MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1797649947 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.481

Effect of wind energy development on breeding duck densities in the Prairie Pothole Region

2012· article· en· W1797649947 on OpenAlexaff
Charles R. Loesch, Johann Walker, Ronald E. Reynolds, Jeffrey S. Gleason, Neal D. Niemuth, Scott E. Stephens, Michael A. Erickson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsDucks Unlimited Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlGrasslandWetlandEnvironmental scienceWind powerAbundance (ecology)GeographyBreeding pairEcologyHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Industrial wind energy production is a relatively new phenomenon in the Prairie Pothole Region and given the predicted future development, it has the potential to affect large land areas. The effects of wind energy development on breeding duck pair use of wetlands in proximity to wind turbines were unknown. During springs 2008–2010, we conducted surveys of breeding duck pairs for 5 species of dabbling ducks in 2 wind energy production sites (wind) and 2 paired reference sites (reference) without wind energy development located in the Missouri Coteau of North Dakota and South Dakota, USA. We conducted 10,338 wetland visits and observed 15,760 breeding duck pairs. Estimated densities of duck pairs on wetlands in wind sites were lower for 26 of 30 site, species, and year combinations and of these 16 had 95% credible intervals that did not overlap zero and resulted in a 4–56% reduction in breeding pairs. The negative median displacement observed in this study (21%) may influence the prioritization of grassland and wetland resources for conservation when existing decision support tools based on breeding‐pair density are used. However, for the 2 wind study sites, priority was not reduced. We were unable to directly assess the potential for cumulative impacts and recommend long‐term, large‐scale waterfowl studies to reduce the uncertainty related to effects of broad‐scale wind energy development on both abundance and demographic rates of breeding duck populations. In addition, continued dialogue between waterfowl conservation groups and wind energy developers is necessary to develop conservation strategies to mitigate potential negative effects of wind energy development on duck populations. Published 2012. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicSocial Acceptance of Renewable EnergyFrench-language works237,207