U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota, 58401, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87103-1306, USA.
Ecol Appl. 2021 Jul;31(5):e02324. doi: 10.1002/eap.2324. Epub 2021 Apr 7.
Electricity generation from renewable-energy sources has increased dramatically worldwide in recent decades. Risks associated with wind-energy infrastructure are not well understood for endangered Whooping Cranes (Grus americana) or other vulnerable Crane populations. From 2010 to 2016, we monitored 57 Whooping Cranes with remote-telemetry devices in the United States Great Plains to determine potential changes in migration distribution (i.e., avoidance) caused by presence of wind-energy infrastructure. During our study, the number of wind towers tripled in the Whooping Crane migration corridor and quadrupled in the corridor's center. Median distance of Whooping Crane locations from nearest wind tower was 52.1 km, and 99% of locations were >4.3 km from wind towers. A habitat selection analysis revealed that Whooping Cranes used areas ≤5.0 km (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8-5.4) from towers less than expected (i.e., zone of influence) and that Whooping Cranes were 20 times (95% CI 14-64) more likely to use areas outside compared to adjacent to towers. Eighty percent of Whooping Crane locations and 20% of wind towers were located in areas with the highest relative probability of Whooping Crane use based on our model, which comprised 20% of the study area. Whooping Cranes selected for these places, whereas developers constructed wind infrastructure at random relative to desirable Whooping Crane habitat. As of early 2020, 4.6% of the study area and 5.0% of the highest-selected Whooping Crane habitat were within the collective zone of influence. The affected area equates to habitat loss ascribed to wind-energy infrastructure; losses from other disturbances have not been quantified. Continued growth of the Whooping Crane population during this period of wind infrastructure construction suggests no immediate population-level consequences. Chronic or lag effects of habitat loss are unknown but possible for long-lived species. Preferentially constructing future wind infrastructure outside of the migration corridor or inside of the corridor at sites with low probability of Whooping Crane use would allow for continued wind-energy development in the Great Plains with minimal additional risk to highly selected habitat that supports recovery of this endangered species.
可再生能源的发电量在过去几十年中在全球范围内显著增加。对于濒危的美洲鹤(Grus americana)或其他脆弱的鹤类种群,人们对风能基础设施相关的风险了解甚少。从 2010 年到 2016 年,我们在美国大平原上使用远程遥测设备监测了 57 只美洲鹤,以确定风能基础设施存在时可能导致的迁徙分布(即回避)的变化。在我们的研究期间,美洲鹤迁徙走廊中的风力塔数量增加了两倍,而走廊中心的数量增加了四倍。美洲鹤位置与最近的风力塔的中位数距离为 52.1 公里,99%的位置距离风力塔>4.3 公里。栖息地选择分析表明,美洲鹤使用的区域≤5.0 公里(95%置信区间 [CI] 4.8-5.4)小于预期(即影响区域),而且美洲鹤使用的区域是相邻塔的 20 倍(95%CI 14-64)。80%的美洲鹤位置和 20%的风力塔位于我们模型中美洲鹤使用的相对概率最高的区域,这些区域占研究区域的 20%。美洲鹤选择了这些地方,而开发商则随机建造了相对于理想的美洲鹤栖息地的风力基础设施。截至 2020 年初,研究区域的 4.6%和最高选择的美洲鹤栖息地的 5.0%在集体影响区域内。受影响的区域相当于归因于风力发电基础设施的栖息地损失;其他干扰造成的损失尚未量化。在这段时间里,美洲鹤的数量持续增长,表明在风力基础设施建设过程中没有直接的种群水平后果。长期或滞后的栖息地损失的影响尚不清楚,但对长寿物种来说是可能的。优先在迁徙走廊外或在美洲鹤使用概率较低的地点建造未来的风力基础设施,将允许在大平原上继续发展风能,而对支持这种濒危物种恢复的高度选择的栖息地的风险最小。