On the design of monitoring programs and the use of population indices : a reply to Ellingson and Lukacs

In our paper (Hutto and Young 2002), we outlined why regional monitoring programs are needed; why birds should be used as monitoring tools; why we designed our monitoring program (including the distribution of long-term monitoring points) the way we did; the benefits associated with monitoring from permanent points on a biennial rather than an annual basis; why we have gained support from management and may have been able to exert some influence on management by including a short-term, effects-oriented component within our monitoring program; and what we need to do to improve the effectiveness of adaptive management through monitoring results. Comments by Ellingson and Lukacs were focused on just two aspects of the larger program-placement of longterm monitoring points and use of indices of bird abundance in our data analyses. Given that the goal of our paper was "to focus discussion about the overall goals and methodological issues associated with monitoring," we welcome the chance to further highlight the strengths of our program and to defend our use of population indices. With respect to the use of population indices, Ellingson and Lukacs have undoubtedly overstated the potential problem. By discrediting our results because they are based on indices of abundance, they discredit all other studies in avian ecology that have been based on indices of bird abundance (and that would certainly be the vast majority of them). We disagree that inferences drawn from such data fail "to provide a positive exemplar for future studies" (Ellingson and Lukacs 2003:896). Ultimately, it