When discussing bird extinction, the most common reference is to rare species listed in the Red Book. But a far more alarming process is happening almost unnoticed: common birds, the ones we’ve grown accustomed to for decades, are disappearing. House and barn swallows and common swifts were once part of the everyday landscape, yet their numbers in Europe and other regions are declining faster than those of many rare species.
The primary danger is that the disappearance of common species undermines the ecosystem from within. These birds are functional elements of the environment: regulators of insect populations, pollinators, and indicators of air and soil conditions. Their loss almost always signals a systemic problem.
Why is the extinction of common species more dangerous than the loss of rare ones?
Rare species are often protected through conservation programs, with resources allocated. Common species, on the other hand, have long remained “invisible” to politics and society. Yet they ensure ecosystem resilience. When common birds disappear, it signals a failure of the entire system.
Here are the key consequences that ecologists and ornithologists are currently documenting:
- sharp increase in insect pests or, conversely, their collapse;
- decrease in biodiversity at the level of yards, parks, and farmland;
- deterioration in the quality of the urban environment, including an increase in parasites;
- loss of “ecological services” that birds provided for free.
This is precisely why the disappearance of sparrows and swifts is more dangerous than it seems at first glance.
Human Factor
It’s important to understand that this isn’t a single cause, but a cumulative effect. Pesticides, landscape simplification, architectural design, light pollution in Chinese megacities, the noise of New York City, climate change in Northern Europe and Africa, the massive offices of casino en ligne international and car companies in France—each factor may be tolerable individually, but together they create an environment in which common bird species can no longer cope.
It’s significant that this same principle applies in other areas: systems designed for mass users begin to collapse not because of extreme events, but because of constant, small-scale pressures. By the same logic, we see that resilience depends not on rare events, but on the behavior of millions of ordinary people. In nature, it is precisely common bird species that fulfill the role of such “mass users.” So what bird species are in danger?
House Sparrow
For decades, the house sparrow was considered one of the most numerous species in cities. However, since the late 20th century, its numbers in Europe have declined sharply. In some Western European cities, population declines of 50–60% have been recorded relative to the 1980s and 1990s.
The reasons are well documented. Modern cities have become less suitable for nesting: sealed facades, a lack of crevices and niches, and smooth surfaces. At the same time, the amount of available food has decreased, primarily insects, whose numbers are declining due to pesticides and monotonous green spaces. The sparrow is an environmental indicator, and its disappearance indicates that the city is losing its biological complexity.
Swallows
The barn swallow is directly related to humans—it nests in barns, under roofs, and in outbuildings. This is why its decline is particularly significant. In several European countries, swallow populations have declined by tens of percent over the past 30 years.
A key factor is changes in agriculture. The widespread use of insecticides has dramatically reduced the number of flying insects that form the basis of the swallows’ diet. Building modernization is creating additional pressure: closed barns, insulated farms, and plastic sheds deprive birds of their traditional nesting sites. Even if the landscape is preserved, the infrastructure to which the species was evolutionarily linked is disappearing.
Swifts
The Common Swift is one of the most specialized urban species. It rarely lands on the ground, spending most of its life in the air. Its vulnerability lies in its nesting habits: swifts exploit crevices under roofs and in old facades. Massive thermal modernization of buildings, without regard for fauna, has led to the loss of thousands of nesting sites.
Climate change is a separate issue. Swifts are dependent on weather conditions over vast areas, from Europe to Africa. Shifts in insect breeding seasons, extreme droughts, and unstable springs result in unsuccessful breeding. This accumulates year after year, and recovery is slow.
Is it possible to reverse the process?
Some of the negative trends are reversible. Where “friendly architecture” programs are introduced, pesticide use is limited, and mosaic landscapes are preserved, populations stabilize. But this requires systemic solutions, not symbolic gestures.
The main conclusion of modern research is that, if common birds are disappearing, the problem has already become more local. This is not a matter of aesthetics or nostalgia—it is a marker of environmental sustainability. Ignoring this signal means postponing consequences that will ultimately affect everyone.
