Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26440494›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied animal welfare science : JAAWS2015

Bird-Window Collisions: A Critical Animal Welfare and Conservation Issue.

Daniel Klem

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied animal welfare science : JAAWS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Daniel Klema Acopian Center for Ornithology, Department of Biology , Muhlenberg College.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sheet glass and plastic in the form of clear and reflective windows are universally lethal to birds. Reasonable interpretation of available scientific evidence describes windows as a principal human-associated avian mortality factor that is an indiscriminant killer of common species as well as species of conservation concern. A conservative toll estimates 1 billion or more annual fatalities in the United States alone. The injury and death from birds striking windows are foreseeable and preventable, but the most promising legal measures and commercial products are not being applied or made available to protect defenseless victims. Avian window casualties are important for birds and people, and they have nonhuman animal welfare, biodiversity, sustainability, legal, and ethical and moral value justifying responsible human action. Preventing this unintended and unwanted lethal hazard for free-flying birds should be an obligation. Short-term solutions include retrofitting existing panes with a variety of proven measures that among others include applying various materials to cover the outside surface of windows. Long-term solutions include current and proposed bird-safe sheet glass and plastic for remodeling and new construction that have patterns that transform windows into barriers that birds see and avoid.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareGlassAccident PreventionAccidentsAnimalsBirdsCanadaConservation of Natural ResourcesEnvironment DesignHumansPlasticsUnited StatesWounds and InjuriesPlasticsbird–window collision preventioncollisionswild birdswindows

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.