Post on 20-Mar-2021
transcript
EffectEffect ofof windwind farmsfarms ononvulturesvultures: AMP case : AMP case studystudy
Álvaro Camiña
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services in Impact AssessmentIAIA Biodiversity & Ecology Section
Inter-American Development Bank | Washington, DC.7-8 February 2013
NorthernNorthern ValenciaValencia
• 10 windfarms :267 turbines. • Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
and EIS since 2004. • Operating since September 2006.• Measures against BSE resulted in
changes both in food availability and space distribution (EIS uneffective).
• GV collisions increase: 393 birds killedfrom 2006 to December 2010.
NorthernNorthern ValenciaValencia
• 33 turbines were shut down from May 2008-Sep. 2010 : Economic loss.
• Both Wind developer and EnvironmentalAuthorities accussed at the Court by affecting Birds Directive 2009/147/CE (79/409/CE).
Raptor species in the area
Circus cyaneus 4 7Milvus migrans 32 41
Circaetus gallicus 67 75Buteo buteo 36 38
Circus pygargus 8 10Circus aeruginosus 2 4
Neophron percnopterus 6 6Pernis apivorus 28 86
Aquila crhsyaetos 24 29Gyps fulvus 3088 5485
Hieraetus pennatus 30 31Accipiter gentilis 5 6Accipiter nisus 21 21
Falco peregrinus 6 6Falco tinunculus 100 118Falco subbuteo 1 1
Nº IndividualsCrossingsSpecies
89,30% of crossings and 91.7% individualsbelong to griffon vultures
CorrectionCorrection measuresmeasures
•• AvoidingAvoiding griffonsgriffons feedingfeeding at at rubbishrubbishdumpdump
GoalGoal: reduce : reduce mortalitymortality..
MeasureMeasure: : ClosureClosure ofof rubbishrubbish dumpdump..•• ProvideProvide vulturesvultures withwith foodfoodGoalGoal: “Remove” vultures from rubbish : “Remove” vultures from rubbish dumpdumpMeasureMeasure: : BuildBuild 2 2 vulturevulture restaurantsrestaurants
BothBoth appliedapplied simultaneouslysimultaneously
RubbishRubbish dumpdump use vs. use vs. closureclosure
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
Vultures at rubbish dump 3,96 3,29 2,44 1,98
No measuresSealing rubbish
dumpSealing and 1st
vulture restaurantSealing 2 vulture
restaurants
GLMp < 0,004
R2 X 100 = 40,74%F 3,574 = 3,17
RubbishRubbish dumpdump use vs. use vs. FoodFood at at vulturevulture restaurantsrestaurants
2,4
2,5
2,6
2,7
2,8
2,9
3
3,1
3,2
3,3
Serie1 3,17 2,67
No food at VR Food at VR
p < 0,001F 3,574 = 4,18
GAM GAM ModelsModels
-0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2
Julian date
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Par
tial r
esid
ual
Observ ed v alue Spline 95% conf idence band
Spline line and 95% confidence band for Julian date
No action Sealing rubbish dump and2 feeding sites opened
OverallOverall mortalitymortality trendtrend
Age of vultures collided
5%
22%
73%
Adults
Immatures
Juveniles
0
5
10
15
20
25Ja
nuar
y
Febr
uary
March
Apri l
May
June july
Augu
stSe
ptem
ber
October
Nove
mber
Dece
mbe
r
Juvenile Inmmature Adult
PercentagePercentage ofof mortalitymortality throughthroughthethe yearyear
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Janu
ary
Febr
uary
Mar
ch
April
May
June July
Augu
stSe
ptem
ber
Octob
erNo
vem
ber
Dece
mbe
r
IncubationChick rearing
Pre-breedingPost-fledging
MortalityMortality ((vulturesvultures//turbineturbine//dayday))
0,0011 0,0013 0,0014 0,0008 0,00060,0011
0,0013
0,0014
0,0008
0,0005
0,0011
0,0013
0,0014
0,0008
0,0005
2006 2007 2008 2009 20100,0002
0,0004
0,0006
0,0008
0,0010
0,0012
0,0014
0,0016
0,0018
0,0020
VU
LTU
RES/T
UR
BIN
E/Y
EA
R
0,0011
0,0013
0,0014
0,0008
0,0005
Mean Mean±SE Mean±1,96*SE
64,28%
BSEMesures
implemented
OtherOther variables variables affectedaffected by by measuresmeasures adoptedadopted
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
Crossings /food VR 1,56 1,43 1,65 1,5
Crossings/NO food VR 2,35 1,83 2,14 1,79
No measuresSealing rubbish
dump
Sealing and 1st vulture
restaurant
Sealing 2 vulture
restaurants
p = 0,38F 1,157 = 0,76
CrossingsCrossings throughtthrought turbineturbine stringsstringsvs. The vs. The twotwo correctioncorrection measuresmeasures
Vultures/hour
CrossingsCrossings throughthrough turbinesturbines vs. vs. FoodFood providedprovided at v. at v. restaurantsrestaurants
p = 0,01F 1,157 = 6,08
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
Sin aportes AportesWithout foodAt VR
FoodAt VR
p = 0,01F 1,157 = 6,08
UnderstandingUnderstanding flightflightbehaviourbehaviour ofof griffonsgriffons
Flight altitude vs. Daily mean temperature
Flight altitude vs. Daily mean temperature
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
2,0 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,6 2,7
AVERAGE FLIGHT ALTITUDE/MONTH
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
AV
ER
AG
E M
ON
TH
LY T
EM
PE
RA
TU
RE
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
y = -606,26 + 313,77*x;
r = 0,89; p < 0,001; r 2 = 0,8045
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Janu
ary
Febr
uary
Marc
h
April
May
June July
Augu
stSe
ptem
ber
Octobe
rNov
embe
rDec
embe
r
Flight vs. Wind conditions
• GLM / variables nested on turbine string
SlopeTail / cross wind flying vulture components
TemperatureTail / cross wind wind vectors
Turbine string: A1, A2, A3, F1Date
Flight altitude: Below, a the same level, aboverotor swept area.
FlightFlight altitudealtitude-- GLM GLM modelmodel
Hierarchically nested factor design
SS D.f. MS F p
Turbine string * Slope 4,6297 3 1,5432 3,99 0,0080
Turbine string * Temperature
8,5487 3 2,8496 7,36 < 0,001
Julian date 3,2062 1 3,2062 8,29 0,0042Julian date^2 2,3639 1 2,3639 6,11 0,0138
FlightFlight altitudealtitude GAMGAM--modelmodel
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Temperature
-2,0
-1,5
-1,0
-0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
Par
tial r
esid
ual
Observed value Spline 95% confidence band
Spline line and 95% confidence band for temperatureResponse: Flight altitude
ComplementaryComplementary measuresmeasures
•• MonitoringMonitoring ofof GV GV movementsmovements by by meansmeansofof SatelliteSatellite TrackingTrackingUsingUsing GPSGPS-- PTT´sPTT´s
•• PopulationPopulation viabilityviabilityanalysisanalysis (PVA) (PVA) totomeasuremeasure thethe effecteffect ofofmortalitymortality..
Thank you !
Alvaro CamiñaApartado de correos 339Majadahonda MADRID
SPAINacamia@acrenasl.eu