English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/214798
Share/Impact:
Statistics
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE
Exportar a otros formatos:

Title

Efficacy of different types of “bird flight diverter” in reducing bird mortality due to collision with transmission power lines

AuthorsFerrer, Miguel ; Morandini, Virginia; Baumbusch, Ryan; Muriel, Roberto ; Lucas, Manuela de ; Calabuig, Cecilia
KeywordsPower lines
Collision
Bird flight diverter
Bird flapper
Reducing mortality
Confidence intervals
Bird conservation
Issue Date2020
PublisherElsevier
CitationGlobal Ecology and Conservation, 23: e01130(2020)
Abstracttheir risk of collision. However, differences in efficacy between types of devices, and in some cases conflicting results, place in question the ability of these devices to reduce collision risk to birds. Here, we investigated the efficacy of three types of flight diverters in reducing avian collision with power lines: yellow spiral, orange spiral, and flapper, additionally we used unmarked spans as a control. We recorded bird collisions and estimated removal rates of bird casualties by scavengers in three different 400 kV transmission lines comprising 133 spans in southern Spain. A total of 131 dead birds from 32 species were found. The power line and the type of marker significantly affected avian mortality. The flapper flight diverter was responsible for a 70.2% lower mean avian mortality rate (95% Confidence Interval: 50e90%), followed by the orange spiral (mean ¼ 43.7%, CI ¼ 15.8 e71.6%) and the yellow spiral (mean ¼ 40.4%, CI ¼ 2.8e78%), compared to control spans. Flappers were the only marker that showed greatest reduction in relation to non-marked spans. The flapper flight diverter showed the highest reduction in mortality and the narrowest confidence interval when tested in different environmental conditions, and thus may serve as a better alternative to the more commonly used spiral flight diverters
Publisher version (URL)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01130 2351-9894/© 2020 The Authors. Published by
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/214798
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01130
Appears in Collections:(EBD) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Ferrer.pdf720,75 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record
Review this work
 


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.