population

on

Don’t tell me it never rains in southern California. I just spent Sunday morning getting drenched while hiding under an umbrella in Huntington Beach. My task: walk a concrete flood channel — we Californians call them “rivers” — while trying to protect my binoculars from a steady downpour and identify every soggy bird I could find along the waterway. Why would I subject myself to these miserable conditions? I was a proud participant in the Coastal Orange County Christmas Bird Count. (The photos above show: 1) me with another damp colleague on the count team, and 2) a rare reward that I got after birding on the Newport Pier.)

To those unfamiliar with them, Christmas Bird Counts (CBCs) are all-day bird censuses that take place within 15-mile diameter circles. Hundreds occur each winter. Each count happens on a single day between December 15 and January 4th. The location of each 15-mile circle is fixed; that is, observers count the number of every species of bird they see or hear within exactly the same count circle each year. And observers keep close track of how many people are out watching birds, over what distance they travel, and for how long, in order to have a record of how much effort was spent on the count. 

Why go out in cold, wet weather to count birds — sacrificing time that could otherwise be spent gift shopping, visiting with family, or arranging seasonal greenery in our homes? Because CBCs have become an important tool to track bird populations. If you count birds meticulously in the same area, in the same way, and for many years running, then any differences that you detect in counts between years are likely to reflect real population differences. Christmas Bird Counts have been used to document increases and decreases in the numbers of different species of birds over time and also expansions or contractions in the species’ geographic ranges. In short, CBCs produce useful scientific information; they are not just an excuse to dodge awkward political conversations with your brother-in-law over the holidays.

Of course, birdwatchers are insatiable. CBCs are just a slightly more glamorous and rigorous version of what birders do on their own throughout the year. That is, hundreds of thousands of birdwatchers in North America cover every nook and cranny of the continent, keeping track of the date, time, and number of each bird species they identify from January 1st to December 31st.

In recent years, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology has sought to collect the information gathered by birders on their outings. No longer do most birders scribble down what they have seen in notebooks that get old and musty in a closet somewhere; they submit them to eBird, CLO’s online database. The eBird folks make the data that birders submit on their phone available to all others online and also analyze the data to infer changes in the abundance and distribution of birds. eBird has quickly become much beloved by birders as a way to keep track of and share their bird sightings. Because of eBird, we birders are no longer outright lying when we stride pompously towards the door, grasp the handle, and announce, “I am going out to do science!”

What does all of this have to do with loons? Loons appear on birder’s eBird checklists just as other birds do, of course. Because they are confined to territories, it is awkward to track loon breeding populations via eBird checklists. (Furthermore, the Breeding Bird Survey already does that.) But since birders from across the continent submit their birding results to eBird throughout the year, we can get a sense of loon population trends during winter from eBird data.

I was, of course, very excited to see the population patterns that eBird shows for loons. First, though, I wanted to see what trends showed up in eBird data from other species that popped into my head. The picture is mixed among the several land birds that I happened to check. Downy Woodpeckers, it turns out, have been increasing substantially in the past decade throughout North America. So have Red-bellied and Pileated Woodpeckers. Northern Flickers, on the other hand, have been declining across the continent since 2012. Among thrushes, Hermit Thrushes are down throughout the range; Swainson’s Thrush populations are down in the east and across the Prairie Provinces but increasing along the Pacific coast from Alaska southward to Washington state.

Looking at population trends among aquatic birds that share northern lakes with loons reveals a mostly bleak picture. Double-crested cormorants are declining almost everywhere within their range (with a few exceptions). Hooded Mergansers show declines in wintering populations along the Atlantic coast and southeastern U.S. — except along the Mississippi River, where they have increased in number. Ring-necked ducks, which we see on shallow lakes in Wisconsin and Minnesota, are down in about 85% of all winter count areas covered by eBird data, but up in the remaining 15%. Canada Geese, on the other hand, are increasing almost everywhere in the northern half of the continent (including most of Wisconsin and Minnesota), but are sharply down in northern Ontario and Manitoba.

Having convinced myself that eBird is picking up both upward and downward shifts in bird populations and also exhibiting the patterns we have seen ourselves in familiar species like Canada Geese, I turned to winter trends in common loons from 2011 to 2021. As the figure shows, almost all coastal regions from the Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico show a decline of between 20 and 30% for this period.* There are a few exceptions — chiefly inland reservoirs, in which perhaps 2 to 3% of all loons winter — most of which show increased numbers of loons seen in winter. (The tiny widely scattered blue dots indicating these increases represent very small populations and are hard to see in the figure.)

Trends in wintering populations of common loons from 2011 to 2021. From eBird online.

If you are seeing red after studying this map, join the club. It is not a pretty picture. Winter ranges do not map onto breeding regions cleanly, so it is a bit difficult to infer population trends in breeding areas directly with this figure. However, the fact that wintering loon populations are declining everywhere in North America — even along the Pacific coast, not shown here — suggest that common loon populations have fallen broadly.**

What about Wisconsin and Minnesota? If you have followed my blog for awhile, you probably recall that loons from both states winter primarily along the entire Gulf Coast of Florida and that the remaining 20% winter in the Atlantic from Carolinas southwards. So the entire wintering range of Upper Midwest breeders is covered with red dots indicating 10 to 40% declines over the past decade. While it is important to remember that loons from other breeding populations — notably the massive Ontario and Quebec populations — winter in these coastal regions also, this across-the-board pattern is disturbing. It is, of course, consistent with what we have documented in Wisconsin and what others have documented in Minnesota.

How do we respond to this new piece of bad news about the common loon population as a whole and in the Upper Midwest? Do we fold up our tents…throw up our hands…throw in the towel? No, indeed. We get busy. Multiple problems that loons are facing and that impact the population negatively are fixable and must be fixed. So we get back to work.

WATER CLARITY GOAL

As stated on our Current Goals page, we are currently probing the loss of water clarity that is harming loon chicks to learn precisely what is making lakes less clear by testing three main hypotheses:

  • water clarity falls after rainfall because of dissolved organic matter that washes into lakes.
  • clarity declines as a result of suspended sediments carried into lakes by rainfall.
  • the decline in clarity comes because of fertilizer, waste and other human-related substances from lakeside lawns, which spawn algal blooms.

By pinpointing what is causing the loss of water clarity, we can call attention to the problem and urge state and local agencies to take action to curb it.

WINTER OCEAN CONDITIONS GOAL

We will also continue to investigate negative impacts of Florida ocean conditions on Upper Midwest loons through statistical analysis using a large long-term dataset from Tampa Bay. If deteriorating ocean conditions during winter are driving our loon population downwards, we would like to learn that now, leaving ourselves time to identify the problem precisely and — through publicizing our findings and working with state and local water quality agencies — attempt to turn things around.   

CAN YOU HELP US?

We rely solely upon private funding to support our vital fieldwork in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Our teams — wildlife students and myself — collect data throughout the summer to address our goals. Funds never go for my salary; I am paid by Chapman. Rather, funding that we receive from you supports: 1) small monthly stipends for our student workers, 2) lodging for students and me, 3) travel costs to, from and within our study areas in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and 4) supply and equipment costs (canoes, binoculars, banding supplies, and other miscellaneous items).

Thanks for any support you can give us as we work to protect Upper Midwest loons.

DONATE TO THE LOON PROJECT

* You may look at the trends reported by eBird yourself by: 1) going to their site; 2) scrolling down and clicking on “eBird Status and Trends”, 3) entering a species name, 4) grabbing and spinning the world around to see North America, 5) clicking “Trends”, and 6) zooming in and panning, as needed, to see the region you wish to see.

** This figure suggests that loon populations are falling across the breeding range. Yet we know that there are pockets, like Vermont and perhaps other portions on New England, where loon breeding populations are either stable or up in the past decade. Therefore the falling loon numbers shown for the Northeastern Seaboard must mean that other breeding populations — perhaps the very large ones in Quebec or the Maritime provinces — are responsible for the decline.

on

Following a long summer of capture, marking, and field observation, we have a new tranche of loon data from Wisconsin and Minnesota. The picture in Wisconsin does not change greatly from year to year. There we already had 32 years’ worth of research findings before 2025. But each successive year in Minnesota — where our research began in 2021 — increases our understanding of that population immensely. And with our improved knowledge of Minnesota loons, the status of the loon population across the Upper Midwest is coming into focus.1

Three demographic parameters together dictate whether a population of animals is increasing, decreasing, or stable, These factors are: 1) survival of breeding adults, 2) reproductive success, and 3) young adult survival. Recent measurements have shown us that the Wisconsin population is declining. And we know very well which of these parameters is responsible for the decline. If we compare our growing dataset in Minnesota to the trove of data we have from three decades of research in Wisconsin, we can learn whether or not Minnesota loons are headed in the same direction.

First, let’s look at survival of adult breeders. It should not be surprising that the most important single indicator of population dynamics (i.e. whether a population is stable, increasing or decreasing) is the rate of survival of its adult members. There is good news from the Wisconsin Study Area. The survival rates among territorial females and males both have been stable for the past three decades (Figure 1). This finding implies that once loons reach adulthood, they survive and hold their territories well. The decline that we are seeing in the Wisconsin population, then, must come about because of problems that occur before loons settle on territories.2

Figure 1. Annual survival rates of adult breeders on territories.

What about survival of territorial breeders in Minnesota? From measurements in 2022, 2023, and 2024, it appeared that adult survival in Minnesota might be lower than that in Wisconsin (look at these years in Figure 2, below). However, each year we get a better “read” on these numbers because our sample of loons becomes larger and more representative of the overall population. So the 2025 adult survival numbers are the most reliable ones we have to date. As you can see from Figure 2, there is no evidence for a

Figure 2. Survival rates of adult breeders in Wisconsin and Minnesota from 2022 to 2025. (Sample sizes are shown above each bar.)

difference in survival rates of territorial adults between Wisconsin and Minnesota. Minnesota, like Wisconsin, is seeing good adult survival. Again, this is good news!

Now let’s turn to reproductive success in the two states. Since we learned recently that the silver spoon effect is strong in loons, we know that we must look both at quality and quantity of loon chicks produced to get a good sense of how well a population is reproducing.

First let’s look at quantity. As Figure 3 shows, chick production in each region fluctuates greatly from year to year according to ice out date, severity of black flies, water clarity

Figure 3. Chicks fledged per territorial pair since 1995 in the Wisconsin Study Area and from 2021 to 2025 in the Minnesota Study Area. (Dotted line shows the trend in Wisconsin.)

in July, and other factors. Overall, however, chick production has decreased significantly in Wisconsin during the past three decades. Adult breeders are simply not producing as many offspring now as they did 30 years ago.

While Wisconsin data show a clear decline in number of chicks produced, it is too early to discern a trend in Minnesota. Chick fledging rate simply bounces around too much from year to year to see a pattern. We can say that chick production is at a similar level in the Wisconsin and Minnesota study areas. However, note that 2025 was a banner year for chick production in Minnesota and a poor one in Wisconsin.

Next we need to look at the quality of loon chicks that Wisconsin and Minnesota are producing. Our recent work has shown that chicks that fledge at low weights are much less likely to survive to adulthood and produce chicks themselves than are their heavier peers. Chick body condition has been falling for the past few decades in Wisconsin (see Figure 4, below).

Figure 4. Average body condition (mass divided by age) of chicks in Wisconsin from 1998 to 2025 and in Minnesota from 2021 to 2025. (Trendline shows Wisconsin pattern.)

The five years of data we have on body conditions of Minnesota chicks are not as many as we would like, but the numbers are consistent. Chicks fledge in Minnesota at similar — or even slightly worse — body condition than those in Wisconsin (Figure 4). We can infer that Minnesota is suffering from the same challenging chick-rearing conditions that have plagued Wisconsin (probably declining water clarity).

The third and final piece of the puzzle that we need to understand population dynamics is the survival of young adults. These birds are the breeders of the future that have not yet settled on territories. They range from three to about six years of age.

If you have been following my blog closely, you know that young adult survival of Wisconsin loons has seen the most dramatic decline among the three critical population determinants. That is, adult survival has held steady, and chick production has fallen somewhat, but the return rate of young adults to the breeding grounds has been abysmal — far below what it was a quarter century ago (see Figure 5, below).

Figure 5. Return rates of chicks to the breeding grounds 2 to 4 years after being banded as chicks in Wisconsin. (Data are missing for 2000 and 2007.)

We have been on pins and needles to see if this distinctive and rather alarming Wisconsin pattern is present also in Minnesota. Fortunately, our understanding of young adult survival has grown by leaps and bounds in Minnesota this year. Why? Because: 1) we started banding Minnesota chicks in 2021 and have done so every year since then, 2) most young loons return to the breeding grounds at three or four years of age in adult plumage, and 3) we regularly record identities of these young birds as intruders and loafers within our study areas. Thus, 2024 gave us our first glimpse at young adult survival in Minnesota using the crop of 26 chicks banded in 2021. And 2025 provided an even better window onto young adult survival there, since we could look at the return rate of 64 banded in 2021 and 2022 combined.

What do our findings show so far? In 2021, we banded 52 chicks in Wisconsin. Of these, 7 had returned as of 2025 (13.5%). We marked 28 chicks in Minnesota during 2021, and only one has so far been spotted as an adult (3.6%). For chicks banded in 2022, the numbers that have returned in Wisconsin and Minnesota, respectively, are 5 of 44 (11.4%) and 4 of 36 (11.1%).

These numbers tell a clear story. The percentage of young adult loons returning as adults in Minnesota is well short of that expected in a healthy population (a rate of about 41%). That percentage is also far below what we have seen in the past in Wisconsin (note the return rate in the 1990s and 2000s in Figure 5). In fact, the low return rate of young adult loons in Minnesota closely mirrors the dismal rate in Wisconsin.

In summary, it has taken five years to be confident of how the loon population in the Minnesota Study Area is faring. But our data now show that loons in Minnesota — at least those in Crow Wing and Cass counties, where we work — exhibit the same set of quirky demographic patterns that typify loons in Wisconsin and have set in motion a decline in the overall population there: 1) strong and stable adult survival, 2) poor reproduction in terms of both number of chicks and body condition at fledging3, and 3) a massive and diagnostic plunge in the survival rate of young adults (which are future breeders).

We have work to do.

1Thanks to Sheila Johnston, who took this photo of a molting adult loon on Gull Lake, which is just south of the Minnesota Study Area.

2I know. I just published a blog post in which I mourned the losses of many male breeders in the Wisconsin Study Area. I am still concerned about these losses. But in the long-term, which spans over three decades, adult males and females both have survived well. So I am hoping that the loss of several old, established male breeders this summer in Wisconsin was a blip.

3As noted earlier, it is too soon to tell from our data whether the number of chicks fledged is declining in Minnesota. We will gather those data over time. But we already know that Minnesota loon chicks are fledging in poor condition, just like Wisconsin loons. It is worth noting that the Minnesota Loon Monitoring Program, which has counted chicks across the state since 1994, reports a long-term and statewide decline in chick numbers.

on

Twenty years ago colleagues and I published a paper showing that artificial nesting platforms increase loon’s hatching success by 70%. Others have reported similar patterns. So there is no doubt that, on average, loons that incubate their eggs on artificial nesting platforms (“ANPs”) put more chicks in the lake than do pairs using natural sites. Moreover, our paper showed that greater hatching success produced by ANPs also leads to more fledged loons.

In the last two decades, ANPs have become an enticing tool used by loon conservationists to boost loon populations. This is not surprising. ANPs have proven to be effective, and they are rather easy to make and place in the water. So conservationists can plop a mess of ANPs in the water and feel pretty confident that they have added young loons to the population. And they can make a strong case to funding agencies that their actions might help loons avoid population decline. Indeed, many millions have been/are being spent in the U.S. to float ANPs as a means to mitigate the negative effects that oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico have had on the species.

Are ANPs really just as good as natural sites at producing young loons that reach adulthood? Or are platform-raised chicks not as likely to survive to fledging age as chicks hatched as natural sites? We must remember that loons pick the location of a natural nest, whereas humans choose the site where platforms go. So it seems quite plausible that platform-raised young face hazards that natural-raised young do not.

It is only now that I have large enough samples of nests from platforms and natural sites that I can run a head-to-head comparison. Despite my 32 years of Wisconsin data, only a small proportion of loons in the Wisconsin Study Area (e.g. 15 of 90 focal pairs in 2024; 17%) nested on platforms. In Minnesota, however, almost half of all of our focal pairs use ANPs (38 of 84 territorial pairs in 2024; 45%), so our sample of platform-hatched chicks has swollen markedly since 2021.

As the graph above shows, hatchlings from platforms are lost slightly more often than are natural-hatched chicks in both states. While the pattern shows up in both Minnesota and Wisconsin, the difference is quite small and does not reach statistical significance. In other words, we have no scientific evidence that chicks hatched on platforms suffer lower survival than those hatched at natural sites. The same can be said for chick loss in Wisconsin versus Minnesota, despite what appears to be a slightly higher rate of chick loss in the North Star State.

Frankly, I am relieved! It has become almost de rigueur to place an ANP in your lake to support the loons. If, for some reason, ANPs had been producing chicks likely to perish before reaching adulthood, it would have sent shockwaves through the world of loon conservation.

I am still not a great fan of nesting platforms. Why not? Because we have learned in recent years that nest predation is not the main problem loons are facing in the Upper Midwest. Remember, nesting platforms are a one-trick pony. They increase hatching success enormously and put more chicks in the water. But if chicks cannot get enough food to survive to adulthood or reach prime condition, then all of the platforms in the world will not help them.

on

If aliens landed on Earth’s surface to investigate its life forms, they would be puzzled by the coexistence of common loons and humans. True, loons spend almost their entire lives on the water, where they are relatively free of dangers from humans and other terrestrial vertebrates. But loons require solid ground for nesting, safe “nurseries” for rearing their chicks, and abundant food to keep themselves and their chicks alive. How, then, can loon populations persist along the southern periphery of the species range, where humans and human recreation threaten all three basic requirements?

The ability of loons to thrive in regions of intense human building and recreation vexed me for several years in the 1990s, when I first began my long-term loon research. I could see that most people venerated loons and took pains to protect them. But the sheer abundance of humans surrounding, approaching, and fishing near adults and chicks during the spring and summer made the tasks of hatching young and rearing them to adulthood seem daunting. How did loons manage to raise any young in the northern U.S. and southern Canada?

I cannot answer this question completely. I am still amazed at the abilities of adults and chicks on busy lakes to dodge motorboats and jetskis as well as they do. And it continues to surprise me when adults fledge chicks from small lakes where food seems limited. However, detailed study of loons’ nesting patterns allowed me to solve one riddle: how loons enjoy high nesting success despite intensive shoreline development.

One would think that shorelines are essential to nesting loons. Loons have to nest along shorelines, right? And humans build summer homes along shorelines too. So loons and humans would seem to be direct competitors for shoreline habitat. But it is not so. Why not?

The answer is deceptively simple. Well-drained “upland” shorelines provide the best sites for building lakeside homes. Upland sites are free of boggy or marshy vegetation. At the same time, upland shorelines provide poor nesting habitat for loons. Most loon eggs placed on upland shorelines end up in bellies of raccoons that take advantage of the comfortable footing they provide to look for easy meals. Experienced male loons learn to avoid placing nests on dry, upland shorelines.* Instead, they usually locate nests on islands, marshes**, or bogs hard for terrestrial predators to reach.*** So one key to loons’ ability to coexist with humans is merely loons’ preference to nest where humans cannot build.

Hodstradt Lake in the Wisconsin Study Area illustrates the complementary use of shorelines by loons and humans. Hodstradt is a 119-acre lake that has beautiful clear water with a slightly greenish hue. The lake is full of fish but completely encircled by lake homes. There is no island, marsh or bog in Hodstradt — only a peninsula in the southeastern corner (see screen grab below from Google Earth). Almost all nesting attempts by loons on Hodstradt have been on the end of that peninsula. High water caused by heavy rainfall in the past decade submerged the narrow spit connecting the end of the peninsula to the mainland, making it a small island. Whether an island or a peninsula, though, the land is low lying and impossible to build on. Hence it provides permanent nesting habitat for loons that is off limits to humans.

A similar situation exists for many loon pairs in the Minnesota Study Area. The seven pairs that nested this year on massive Cross Lake provide a good example. Three of these pairs nested on small uninhabitable islands; three nested among dense cattail patches in marshy coves; and one used an artificial nesting platform. (Five of these pairs hatched chicks.) Thus, the “Jack Sprat” nature of loon and human shoreline use can be seen in both Wisconsin and Minnesota. With rare exceptions, sites safe for loon nests are sites where humans cannot or will not build.

So adult loons are able to put chicks in the water despite extensive shoreline development. This would seem to be cause for celebration. In a cruel twist, though, shorelines altered to support suburban-style homes, lawns, and driveways have increased runoff. Although we are still working out the details, it appears that higher runoff has, in turn, produced a decline in water clarity and decreased chick mass, probably because adults cannot see fish well enough to provision their chicks adequately. In short, shoreline development negatively impacts loons during the second critical breeding phase: chick-rearing. Indeed, the sharp increase in mortality of chicks and young adults in the past two decades has become our number one concern with respect to the Upper Midwest loon population.

If there is a silver lining, it is this. Loons are resilient. They have been able to find nesting sites and sustain a high hatching rate despite everything humans have thrown at them. Perhaps we can help loons reverse the decline in chick survival, if we can learn precisely what is driving the drop in water clarity. This will be a massive challenge. But I have to believe that loons can come back from this setback. It keeps me going.

* We learned 16 years ago through marking of loons and systematic tracking of nest placement that male loons choose the nest site. For those not interested in looking at the science, we know this from two facts. First, loon pairs learn where to nest by trial and error. That is, they tend to reuse a site where they hatched chicks the previous year but move to a new nest location after egg predation. This logical nesting strategy is called the “win-stay, lose-switch” rule. Second, loon pairs in which the female pair member returns from the previous year but the male pair member does not usually do not reuse a successful site from the past year. In contrast, pairs consisting of the male from the previous year and a new female tend to reuse successful sites. In short, pairs with new male members do not use the win-stay, lose switch rule. They act as if they have forgotten where the best nesting site is.

** The featured photo is of Clune, Linda Grenzer’s favorite male loon, who bred for many years in her lake in Wisconsin. He is incubating eggs in a marshy corner of the lake that, predictably, is devoid of homes.

*** Of course, humans often accomodate loons’ nesting preferences by placing artificial nesting platforms along lake shores. Platforms provide very attractive nest sites for loons.

on

A few years ago, a non-scientist collaborator of mine suggested that I place transmitters on loons. This was a cool idea in many respects. Transmitters would permit us to monitor loons’ locations in real time and share those data with the public on a splashy website. I agreed that the technique would be thrilling and draw lots of public interest. But when the surge of adrenaline subsided, I was left with two troubling questions. First, what scientific hypothesis could we test with transmitters? Second, how would attaching transmitters to loons help us conserve loon populations in the Upper Midwest?

I am not knocking the technique. Transmitters are a potent tool used by animal ecologists to learn about patterns of migration, dispersal, and nomadism. Kevin Kenow and his collaborators employed satellite transmitters to show that typical adult loons breeding in Wisconsin and Minnesota spend the fall on Lake Michigan before heading south for winter. Kevin’s team also learned that juveniles remain on or near their natal lakes until late November, at which time they make a beeline for their winter quarters. So transmitters have helped us pinpoint times and places that are crucial to the annual survival of Upper Midwest loons. At present, though, there is no burning question concerning loons that transmitters might address.

What questions are most pressing with respect to Upper Midwest loons? With another year behind us and the 2024 field season looming, let’s take stock. How healthy is the population of loons in the Upper Midwest? And how can we best use our resources to protect them?**

Population Surveys

Two broad censuses carried out by armies of volunteers look at loon populations across large swaths of Minnesota and Wisconsin during late July. These counts are prone to fluctuations caused by changes in personnel and weather conditions during a narrow window of data collection. Still, they provide valuable large-scale “snapshots” that, in the long run, tell us how each population is faring. Furthermore, by comparing Minnesota and Wisconsin snapshots side by side, we might discern a broader regional trend.

Wisconsin’s LoonWatch survey has been carried out every five years since 1976. The survey showed robust statewide gains in loon numbers during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. The most recent survey, however, revealed a decline in the Wisconsin loon population between 2015 and 2020. (The next survey will occur in July 2025.)

The Minnesota Loon Monitoring Program generates data annually and is based on six “index” areas. The enhanced geographic dimension to the MLMP survey suits Minnesota’s loon population, which is three times the size of Wisconsin’s. From 1994 to 2010, populations in two of six areas increased, two declined, and two were stable. But trends have shifted downwards in recent years. Since 2010, two areas have been stable, two have declined slightly, and two have fallen sharply. Surprisingly, the strongest, most consistent declines have occurred in the two most northerly areas (Cook/Lake and Itaska).

If we stitch Minnesota and Wisconsin surveys together, we can see that the Upper Midwest loon population as a whole increased (Wisconsin) or remained stable (Minnesota) during the 1990s and 2000s. We can also detect an apparent decline across the region that began in about 2010 in Minnesota and five years later in Wisconsin.

Poor Breeding Appears to Explain the Wisconsin Decline

Our breeding data from Wisconsin shed light on the recent population decline there. During the 1990s and 2000s, Wisconsin breeders raised healthy chicks with high survival. Brood size was split 50/50 between one- and two-chick broods. Beginning in 2010, however, chick survival and mass fell, and only 20 to 30% of broods contained two chicks. Furthermore, young adult survival plunged by 60% in Wisconsin from 2000 to 2015. Thus, poor breeding success and loss of young adults seem to be driving the population decline. There are simply not enough young loons being produced to replace adults that die.

Wait a minute. The breeding decline began around 2010, whereas the population did not begin to fall until after 2015. Are these results consistent? Indeed they are. Most loons do not settle on territories until they are five to ten years old. Therefore, several years must pass before poor breeding success is “felt” in the adult population. Hence, a statewide population decline beginning in about 2015 is what we would expect from a reproductive downturn 5-10 years earlier.

Hints of a Similar Pattern in Minnesota

We have only three years of detailed breeding data from the Minnesota Study Area. These data are too few to make robust comparisons with population trends from the MLMP. Still, we can report two preliminary patterns from the state. First, the adult return rate in Minnesota (80 to 83%) has consistently run 5% below that in Wisconsin.* Second, 31% of all fledged broods in our Minnesota Study Area from 2021 to 2023 contained two chicks. This number puts Minnesota in line with Wisconsin, where the paucity of two-chick broods reflects challenges faced by breeders since 2010. The 2022 MLMP report too cites reduced chick production in recent years as a potential cause for concern. At first glance, then, the loon population in Minnesota seems to be facing the same difficulty as its neighbor to the east.

Environmental Causes of the Decline

Thus, the loon population across the entire Upper Midwest seems to be in decline owing to reduced breeding success. This is vital information. But if our knowledge ended there, we would stand no chance of fixing the problem. To do so, we must identify the precise environmental factor or factors that impair loons’ ability to breed. In the past few years, of course, we have learned that decreased water clarity and increased black flies are two such factors in Wisconsin. That is a good start. However, it will improve our understanding — and strengthen any case we might wish to make for using local, state, and/or federal resources to mitigate the problems — if we can extend these findings from Wisconsin to Minnesota.

The Plan for 2024

2024 is going to be a pivotal year for the Loon Project. Why “pivotal”? Because we have built a conceptual and logistical platform in Wisconsin for understanding the entire Upper Midwest loon population. And we have painted a clear picture of a declining Wisconsin population and its causes. In 2024 we must pivot towards Minnesota.

Thanks to the hard work of our field crews, seed money from the National Loon Center, and the growing ranks of folks in Minnesota, Wisconsin and elsewhere who support our work logistically and financially, we have spent three productive years in Minnesota. We have identified 115 territories in Crow Wing and Cass counties that constitute our Minnesota Study Area and marked adults in about 3/4 of these territories. Our task now is to place a large enough team in the field to collect high-quality breeding data from our new Minnesota study lakes.

We will use methods in Minnesota that have proved successful in Wisconsin since 1993. In the spring we will clear cobwebs from our canoes, head to our 115 study lakes, and confirm the return or non-return of each pair member. On subsequent weekly visits single team members will locate and identify each pair member and document their nesting status or number of chicks. Most critical to our effort will be recording causes of nest failure and chick loss, because, of course, poor breeding success is the root cause of the Upper Midwest population decline.

Our growing sample of survival data from adult return rates will allow us to build a population model for the Minnesota Study Area. In addition, accumulating return records will allow us to determine whether the curiously high annual mortality of Minnesota adults that we have measured by three separate means holds up over time. If so, we will try hard to identify the source of the mortality, which would be very costly to the population.

Following the field season, we will determine whether the low breeding success in our Minnesota Study Area persisted in 2024. Then we will turn our attention to environmental factors that are causing nest failure and/or loss of chicks in Minnesota. That is, we will follow up our increased field effort with a statistical search for likely causes — especially water clarity, black fly populations, and weather patterns — that might be driving a breeding decline. It will likely take several years of intense field work to get a clear picture of such causes.

Support for Our Low Tech Approach

As you have surmised, our future promises to be unglamorous and low tech. We will not use drones, satellite transmitters, amphibious vehicles, or hovercraft to collect data. Instead, trained observers will employ the field techniques that have gotten us where we are today. We will carry our canoes to boat landings, put paddles in the water, find loons, and collect as much data as grit and elbow grease allow.

Now I am asking for your help as we do this important work to save loons in the Upper Midwest. If you believe in our work and wish for it to continue, please consider a tax-deductible donation to support us. In keeping with our theme of simplicity, we run a lean operation. None of our funding goes into the pockets of senior researchers. This year we will use our funds to support: 1) field interns who visit study lakes by canoe and collect data (about $6,000 for each of four interns covers a monthly stipend and reimbursement for gas); 2) lodging for the interns and myself (about $10,000, if recent experience is a useful guide); 3) economy airfare for me to make two trips to and from the Upper Midwest and gasoline for the motorboat we use to cover breeding pairs on the Whitefish Chain ($1800); and 4) color bands for marking loons and costs to replace broken equipment and needed supplies ($4,000). So I estimate our need to be about $40,000 for the expanded 2024 field effort in Minnesota.

By the way, we currently have enough funding in place to support a modest field effort in Wisconsin. However, increased funds directed to Wisconsin would also strengthen our effort in this most valuable long-term study population. You may earmark your donation to go towards our Wisconsin work, if you so choose.

You may use this link to go to our “Donate” page. Thanks for any support you can give us. We promise to make every penny count! 

The Future

Our future prospects seem bright. In addition to cultivating a large number of supporters across the Upper Midwest, we are forming an Upper Midwest research team. Obtaining funding is always uncertain, but our new collaborators have a good track record of acquiring major regional funding. We will apply for such funding this year and, if we are fortunate, might receive it by late 2025.

If all goes well, lake dwellers in Crow Wing and Cass counties will soon get used to the same peculiar sight to which lake residents in Oneida and Lincoln counties have become accustomed: paddlers in solo canoes, wearing bleached PFDs and binoculars, scanning the lake’s surface ceaselessly for loons.

FOOTNOTES

* This pattern is enigmatic. I can think of no reason why Minnesota loons should die at a higher rate than Wisconsin loons. One hypothesis is that the pattern is the higher density of loons in the Minnesota Study Area than the Wisconsin Study Area results in greater competition for territories in Minnesota. If so, what appears to be a low adult survival rate might instead be a higher rate of eviction. From a conservation standpoint, we must hope that eviction explains the apparent difference. If Minnesota loons truly die at a substantially higher rate than Wisconsin loons, Minnesota birds would have to offset that mortality rate with considerably higher breeding success.

** The beautiful featured photo, as usual, is by Linda Grenzer. It shows a foot waggle by two-year-old male that tried to claim her lake as its territory this past summer. We are slightly worried that this youngest-ever settler is a sign of population decline in Wisconsin, because four-, five-, and six-year-old nonbreeders would normally outcompete it for this territorial opening.

on

On the Loon Project, we are all out to band loons in Minnesota. This effort borders on obsession. Since adult loons must produce chicks to be easily catchable, our marking initiative depends upon finding pairs with chicks. “Have you seen any loon nests on your lake?” is a refrain Eric Andrews and I uttered to many residents of lakes in Crow Wing and Cass Counties back in May and June. “Have you seen any chicks?”, I have begun to ask in recent days, now that I am on my second tour through the Minnesota Study Area. This question is on my lips so often that I now smile inwardly each time I ask it. I hope that I do not sound desperate.

People have been happy to answer our loon-related questions. Driven by love of the state bird, scores of Minnesotans have shared their observations of loons, nests, and chicks, given us permission to launch canoes from their property, and even permitted us to post their photos of loons to spruce up our blog and Instagram posts. (Sheila Farrell Johnston’s cool photo, above, of a territorial battle on Upper Gull Lake this spring is a case in point.) Minnesotans, it seems, are as concerned about loons as we are and wish to help us enhance the current low-resolution picture of the state loon population with a robust, scientific analysis. The outpouring of support we have received this summer has ended any lingering uncertainty we had about continuing our research in the region. *

A growing demographic disparity lends urgency to our efforts in Minnesota. You see, accumulation of data from the Minnesota Study Population — and comparison with corresponding data from Wisconsin — has revealed that loons are returning to their territories at a lower rate in Minnesota than in Wisconsin. That’s right. In Wisconsin, where we already know the population is in some trouble, adult loons are returning to their territories at a higher rate than in Minnesota.

The numbers speak for themselves. In 2023, 63 of 74 Wisconsin territorial females (85%) returned to their 2022 territories, while 69 of 79 Wisconsin males came back (87%). Those numbers are typical for Wisconsin and for New England loon populations as well. In contrast, only 81% of Minnesota females (34 of 42) and 82% of Minnesota males (37 of 45) returned in May 2023 to the territories they owned in 2022. Now, these are not massive samples. So you might be excused for dismissing these numbers as sampling error from which no conclusion can be drawn. But this is the third independent analysis that has shown a higher rate of return in Wisconsin. We saw the same story in the data from last year and from Kevin Kenow’s marked adults from 2015-2017. So the time for hemming and hawing is over. We can no longer escape the fact that loons in Crow Wing County are returning to their territories less often than loons in Oneida County, Wisconsin.

Before you hurl yourself off of your dock, let me add some perspective. The lower return rate in Minnesota does not necessarily indicate lower survival there. Why not? Because a loon’s ability to return to its previous territory depends not only upon its being alive, but also upon its ability to defend its territory from challengers. Minnesota loons might be surviving just as well as — or even better than — Wisconsin loons. If so, however, they are being evicted from their territories at an astonishingly high rate.

Paradoxically, a high rate of eviction in Minnesota, if it is occurring, could be good news. A high eviction rate might indicate that Crow Wing County is overflowing with young 4-, 5-, and 6-year old adults looking to challenge owners for territories. If so, frequent eviction reflects high breeding success of loons in the County (4 to 6 years ago), because it is Crow Wing County loon pairs (for the most part) that have placed all of these young whippersnappers into circulation.

Ok, I admit it. I am putting lipstick on a pig. I do not truly believe that our Minnesota loons are kicking each other off of territories often enough to account for the low return rate we have found there. I do not know how to account for the pattern. But I am yet not unduly concerned about our Minnesota Study Population. Adult survival, even if lower in Minnesota, is only one piece of the puzzle. Still, the news is pushing me to be even more inquisitive of Minnesota lake residents. Someone listening closely late this afternoon might have heard my favorite question echo across the gently scalloped surface of Duck Lake: “Have you seen any loon chicks this year?”

*Mind you, we are still enthusiastically following our long-term study population in northern Wisconsin. Wisconsin loons continue to yield exciting insights about age-related behavior patterns and impacts of water clarity on the health and survival of loon chicks.

on

It is easy to forget that research on the loons of Crow Wing County, Minnesota has been underway for over a decade. To be sure, this work has been spotty. From 2011 to 2014, Kevin Kenow and his USGS team placed geotags on a few dozen adults on four medium-sized lakes in the county. From 2015 through 2017, he shifted his efforts to the Whitefish Chain, where he captured 68 individuals, including 36 territorial adults.

Kevin’s goal was to determine migration and wintering routes of Minnesota loons, which he did after recovering many of the geotags placed on loons’ legs. Although his study was short-term, Kevin’s loons lived on. Each summer and fall they nested and reared young, foraged to build up their reserves for migration, staged on the Great Lakes, and made long overland flights to the Gulf of Mexico. Each spring they molted their feathers and made return trips back to the Whitefish Chain to restart the cycle.

When our Minnesota Loon Project began in 2021, we relocated many of the loons Kevin had banded 4 to 6 years before. We were quite thorough — obsessive, even — in our efforts to do so. At the time I regarded the USGS banding effort as fortunate for us, since it gave us a head start in our efforts to mark all territorial pairs on the Chain.

But Kevin’s marked loons have not merely reduced our loon marking workload. Kevin’s birds are charter members of the Minnesota Loon Project. The survival of these inaugural adults since the years Kevin’s team marked them provides our first multi-year snapshot of adult loon survival in Crow Wing County.

The data provide an unconventional snapshot. When one conducts a mark-recapture study, one normally searches diligently for all marked individuals during the years immediately after marking. This strategy produces data on annual return rate, which provides an estimate of annual survival. But we lack data on return rates from 2018, 2019, and 2020. So we must do the best we can to extract information from Kevin’s birds despite multiple years with missing data.

Fortunately, this is not rocket science. If “r” is the annual rate of return, then r2 is the probability of being on territory two years after banding, r3 is the probability of still being present three years later, and so on. Recognizing this, we can easily project how many of the 36 territorial adults that Kevin banded in 2015, 2016, and 2017 should have still been on territory in 2021. If annual rate of return were 90%, we would have expected to see 20.5 of Kevin’s loons in 2021. At 85%, the expectation is 15.1. If the annual rate of return were 80%, then we should have seen 11.0 loons. In fact, our exhaustive search turned up 13 of Kevin’s loons. So this places our rough estimate of annual loon survival for the Whitefish Chain at 82.5%.

To my knowledge, ours is is the first long-term estimate of adult loon survival from Minnesota based on a marked population. This is rather shocking; loons are well studied in the U.S., have been marked in at least ten states….and are the state bird, for goodness sake! In any event, this preliminary estimate gives us a ballpark figure for adult survival that we can compare with more robust estimates from other states.

A figure of 82.5% for Minnesota survival is lower than we would like. This long-term number based on Kevin’s birds, though, is slightly higher than the separate return rate of 51 Crow Wing County adults we banded in 2021 and looked hard for in 2022: 80%. For comparison, we have robust estimates of survival from a study done 15 years ago that included data from New England (88%; data from 1994-2001) and Wisconsin (87%; data from 1991-2001). We can also compare with longer-term survival rates from our well-known Wisconsin Study Area, which, again, were 86 to 87% for both males and females. In short, early data from the Minnesota Study Area indicate a percentage of adult survival in the low 80s, which is below the rates in the upper 80s we have grown accustomed to seeing in Wisconsin and New England.

The data from Minnesota so far only provide a glimmer about the loon population in Crow Wing County. However, these low survival estimates do bring to mind a worrisome downward trend in loon numbers for the region that can be seen in the 2021 Minnesota Loon Monitoring Report. But, really, it is early days. We need more data. Furthermore, the status of a loon population is not dependent upon adult survival alone. Low adult survival can be offset by a high reproductive rate. So we will have to spend at least two more years tracking return rates of marked loons and measuring breeding success before we can pull them together into a model that will tell us (preliminarily) how Crow Wing loons are doing. Still, if I am being honest, I wish the survival numbers were a bit higher.

Thanks to Katy Dahl, who photographed the Cross Lake-Arrowhead Point loon pair after we banded them in 2021. The male in the foreground with his bands out of water was spotted a few days ago just north of Minneapolis.

If, like us, you are concerned about the persistence of loons in Minnesota, consider a donation to support our field efforts. We run a lean program. Funds donated to the Loon Project do not pay overhead, administrative costs, or salaries for staff or senior personnel. They pay only field costs like: 1) stipends to keep student field workers alive, 2) travel costs to, from, and within our study areas, and 3) supply costs such as for colored leg bands and canoe paddles. Thanks!

on

We all love loons. So naturally we should take any step we can to help them. Right? In that light, artificial nesting platforms (ANPs), or loon rafts, would seem to be a no-brainer. Platforms make it easier for loon pairs to produce chicks.

ANPs fit neatly within the framework of loon conservation. Accepted enthusiastically by most loon pairs, they would seem to provide a perfect, low-cost solution to increase loon populations. They are easy to construct; a person with a modicum of carpentry experience can find plans online and build a platform in a day or less. So platforms provide a simple method by which a single loon enthusiast can improve the breeding success of a pair of loons for many years. Across the loon breeding range, platforms have become a panacea for bolstering reproductive success.

But are nesting platforms all that we need them to be? Now that loon populations appear to be in trouble in Wisconsin and perhaps even in Ontario — and now that some of the causes of declines are beginning to come into focus — maybe it is time for us to step back for a moment. Maybe we should ask whether platforms address the actual problems that loon populations face. To state it technically, can platforms mitigate the specific negative factors hurting loon populations and make populations viable in the long term?

We first need to recognize that platforms address a single, very narrow problem faced by loons. Loon pairs must sit on their eggs — in an exposed location — for 28 days. If a mammalian predator wanders by during that month, the nest is lost. Platforms solve this problem beautifully. They increase the rate of hatching by about 70%. But putting chicks in the water is all platforms do. Platforms do nothing to help chicks reach fledging age. They do not feed chicks; they do not protect chicks from predators. They do not boost adult loon survival. They have no effect on the rate of boat strikes or angling casualties or lead poisonings of adults and chicks. In short, if loon populations suffer declines owing to reduced hatching success, then nesting platforms are just what the doctor ordered. If declines are caused by anything else, then platforms would appear ill-suited to the task.

What do we know at this point about the status of loon breeding populations and factors that might threaten them? Precious little, if we are talking about the entire species range. But we have begun to narrow down the list of population threats in the Upper Midwest.

At present, the four most significant hazards to loons in northern Wisconsin appear to be: 1) larger populations of Simulium annulus, a black fly that targets incubating loons and causes massive abandonments of loon nests in May and early June, 2) decreased water clarity during the chick-rearing period, which increases chick mortality, 3) increased deaths of adult loons and chicks from ingestion of lead sinkers and jigs, and 4) a die-off of young adults resulting from poor feeding conditions that they experienced during the first five weeks of life that has a delayed negative impact on adult survival.

How well does the use of nesting platforms to boost hatching success of loons map onto the quadruple threat of increased black flies, decreased water clarity, lead poisoning, and spiking mortality of young adults? With respect to black flies, platforms might mitigate the problem somewhat. Platform-nesting loons suffer abandonments just as severely as do loons nesting at natural sites, but the increased hatching success of second nests on platforms offsets the hit to hatching success caused by black fly-induced abandonments of first nests. Platforms, of course, have no impact on the decreased growth rate and increased mortality of loon chicks owing to declining water clarity and the resultant difficulty of feeding chicks. Likewise, platforms do not affect the incidence of lead poisoning. And platforms provide no relief to loons from the silver spoon effect, whereby individuals reared with limited food survive poorly as young adults.

On the whole, then, floating nest platforms do not appear to address effectively the major threats faced by loon breeding populations (to the extent that Wisconsin represents loon populations generally).

While that quick analysis might seem reasonable, I have ignored one crucial fact about loon nesting habitat and platforms. Platforms often provide loons with an opportunity to breed in lakes or parts of lakes where they otherwise could not because of the absence or poor quality of nesting habitat. In other words, platforms actually create new nesting habitat. If the new nesting habitat that platforms make available contains enough food that parents can fledge the chicks they hatch there, platforms might provide “bonus chicks” that give the loon population a boost. *

Of course, platforms are so enticing to loons that they must be deployed thoughtfully. A platform placed on a very small lake might lure a pair of loons to use it but result in starvation of the chick(s) because of food limitation. Since a pair lured into such a tragic situation might otherwise have nested and reared chicks successfully elsewhere, such misuse of nesting platforms exacts a cost on the breeding success of the population. (Loon conservationists recognize the pitfalls of using nesting platforms thoughtlessly and only deploy them where they are likely to do more good than harm.)

While loon platforms seem effective at boosting loon populations in some respects but ineffective or even harmful in other respects, what conclusion can we reach? We cannot be too confident of any conclusion at this point. But since it is becoming clear that poor foraging conditions during the chick phase is the greatest problem for loons and that limited food during the chick phase can doom a loon to a short adult life, we would do well not to pat ourselves on the back too hard for adding a platform that puts a few extra chicks in the water.

* Population ecologists will recognize a potential flaw in my reasoning. Even if platforms result in a huge increase in fledged chicks in a population, density-dependent mortality during winter or migration (e.g. owing to food shortage) might wipe out all of these extra individuals. In that case, platforms would not be an effective conservation tool. In fact, increased adult mortality from a variety of causes could produce population decline even in the event of huge “bonus” chick production via platforms.

on

Yesterday, I heard the cheerful, buzzy calls of Japanese White-eyes* flitting about in the trees in my backyard. They are handsome and engaging little birds, but they don’t belong in southern California. They never lived here before humans did. As recently as ten years ago, white-eyes were quite difficult to find in the area.

A few weeks ago my wife, son, daughter, and I visited my ailing mother in Houston. On our first morning there, we were awakened by the incessant cooing of White-winged Doves*. They too are a striking species. The flashy white stripes on their wings and tails set them apart from the more familiar and homely Mourning Doves. Even the ceaseless calling of White-wings is rather pleasant. Don’t trust me on this; the abundant murmurings of this species inspired Stevie Nicks to write an entire song about them. But White-winged Doves have not always lived in the Houston area. I remember scouring trees around the Galveston County Courthouse in vain for this species with my mentor, Fred Collins, on a Christmas bird count a half century ago.**

Of course, while new species colonize new regions; well-established residents also vanish. In the Upper Midwest, the Piping Plover, a cute little shorebird, has recently become severely threatened. Though I have never seen a Piping Plover in all my years in Wisconsin and Minnesota, I do have experience with a second threatened species, the Black Tern. These agile fliers flit about marshy areas, plucking insect larvae and small vertebrates from the water and vegetation. They are appealing birds — with jet-black bodies that contrast tastefully with greyish wings and tail. But it is a longshot to find them in the Upper Midwest nowadays. What seemed a healthy breeding colony fifteen years ago on Wind Pudding Lake in northern Wisconsin — where we have always had a breeding loon pair — has disappeared altogether. It has been so many years since I last saw Black Terns on Wind Pudding that I have stopped looking for them there.

In short, my years as a bird-watcher have taught me that populations of birds change dramatically over time. Some species magically appear in new places, and other species disappear. I suppose it is my first-hand experience with the dynamics of avian populations that infuses my current research on loon populations in Wisconsin and Minnesota with such urgency. This is why I sweat the black fly season in May and June, worry about boat strikes and lead poisoning, and am in a bit of a panic over the recent loss of water clarity in the region. I have now seen — as I had not in 1993 when my loon work began — that birds can disappear.

* Photos by Natthaphat Chotjuckdikul and Ted Bradford from eBird.

** In fact, the picture is a bit complicated in the case of this species. White-winged doves occurred commonly in the southwestern U.S. 100 years ago, but the population was devastated by the expansion of the citrus industry. However, in the past three decades, the species has begun to nest in citrus trees and has come roaring back.