Fieldwork results, anonymity, rare observations and cognition-questions of method, biases and interpretations

Abstract

The study of birds in the natural environment largely falls to two disciplines: ecology and ethology. At this time of substantial decline of bird species and numbers, it is argued that ecology cannot do without ethology, especially cognitive ethology, if real progress of saving species is to be made. The paper is concerned with problems of methodology, partly to do with lack of familiarity with behaviour and characteristics of the species (the anonymity problem) on one hand and partly to do with an underestimation of the effects of ‘an ecology of fear’. It will raise the question of sampling bias, express concern about the use of technological gadgets that may produce large data sets but often too little of value. It is not just an argument of quantitative versus qualitative data but of distortions, oversights, and insights that are not used. Studying cognition and emotional intelligence are as important hallmarks of animals ability to cope in the current wildlife crisis as are knowing about migration routes. Moreover, there is little doubt that systematic discussions in ethology rarely prepare one on how to respond to unexpected or incidental behaviour and to discuss the future of ethological fieldwork and cognitive studies. Examples of rare behaviour will also be provided to show how they can be pivotal in good science when momentary surprises in witnessing unusual behaviour can lead to new insight, and then to experiments and data. The paper will suggest, however, that new insights may only be possible when a robust methodology used in field research reflects a positive, non-invasive approach. The paper proposes that social interactions between conspecifics can become one of the drivers of cognition and social bonding that provides critical support for avian survival.