These depths are well within the maximum recorded diving ranges of several abundant species within the UK [5]. However, it is

believed JQ1 mw that Auks Alcidae sp, Cormorants Phalacrocorax sp. and Divers Gavia sp. are most vulnerable to collisions due to their tendency to consistently dive to depths where moving components are found, and also to exploit habitats suitable for tidal stream turbine installations [8]. Despite this it remains unknown whether direct collisions represent real and serious threats to these populations. An important part of assessing collision risks may be estimating spatial overlap between the foraging distribution of vulnerable species and the locations of tidal stream turbines. Due to the diverse and synergistic manner of processes governing species foraging distribution

[9], [10] and [11], quantifying spatial overlap offers challenges. Therefore, pragmatic approaches are necessary. One approach is to divide the process of estimating spatial overlap into three different stages and spatial scales by asking whether a population would (1) exploit areas suitable Epacadostat order for tidal stream turbines, (2) dive near tidal stream turbines within these areas, or (3) dive to depths where moving components are found? Answering these questions in a hierarchical manner (from 1 to 3) could help to predict the extent of spatial overlap for a range of species and identify those most vulnerable to collisions.

This paper reviews potential methods Ponatinib and approaches that should answer these three questions. It focuses exclusively on the species that are considered most vulnerable to collisions in the UK; they were Common Guillemots Uria algaa, Razorbills Alca torda, Atlantic Puffins Fratercula arctica, Black Guillemots Cepphus grylle, European Shags Phalacrocorax aristotelis and Great Cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo. Although Red Throated Divers Gavia stellate, Black Throated Divers Gavia arctica and Great Northern Divers Gavia immer are also considered vulnerable, there is little information on the foraging behaviour of these species. They were therefore omitted from any discussions, although many of the methods and approaches outlined here may well be applicable for these species. Throughout this paper, populations were considered to be groups of conspecifics that are present within a geographical region where tidal stream turbine installations are present or planned (∼100 km). Areas within the regions where installations are present or planned are referred to as ‘habitats’ (1–10 km) and those immediately around tidal stream turbines as ‘micro-habitats’ (100 m). Tidal stream turbines require quite specific conditions. Mean spring peak tidal currents faster than 4–5 knots (2–2.5 ms−1) and energy levels greater than 1 Nm2 are needed for economically viable large scale (>10 MW) projects [1].