estimate include irst the monetary loss (e.g., reduced crop yields) from herbivory under current conditions, and then, based on diet and natural history of both insects and insectivores, an estimate of the additional loss that would occur with no birds present. Assuming that pesticides could accomplish the pest-control function of birds and would yield the same crop levels in the absence of birds, the cost of that amount of pesticides is the avoided cost and an estimate of the value of avian pest control. Note that this method works well for agricultural crops or timber species for which we have both market values and natural-history data (e.g., Takekawa and Garton 1984), but not for most wild plants (e.g., Sharam et al. 2009). Also note that this is short-term costing, assuming no evolutionary responses of the pests to the pesticides, whereas experience has shown that pests rapidly evolve resistance to pesticides (Gassmann et al. 2009, Bourguet et al. 2010) but have not yet managed to do so to birds because birds also evolve. An alternative, but one that still requires some estimate of the market value of an end product, is production valuation in which value is assigned on the basis of the economic outcome that results from changes in services. For example, the value of scatter-hoarding of seeds by corvids could be based on the reforestation value of the species they disperse (see case study below). Similarly, replacement costs relect the value of replacing or recreating a missing ecosystem service. he Biosphere 2 experiment, which created an artiicial habitable system and cost ~$9 million per human inhabitant per year, took this to an extreme (Avise 1994). Finally, through surveys or polls, preference-based approaches can yield contingent values that are essentially the 6 — WENNY willingness to pay for an ecosystem service (Bowker and Stoll 1988). Contingent values, along with travel and equipment costs, are used to estimate the economic impact of tourism and other recreational uses. For example, birdwatchers in the United States spend more than $30 billion annually for travel and equipment (LaRouche 2003, Carver 2009) and would be willing to spend $35 to $134 per day for birdwatching opportunities (LaRouche 2003). C ASE STUDIES Cofee pest control in Jamaica.—Shade-cofee farms can be highquality habitats for insectivorous birds, especially migratory generalist species that do not rely on intact understory vegetation (Tejeda-Cruz and Sutherland 2004, Johnson et al. 2006). Bird foraging within farms is concentrated in the shade trees that grow over the cofee shrubs (Wunderle and Latta 2000). he coffee shrubs are naturally chemically defended and comparatively poor in insect abundance (Lepelley 1973, Greenberg et al. 2000). Nonetheless, many birds also forage, to some degree, on insects on the cofee shrubs (Wunderle and Latta 2000). Bird exclosure experiments have conirmed that bird foraging reduces overall insect biomass on cofee shrubs in Guatemala (Greenberg et al. 2000), Mexico (Philpott et al. 2004), Panama (Van Bael et al. 2008), Puerto Rico (Borkhataria et al. 2006), and Jamaica (Johnson et al. 2009). he Cofee Berry Borer (Hypothenemus hampei) is the world’s most damaging insect pest of cofee (Damon 2000). Recent experiments in Jamaica indicate that birds reduce pest populations, increase saleable fruit, and boost farm income (Kellermann et al. 2008, Johnson et al. 2010). Calculations of the beneits provided were obtained by documenting pest infestation levels in the presence and absence of bird foraging (via exclosures) and translating higher saleable crop yields in the presence of birds into a dollar igure using crop market prices. Birds boosted farm income by $75 ha–1 year–1 on high-elevation farms (Kellermann et al. 2008) and by $310 ha–1 year–1 on a mid-elevation farm (Johnson et al. 2010; here and below, igures are in U.S. dollars). As agents of ecosystem services, birds are notably mobile and capable of utilizing multiple habitats. herefore, the delivery of ecosystem services by birds in some cases may depend strongly on habitat coniguration and landscape composition. To harness economic forces for conservation of birds and their habitats in agricultural landscapes, ornithologists must not only document the economic value of the ecosystem services provided by birds, but also clarify bird movements and relationships among agricultural lands and surrounding natural habitats. Several models are available for projecting ecosystem services over a changing landscape, such as InVEST (Daily et al. 2009) and individual-based models (Grimm and Railsback 2005). Ongoing radiotelemetry studies have shown that an important cofee pest predator, the Black-throated Blue Warbler (Dendroica caerulescens), commutes from diurnal foraging territories within cofee habitat to nocturnal roosting sites within natural forests (Jirinec et al. 2011) and establishes foraging territories close to farm edges and patches of uncultivated vegetation within farms (B. R. Campos and M. D. Johnson unpubl. data). hese results establish links between the provisioning of an economically valuable ecosystem service and natural vegetation both within and outside cofee farms. By linking bird movements to maps of landscapes and estimates of ET AL . — AUK , VOL . 128 pest-control services, a spatially explicit individual-based model can simulate how changes in landscape composition can afect the delivery of pest-control services (M. D. Johnson and S. F. Railsback unpubl. data). his approach could be used by conservation planners to estimate the economic value of forested habitats within agricultural landscapes, and to provide economic estimates of ecosystem services under proposed land-use scenarios. Swedish oaks.—he replacement costs for the seed-dispersal services of Eurasian Jays (Garrulus glandarius) in Stockholm National Urban Park were estimated by Hougner et al. (2006). he National Urban Park of Stockholm features one of the largest oak forests in Sweden. he Swedes recognize oaks as keystone species that support unique communities of insects, lichens, mosses, and fungi, as well as nesting birds and bats (Hougner et al. 2006). In the National Urban Park of Stockholm, many of the oaks (Quercus robur and Q. petrea) are more than 500 years old. Nearly 85% of the oaks in the park most likely result from acorn dispersal, primarily by Eurasian Jays. Given that an epidemic of lethal oak disease is spreading across Europe and that most of the oaks in the park are currently healthy, Hougner et al. (2006) argued that the natural seed-dispersal services of the jays will be especially important for maintaining healthy forests through natural local seed-dispersal over time. he authors calculated the replacement value of one pair of territorial jays, using two approaches: the cost of manually planting acorns and the cost of planting sapling oaks. hey used data from several references to quantify acorn dispersal by Eurasian Jays and the number of sapling oaks that arise from jay dispersal each year, estimating germination and survival rates. Having computed the costs of manual reforestation, the authors concluded that the minimum replacement value of a pair of Eurasian Jays was about $4,035 (conversion from SEK, based on 2005 values) if acorns are seeded, and about $22,560 if saplings are planted. Given the area occupied by oak forest in the Park, these jays represent a value of $2,115 to $9,450 per ha for forest regeneration. Nutcrackers and pines.—A similar example is the economic value of scatter-hoarding (caching) seeds of Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) by Clark’s Nutcrackers (Corvidae: Nucifraga columbiana). he cones of Whitebark Pine do not open, so this conifer obligately depends on nutcrackers for dispersal (Tomback 1978, 2001; Hutchins and Lanner 1982). Pine squirrels (Tamiasciurus spp.) are important conifer-seed predators and compete with nutcrackers for Whitebark Pine seeds, but they contribute little or no seed dispersal (Siepielski and Benkman 2008, McKinney et al. 2009). Cronartium ribicola, an invasive fungal pathogen that causes white pine blister rust, and regional outbreaks of native pine beetles have produced precipitous declines in Whitebark Pine nearly rangewide; this pine is currently being evaluated for federal listing as a threatened or endangered species (Tomback and Achuf 2010). he U.S. Forest Service has undertaken restoration programs that involve the planting of putative pathogen-resistant seedlings, grown from seeds harvested from screened parent trees (e.g., Schwandt et al. 2010, Tomback and Achuf 2010). he cost of these restoration efforts essentially represents the valuation of natural seed-dispersal activities throughout the range of the pine. On the basis of igures obtained from two U.S. national forests, D. F. Tomback (unpubl. data) calculated the costs of planting upper subalpine terrain with a typical density of Whitebark Pine J ANUARY 2011 — P ERSPECTIVES IN seedlings (440 ha–1). Ironically, a large part of the cost of obtaining seeds requires that trees be climbed and cones caged in early summer to prevent nutcrackers from depleting the seeds and squirrels from cutting down cones, and then climbed again in September to harvest the cones. hese costs were reduced by assuming that adequate numbers of seeds for a 1-ha planting could be harvested from only one tree, although restoration eforts would actually require more genetic diversity. Other expenses, such as materials, travel, and the cost of protecting trees each year from pine beetles were excluded, whereas the costs of growing seedlings, planting seedlings, and administrative oversight were included. Replacing nutcracker seed-dispersal services costs the U.S. Forest Service a minimum of $2,190 ha–1 in two national forests. Whereas this seedling planting could be accomplished within one ield season, D. F. Tomback (unpubl. data) used a study of postire regeneration after the 1988 Yellowstone ires to estimate the average number of new seedlings per year that germinated per hectare from natural seed caches (Tomback et al. 2001). She concluded that it would take a minimum of 5 to 6 years in the Yellowstone area for nutcrackers to produce 440 Whitebark Pine seedlings per hectare. Although this is slower, spreading regeneration over several years may yield beneits by spreading risks over time (e.g., reducing risks of failure in a dry season, higher genetic diversity by including parents seeding in diferent years). However, given that the nutcrackers would spread both pathogen-resistant and susceptible genotypes, establishing 440 healthy trees per hectare under current conditions by way of nutcrackers would take additional time. Vulture decline in South Asia.—he consequences of the recent catastrophic decline of vultures (three Gyps spp.) in South Asia because of toxic livestock chemicals vividly demonstrate the vital role that vultures play in ecosystems (Pain et al. 2003, Green et al. 2004, Oaks et al. 2004). In the near absence of vultures, cattle carcasses remained on the landscape for longer periods and were available to other scavengers. As a result, populations of feral dogs and other human-commensal facultative scavengers increased, and diseases spread to humans and domestic livestock. Markandya et al. (2008) estimated that human health costs attributable to population crashes of vultures in India totaled $34 billion over the years 1993–2006. Additional cultural costs to the Parsi sects, which rely on vultures for corpse cleansing, totaled $1.6 million (Markandya et al. 2008). R ESEARCH N EEDS he overview of selected ecosystem services and case studies discussed above point to some very speciic research needs that are outlined below. More generally, we lack basic information on all the ways that birds could contribute to ecosystem services that ultimately beneit humans. Although we know in general the types of ecosystem services that birds provide, we often lack suicient details of bird behavior and ecology to formulate models of ecosystem valuation in a broader framework relevant to human well-being. In addition to the more speciic research subjects noted below, a topic that has received relatively little attention in the ecosystemservices literature is the economic costs of some bird activity. For example, some birds may be crop pests (Elliott and Lenton 1989, Dolbeer 1990, Basili and Temple 1999), disperse weed seeds (Williams 2006), damage property or livestock (Lowney 1999, Harding O RNITHOLOGY — 7 et al. 2007), or generate noise and droppings in residential areas (Gorenzel and Salmon 1995). Some research regarding birds as agricultural pests has shown that perceived damage can be greater than actual damage (Basili and Temple 1999) or that the damage can be minimized with appropriate management (Dolbeer 1990). Crop pests also have beneicial efects, such as insectivory (Dolbeer 1990), and research on potential pest species needs to examine all the ecological roles that a bird ills in order to evaluate the economic costs and beneits. Although a few bird species cause economic damage, at the ecosystem level the services provided by birds are overwhelmingly positive (Sekercioglu 2006a, Whelan et al. 2008). More generally, payments for ecosystem services (PES) are receiving increased attention in natural-resource management practice and theory (e.g., Pagiola 2008, Farley and Costanza 2010, Sommerville et al. 2010), and the recognition of ecosystem disservices (McCauley 2006) is also becoming more formalized (Lyytimaki et al. 2008, Dunn 2010, Power 2010). Very little of that work, however, has been focused on organismal delivery of services and costs (but see Nelson 2009), and it is important for ornithologists to contribute to this line of research in the future. Pest control.—he key aspect of pest control in need of further study is the extent to which trophic cascades have measurable economic beneits in terms of increased plant growth or agricultural production. We know that top-down efects of bird foraging are widespread, but most studies are still restricted to two trophic levels: birds and their prey. More experiments involving all three trophic levels (e.g., Marquis and Whelan 1994, Mols and Visser 2002, Johnson et al. 2010) are needed, especially in agroecosystems. Similarly, Fayt et al. (2005) concluded that woodpeckers can regulate populations of insect pests of northern temperate conifer forests, but no studies have explicitly examined the economic beneits to the timber industry of this interaction. Research examining the consequences of bird consumption of pests (arthropod or rodent) for either crop yield or plant demographics would be extremely useful if conducted within multiple agricultural ecosystems to determine generality and variability. his is a prime example of an area of research where repetition aimed at establishing the generality of research, rather than aimed at “being irst” or “novel,” needs to be encouraged by funding agencies. Another aspect of pest control that avian ecologists (and funding agencies) should be poised to exploit is centered on unfortunate natural “experiments” like avian population declines in eastern North America from West Nile virus (LaDeau et al. 2007). Research on potential consequences (e.g., increases in human diseases carried by insects) of those population declines on ecosystem function and provision of ecosystem services would be very useful and instructive. Other useful avenues for research involve determining the feasibility and efectiveness of habitat manipulations that boost either populations of key avian pest consumers (e.g., deploying nest boxes) or their efectiveness as pest consumers (e.g., providing perches for foraging). hese sorts of manipulations should be a standard component of any integrated pest management (IPM) plan. Additionally, we need cost–beneit analyses of the efectiveness of such manipulations, at least in agroecosystems, and cost–beneit comparisons of bird control versus chemical control mechanisms with large externalities (i.e., pesticides). Moreover, studies that examine the efectiveness of such manipulations must incorporate 8 — WENNY efects from the framework of “landscapes of fear” (Laundré et al. 2001). For example, perches may alter the behavior of small rodents through their increased fear, thus restricting their foraging, even if rodent population size does not decline markedly. A few studies have suggested that avian granivores exert weed control, but these studies need to examine the efects on an agricultural crop or other plants. Exclosure experiments are needed to carefully document birds’ seed consumption in a variety of contexts, from natural communities to agroecosystems to restoration projects. In areas where birds are considered pests (e.g., Basili and Temple 1999), careful documentation of trophic function would be useful—birds may, for example, consume seeds of crops, but may compensate via consumption of pest insects. Dispersal and pollination.—he key remaining questions about dispersal and pollination are largely very hard to answer. We need more information on the mechanisms (preferably from manipulative experiments) over the whole life cycle of the plants. Unresolved topics include (1) how various factors, including frugivores (birds and mammals), seed predators, pathogens, habitat fragmentation, and plant competitors, interact to determine plant reproductive success; (2) how widespread density- and distancedependent seed and seedling mortality efects are (so-called JanzenConnell efects), both in the tropics and in the temperate zone (Packer and Clay 2000), because these greatly increase dependence on dispersers; (3) the level of change in dispersal services and its impacts at the plant community level following hunting, habitat fragmentation, disturbance such as ire, or other anthropogenic change; (4) the extent of seed limitation, which determines whether pollination limitation matters (Kelly et al. 2007); and (5) more studies to determine whether the unexpected importance of bird pollination to plants with lowers that are apparently suited to insect pollination in temperate New Zealand (Kelly et al. 2010) applies in other areas. Birds disperse seeds of native and non-native plant species and in some areas play a role in the spread of invasive plants (Sallabanks 1992, Vila and Dantonio 1998, Renne et al. 2002, Cordeiro et al. 2004, Gosper et al. 2005, Bartuszevige and Gorchov 2006, Milton et al. 2007, Underhill and Hofmeyr 2007). Such dispersal is not necessarily detrimental—the non-native plant species themselves may provide ecosystem services, such as erosion control or aesthetics. he question becomes whether the beneits of seed dispersal outweigh their detrimental efects. he situation is complicated further when non-native plants are dispersed by non-native birds such as European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in North America and European Blackbirds (Turdus merula) in New Zealand (Williams 2006). More work is needed on dispersal of nonnative plant species in an ecosystem-services framework. As with other ecological processes, if we understand the speciics we will be better able to develop realistic valuation models. Scavengers.—Unfortunately, the value provided by ecosystem services is most apparent after their loss. he catastrophic ecological and human-health ramiications created by the recent collapse of vulture populations in India (Markandya et al. 2008) have revealed the importance of ecosystem services provided by carrion-feeding birds. It is clear that in some areas proper ecosystem function is dependent, in part, on scavenging birds. Even so, the cycling of carrion biomass, whether by scavenging or decomposition, is a complex process governed by an intense competition ET AL . — AUK , VOL . 128 for carcasses among vertebrates, insects, fungi, and microbes (DeVault et al. 2003, 2004; Selva et al. 2005; Selva and Fortuna 2007; Parmenter and MacMahon 2009). Habitat type, climate, carcass type, composition of the vertebrate community, and other biotic and abiotic factors all inluence competition for carrion (DeVault et al. 2003). In some situations, the competitive balance for carrion is shifted naturally away from birds, toward insects and microbes (e.g., DeVault et al. 2004) or facultative mammalian scavengers (e.g., Putman 1983). Future research aimed at identifying the conditions under which various taxa consume carrion would be beneicial. Such work would help elucidate vital links between ecosystem health and the population status of various vertebrates, such as the vulture–cattle carrion system in India. Future investigations into the scavenging ecology of birds would also improve our understanding of disease ecology (Jennelle et al. 2009), nutrient transport across ecosystem types (Polis et al. 2004), and the distribution of predators and their prey (CortesAvizanda et al. 2009a, b). CONCLUSIONS Birds provide many ecosystem services, which by and large are invisible and underappreciated. Several sudden losses of such services (e.g., carrion scavenging in India, pest control in China when sparrows were locally exterminated, forest plant pollination in New Zealand) provide a sense of the negative consequences should such services be lost. We suggest that ecosystem services be better studied and valued properly to ensure that humans continue to receive the beneits, and that birds continue to provide them. he case studies presented here show promising lines of research, but much work remains to be done. Despite the huge role of birds as insectivores, very little research has been done on insectivory in an ecosystem-services context (pest control), and most of what has been done is on pest control in cofee plantations. Similarly, the ecosystem service of seed dispersal has been quantiied only for seed-caching corvids. Dispersal of woody plants by terrestrial frugivores and dispersal of aquatic plants by waterfowl have not been addressed. We are not aware of any ecosystem-services valuation research on the role of birds in nutrient cycling or as ecosystem engineers. Further research to better understand the economic value of birds will enable better policy and restoration practices, promote and justify bird conservation eforts, and ultimately demonstrate the vital connections among human well-being, intact ecosystems, and the preservation of avian biodiversity. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS his paper is based, in part, on a symposium held at the joint AOU, COS, CSO meeting in San Diego in February 2010. We thank the organizers of that conference for supporting our participation at the symposium. hanks to W. Gibbons, N. Lichti, D. Shealer, S. Zack, and the lab group of J. Brown for many helpful comments on the manuscript. D.K. is grateful for funding from the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology under contracts CO9X0004 and CO9X0503. D.F.T. thanks M. Jenkins, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Flathead National Forest, and E. Davy, USDA Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest, for providing the costs associated with whitebark J ANUARY 2011 — P ERSPECTIVES IN pine restoration projects. C.J.W. gratefully acknowledges R. Marquis for his contributions to past research and ongoing, critical discussions on ecosystem services. C.S. thanks the Christensen Fund for support. LITERATURE CITED Anderson, S. H. 2003. he relative importance of birds and insects as pollinators of the New Zealand lora. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 27:83–94. Anderson, S. H., D. Kelly, J. J. Ladley, S. Molloy, and J. Terry. 2011. Cascading efects of bird functional extinction reduce pollination and plant density. Science 331: in press. Anderson, W. B., and G. A. Polis. 1999. Nutrient luxes from water to land: Seabirds afect plant nutrient status on Gulf of California islands. Oecologia 118:324–332. Antworth, R. L., D. A. Pike, and E. E. Stevens. 2005. Hit and run: Efects of scavenging on estimates of roadkilled vertebrates. Southeastern Naturalist 4:647–656. Avery, M. L., E. A. Tillman, and C. C. Laukert. 2001. Evaluation of chemical repellents for reducing crop damage by Dickcissels in Venezuela. International Journal of Pest Management 47:311–314. Avise, J. C. 1994. he real message from Biosphere 2. Conservation Biology 8:327–329. Bartelmus, P. 2010. Use and usefulness of sustainability economics. Ecological Economics 69:2053–2055. Bartuszevige, A. M., and D. L. Gorchov. 2006. Avian seed dispersal of an invasive shrub. Biological Invasions 8:1013–1022. Basili, G. D., and S. A. Temple. 1999. Dickcissels and crop damage in Venezuela: Deining the problem with ecological models. Ecological Applications 9:732–739. Becker, J. 1996. Hungry Ghosts: Mao’s Secret Famine. Free Press, New York. Bellingham, P. J., D. R. Towns, E. K. Cameron, J. J. Davis, D. A. Wardle, J. M. Wilmhurst, and C. P. H. Mulder. 2010. New Zealand island restoration: Seabirds, predators, and the importance of history. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34:115–136. Blackwell, B. F., and R. A. Dolbeer. 2001. Decline of the Redwinged Blackbird population in Ohio correlated to changes in agriculture (1965–1996). Journal of Wildlife Management 65:661–667. Blumstein, D. T., E. Fernandez-Juricic, P. A. Zollner, and S. C. Garity. 2005. Inter-speciic variation in avian responses to human disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:943–953. Borkhataria, R. R., J. A. Collazo, and M. J. Groom. 2006. Additive efects of vertebrate predators on insects in a Puerto Rican cofee plantation. Ecological Applications 16:696–703. Bourguet, D., F. Delmotte, P. Franck, T. Guillemaud, X. Reboud, C. Vacher, and A. S. Walker. 2010. he skill and style to model the evolution of resistance to pesticides and drugs. Evolutionary Applications 3:375–390. Bowker, J. M., and J. R. Stoll. 1988. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the Whooping Crane resource. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70:372–381. Boyd, J. 2007. Nonmarket beneits of nature: What should be counted in green GDP? Ecological Economics 61:716–723. Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2007. What are ecosystem services? he need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63:616–626. O RNITHOLOGY — 9 Brenner, J., J. A. Jimenez, R. Sarda, and A. Garola. 2010. An assessment of the non-market value of the ecosystem services provided by the Catalan coastal zone, Spain. Ocean & Coastal Management 53:27–38. Britton, J. C., and B. Morton. 1994. Marine carrion and scavengers. Oceanography and Marine Biology 32:369–434. Burrows, C. J. 1994. he seeds always know best. New Zealand Journal of Botany 32:349–363. Carver, E. 2009. Birding in the United States: A demographic and economic analysis. Report 2006-4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Casas-Criville, A., and F. Valera. 2005. he European Beeeater (Merops apiaster) as an ecosystem engineer in arid environments. Journal of Arid Environments 60:227–238. Chimera, C., and D. R. Drake. 2010. Patterns of seed dispersal and dispersal failure in a Hawaiian dry forest having only introduced birds. Biotropica 42:493–502. Cirne, M. P., and G. M. Lopez-Iborra. 2005. Breeding biology of Chestnut-capped Blackbirds in rice paddies in southern Brazil. Journal of Field Ornithology 76:411–416. Cleveland, C. J., M. Betke, P. Federico, J. D. Frank, T. G. Hallam, J. Horn, J. D. Lopez, G. F. McCracken, R. A. Medellin, A. Moreno-Valdez, and others. 2006. Economic value of the pest control service provided by Brazilian free-tailed bats in south-central Texas. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:238–243. Collias, N. E. 1997. On the origin and evolution of nest building by passerine birds. Condor 99:253–270. Collias, N. E., and E. C. Collias. 1984. Nest Building and Bird Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Conner, R. N., C. Rudolph, D. Saenz, and R. R. Schaeffer. 1997. Species using Red-cockaded Woodpecker cavities in eastern Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society 30:11–16. Cordeiro, N. J., and H. F. Howe. 2003. Forest fragmentation severs mutualism between seed dispersers and an endemic African tree. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100:14052–14056. Cordeiro, N. J., H. J. Ndangalasi, J. P. McEntee, and H. F. Howe. 2009. Disperser limitation and recruitment of an endemic African tree in a fragmented landscape. Ecology 90:1030–1041. Cordeiro, N. J., D. A. G. Patrick, B. Munisi, and V. Gupta. 2004. Role of dispersal in the invasion of an exotic tree in an East African submontane forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 20:449–457. Corlett, R. T. 2007. Pollination or seed dispersal: Which should we worry about most? Pages 523–544 in Seed Dispersal: heory and Its Application in a Changing World (A. J. Dennis, E. W. Schupp, R. Green, and D. W. Westcott, Eds.). CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom. Cortes-Avizanda, A., M. Carrete, D. Serrano, and J. A. Donazar. 2009a. Carcasses increase the probability of predation of ground-nesting birds: A caveat regarding the conservation value of vulture restaurants. Animal Conservation 12:85–88. Cortes-Avizanda, A., N. Selva, M. Carrete, and J. A. Donazar. 2009b. Efects of carrion resources on herbivore spatial distribution are mediated by facultative scavengers. Basic and Applied Ecology 10:265–272. 10 — WENNY Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. Oneill, J. Paruelo, and others. 1997. he value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. Croll, D. A., J. L. Maron, J. A. Estes, E. M. Danner, and G. V. Byrd. 2005. Introduced predators transform subarctic islands from grassland to tundra. Science 307:1959–1961. Cushman, S. A., K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, and K. McGarigal. 2010. Use of abundance of one species as a surrogate for abundance of others. Conservation Biology 24:830–840. Daily, G. [C.], Ed. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Daily, G. C., and P. A. Matson. 2008. Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:9455–9456. Daily, G. C., S. Polasky, J. Goldstein, P. M. Kareiva, H. A. Mooney, L. Pejchar, T. H. Ricketts, J. Salzman, and R. Shallenberger. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:21–28. Daily, G. C., T. Soderqvist, S. Aniyar, K. Arrow, P. Dasgupta, P. R. Ehrlich, C. Folke, A. Jansson, B. O. Jansson, N. Kautsky, and others. 2000. he value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289:395–396. Dame, D. A., T. R. Fasulo, and A. Brammer, Eds. 2002. National Public Health Pesticide Applicator Training Manual. [Online.] Available at entnemdept.ul.edu/fasulo/vector/manual.htm. Damon, A. 2000. A review of the biology and control of the cofee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 90:453–465. Dean, W. R. J., and S. Milton. 2003. he importance of roads and road verges for raptors and crows in the Succulent and NamaKaroo, South Africa. Ostrich 74:181–186. DeVault, T. L., I. L. Brisbin, and O. E. Rhodes. 2004. Factors inluencing the acquisition of rodent carrion by vertebrate scavengers and decomposers. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:502–509. DeVault, T. L., O. E. Rhodes, and J. A. Shivik. 2003. Scavenging by vertebrates: Behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary perspectives on an important energy transfer pathway in terrestrial ecosystems. Oikos 102:225–234. Diamond, A. W., and F. L. Filion, Eds. 1987. he Value of Birds. ICBP Technical Publication 6. BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Dolbeer, R. A. 1990. Ornithology and integrated pest management: Red-winged Blackbirds. Ibis 132:309–322. Dunn, R. R. 2010. Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: he unspoken reality that nature sometimes kills us. Biotropica 42: 555–557. Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. he Birdwatcher’s Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon & Schuster, New York. Ehrlich, P. R., and D. Kennedy. 2005. Millenium assessment of human behavior. Science 309:562–563. Eigenbrod, F., P. R. Armsworth, B. J. Anderson, A. Heinemeyer, S. Gillings, D. B. Roy, C. D. Thomas, and K. J. Gaston. 2010. Error propagation associated with beneits transferbased mapping of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation 143:2487–2493. ET AL . — AUK , VOL . 128 Elliott, C. C. H., and G. M. Lenton. 1989. he pest status of the quelea. Pages 17–34 in Quelea quelea: Africa’s Bird Pest (R. L. Bruggers and C. C. H. Elliott, Eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Ellis, J. C. 2005. Marine birds on land: A review of plant biomass, species richness, and community composition in seabird colonies. Plant Ecology 181:227–241. Farber, S. [C.], R. Costanza, D. L. Childers, J. Erickson, K. Gross, M. Grove, C. S. Hopkinson, J. Kahn, S. Pincetl, A. Troy, and others. 2006. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. BioScience 56:121–133. Farber, S. C., R. Costanza, and M. A. Wilson. 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 41:375–392. Farley, J., and R. Costanza. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecological Economics 69:2060– 2068. Fayt, P., M. M. Machmer, and C. Steeger. 2005. Regulation of spruce bark beetles by woodpeckers—A literature review. Forest Ecology and Management 206:1–14. Fleming, T. H. 1991. Fruiting plant–frugivore mutualism: he evolutionary theatre and the ecological play. Pages 119–144 in Plant–Animal Interactions: Evolutionary Ecology in Tropical and Temperate Regions (P. W. Price, T. M. Lewinsohn, G. W. Fernades, and W. W. Benson, Eds.). Wiley, New York. Gassmann, A. J., Y. Carriere, and B. E. Tabashnik. 2009. Fitness costs of insect resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Annual Review of Entomology 54:147–163. Gates, J. E., and D. M. Gates. 1975. Nesting Indigo Buntings displaced by Peromyscus. Wilson Bulletin 87:421–422. Gill, F., and D. Donskar, Eds. 2010. IOC World Bird Names, version 2.6. [Online.] Available at www.worldbirdnames.org/. Gorenzel, W. P., and T. P. Salmon. 1995. Characteristics of American Crow urban roosts in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:638–645. Gosper, C. R., C. D. Stansbury, and G. Vivian-Smith. 2005. Seed dispersal of leshy-fruited invasive plants by birds: Contributing factors and management options. Diversity & Distributions 11:549–558. Green, R. E., I. Newton, S. Shultz, A. A. Cunnignham, M. Gilbert, D. J. Pain, and V. Prakash. 2004. Diclofenac poisoning as a cause of vulture population declines across the Indian subcontinent. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:793–800. Greenberg, R., P. Bichier, A. C. Angon, C. MacVean, R. Perez, and E. Cano. 2000. he impact of avian insectivory on arthropods and leaf damage in some Guatemalan cofee plantations. Ecology 81:1750–1755. Grimm, V., and S. F. Railsback. 2005. Individual-Based Modeling and Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Hagy, H. M., G. M. Linz, and W. J. Bleier. 2008. Optimizing the use of decoy plots for blackbird control in commercial sunlower. Crop Protection 27:1442–1447. Hall, C. A. S., P. W. Jones, T. M. Donovan, and J. P. Gibbs. 2000. he implications of mainstream economics for wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:16–25. Hansen, D. M., and M. Galetti. 2009. he forgotten megafauna. Science 324:42–43. J ANUARY 2011 — P ERSPECTIVES IN Harding, E. G., P. D. Curtis, and S. L. Vehrencamp. 2007. Assessment of management techniques to reduce woodpecker damage to homes. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2061– 2066. Harris, T., Ed. 2009. Complete Birds of the World. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. Hill, B. J., and T. J. Wassenberg. 1990. Fate of discards from prawn trawlers in Torres Strait. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 41:53–64. Hill, B. J., and T. J. Wassenberg. 2000. he probable fate of discards from prawn trawlers ishing near coral reefs—A study in the northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Fisheries Research 48:277–286. Hougner, C., J. Colding, and T. Soderqvist. 2006. Economic valuation of a seed dispersal service in the Stockholm National Urban Park, Sweden. Ecological Economics 59:364–374. Houston, D. C. 1979. he adaptations of scavengers. Pages 263–286 in Serengeti, Dynamics of an Ecosystem (A. R. E. Sinclair and M. Norton-Griiths, Eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Howe, H. F., and J. Smallwood. 1982. Ecology of seed dispersal. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13:201–228. Hutchins, H. E., and R. M. Lanner. 1982. he central role of Clark’s Nutcracker in the dispersal and establishment of whitebark pine. Oecologia 55:192–201. Jennelle, C. S., M. D. Samuel, C. A. Nolden, and E. A. Berkley. 2009. Deer carcass decomposition and potential scavenger exposure to chronic wasting disease. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:655–662. Jennings, S., and M. J. Kaiser. 1998. he efects of ishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology 34:201–248. Jirinec, V., B. R. Campos, and M. D. Johnson. 2011. Roosting behaviour of a migratory songbird on Jamaican cofee farms: Landscape composition may afect delivery of an ecosystem service. Bird Conservation International. In press. Johnson, M. D., J. L. Kellermann, and A. M. Stercho. 2010. Pest reduction services by birds in shade and sun cofee in Jamaica. Animal Conservation 13:140–147. Johnson, M. D., N. J. Levy, J. L. Kellermann, and D. E. Robinson. 2009. Efects of shade and bird exclusion on arthropods and leaf damage on cofee farms in Jamaica’s Blue Mountains. Agroforestry Systems 76:139–148. Johnson, M. D., A. M. Strong, and T. W. Sherry. 2006. Migrants in tropical bird communities: he balanced breeding limitation hypothesis. Journal of Avian Biology 37:229–237. Johnson, W. C., and T. Webb. 1989. he role of Blue Jays (Cyanocitta cristata L.) in the post-glacial dispersal of fagaceous trees in eastern North America. Journal of Biogeography 16:561–571. Jordano, P. 2000. Fruits and frugivory. Pages 125–165 in Seeds: he Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities, 2nd ed. (M. Fenner, Ed.). CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. Kay, B. J., L. E. Twigg, T. J. Korn, and H. I. Nicol. 1994. he use of artiicial perches to increase predation on house mice (Mus domesticus) by raptors. Wildlife Research 21:95–106. Kellermann, J. L., M. D. Johnson, A. M. Stercho, and S. C. Hackett. 2008. Ecological and economic services provided by birds on Jamaican Blue Mountain cofee farms. Conservation Biology 22:1177–1185. O RNITHOLOGY — 11 Kelly, D., J. J. Ladley, and A. W. Robertson. 2004. Is dispersal easier than pollination? Two tests in New Zealand Loranthaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 42:89–103. Kelly, D., J. J. Ladley, and A. W. Robertson. 2007. Is the pollenlimited mistletoe Peraxilla tetrapetala (Loranthaceae) also seed limited? Austral Ecology 32:850–857. Kelly, D., J. J. Ladley, A. W. Robertson, S. H. Anderson, D. M. Wotton, and S. K. Wiser. 2010. Mutualisms with the wreckage of an avifauna: he status of bird pollination and fruit-dispersal in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34:66–85. Kelly, D., J. J. Ladley, A. W. Robertson, J. Edwards, and D. C. Smith. 1996. he birds and the bees. Nature 384:615. Kelly, D., and K. McCallum. 1990. Demography, seed biology, and biological control of Carduus nutans in New Zealand. Pages 72–79 in he Biology and Control of Invasive Plants (J. Palmer, Ed.). British Ecological Society, Cardif, United Kingdom. Kelly, D., and K. McCallum. 1995. Evaluation the impacts of Rhinocyllus conicus on Carduus nutans in New Zealand. Pages 205– 212 in Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Biological Control of Weeds (E. S. Delfosse and R. R. Scott, Eds.). CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia. Kontogianni, A., G. W. Luck, and M. Skourtos. 2010. Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the ‘endpoint problem’ and improve stated preference methods. Ecological Economics 69:1479–1487. Kremen, C., N. M. Williams, M. A. Aizen, B. Gemmill-Herren, G. LeBuhn, R. Minckley, L. Packer, S. G. Potts, T. Roulston, I. Steffan-Dewenter, and others. 2007. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: A conceptual framework for the efects of land-use change. Ecology Letters 10:299–314. LaDeau, S. L., A. M. Kilpatrick, and P. P. Marra. 2007. West Nile virus emergence and large-scale declines of North American bird populations. Nature 447:710–713. LaRouche, G. P. 2003. Birding in the United States: A demographic and economic analysis. Report 2001-1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Larsen, F. W., J. Bladt, and C. Rahbek. 2009. Indicator taxa revisited: Useful for conservation planning? Diversity and Distributions 15:70–79. Laundré, J. W., L. Hernández, and K. B. Altendorf. 2001. Wolves, elk, and bison: Reestablishing the “landscape of fear” in Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1401–1409. Leonard, J. 2008. Wildlife watching in the United States: Economic impacts on national and state economies in 2006. Report 2006-1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Lepelley, R. H. 1973. Cofee insects. Annual Review of Entomology 18:121–142. Lord, J. M., A. S. Markey, and J. Marshall. 2002. Have frugivores inluenced the evolution of fruit traits in New Zealand? Pages 55–68 in Seed Dispersal and Frugivory: Ecology, Evolution and Conservation (D. J. Levey, W. R. Silva, and M. Galetti, Eds.). CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom. Losey, J. E., and M. Vaughan. 2006. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. BioScience 56:311– 323. 12 — WENNY Lowney, M. S. 1999. Damage by Black and Turkey Vultures in Virginia, 1990–1996. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:715–719. Lundberg, J., and F. Moberg. 2003. Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: Implications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 6:87–98. Lux, K. 2003. he failure of the proit motive. Ecological Economics 44:1–9. Lyytimaki, J., L. K. Petersen, B. Normander, and P. Bezák. 2008. Nature as nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environmental Sciences 5:161–172. Markandya, A., T. Taylor, A. Longo, M. N. Murty, S. Murty, and K. Dhavala. 2008. Counting the cost of vulture decline— An appraisal of the human health and other beneits of vultures in India. Ecological Economics 67:194–204. Marquis, R. J., and C. J. Whelan. 1994. Insectivorous birds increase growth of white oak through consumption of leafchewing insects. Ecology 75:2007–2014. Matero, J., and O. Saastamoinen. 2007. In search of marginal environmental valuations—Ecosystem services in Finnish forest accounting. Ecological Economics 61:101–114. McCauley, D. J. 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature 443:27–28. McKinney, S. T., C. E. Fiedler, and D. F. Tomback. 2009. Invasive pathogen threatens bird–pine mutualism: Implications for sustaining a high-elevation ecosystem. Ecological Applications 19:597–607. McWilliam, A. N., and R. A. Cheke. 2004. A review of the impacts of control operations against the Red-billed Quelea (Quelea quelea) on non-target organisms. Environmental Conservation 31:130–137. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, Washington, D.C. Milton, S. J., J. R. U. Wilson, D. M. Richardson, C. L. Seymour, W. R. J. Dean, D. M. Iponga, and S. Proches. 2007. Invasive alien plants iniltrate bird-mediated shrub nucleation processes in arid savanna. Journal of Ecology 95:648–661. Mols, C. M. M., and M. E. Visser. 2002. Great Tits can reduce caterpillar damage in apple orchards. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:888–899. Monterrubio-Rico, T. C., and P. Escalante-Pliego. 2006. Richness, distribution and conservation status of cavity nesting birds in Mexico. Biological Conservation 128:67–78. Muller-Landau, H. C. 2007. Predicting the long-term efects of hunting on plant species composition and diversity in tropical forests. Biotropica 39:372–384. Mynott, J. 2009. Birdscapes: Birds in Our Imagination and Experience. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Nabhan, G. P., and S. Buchmann. 1997. Services provided by pollinators. Pages 133–150 in Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (G. C. Daily, Ed.). Island Press, Washington, D.C. Nadeau, R. L. 2010. he not so worldly philosophers: Why mainstream economics can’t be green. Synesis 1:3–10. Nelson, E., G. Mendoza, J. Regetz, S. Polasky, H. Tallis, D. R. Cameron, K. M. A. Chan, G. C. Daily, J. Goldstein, P. M. Kareiva, and others. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeofs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:4–11. ET AL . — AUK , VOL . 128 Nelson, F. 2009. Developing payments for ecosystem services approaches to carnivore conservation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14:381–392. Neubig, J. P., and J. A. Smallwood. 1999. he “signiicant others” of American Kestrels: Cohabitation with arthropods. Wilson Bulletin 111:269–271. Nijkamp, P., G. Vindigni, and P. A. L. D. Nunes. 2008. Economic valuation of biodiversity: A comparative study. Ecological Economics 67:217–231. Norgaard, R. B. 2010. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69:1219– 1227. Oaks, J. L., M. Gilbert, M. Z. Virani, R. T. Watson, C. U. Meteyer, B. A. Rideout, H. L. Shivaprasad, S. Ahmed, M. J. I. Chaudhry, M. Arshad, and others. 2004. Diclofenac residues as the cause of vulture population decline in Pakistan. Nature 427:630–633. Otzen, W., and M. Schaefer. 1980. Hibernation of arthropods in birds nests: Contribution to winter ecology. Zoologische Jahrbuecher Abteilung fuer Systematik Oekologie und Geographie der Tiere 107:435–448. Packer, A., and K. Clay. 2000. Soil pathogens and spatial patterns of seedling mortality in a temperate tree. Nature 404:278–281. Pagiola, S. 2008. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 65:712–724. Pain, D. J., A. A. Cunningham, P. F. Donald, J. W. Duckworth, D. C. Houston, T. Katzner, J. Parry-Jones, C. Poole, V. Prakash, P. Round, and R. Timmins. 2003. Causes and efects of temporospatial declines of Gyps vultures in Asia. Conservation Biology 17:661–671. Parmenter, R. R., and J. A. MacMahon. 2009. Carrion decomposition and nutrient cycling in a semiarid shrub-steppe ecosystem. Ecological Monographs 79:637–661. Peres, C. A., and E. Palacios. 2007. Basin-wide efects of game harvest on vertebrate population densities in Amazonian forests: Implications for animal-mediated seed dispersal. Biotropica 39:304–315. Perrings, C., S. Naeem, F. Ahrestani, D. E. Bunker, P. Burkill, G. Canziani, T. Elmqvist, R. Ferrati, J. Fuhrman, F. Jaksic, and others. 2010. Ecosystem services for 2020. Science 330: 323–324. Philpott, S. M., R. Greenberg, P. Bichier, and I. Perfecto. 2004. Impacts of major predators on tropical agroforest arthropods: Comparisons within and across taxa. Oecologia 140:140–149. Pimentel, D., C. Wilson, C. McCullum, R. Huang, P. Dwen, J. Flack, Q. Tran, T. Saltman, and B. Cliff. 1997. Economic and environmental beneits of biodiversity. BioScience 47:747–757. Plummer, M. L. 2009. Assessing beneit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:38–45. Podulka, S. G., M. Z. Eckhardt, and D. Otis. 2004. Birds and humans: A historical perspective. Pages H1–H42 in Handbook of Bird Biology (S. Podulka, R. Rohrbaugh, and R. Bonney, Eds.). Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Polis, G. A., and S. D. Hurd. 1996. Linking marine and terrestrial food webs: Allochthonous input from the ocean supports high secondary productivity on small islands and coastal land communities. American Naturalist 147:396–423. J ANUARY 2011 — P ERSPECTIVES IN Polis, G. A., M. E. Power, and G. R. Huxel. 2004. Food Webs at the Landscape Level. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Power, A. G. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeofs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 365:2959–2971. Putman, R. J. 1983. Carrion and Dung: he Decomposition of Animal Wastes. Edward Arnold, London. Rands, M. R. W., W. M. Adams, L. Bennun, S. H. M. Butchart, A. Clements, D. Coomes, A. Entwistle, I. Hodge, V. Kapos, J. P. W. Scharlemann, and others. 2010. Biodiversity conservation: Challenges beyond 2010. Science 329:1298–1303. Ranganathan, J., C. Raudsepp-Hearne, N. Lucas, F. Irwin, Z. M., K. Bennett, N. Ash, and P. West. 2008. Ecosystem Services: A Guide for Decision Makers. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. Remsen, J. V., Jr. 2003. Family Furnariidae (Ovenbirds). Pages 162–357 in Handbook of Birds of the World, vol. 8: Broadbills to Tapaculos (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, and D. Christie, Eds.). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. Renne, I. J., W. C. Barrow, L. A. J. Randall, and W. C. Bridges. 2002. Generalized avian dispersal syndrome contributes to Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum, Euphorbiaceae) invasiveness. Diversity & Distributions 8:285–295. Roberge, J. M., G. Mikusinski, and S. Svensson. 2008. he White-backed Woodpecker: Umbrella species for forest conservation planning? Biodiversity and Conservation 17:2479–2494. Robertson, A. W., J. J. Ladley, and D. Kelly. 2005. he efectiveness of short-tongued bees as pollinators of apparently “ornithophilous” New Zealand mistletoes. Austral Ecology 30:298–309. Sallabanks, R. 1992. Fruit fate, frugivory, and fruit characteristics— A study of the hawthorn Crataegus monogyna (Rosaceae). Oecologia 91:296–304. Schwandt, J. W., I. B. Lockman, J. T. Kliejunas, and J. A. Muir. 2010. Current health issues and management strategies for white pines in the western United States and Canada. Forest Pathology 40:226–250. Sekercioglu, C. H. 2002. Impacts of birdwatching on human and avian communities. Environmental Conservation 29:282–289. Sekercioglu, C. H. 2006a. Ecological signiicance of bird populations. Pages 15–51 in Handbook of Birds of the World, vol. 11: Old World Flycatchers to Old World Warblers (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, and D. Christie, Eds.). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. Sekercioglu, C. H. 2006b. Increasing awareness of avian ecological function. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:464–471. Sekercioglu, C. H. 2010. Ecosystem functions and services. Pages 45–72 in Conservation Biology for All (N. S. Sodhi and P. R. Ehrlich, Eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Sekercioglu, C. H., G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2004. Ecosystem consequences of bird declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101:18042–18047. Selva, N., and M. A. Fortuna. 2007. he nested structure of a scavenger community. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 274:1101–1108. Selva, N., B. Jedrzejewska, W. Jedrzejewski, and A. Wajrak. 2005. Factors afecting carcass use by a guild of scavengers in European temperate woodland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:1590–1601. O RNITHOLOGY — 13 Sethi, P., and H. F. Howe. 2009. Recruitment of hornbill-dispersed trees in hunted and logged forests of the Indian Eastern Himalaya. Conservation Biology 23:710–718. Sharam, G. J., A. R. E. Sinclair, and R. Turkington. 2009. Serengeti birds maintain forests by inhibiting seed predators. Science 325:51. Sheffield, L. M., J. R. Crait, W. D. Edge, and G. M. Wang. 2001. Response of American Kestrels and gray-tailed voles to vegetation height and supplemental perches. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:380–385. Siepielski, A. M., and C. W. Benkman. 2008. Seed predation and selection exerted by a seed predator inluence subalpine tree densities. Ecology 89:2960–2966. Sodhi, N. S., and P. R. Ehrlich, Eds. 2010. Conservation Biology For All. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Sommerville, M., J. P. G. Jones, M. Rahajaharison, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2010. he role of fairness and beneit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 69:1262–1271. Stiles, F. G. 1985. On the role of birds in the dynamics of Neotropical forests. Pages 49–59 in Conservation of Tropical Forest Birds (A. W. Diamond and T. E. Lovejoy, Eds.). ICBP Technical Publication No. 4. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Suyin, H. 1959. he sparrow shall fall. New Yorker (10 October): 43–50. Takekawa, J. Y., and E. O. Garton. 1984. How much is an evening grosbeak worth. Journal of Forestry 82:426–428. Tejeda-Cruz, C., and W. J. Sutherland. 2004. Bird responses to shade cofee production. Animal Conservation 7:169–179. Terborgh, J., and J. A. Estes, Eds. 2010. Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey, and the Changing Dynamics of Nature. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Terborgh, J., G. Nunez-Iturri, N. C. A. Pitman, F. H. C. Valverde, P. Alvarez, V. Swamy, E. G. Pringle, and C. E. T. Paine. 2008. Tree recruitment in an empty forest. Ecology 89:1757–1768. Tomback, D. F. 1978. Foraging strategies of Clark’s Nutcracker. Living Bird 16:123–161. Tomback, D. F. 2001. Clark’s Nutcracker: Agent of regeneration. Pages 89–104 in Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration (D. F. Tomback, S. F. Arno, and R. E. Keane, Eds.). Island Press, Washington, D.C. Tomback, D. F. 2005. he impact of seed dispersal by Clark’s Nutcracker on whitebark pine: Multi-scale perspective on a high mountain mutualism. Pages 181–201 in Mountain Ecosystems: Studies in Treeline Ecology (G. Broll and B. Keplin, Eds.). Springer, Berlin. Tomback, D. F., and P. Achuff. 2010. Blister rust and western forest biodiversity: Ecology, values, and outlook for white pines. Forest Pathology 40:186–225. Tomback, D. F., A. J. Anderies, K. S. Carsey, M. L. Powell, and S. Mellmann-Brown. 2001. Delayed seed germination in whitebark pine and regeneration patterns following the Yellowstone ires. Ecology 82:2587–2600. Tomback, D. F., and Y. B. Linhart. 1990. he evolution of birddispersed pines. Evolutionary Ecology 4:185–219. 14 — WENNY Underhill, L. G., and J. H. Hofmeyr. 2007. Barn Swallows, Hirundo rustica, disperse seeds of Rooikrans, Acacia cyclops, an invasive alien plant in the Fynbos Biome. Ibis 149:468–471. Van Bael, S. A., S. M. Philpott, R. Greenberg, P. Bichier, N. A. Barber, K. A. Mooney, and D. S. Gruner. 2008. Birds as predators in tropical agroforestry systems. Ecology 89:928–934. Vander Wall, S. B. 2001. he evolutionary ecology of nut dispersal. Botanical Review 67:74–117. Vander Wall, S. B., and R. P. Balda. 1981. Ecology and evolution of food-storage behavior in conifer-seed-caching corvids. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 56:217–242. Vila, M., and C. M. Dantonio. 1998. Fruit choice and seed dispersal of invasive vs. noninvasive Carpobrotus (Aizoaceae) in coastal California. Ecology 79:1053–1060. Wainger, L. A., D. M. King, R. N. Mack, E. W. Price, and T. Maslin. 2010. Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decisions? Ecological Economics 69:978–987. Wassenberg, T. J., and B. J. Hill. 1990. Partitioning of material discarded from prawn trawlers in Moreton Bay. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 41:27–36. Weatherhead, P. J., S. Tinker, and H. Greenwood. 1982. Indirect assessment of avian damage to agriculture. Journal of Applied Ecology 19:773–782. Whelan, C. J., D. G. Wenny, and R. J. Marquis. 2008. Ecosystem services provided by birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134:25–60. Whelan, C. J., D. G. Wenny, and R. J. Marquis. 2010. Policy implications of ecosystem services provided by birds. Synesis 1:11–20. ET AL . — AUK , VOL . 128 Williams, P. A. 2006. he role of blackbirds (Turdus merula) in weed invasion in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 30:285–291. Willson, M. F., A. K. Irvine, and N. G. Walsh. 1989. Vertebrate dispersal syndromes in some Australian and New Zealand plant communities, with geographic comparisons. Biotropica 21:133– 147. Wolff, J. O., T. Fox, R. R. Skillen, and G. M. Wang. 1999. he efects of supplemental perch sites on avian predation and demography of vole populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:535–541. Wood, B. J., and C. G. Fee. 2003. A critical review of the development of rat control in Malaysian agriculture since the 1960s. Crop Protection 22:445–461. Wright, S. J., and H. C. Duber. 2001. Poachers and forest fragmentation alter seed dispersal, seed survival, and seedling recruitment in the palm Attalea butyraceae, with implications for tropical tree diversity. Biotropica 33:583–595. Wright, S. J., A. Hernandez, and R. Condit. 2007a. he bushmeat harvest alters seedling banks by favoring lianas, large seeds, and seeds dispersed by bats, birds, and wind. Biotropica 39:363–371. Wright, S. J., K. E. Stoner, N. Beckman, R. T. Corlett, R. Dirzo, H. C. Muller-Landau, G. Nunez-Iturri, C. A. Peres, and B. C. Wang. 2007b. he plight of large animals in tropical forests and the consequences for plant regeneration. Biotropica 39:289–291. Wunderle, J. M., and S. C. Latta. 2000. Winter site idelity of Nearctic migrants in shade cofee plantations of diferent sizes in the Dominican Republic. Auk 117:596–614. Received 29 October 2010, accepted 7 December 2010.