ArticlePloS one2023
Incidental eagle carcass detection can contribute to fatality estimation at operating wind energy facilities.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk of birds colliding with wind turbines, especially protected species like bald eagle and golden eagle in the U.S., is a fundamental wildlife challenge the wind industry faces when developing and operating projects. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requires wind energy facilities that obtain eagle take permits document permit compliance through fatality monitoring. If trained Operations and Maintenance (O&M) staff can reliably detect and report carcasses during their normal routines, and their detection probability can be estimated, then their 'incidental detections' could contribute substantially towards demonstrating permit compliance. Our primary objective was to quantify incidental detection of eagle carcasses by O&M staff under a variety of landscape contexts and environmental conditions throughout a single year. We used the incidental detection probabilities, along with raptor carcass persistence data and area adjustments, to calculate overall probability of incidental detection (i.e., incidental g). We used feathered decoys as eagle-carcass surrogates for monthly detection trials at 6 study sites throughout the U.S. We evaluated the primary drivers of incidental detection using logit regression models including season, viewshed complexity, and a derived variable called the "density quartile" as covariates. We used an Evidence of Absence-based approach to estimate the overall probability of incidental detection. The incidental detection probabilities ranged from 0.28 to 0.78 (mean = 0.48). Detection probabilities decreased as viewshed complexity increased and as distance from the turbine increased. The resulting overall probability of incidental detection ranged from 0.07 to 0.47 (mean = 0.31). The primary drivers of variability in incidental g were detection probability and the area adjustment. Results of our research show that O&M staff were effective at detecting trial carcasses incidentally. Incorporating incidental detection in eagle fatality monitoring efforts is a reliable means of improving estimates of a facility's direct impacts on eagles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.