Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 266

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bird and bat species' global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind farms revealed through a trait-based assessment

Open access
Thaxter, Chris B., Buchanan, Graeme M., Carr, Jamie, Butchart, Stuart H. M., Newbold, Tim, Green, Rhys E., Tobias, Joseph A., Foden, Wendy B., O'Brien, Sue, Pearce-Higgins, James W.·2017·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Mitigation of anthropogenic climate change involves deployments of renewable energy worldwide, including wind farms, which can pose a significant collision risk to volant animals. Most studies into the collision risk between species and wind turbines, however, have taken place in industrialized countries. Potential effects for many locations and species therefore remain unclear. To redress this gap, we conducted a systematic literature review of recorded collisions between birds and bats and wind turbines within developed countries. We related collision rate to species-level traits and turbine characteristics to quantify the potential vulnerability of 9538 bird and 888 bat species globally. Avian collision rate was affected by migratory strategy, dispersal distance and habitat associations, and bat collision rates were influenced by dispersal distance. For birds and bats, larger turbine capacity (megawatts) increased collision rates; however, deploying a smaller number of large turbines with greater energy output reduced total collision risk per unit energy output, although bat mortality increased again with the largest turbines. Areas with high concentrations of vulnerable species were also identified, including migration corridors. Our results can therefore guide wind farm design and location to reduce the risk of large-scale animal mortality. This is the first quantitative global assessment of the relative collision vulnerability of species groups with wind turbines, providing valuable guidance for minimizing potentially serious negative impacts on biodiversity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2017.0829

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 266

Metadata

Authors
Thaxter, C. B., Buchanan, G. M., Carr, J., Butchart, S. H. M., Newbold, T., Green, R. E., Tobias, J. A., Foden, W. B., O'Brien, S., & Pearce-Higgins, J. W.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2017-09-13
Volume
284
Issue
1862
Pages
20170829
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2746608668
Cited by
266
References
29
FWCI
9.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bird and bat species' global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind farms revealed through a trait-based assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2017.0829
The paper
Thaxter, C. B., Buchanan, G. M., Carr, J., Butchart, S. H. M., Newbold, T., Green, R. E., Tobias, J. A., Foden, W. B., O'Brien, S., & Pearce-Higgins, J. W. (2017). Bird and bat species' global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind farms revealed through a trait-based assessment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0829

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.