Greater impacts of wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation: results of a multi‐site and multi‐species analysis

Abstract

Summary1. There has been a rapid increase in the development of renewable energy because of the need to combat climate change. One of the most widely used technologies has been onshore wind farms. These have the potential to affect birds through disturbance or collision, but the extent to which such developments cause general population declines, and therefore are of wider conservation concern, remains largely untested. 2. Monitoring data from wind farms located on unenclosed upland habitats in the UK were collated to test whether breeding densities of upland birds were reduced as a result of wind farm construction or during wind farm operation. 3. Data were available for ten species although none were raptors. Red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus, snipe Gallinago gallinago and curlew Numenius arquata densities all declined on wind farms during construction. Red grouse densities recovered after construction, but snipe and curlew densities did not. Post-construction curlew densities on wind farms were also significantly lower than reference sites. Conversely, densities of skylark Alauda arvensis and stonechat Saxicola torquata increased on wind farms during construction. 4. There was little evidence for consistent post-construction population declines in any species, suggesting for the first time that wind farm construction can have greater impacts upon birds than wind farm operation. 5. The impacts of wind farms were largely unaffected by technical specifications (turbine height, number or total generating power) and therefore are widely applicable. 6. Synthesis and applications. This study confirms that regulatory authorities and developers should particularly consider the likely impacts of wind farms on large waders. Greater weight should be given to the effects of construction on wildlife in impact assessments than at present. Mitigation measures during construction, including restricting construction activity to non-breeding periods, should be considered and tested as a means to reduce these negative effects.

Canadian Estimate of Bird Mortality Due to Collisions and Direct Habitat Loss Associated with Wind Turbine Developments

“…Nest mortality and the displacement of breeding pairs through loss of habitat may also occur when habitat is removed for the construction of turbine pads, access roads, and power lines (Pearce- Higgins et al 2012). Such impacts are similar to those from many other types of development, but nevertheless represent a potential impact of a wind farm.…”

Boreal bird abundance estimates within different energy sector disturbances vary with point count radius

“…However, interactions between renewable energy infrastructure and birds are likely different among habitats (e.g., grasslands vs. woodlands), and thus continued habitat-specific research is needed. Because the effects of energy infrastructure on birds may vary with stage of operation (e.g., during construction, immediately following construction, and .1 yr postconstruction; Madsen and Boertmann 2008, Pearce-Higgins et al 2012, Shaffer and Buhl 2016, such studies should be conducted over an extended period (e.g., 5, 10, or 15 yr). Studies that enable researchers to separate the effects of different infrastructure at facilities (e.g., roads, buildings, and wind turbines) are also encouraged.…”

Thinking globally and siting locally – renewable energy and biodiversity in a rapidly warming world

“…Concern has been expressed about the large land area needed to achieve emissions reduction targets described above (McDonald et al 2009). Disturbances associated with renewable energy development may cause displacement of sensitive species from otherwise suitable habitat or lead to demographic decline due to effects on breeding success or survival, but the few studies evaluating these effects have not produced definitive or consistent results either within or among species (e.g., Pearce-Higgins et al 2012;Lovich & Ennen 2013;Sandercock et al 2013).…”