Resource Documents: Wildlife (284 items)
Unless indicated otherwise, documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are shared here to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate. • The copyrights reside with the sources indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations.
Author: Perold, V.; Ralston-Paton, S.; and Ryan, P.
[Abstract] Wind energy is a clean, renewable alternative to fossil fuel-derived energy sources, but many birds are at risk from collisions with wind turbines. We summarise the diversity of birds killed by turbine collisions at 20 wind energy facilities (WEFs) across southwest South Africa. Monitoring from 2014 to 2018 recovered 848 bird carcasses across all WEFs, at a crude rate of 1.0 ± 0.6 birds turbine−1 y−1 at 16 WEFs with at least 12 months of postconstruction monitoring. However, mortality estimates adjusted for detection and scavenger bias were appreciably higher: 4.6 ± 2.9 birds turbine−1 y−1 or 2.0 ± 1.3 birds MW−1 y−1 (n = 14 WEFs with site-specific bias correction factors), which is slightly lower than mean rates reported in the northern hemisphere, but still well within range. A striking result was the high diversity of birds killed: 130 species from 46 families, totalling 30% of bird species recorded at and around WEFs, including some species not recorded by specialist surveys at WEF sites (e.g. flufftails Sarothruridae). Species accumulation models suggest that 184 (±22) species will be killed at these facilities, some 42% of species found in the vicinity of WEFs. This is despite the smaller number of migrants in the study region, compared with the north temperate zone. Diurnal raptors were killed most often (36% of carcasses, 23 species) followed by passerines (30%, 49 species), waterbirds (11%, 24 species), swifts (9%, six species), large terrestrial birds (5%, 10 species), pigeons (4%, six species) and other near passerines (1%, seven species). Species of conservation concern killed include endangered Cape Vultures Gyps coprotheres and Black Harriers Circus maurus, both of which are endemic to southern Africa. Every effort must be made to site wind energy facilities away from important areas for birds, particularly raptors.
V. Perold and P. Ryan, FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
S. Ralston-Paton, BirdLife South Africa, Pinegowrie, South Africa
Ostrich 2020: 1–12. doi: 10.2989/00306525.2020.1770889
Download original document: “On a collision course? The large diversity of birds killed by wind turbines in South Africa”
Mortality limits used in wind energy impact assessment underestimate impacts of wind farms on bird populations
Author: Schippers, Peter; et al.
1. The consequences of bird mortality caused by collisions with wind turbines are increasingly receiving attention. So‐called acceptable mortality limits of populations, that is, those that assume that 1%–5% of additional mortality and the potential biological removal (PBR), provide seemingly clear‐cut methods for establishing the reduction in population viability. 2. We examine how the application of these commonly used mortality limits could affect populations of the Common Starling, Black‐tailed Godwit, Marsh Harrier, Eurasian Spoonbill, White Stork, Common Tern, and White‐tailed Eagle using stochastic density‐independent and density‐dependent Leslie matrix models. 3. Results show that population viability can be very sensitive to proportionally small increases in mortality. Rather than having a negligible effect, we found that a 1% additional mortality in postfledging cohorts of our studied populations resulted in a 2%–24% decrease in the population level after 10 years. Allowing a 5% mortality increase to existing mortality resulted in a 9%–77% reduction in the populations after 10 years.
Peter Schippers, Ralph Buij, Alex Schotman, Jana Verboom, Henk van der Jeugd, Eelke Jongejans
Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University & Research; Environmental Systems Analysis, Wageningen University; Vogeltrekstation – Dutch Centre for Avian Migration and Demography, Wageningen; Animal Ecology and Physiology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Ecology and Evolution. Published on line 04 June 2020. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6360
Download original document: “Mortality limits used in wind energy impact assessment underestimate impacts of wind farms on bird populations”
Author: Măntoiu, Dragos; et al.
In Eastern Europe, wind energy production is currently promoted as an important source of renewable energy, yet in most cases without appropriate consideration of the negative impacts wind turbines (WTs) may have on protected species such as bats. Here, we present first data on fatality rates, fatality factors and the likely origin of bats killed by WT in the Dobrogea region (Romania), located in a major migratory corridor for wildlife in Eastern Europe. Over a 4-year period, we found a total of 166 bat carcasses from 10 species, mostly representing migratory species such as Pipistrellus nathusii and Nyctalus noctula. Most fatalities at WTs occurred in July and August. We documented 15 cases of barotrauma and 34 cases of blunt-force trauma in carcasses found below WTs. After adjusting for carcass removals and variations in searcher efficiency, we estimated for the 4-year study period a total of 2394 bat casualties at the studied WT facility consisting of 20 units, resulting in a mean fatality rate of 30 bats/WT/year, or 14.2 bats/MW/year. By implementing a curtailment measure at wind speeds below 6.5 m/s, we reduced fatality rates by 78%. Isoscape origin models based on hydrogen stable isotope ratios in fur keratin revealed that the majority of N. noctula that were killed by WTs or captured nearby in mist nets originated from distant areas in the North (Ukraine, Belarus, Russia). The estimated high fatality rates of bats at WT in this area have far-reaching consequences, particularly for populations of migratory bats, if no appropriate mitigation schemes are practised.
Dragoş Ştefan Măntoiu, Kseniia Kravchenko, Linn Sophia Lehnert, Anton Vlaschenko, Oana Teodora Moldovan, Ionuţ Cornel Mirea, Răzvan Cătălin Stanciu, Răzvan Zaharia, Răzvan Popescu-Mirceni, Marius Costin Nistorescu, and Christian Claus Voigt
Romanian Academy, “Emil Racoviţă” Institute of Speleology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
EPC Consultanţă de mediu Environmental Consulting, Bucharest, Romania
Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW), Berlin, Germany
Bat Rehabilitation Centre Feldman Ecopark, Lesnoye, Ukraine
Romanian Institute of Science and Technology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Oceanographic Research and Marine Environment Protection Society Oceanic-Club, Constanța, Romania
European Journal of Wildlife Research, volume 66, article number 44 (2020)
Published: 26 May 2020
Download original document: “Wildlife and infrastructure: Impact of wind turbines on bats in the Black Sea coast region”
Author: Rehbein, Jose; et al.
Transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is fundamental for halting anthropogenic climate change. However, renewable energy facilities can be land‐use intensive and impact conservation areas, and little attention has been given to whether the aggregated effect of energy transitions poses a substantial threat to global biodiversity. Here, we assess the extent of current and likely future renewable energy infrastructure associated with onshore wind, hydropower and solar photovoltaic generation, within three important conservation areas: protected areas (PAs), Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and Earth’s remaining wilderness. We identified 2,206 fully operational renewable energy facilities within the boundaries of these conservation areas, with another 922 facilities under development. Combined, these facilities span and are degrading 886 PAs, 749 KBAs and 40 distinct wilderness areas. Two trends are particularly concerning. First, while the majority of historical overlap occurs in Western Europe, the renewable electricity facilities under development increasingly overlap with conservation areas in Southeast Asia, a globally important region for biodiversity. Second, this next wave of renewable energy infrastructure represents a ~30% increase in the number of PAs and KBAs impacted and could increase the number of compromised wilderness areas by ~60%. If the world continues to rapidly transition towards renewable energy these areas will face increasing pressure to allow infrastructure expansion. Coordinated planning of renewable energy expansion and biodiversity conservation is essential to avoid conflicts that compromise their respective objectives.
Jose A. Rehbein, James E.M. Watson, Joe L. Lane, Laura J. Sonter, Oscar Venter, Scott C. Atkinson, James R. Allan
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Chemical Engineering Dow Centre for Sustainable Engineering Innovation, and School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia
Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, Bronx, New York
Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
Natural Resource and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, Canada
United Nations Development Programme, New York
Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Global Change Biology. Published online ahead of print March 4, 2020. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15067
Download original document: “Renewable energy development threatens many globally important biodiversity areas”