Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

Estimates and correlates of bird and bat mortality at small wind turbine sites

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


J. Minderman, E. Fuentes-Montemayor, J.W. Pearce-Higgins, C.J. Pendlebury, K.J. Park

School/Research organisations


Small wind turbines (SWTs) are an increasingly popular means to generate renewable energy worldwide. Flexibility in size and design allow SWTs to be installed in a much wider range of settings compared to large wind turbines. While large wind turbines can cause substantial mortality of birds and bats, the extent and correlates of such collision mortality at SWTs have not been quantified. Thus, siting decisions for SWTs are currently made with considerable uncertainty of their impact on wildlife. We combined field data and questionnaire surveys of SWT owners to assess the range and correlates of bird and bat mortality at SWT sites (mean hub height 10.2 m [range 4.0–26.4 m], mean rotor diameter 4.0 m [range 0.9–15.0 m], for both free-standing and building mounted turbines). During 171 carcass searches at 21 UK SWT sites we did not find any collision casualties. Thirty-one (14.6 %) of 212 SWT owners reported bird casualties of at least 12 species groups and 3 (1.4 %) reported bat casualties (unidentified species). Based on the questionnaire returns and using a model that accounts for detectability of casualties (through variation in visit frequency, searcher efficiency and average levels of scavenger removal) we estimated that between 0.079 and 0.278 birds, and between 0.008 and 0.169 bats may be killed turbine year, equating to 1,567–5,510 birds and 161–3,363 bats year in the UK based on recent estimates of numbers of units installed. Sites with higher levels of bird activity tended to be more likely to report bird casualties. Systematically derived likely ranges of mortality as provided here are urgently needed to inform future SWT planning policy.


Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)467-482
JournalBiodiversity and Conservation
Issue number3
Early online date14 Nov 2014
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2015

    Research areas

  • Energy policy, Environmental planning, Permitted development rights, Renewable energy, Small wind turbines, Wildlife impacts, Wind energy

Discover related content
Find related publications, people, projects and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations

Related by journal

  1. Spider monkeys, the misunderstood assumptions of distance sampling and the pitfalls of poor field design

    de Andrade, A. C., Marques, T. A. & Buckland, S. T., 1 Dec 2019, In: Biodiversity and Conservation. 28, 14, p. 4119-4121 3 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalLetterpeer-review

  2. Moth species richness, abundance and diversity in fragmented urban woodlands: implications for conservation and management strategies

    Lintott, P. R., Bunnefeld, N., Fuentes-Montemayor, E., Minderman, J., Blackmore, L. M., Goulson, D. & Park, K. J., 1 Oct 2014, In: Biodiversity and Conservation. 23, 11, p. 2875-2901 27 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  3. The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies

    Young, J., Marzano, M., White, R., McCracken, D., Redpath, S., Carss, D., Quine, C. & Watt, A., Dec 2010, In: Biodiversity and Conservation. 19, 14, p. 3973-3990

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  4. Subpopulations, locations and fragmentation: applying IUCN red list criteria to herbarium specimen data

    Rivers, M. C., Bachman, S. P., Meagher, T. R., Lughadha, E. N. & Brummitt, N. A., Jun 2010, In: Biodiversity and Conservation. 19, 7, p. 2071-2085 15 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

ID: 174256208