Environmental Management

, Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 1276–1284 | Cite as

Habitat Loss and Modification Due to Gas Development in the Fayetteville Shale

  • Matthew D. MoranEmail author
  • A. Brandon Cox
  • Rachel L. Wells
  • Chloe C. Benichou
  • Maureen R. McClung


Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have become major methods to extract new oil and gas deposits, many of which exist in shale formations in the temperate deciduous biome of the eastern United States. While these technologies have increased natural gas production to new highs, they can have substantial environmental effects. We measured the changes in land use within the maturing Fayetteville Shale gas development region in Arkansas between 2001/2002 and 2012. Our goal was to estimate the land use impact of these new technologies in natural gas drilling and predict future consequences for habitat loss and fragmentation. Loss of natural forest in the gas field was significantly higher compared to areas outside the gas field. The creation of edge habitat, roads, and developed areas was also greater in the gas field. The Fayetteville Shale gas field fully developed about 2 % of the natural habitat within the region and increased edge habitat by 1,067 linear km. Our data indicate that without shale gas activities, forest cover would have increased slightly and edge habitat would have decreased slightly, similar to patterns seen recently in many areas of the southern U.S. On average, individual gas wells fully developed about 2.5 ha of land and modified an additional 0.5 ha of natural forest. Considering the large number of wells drilled in other parts of the eastern U.S. and projections for new wells in the future, shale gas development will likely have substantial negative effects on forested habitats and the organisms that depend upon them.


Hydraulic fracturing Shale gas Land use Habitat degradation Edge effects Fayetteville Shale 



We wish to that the Hendrix College Odyssey Program which provided support for this project. Thanks to L. Marshall and three anonymous reviewers for improving an earlier version of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards

Our study complies with current U.S. laws. All appropriate approvals were obtained for the research. There were no animals utilized in this research.


  1. Alig RJ, Butler BJ (2004) Area changes for forest cover types in the United States, 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. General technical report PNW-GTR-613. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  2. AOGC (2013) Arkansas oil and natural gas well map. Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, Little RockGoogle Scholar
  3. AOGC (2014) Online production and well database. Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, Little RockGoogle Scholar
  4. Arthur JD, Langhus B, Alleman D (2008) An overview of modern shale gas development in the United States. ALL Consulting, LLC, TulsaGoogle Scholar
  5. Baihly JD, Altman RM, Malpani R, Luo F (2010) Shale gas production decline trend comparison over time and basins. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, RichardsonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayne E, Habib ML, Boutin S (2008) Impacts of chronic anthropogenic noise from energy-sector activity on abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest. Conserv Biol 22:1186–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bechmann JP, Murray K, Seidler RG, Berger J (2012) Human-mediated shifts in animal habitat use: sequential changes in pronghorn use of a natural gas field in greater yellowstone. Biol Conserv 147:222–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blickley JL, Blackwood D, Patricelli GL (2012) Experimental evidence for the effects of chronic anthropogenic noise on abundance of greater sage-grouse at leks. Conserv Biol 26:461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyer C, Kieschnick J, Suarez-Rivera R, Lewis RE, Waters G (2006) Producing gas from its source. Oilfield Rev 18:36–49Google Scholar
  10. Browning J, Tinker SW, Ikonnikova S, Gülen G, Potter E, Fu Q, Smye K, Horvath S, Patzek T, Male F, Roberts F, Groate C (2014) Study develops Fayetteville Shale reserves, production forecast. Oil Gas J 112:64–72Google Scholar
  11. Donovan TM, Jones PW, Annand EM, Thompson FR III (1997) Variation in local-scale edge effects: mechanisms and landscape context. Ecology 78:2064–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drohan PJ, Brittingham M, Bishop J, Yoder K (2012) Early trends in landcover change and forest fragmentation due to shale-gas development in Pennsylvania: a potential outcome for the North Central Appalachians. Environ Manage 49:1061–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drummond MA, Loveland TR (2010) Land use pressure and a transition to forest-cover loss in the eastern United States. Bioscience 60:286–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EIA (2011) Annual energy outlook. Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. EIA (2012) Annual energy outlook. Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. EIA (2013) Shale gas resources: an assessment of 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the United States. Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. EIA (2014) U.S. natural gas number of gas and gas condensate wells (number of elements). Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Entrekin S, Evans-White M, Johnson B, Hagenbuch E (2011) Rapid expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters. Front Ecol Environ 9:503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 6:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forman RT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Francis CD, Kleist NJ, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2012) Noise pollution alters ecological services: enhanced pollination and disrupted seed dispersal. P R Soc B 279:2727–2735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbert MM, Chalfoun AD (2011) Energy development affects populations of sagebrush songbirds in Wyoming. J Wildl Manag 75:816–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glista DJ, DeVault TL, DeWoody JA (2008) Vertebrate road mortality predominantly impacts amphibians. Herpetol Conserv Biol 3:77–87Google Scholar
  25. Hartley MJ, Hunter ML (1998) A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and artificial nest predation rates. Conserv Biol 12:465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Howarth RW, Ingraffea A, Engelder T (2011) Natural gas: should fracking stop? Nature 477:271–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hughes JD (2013) Drill, baby, drill: can unconventional fuels usher in a new era of energy abundance?. Post Carbon Institute, Santa RosaGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson RB, Vengosh A, Darrah TH, Warner NR, Down A, Poreda RJ, Osborn SG, Zhao K, Karr JD (2013) Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. P Natl Acad Sci 110:11250–11255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson N (2010) Pennsylvania energy impact assessment. The Nature Conservancy, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones NF, Pejchar L (2013) Comparing the ecological impacts of wind and oil and gas development: a landscape scale assessment. PLoS ONE 8(11):e81391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karstensen KA (2010) Land cover change in the Boston Mountains, 1973-2000. USGS open-file report 2009–1281Google Scholar
  32. Langen TA, Machniak A, Crowe EK, Mangan C, Marker DF, Liddle N, Roden B (2007) Methodologies for surveying herpetofauna mortality on rural highways. J Wildl Manag 71:1361–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Langen TA, Ogden KM, Schwarting LL (2009) Predicting hot spots of herpetofauna road mortality along highway networks. J Wildl Manag 73:104–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macey GP, Breech R, Chernaik M, Cox C, Larson D, Thomas D, Carpenter DO (2014) Air concentrations of volatile compounds near oil and gas production: a community-based exploratory study. Environ Health 13:82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manolis JC, Andersen DE, Cuthbert FJ (2002) Edge effect on nesting success of ground nesting birds near regenerating clearcuts in a forest-dominated landscape. Auk 119:955–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Murcia C (1995) Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 10:58–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. NABCI (North American Bird Conservation Initiative), U.S. Committee (2014) The State of the Birds 2014 report. Department of Interior, Washington, p 16Google Scholar
  38. Nelson PW (2005) The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson CityGoogle Scholar
  39. Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann Assoc Am Geogra 77:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ries L, Fletcher RJ Jr, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 2004:491–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robison HW, Allen RT (1995) Only in Arkansas: a study of the endemic plants and animals of the state. University of Arkansas Press, FayettevilleGoogle Scholar
  42. Rombulak SC, Frissell CA (2000) Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conserv Biol 14:18–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. RRCT (2014) Oil and gas production data query. Railroad Commission of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  44. Sawyer H, Kauffman MJ, Nelson RM (2009) Influence of well pad activity on winter habitat selection patterns of mule deer. J Wildl Manag 73:1052–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Slonecker ET, Milheim LE, Roig-Silva CM, Malizia AR, Marr DA, Fisher GB (2012) Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Bradford and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010: U.S. geological survey open-file report 2012–1154, p 36Google Scholar
  46. Slonecker ET, Milheim LE, Roig-Silva CM, Malizia AR (2013) Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Allegheny and Susquehanna Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010: U.S. geological survey open-file report 2013–1025, p 34Google Scholar
  47. Souther S, Tingley MW, Popescu VD, Hayman DT, Ryan ME, Graves TA, Hartel B, Terrell K (2014) Biotic impacts of energy development from shale: research priorities and knowledge gaps. Front Ecol Environ 12:330–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sutton RP, Cox SA, Barree RD (2010) Shale gas plays: a performance perspective. In: Tight gas completions conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers, RichardsonGoogle Scholar
  49. Walton J, Woocay A (2013) Environmental issues related to enhanced production of natural gas by hydraulic fracturing. J Green Build 8:62–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Woods AJ, Foti TL, Chapman SS, Omernik JM, Wise JA, Murray EO, Prior WL, Pagan JB Jr, Comstock JA, Radford M (2004) Ecoregions of Arkansas (map scale 1:1,000,000). United States Geological Survey, RestonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew D. Moran
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Brandon Cox
    • 1
  • Rachel L. Wells
    • 1
  • Chloe C. Benichou
    • 1
  • Maureen R. McClung
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyHendrix CollegeConwayUSA

Personalised recommendations