[摘要] RECENTLY, MARY AND Charles Brown (
2009) published an eye-opening study on adult Cliff Swallows (
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) wherein they estimated that blood sampling led to a 21–33% decrease in survival. This is a staggering estimate that few would have anticipated. Moreover, it promises to provoke a thorough and critical reevaluation of the consequences of blood sampling, which we welcome. Blood sampling is well established as a standard tool in ornithological research; a recent Google Scholar search produced 149,000 references for the term “avian blood samples.” Sheldon et al. (
2008) reviewed numerous uses of blood sampling, including (1) its necessity for understanding fundamentals of avian physiology such as endocrinology (
Wingfield et al. 2008), metabolism (
Schekkerman and Visser 2001), and parasitology (
Dawson and Bortolotti 2000); (2) its value as a source of DNA for population genetics or evolutionary studies (e.g.,
Irwin et al. 2005,
Hellgren et al. 2007); (3) the stable-isotope record it provides for connecting migrant breeding populations with their wintering sites and for describing diet (e.g.,
Rubenstein and Hobson 2004); and (4) its use in tracking infectious diseases such as avian influenza, malaria, and West Nile virus (e.g.,
Gancz et al. 2006). A curtailment of blood sampling would severely hinder—and, in many cases, completely impede—important lines of inquiry in myriad areas of ornithology, including behavior, conservation, ecology and evolution, and physiology. It is therefore important that the Browns' recent findings be put into perspective while we reexamine accepted blood-sampling protocols. Here, we remind readers of the potential consequences of blood sampling, suggest ways to mitigate some of these consequences, and advocate additional research to further refine our field sampling techniques. We hope that this will provide some perspectives on the Browns' (
2009) findings and stimulate further discussion.
