In 2016, Partners in Flight set an ambitious challenge for landbird conservation: slow, stop, and ultimately reverse declines among some of North America’s most vulnerable birds.
The Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United States identified species of high conservation concern and established measurable short- and longer-term population trend objectives. Those objectives were intended to do more than describe a desired future. They were designed to help partners evaluate whether conservation actions were making a difference.
Now, nearly a decade later, a new paper in Avian Conservation and Ecology asks a critical question: are Watch List species on track?
The paper, “Tracking population recovery: evaluating progress toward the Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan 2016 objectives,” is part of the Avian Conservation and Ecology special feature, “Partners in Flight International Science Committee: Migratory Bird Conservation Tools and Applications.” Like the broader feature, this paper highlights the role of collaborative applied science in helping the bird conservation community move from concern to measurable action.
Why measurable objectives matter
Conservation plans are most useful when they include clear targets. Without measurable objectives, it is difficult to know whether conservation actions are enough, whether strategies need to change, or whether partners are making progress at the scale birds require.
The 2016 PIF Landbird Conservation Plan established short-term, 10-year objectives and longer-term, 30-year objectives for Watch List species. For many species, the short-term goal was to slow or halt declines. The longer-term goal was more ambitious: to move populations toward recovery and, where possible, closer to historic levels.
This new analysis provides the first broad assessment of progress toward those objectives.
Looking ahead by projecting recent trends
The authors evaluated 61 Watch List species for which sufficient monitoring data were available. They used population trajectory estimates from broad-scale monitoring programs, primarily the North American Breeding Bird Survey, with Christmas Bird Count data used for several species not well covered by the Breeding Bird Survey.
Rather than claiming to predict the future, the study projected recent population trends into the future. In other words, it asked whether, if recent trends continue, each species would be expected to meet its PIF objective.
That distinction is important. Bird populations are shaped by habitat change, climate, weather, land use, management actions, migration conditions, and many other factors. No trend projection can fully predict those future dynamics. But projections can serve as a practical benchmark. They help identify which species appear to be moving in the right direction, which are falling short, and which remain too uncertain to classify.
The authors also incorporated uncertainty from the underlying population trajectory models into their projections. This makes the assessment more realistic than a simple yes-or-no comparison.
What the study found
Canada Warbler © Dave Krueper
The results show both signs of hope and reasons for urgency.
Of the 61 species assessed, 22 appeared likely to meet their short-term PIF objectives if recent trends continue. These include species such as Red-headed Woodpecker, Golden-winged Warbler, Canada Warbler, Cerulean Warbler, and Wood Thrush.
For some of these species, recent trajectories suggest stabilization or increases after long periods of decline. That does not prove that conservation actions alone caused the improvement, but it does suggest that broad-scale recovery is possible and that continued investment may be paying off for at least some species.
At the same time, 28 species appeared likely to miss their short-term objectives. These included species from groups that have experienced widespread declines, such as grassland birds, as well as species that have received focused conservation attention but have not yet shown enough progress at broad scales.
The remaining 11 species were classified as uncertain. For these species, available data or recent trends did not allow a clear assessment of whether objectives were likely to be met or missed.
The longer-term picture was even more uncertain. When trends were projected to 2046, more than half of the species were classified as uncertain. This is not surprising. The farther into the future a projection extends, the less reliable it becomes, especially when it assumes that recent trends will continue unchanged.
More misses than meets
One of the paper’s clearest messages is that many Watch List species are not yet on track.
That does not necessarily mean conservation has failed. Bird populations often respond slowly to management actions. Conservation work may be effective locally, but not yet large enough to shift range-wide trends. Some species face multiple threats across breeding, migration, and nonbreeding areas, making recovery especially complex. But the findings indicate that current efforts are insufficient for many species. If the goal is to meet PIF’s short- and longer-term objectives, more targeted investment, broader implementation, and stronger coordination will be needed.
This is especially important for species that have been conservation priorities for years. For these birds, the lack of clear progress suggests that partners may need to reassess strategies, scale up actions, or better connect population objectives to specific threat-reduction efforts.
Reasons for cautious optimism
Cerulean Warbler population objectives set conservation biology concepts to practice, which included planning for large, unfragmented forest tracts in many states.
The species projected to meet their short-term objectives offer an important counterpoint. They show that positive change is possible.
Some species, such as the Golden-winged Warbler and the Cerulean Warbler, have been the focus of coordinated conservation efforts. Others, such as the Red-headed Woodpecker and the Wood Thrush, show signs of recent improvement after steep historical declines. These examples provide opportunities to learn what is working, where conservation actions may be contributing to recovery, and how successful approaches might be expanded or adapted.
The paper frames these results as cause for cautious optimism. Recovery is possible, but it is not automatic. It requires continued monitoring, sustained collaboration, and a willingness to adjust strategies as new information becomes available.
A new tool for adaptive conservation: birdtrends
A major contribution of the paper is the development of birdtrends, an R package that provides a reproducible and customizable workflow for evaluating progress toward population or trend-based objectives.
The package allows users to incorporate different sources of population trajectory data and uncertainty, project recent trends, and compare those projections with conservation objectives. This makes it useful not only for continental PIF Watch List assessments but also for regional planning, species-specific evaluations, and future updates.
That matters because conservation planning is not a one-time exercise. Objectives should be revisited as new data become available, as species trajectories change, and as partners learn which actions are most effective. A transparent tool like birdtrends helps make that adaptive process repeatable and defensible.
What this means for Partners in Flight
This paper directly supports one of PIF’s core commitments: using science to guide collaborative conservation.
The 2016 Landbird Conservation Plan called for a 10-year progress assessment. This study assesses species with sufficient data and provides a framework for future assessments. It helps identify where progress appears to be occurring, where additional action is needed, and where uncertainty remains too high to draw strong conclusions.
It also points to a larger need: stronger implementation and evaluation frameworks for landbird conservation. To understand whether conservation actions are driving population change, partners need to connect population objectives with threat-based strategies, on-the-ground actions, monitoring, and evaluation across multiple scales.
That kind of coordination is difficult but essential. Many landbirds face threats across vast geographies and throughout the annual cycle. No single organization, agency, or program can recover them alone.
The bottom line
Nearly ten years after the 2016 PIF Landbird Conservation Plan, this assessment shows mixed progress. Some Watch List species appear to be moving toward their short-term objectives. Many are not. For others, uncertainty remains high.
That combination of hope, concern, and uncertainty is exactly why measurable objectives matter. They help the bird conservation community ask hard questions, recognize progress, and identify where more work is needed.
The message is clear: Partners in Flight has built the science and tools to track progress. Now the challenge is to use that information to strengthen action, increase collaboration, and help more Watch List species move from decline toward recovery.
Read the published article here.
Partners in Flight
Partners in Flight (PIF) is a dynamic and welcoming network of more than 150 partner organizations distributed throughout the Western Hemisphere. PIF is engaged in all aspects of landbird conservation from science, research, planning, and policy development, to land management, monitoring, education, and outreach. The mission of PIF is keeping common birds common and helping recover species at risk through voluntary partnerships. The PIF International Science Committee is an open forum of scientists dedicated to advancing scientific concepts and approaches for landbird conservation at range-wide and regional scales. The focus of this special issue is to provide perspectives on successful collaborative approaches undertaken under the PIF umbrella, feature analyses to target bird conservation efforts, and to describe the methods and conservation applications of PIF Science’s flagship tools: the Avian Conservation Assessment Database and Population Estimates Database.
As the special features are published, they can be found on the Avian Conservation & Ecology website.