↓ Skip to main content

Estimating wind‐turbine‐caused bird and bat fatality when zero carcasses are observed

Overview of attention for article published in Ecological Applications, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Estimating wind‐turbine‐caused bird and bat fatality when zero carcasses are observed
Published in
Ecological Applications, July 2015
DOI 10.1890/14-0764.1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuela M. P. Huso, Dan Dalthorp, David Dail, Lisa Madsen

Abstract

Many wind-power facilities in the United States have established effective monitoring programs to determine turbine-caused fatality rates of birds and bats, but estimating the number of fatalities of rare species poses special difficulties. The loss of even small numbers of individuals may adversely affect fragile populations, but typically, few (if any) carcasses are observed during monitoring. If monitoring design results in only a small proportion of carcasses detected, then finding zero carcasses may give little assurance that the number of actual fatalities is small. Fatality monitoring at wind-power facilities commonly involves conducting experiments to estimate the probability (g) an individual will be observed, accounting for the possibilities that it falls in an unsearched area, is scavenged prior to detection, or remains undetected even when present. When g < 1, the total carcass count (X) underestimates the total number of fatalities (M). Total counts can be 0 when M is small or when M is large and g < 1. Distinguishing these two cases is critical when estimating fatality of a rare species. Observing no individuals during searches may erroneously be interpreted as evidence of absence. We present an approach that uses Bayes' theorem to construct a posterior distribution for M, i.e., P(M \ X, ĝ), reflecting the observed carcass count and previously estimated g. From this distribution, we calculate two values important to conservation: the probability that M is below a predetermined limit and the upper bound (M*) of the 100(1 - α)% credible interval for M. We investigate the dependence of M* on α, g, and the prior distribution of M, asking what value of g is required to attain a desired M for a given α. We found that when g < -0.15, M* was clearly influenced by the mean and variance of ĝ and the choice of prior distribution for M, but the influence of these factors is minimal when g > -0.45. Further, we develop extensions for temporal replication that can inform prior distributions of M and methods for combining information across several areas or time periods. We apply the method to data collected at a wind-power facility where scheduled searches yielded X = 0 raptor carcasses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 3 3%
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 106 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Other 10 9%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 27 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 38%
Environmental Science 26 23%
Engineering 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 <1%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2015.
All research outputs
#7,287,338
of 25,382,360 outputs
Outputs from Ecological Applications
#1,669
of 3,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,922
of 275,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecological Applications
#18
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,336 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,796 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.