Abstract
Blanket curtailment of turbine operations during low wind conditions has become an accepted operational minimization tactic to reduce bat mortality at terrestrial wind facilities. Site-specific studies have demonstrated that operational curtailment effectively reduces impacts, but the exact nature of the relationship between increased cut-in speed and fatality reduction in bats remains unclear. To evaluate the efficacy of differing blanket curtailment regimes in reducing bat fatality, we examined data from turbine curtailment experiments in the United States and Canada in a meta-analysis framework. We tested multiple statistical models to explore possible linear and non-linear relationships between turbine cut-in speed and bat fatality reduction while controlling for control cut-in speed. Because the overall sample size for this meta-analysis was small (n = 36 control-treatment studies from 16 field sites from the American Wind Wildlife Information Center and a recent review), we conducted a power analysis to assess the number of control-impact curtailment studies that would be needed to understand the relationship between fatality rate and change in cut-in speed under different fatality reduction scenarios. We also identified the characteristics of individual field studies that may influence their power to detect fatality reduction due to curtailment. Using a response ratio approach, we found any curtailment strategy reduced fatality rates by 56% for studies included in this analysis (p < 0.001). However, we did not find strong evidence for linear (p =0 0.07) or non-linear (p > 0.11) associations between increasing cut-in speeds and fatality reduction. The power analyses showed that the power to detect effects in the meta-analysis was low if fatality reductions were less than 50%. Synthesizing across all analyses, we need more well-designed curtailment studies to determine the effect of increasing curtailment speed and the effect size is likely of a magnitude that we had limited power to detect.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.