Effect of wind energy development on breeding duck densities in the Prairie Pothole Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".