Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Prevent turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds to reduce bat fatalities

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    80%
  • Certainty
    50%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Three studies evaluated the effects of preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds on bat populations. Two studies were in Canada and one review was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

USAGE (0 STUDIES)  

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, controlled before-and-after study in 2005 at a wind farm in an agricultural area of Alberta, Canada (Brown & Hamilton 2006) found that preventing turbine blades from rotating at low wind speeds resulted in fewer bat fatalities than at conventional control turbines. The total number of bat carcasses recovered by searchers was significantly lower at experimental turbines shut down at low wind speeds (64 bats, 40% of total) than at conventional control turbines (95 bats, 60% of total). The number of bat carcasses did not differ significantly between turbines before the experiment (‘experimental’ turbines: 157 bats, 49% of total; ‘control’ turbines: 164 bats, 51% of total). In August 2005, all of 39 turbines were operated using conventional methods. In September 2005, odd numbered turbines (20 of 39) were braked and locked to prevent them from turning at low wind speeds (<4 m/s). Nineteen control turbines were left unaltered. Carcass searches were conducted weekly along transects covering a 140 m2 area around each turbine in August–September 2005.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A randomized, replicated, controlled before-and-after study in 2006–2007 at a wind farm in an agricultural area of Alberta, Canada (Baerwald et al 2009) found that preventing turbine blades from rotating at low wind speeds resulted in fewer bat fatalities than at conventional turbines. Bat fatality rates were significantly lower at experimental turbines with altered blade angles (average 8 bats/turbine) than at conventional control turbines (average 19 bats/turbine). Bat fatality rates did not differ significantly between turbines before the experiment (‘experimental’ turbines: average 19 bats/turbine; ‘control’ turbines: average 24 bats/turbine). In 2006, all of 14 turbines were operated using conventional methods. In 2007, six randomly chosen turbines were altered by changing the pitch angle of the rotor blades to prevent them from turning at low wind speeds (<4 m/s). Eight control turbines were left unaltered. Carcass searches were conducted weekly along spiral transects up to 52 m around each of the 14 turbines in July–September 2006 and 2007.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A review of six studies in 2006–2011 at wind energy facilities in Canada and the USA (Arnett et al 2013) found that preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds, or preventing turbines blades from turning at low wind speeds along with increasing the wind speed at which turbines became operational (‘cut-in speed’) resulted in fewer bat fatalities in all six studies. Average bat fatalities were reduced by 23–57% when turbine blades were prevented from turning at low wind speeds, and by 57–89% when cut-in speeds were also increased, compared to conventionally operated turbines (see original reference for more detailed results). In all six studies, turbine blades were prevented from turning at low wind speeds by changing the angle of turbine blades to be parallel to the wind. In three of the six studies, cut-in speeds were also increased (4–6.5 m/s) compared to the standard manufacturer’s cut-in speed (3–4 m/s). One study in this review has been summarised individually (Baerwald et al 2009).

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2019) Bat Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

 

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bat Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bat Conservation
What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust