Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 165:17 | Cite as

Estimating flight heights of seabirds using optical rangefinders and GPS data loggers: a methodological comparison

  • Kai BorkenhagenEmail author
  • Anna-Marie Corman
  • Stefan Garthe
SHORT NOTE

Abstract

Determining the collision risk of seabirds with offshore wind farms is crucial for the environmental impact assessment of such installations. The collision risk is often assessed by measuring avian flight heights. Therefore, we measured flight height distributions of 15 seabird taxa, abundant in German offshore waters, with an optical laser rangefinder (n = 2508 measurements). For lesser black-backed gulls, we compared these rangefinder measurements to flight heights recorded by GPS data loggers which were attached to 17 birds during incubation. Both methods have specific advantages and disadvantages. Rangefinder measurements are only possible during the day, and rain or fog prevents successful measurements. Data were negatively biased against low and very high flight heights. Since measuring low-flying birds proved more difficult during application of the method in the field, observers should be instructed to dedicate extra effort to measure low-flying birds. Visual observations of low-flying birds can also help to reduce uncertainty and overcome bias problems. Flight heights ranged from – 3 to 431 m above sea level. Most seabirds (70%) flew below rotor level (30 m), but about 30% (mainly large gulls and cormorants) flew in the rotor-swept area. GPS height measurements show a similar general pattern of flight height distribution as rangefinder measurements. However, this method is restricted to few individuals. Both methods complement each other and can provide a reliable estimate of seabirds’ flight height distribution.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Kotzerka, B. Mendel, J. Sommerfeld and V. Corman for help with data logger fieldwork, and all observers who measured flight heights during boat-based SAS surveys. N. Markones managed the survey database and provided help with database queries. We also thank the National Park Administration of the Wadden Sea National Park of Lower Saxony (Germany), and J. Dierschke and the Institute of Avian Research on Helgoland/Wilhelmshaven (Germany) for logistic support during fieldwork. G. Peters gave technical support with the data loggers. S. Furness provided linguistic support. Major parts of the fieldwork were funded within the frameworks of the projects TESTBIRD (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety; Grant no. 0327689A/FTZ3), WINDBIRD (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy on the basis of a decision by the German Bundestag; Grant no. 0325281) and the Marine Biodiversity Monitoring Programme of the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable national and institutional guidelines for the capture and handling of animals were followed. All birds were caught, ringed, and equipped with data loggers under licenses issued by the State Agency for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas Schleswig–Holstein and the Ministry of Energy transition, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas Schleswig–Holstein, Germany (file numbers: V 312-72241.121-37 (34-4/11), V 312-7224.121-37 (80-6/13)), the National Park Administration of the Wadden Sea National Park of Lower Saxony, and the Lower Saxony State Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (file number: 33.14-42502-04-11/0666). All birds were handled in strict accordance with good animal practice. Handling time of all birds was reduced to a minimum to minimize stress during capture.

Supplementary material

227_2017_3273_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (644 kb)
Supplementary file: Dataset of all flight height measurements in MS Excel format. Each dataset is presented in a separate sheet. (XLSX 643 kb)

References

  1. Bauer H-G, Bezzel E, Fiedler W (2005) Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas: Nonpasseriformes—Nichtsperlingsvögel, 2nd edn. Aula, WiebelsheimGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouten W, Baaij EW, Shamoun-Baranes J, Camphuysen CJ (2013) A flexible GPS tracking system for studying bird behaviour at multiple scales. J Ornithol 154:571–580.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-012-0908-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Camphuysen KJ, Fox AD, Leopold MF, Petersen IK (2004) Towards standardised seabirds at sea census techniques in connection with environmental impact assessments for offshore wind farms in the U.K.: a comparison of ship and aerial sampling methods for marine birds, and their applicability to offshore wind farm assessments (No. BAM—02-2002). NIOZ Commissioned by Cowie LtdGoogle Scholar
  4. Cleasby IR, Wakefield ED, Bearhop S, Bodey TW, Votier SC, Hamer KC, Österblom H (2015) Three-dimensional tracking of a wide-ranging marine predator: flight heights and vulnerability to offshore wind farms. J Appl Ecol 52:1474–1482.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook ASCP, Johnston A, Wright LJ, Burton NHK (2012) A review of flight heights and avoidance rates of birds in relation to offshore wind farms. Strategic Ornithological Support Services SOSS-02. BTO Research Report No. 618. BTO, ThetfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Corman A, Garthe S (2014) What flight heights tell us about foraging and potential conflicts with wind farms: a case study in Lesser Black-backed Gulls (Larus fuscus). J Ornithol 155:1037–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Desholm M, Kahlert J (2005) Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm. Biol Lett 1:296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Desholm M, Fox AD, Beasley PDL, Kahlert J (2006) Remote techniques for counting and estimating the number of bird-wind turbine collisions at sea: a review. Ibis 148(s1):76–89.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2006.00509.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dierschke V, Furness RW, Garthe S (2016) Seabirds and offshore wind farms in European waters: avoidance and attraction. Biol Cons 202:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dokter AM, Baptist MJ, Ens BJ, Krijgsveld KL, van Loon EE (2013) Bird radar validation in the field by time-referencing line-transect surveys. PLoS ONE 8(9):e74129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fijn RC, Krijgsveld K, Poot MJM, Dirksen S (2015) Bird movements at rotor heights measured continuously with vertical radar at a Dutch offshore wind farm. Ibis 157(3):558–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Furness RW, Wade HM, Masden EA (2013) Assessing vulnerability of marine bird populations to offshore wind farms. J Environ Manage 119:56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garthe S, Hüppop O (2004) Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms on seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. J Appl Ecol 41:724–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garthe S, Markones N, Corman A-M (2016) Possible impacts of offshore wind farms on seabirds: a pilot study in Northern Gannets in the southern North Sea. J Ornithol 158:345–349.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-016-1402-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnston A, Cook ASCP (2016) How high do birds fly? Development of methods and analysis of digital aerial data of seabird flight heights. BTO Research Report No. 676. BTO, ThetfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnston A, Cook ASCP, Wright LJ, Humphreys EM, Burton NHK (2014) Modelling flight heights of marine birds to more accurately assess collision risk with offshore wind turbines. J Appl Ecol 51:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahlert JA, Leito A, Laubek B, Luigujoe L, Kuresoo A, Aaen K, Luud A (2012) Factors affecting the flight altitude of migrating waterbirds in Western Estonia. Ornis Fenn 89:241–253Google Scholar
  18. Klaassen RHG, Ens BJ, Shamoun-Baranes J, Exo K-M, Bairlein F (2011) Migration strategy of a flight generalist, the Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus. Behav Ecol 23(1):58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ross-Smith VH, Thaxter CB, Masden EA, Shamoun-Baranes J, Burton NHK, Wright LJ, Rehfisch MM, Johnston A (2016) Modelling flight heights of Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Great Skuas from GPS: a Bayesian approach. J Appl Ecol 53:1676–1685.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shamoun-Baranes J, van Loon E (2006) Energetic influence on gull flight strategy selection. J Exp Biol 209:3489–3498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shamoun-Baranes J, van Loon E, van Gasteren H, van Belle J, Bouten W, Buurma L (2006) A comparative analysis of the influence of weather on the flight altitudes of birds. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 87(1):47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thaxter CB, Ross-Smith VH, Bouten W, Clark NA, Conway GJ, Rehfisch MM, Burton NHK (2015) Seabird-wind farm interactions during the breeding season vary within and between years: the case study of Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus in the UK. Biol Conserv 186:347–358.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.03.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vanermen N, Onkelinx T, Courtens W, Van de Walle M, Verstraete H, Stienen EWM (2015) Seabird avoidance and attraction at an offshore wind farm in the Belgian part of the North Sea. Hydrobiologia 756:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weiß F, Büttger H, Baer J, Welcker J, Nehls G (2016) Erfassung von Seevögeln und Meeressäugetieren mit dem HiDef Kamerasystem aus der Luft. Seevögel 37(2):14–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research and Technology Centre (FTZ)Kiel UniversityBüsumGermany

Personalised recommendations