Is there still a point to point counts?

Point counts are commonly used to quantify bird distributions and have been a standard method in ornithological research for over a century. We argue that although recent advancements in avian sampling have called into question whether they continue to be an efficient and cost-effective method for gathering data, point counts still play a critical role in ornithology and will for the foreseeable future. We review the history of point counts and their contributions to our understanding of ecology. We then compare point counts to passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) and citizen science (e.g., eBird) in terms of spatial and temporal sampling scales, costs and logistics, survey methods, ancillary data collection, species identification and documentation, data management, and population analyses. Depending on the research question, PAM and citizen-science datasets can offer cost-effective and scalable alternatives to sampling bird communities, but neither is completely interchangeable with point counts. The advantages of PAM include noninvasive sampling at fine temporal resolutions, archivable data, and efficient pathways to spatiotemporal scaling. Citizen-science data can be collected at broad spatial extents, and some of the financial costs are absorbed by project volunteers. At present, however, neither approach can replace the point count when it comes to recording nuanced behavioral observations, estimating distances, or counting individuals. Indeed, the strength of all these approaches may be in the way they complement one another, and the field may benefit most from continued research that integrates these methods to improve estimates of avian populations and distributions.