Predation risk: a potential mechanism for effects of a wind energy facility on Greater Prairie‐Chicken survival

Abstract

Abstract. Recent expansion of the wind energy industry has raised concerns about the potential effects of wind energy facilities on prairie grouse. For example, efforts have been made to evaluate indirect effects on prairie grouse survival, but it is also critical to investigate the underlying mechanisms to direct conservation strategies. The objective of this study was to investigate the indirect effects of a wind energy facility on the survival of female Greater Prairie-Chickens (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) and on the occupancy of avian and mammalian predators. Between March and July of 2013 and 2014, we investigated spatial variation in predation risk by sampling occupancy of mammalian and avian predators within 10 km of a wind energy facility constructed in 2005 in Brown County, Nebraska, USA. During the same period, we assessed spatial variation in daily survival of radio-marked females within the same area. We found little evidence that probability of site occupancy (Ψ) of avian predators was lower near the wind energy facility (within 2 km: Ψ = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.22-0.95; beyond 2 km: Ψ = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.02-1.00), suggesting that avian predators did not display local-scale avoidance behavior around wind turbines. Mammalian predators were documented at all of our sample locations, but the capture index for all mammals was lower at sample sites near the wind turbines (P = 0.004). Occupancy of coyotes (Canis latrans), the likely main mammalian predator of adult prairie-chickens in the area, did not vary significantly throughout our study site (within 0.5 km of wind energy facility: Ψ = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.07-0.98; beyond 0.5 km: Ψ = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.04-1.00), although trends were in the direction expected if coyotes were avoiding the wind energy facility. Distance to wind turbine had no effect on daily survival (S D ) of female prairie-chickens (S D = 0.9948, SE = 0.0015). The potential for predators to avoid wind energy facilities, and thus affect predation risk, underscores the complexity of planning to address potential impacts of wind energy as variation in predation risk may have consequences for the population viability of a wide range of species at risk from wind energy development.

Why did the chicken not cross the road? Anthropogenic development influences the movement of a grassland bird

“…At the population level, prairie‐chickens showed a consistent pattern of altering their selection behaviors and avoiding anthropogenic development in both the post‐nesting and non‐breeding seasons. The decision by prairie‐chickens to consistently avoid development indicated that these areas may be viewed as especially high‐risk sites, and therefore the reduced access to habitat near anthropogenic development due to avoidance behaviors is a more acceptable trade‐off than the perceived survival threat of using those areas (Hernández & Laundré, 2005; Smith et al, 2017). While anthropogenic development has been shown to have a negative influence on grouse survival more broadly (Hovick et al, 2014), studies specifically on greater prairie‐chicken near different types of energy development has found limited support for reduced survival with increasing development (Smith et al, 2017; Winder et al, 2014a).…”

Prairie grouse and wind energy: The state of the science and implications for risk assessment

“…Survival of adult female greater prairie‐chicken (Winder et al 2014 b , Smith et al 2017), greater sage‐grouse (LeBeau et al 2014, LeBeau et al 2017 a ), and lesser prairie‐chicken (LeBeau et al 2020 b ) did not vary as a function of distance to a wind turbine. Although the aforementioned studies included survival estimates from a fairly wide range of time intervals post‐construction (e.g., Winder et al 2014 b measured survival in the first 3 years after construction, whereas Smith et al 2017 measured survival 8 and 9 years after construction), all were derived from relatively short time‐series (i.e., 2–3 years; the 6‐year time series in LeBeau et al 2017 a was the longest).…”

“…The only published study to examine the potential effects of a wind-energy development on predators of prairiegrouse found no evidence that occupancy rates of potential predators varied as a function of distance to a turbine (Smith et al 2017). Studies of other forms of energy development, including oil fields, suggest that indirect effects may be important (Lockyer et al 2013, Dinkins et al 2014, Burr et al 2017, Gibson et al 2018).…”

“…For example, Smith et al (2016) suggested that male greater prairie‐chickens at leks closer to wind turbines might spend less time engaged in anti‐predator behavior because raptors avoided areas around turbines. The only published study to examine the potential effects of a wind‐energy development on predators of prairie‐grouse found no evidence that occupancy rates of potential predators varied as a function of distance to a turbine (Smith et al 2017). Studies of other forms of energy development, including oil fields, suggest that indirect effects may be important (Lockyer et al 2013, Coates et al 2014, Dinkins et al 2014, Burr et al 2017, Gibson et al 2018).…”

“…Several studies reported a positive effect of wind‐energy facilities on adult female survival: Winder et al (2014 b ) found that annual survival of greater prairie‐chickens was substantially greater during the 3‐year post‐construction period than the 2‐year pre‐construction period (57% v. 32%), and LeBeau et al (2017 a , 2019) found survival of greater sage‐grouse and lesser prairie‐chicken was greater in areas that contained a higher density of wind‐energy infrastructure (roads and turbine pads). Explanations for higher post‐development survival are speculative but generally involve potential negative effects of development on common predators of prairie grouse (i.e., a positive indirect effect on grouse; Winder et al 2014 b , LeBeau et al 2017 a , Smith et al 2017). Evidence that wind‐energy facilities support altered predator assemblages is, however, lacking (Smith et al 2017).…”