Assessing Risk to Birds from Industrial Wind Energy Development via Paired Resource Selection Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When wildlife habitat overlaps with industrial development animals may be harmed. Because wildlife and people select resources to maximize biological fitness and economic return, respectively, we estimated risk, the probability of eagles encountering and being affected by turbines, by overlaying models of resource selection for each entity. This conceptual framework can be applied across multiple spatial scales to understand and mitigate impacts of industry on wildlife. We estimated risk to Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) from wind energy development in 3 topographically distinct regions of the central Appalachian Mountains of Pennsylvania (United States) based on models of resource selection of wind facilities (n = 43) and of northbound migrating eagles (n = 30). Risk to eagles from wind energy was greatest in the Ridge and Valley region; all 24 eagles that passed through that region used the highest risk landscapes at least once during low altitude flight. In contrast, only half of the birds that entered the Allegheny Plateau region used highest risk landscapes and none did in the Allegheny Mountains. Likewise, in the Allegheny Mountains, the majority of wind turbines (56%) were situated in poor eagle habitat; thus, risk to eagles is lower there than in the Ridge and Valley, where only 1% of turbines are in poor eagle habitat. Risk within individual facilities was extremely variable; on average, facilities had 11% (SD 23; range = 0-100%) of turbines in highest risk landscapes and 26% (SD 30; range = 0-85%) of turbines in the lowest risk landscapes. Our results provide a mechanism for relocating high-risk turbines, and they show the feasibility of this novel and highly adaptable framework for managing risk of harm to wildlife from industrial development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".