Literature DB >> 25566834

Habitat loss and modification due to gas development in the Fayetteville shale.

Matthew D Moran1, A Brandon Cox, Rachel L Wells, Chloe C Benichou, Maureen R McClung.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25566834     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-014-0440-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.266


  9 in total

1.  Early trends in landcover change and forest fragmentation due to shale-gas development in Pennsylvania: a potential outcome for the Northcentral Appalachians.

Authors:  P J Drohan; M Brittingham; J Bishop; K Yoder
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2012-03-25       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Experimental evidence for the effects of chronic anthropogenic noise on abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse at leks.

Authors:  Jessica L Blickley; Diane Blackwood; Gail L Patricelli
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 6.560

3.  Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation.

Authors:  C Murcia
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2000-08-01       Impact factor: 17.712

4.  Natural gas: Should fracking stop?

Authors:  Robert W Howarth; Anthony Ingraffea; Terry Engelder
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Noise pollution alters ecological services: enhanced pollination and disrupted seed dispersal.

Authors:  Clinton D Francis; Nathan J Kleist; Catherine P Ortega; Alexander Cruz
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction.

Authors:  Robert B Jackson; Avner Vengosh; Thomas H Darrah; Nathaniel R Warner; Adrian Down; Robert J Poreda; Stephen G Osborn; Kaiguang Zhao; Jonathan D Karr
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Impacts of chronic anthropogenic noise from energy-sector activity on abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest.

Authors:  Erin M Bayne; Lucas Habib; Stan Boutin
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2008-06-20       Impact factor: 6.560

8.  Comparing the ecological impacts of wind and oil & gas development: a landscape scale assessment.

Authors:  Nathan F Jones; Liba Pejchar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Air concentrations of volatile compounds near oil and gas production: a community-based exploratory study.

Authors:  Gregg P Macey; Ruth Breech; Mark Chernaik; Caroline Cox; Denny Larson; Deb Thomas; David O Carpenter
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 5.984

  9 in total
  8 in total

Review 1.  Extensive review of shale gas environmental impacts from scientific literature (2010-2015).

Authors:  Daniele Costa; João Jesus; David Branco; Anthony Danko; António Fiúza
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-04-28       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Comparison of Recent Oil and Gas, Wind Energy, and Other Anthropogenic Landscape Alteration Factors in Texas Through 2014.

Authors:  Jon Paul Pierre; Brad D Wolaver; Benjamin J Labay; Travis J LaDuc; Charles M Duran; Wade A Ryberg; Toby J Hibbitts; John R Andrews
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  An Improved Approach for Forecasting Ecological Impacts from Future Drilling in Unconventional Shale Oil and Gas Plays.

Authors:  Brad D Wolaver; Jon Paul Pierre; Svetlana A Ikonnikova; John R Andrews; Guinevere McDaid; Wade A Ryberg; Toby J Hibbitts; Charles M Duran; Benjamin J Labay; Travis J LaDuc
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  A Comparison of the Impacts of Wind Energy and Unconventional Gas Development on Land-use and Ecosystem Services: An Example from the Anadarko Basin of Oklahoma, USA.

Authors:  Kendall M Davis; Michael N Nguyen; Maureen R McClung; Matthew D Moran
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 3.266

5.  Unconventional natural gas development did not result in detectable changes in water chemistry (within the South Fork Little Red River).

Authors:  Bradley J Austin; Erin Scott; Leslie Massey; Michelle A Evans-White; Sally Entrekin; Brian E Haggard
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 2.513

6.  Stream Vulnerability to Widespread and Emergent Stressors: A Focus on Unconventional Oil and Gas.

Authors:  Sally A Entrekin; Kelly O Maloney; Katherine E Kapo; Annika W Walters; Michelle A Evans-White; Kenneth M Klemow
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Seed dispersal of Diospyros virginiana in the past and the present: Evidence for a generalist evolutionary strategy.

Authors:  Mimi Rebein; Charli N Davis; Helena Abad; Taylor Stone; Jillian Del Sol; Natalie Skinner; Matthew D Moran
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  Exploring the endocrine activity of air pollutants associated with unconventional oil and gas extraction.

Authors:  Ashley L Bolden; Kim Schultz; Katherine E Pelch; Carol F Kwiatkowski
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 5.984

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.