Geology topics

S. R. Loss

Publications and source records attributed to S. R. Loss.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Vulnerability of avian populations to renewable energy production

Renewable energy production can kill individual birds, but little is known about how it affects avian populations. We assessed the vulnerability of populations for 23 priority bird species killed at wind and solar facilities in California, USA. Bayesian hierarchical models suggested that 48% of these species were vulnerable to population-level effects from added fatalities caused by renewables and other sources. Effects of renewables extended far beyond the location of energy production to impact bird populations in distant regions across continental migration networks. Populations of species associated with grasslands where turbines were located were most vulnerable to wind. Populations of nocturnal migrant species were most vulnerable to solar, despite not typically being associated with deserts where the solar facilities we evaluated were located. Our findings indicate that addressing declines of North American bird populations requires consideration of the effects of renewables and other anthropogenic threats on both nearby and distant populations of vulnerable species.

California↗

USGS2022

Limited rigor in studies of raptor mortality and mitigation at wind power facilities

Wind power is an expanding source of renewable energy. However, there are ecological challenges related to wind energy generation, including collisions of wildlife with turbines. Lack of rigor, and variation in study design, together limit efforts to understand the broad-scale effects of wind power infrastructure on wildlife populations. It is not clear, however, whether these types of limitations apply to groups of birds such as raptors that are particularly vulnerable to negative effects of wind energy. We reviewed 672 peer-reviewed publications, unpublished reports, and citations from 321 wind facilities in 12 countries to evaluate methods used to monitor and mitigate for wind facility impacts on raptors. Most reports that included raptor monitoring (86 %, n = 461) only conducted post-construction monitoring for raptor fatalities, while few (12 %; n = 65) estimated pre-construction raptor use. Only 27 % of facilities ( n = 62) provided estimates of fatalities or raptor use across multiple construction phases, and the percentage of facilities with data available from multiple construction periods has not changed over time. A formal experimental study design was incorporated into surveys at only 29 % of facilities. Finally, mitigation practices to reduce impacts on raptors were only reported at 23 % of facilities. Our results suggest that rigorous data collection on wind energy impacts to raptors is rare, and that mitigation of detrimental effects is seldom reported. Expanding the use of rigorous research approaches and increasing data availability would improve understanding of the regional and global effects of wind energy on raptor populations.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2020

Limitations, lack of standardization, and recommended best practices in studies of renewable energy effects on birds and bats

Increasing global energy demand is fostering the development of renewable energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. However, renewable energy facilities may adversely affect wildlife. Facility siting guidelines recommend or require project developers complete pre‐ and postconstruction wildlife surveys to predict risk and estimate effects of proposed projects. Despite this, there are no published studies that have quantified the types of surveys used or how survey types are standardized within and across facilities. We evaluated 628 peer‐reviewed publications, unpublished reports, and citations, and we analyzed data from 525 of these sources (203 facilities: 193 wind and 10 solar) in the United States and Canada to determine the frequency of pre‐ and postconstruction surveys and whether that frequency changed over time; frequency of studies explicitly designed to allow before‐after or impact‐control analyses; and what types of survey data were collected during pre‐ and postconstruction periods and how those data types were standardized across periods and among facilities. Within our data set, postconstruction monitoring for wildlife fatalities and habitat use was a standard practice ( n = 446 reports), but preconstruction estimation of baseline wildlife habitat use and mortality was less frequently reported ( n = 84). Only 22% ( n = 45) of the 203 facilities provided data from both pre‐ and postconstruction, and 29% ( n = 59) had experimental study designs. Of 108 facilities at which habitat‐use surveys were conducted, only 3% estimated of detection probability. Thus, the available data generally preclude comparison of biological data across construction periods and among facilities. Use of experimental study designs and following similar field protocols would improve the knowledge of how renewable energy affects wildlife.

Conservation Biology↗