The fox in the box: acoustic deterrent and simulated predator disturbance to reduce problematic bird accumulations
Neil E. Coughlan
A B C * , William O’Shea C , Ross N. Cuthbert A B , Thomas C. Kelly C , Neil Mitham D and Jeremy Nicholson D
A School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, Northern Ireland, UK.
B Queen’s University Marine Laboratory, 12-13 The Strand, Portaferry BT22 1PF, Northern Ireland, UK.
C School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
D Bird Control Ireland Ltd, Cappoquin, Waterford, Ireland.
Wildlife Research 50(4) 237-247 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR22032
Submitted: 13 March 2022 Accepted: 2 June 2022 Published: 3 August 2022
© 2023 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing
Abstract
Context: Collisions between birds and aircraft (bird strikes) are a serious threat to aviation safety and these negative human–wildlife interactions are predicted to increase. As the wider spatial use of landscapes by birds can affect aviation safety (e.g. location of foraging and roosting sites), there is a clear need to implement effective management strategies at sites adjacent to airfields to reduce ingress of avian taxa across airfield boundaries.
Aims: In the present study, we assessed the efficacy of both an acoustic deterrent (sonic net) and a visual simulated predator effigy, in the form of a fox-shaped model, to disturb and reduce bird accumulations on: (1) agricultural foraging sites; (2) an active airfield; and (3) problematic roof-top roosts.
Methods: These non-lethal scare technologies were assessed separately and in combination by using a factorial design. Bird abundances, species richness and behavioural changes were considered.
Key results: Although the scare technologies did not reduce bird species richness at treated sites, in most cases, a significant reduction in bird abundances was observed. Equally, the number of birds observed to forage or roost was also generally significantly reduced, as was time spent by birds within treated sites. However, the effects of treatments were not universally across species. For example, a reduction in the abundance of gulls tended to be paired with an increase in the number of corvids for foraging sites. Nevertheless, the combined application of the sonic net and fox effigy caused a considerable reduction in foraging bird numbers, whereas singular treatment types appear to work best for roof-top roosts. Data also indicate that the sonic-net technology can be used to deter night-time roosting on an active airfield.
Conclusions: When taken together, treatments resulted in substantial and often significant reductions in bird abundance, foraging and roosting activity, as well as site residency time. However, treatment efficacy tended to be context and taxon specific.
Implications: Sonic net and mobile simulated predator effigies represent promising experimental scare technologies. Following further testing, the integration of these technologies into bird management interventions could yield substantial risk reductions for bird strikes, as well as improved non-lethal management of problematic roosting and nesting sites.
Keywords: airfield, bird strike, foraging sites, human–wildlife conflicts, non-lethal, roof-top nesting, roof-top roosts, wildlife management.
References
Allan JR (2000) The costs of bird strikes and bird strike prevention. In ‘Human conflicts with wildlife: economic considerations’. (DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska–Lincoln: Lincoln, NE, USA)Atkinson, PW, Buckingham, D, and Morris, AJ (2004). What factors determine where invertebrate-feeding birds forage in dry agricultural grasslands? Ibis 146, 99–107.
| What factors determine where invertebrate-feeding birds forage in dry agricultural grasslands?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ball, S, Butler, F, Caravaggi, A, Coughlan, NE, Keogh, G, O’Callaghan, MJA, Whelan, R, and Kelly, TC (2021). Hares in the long grass: increased aircraft related mortality of the Irish hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus) over a 30-year period at Ireland’s largest civil airport. European Journal of Wildlife Research 67, 80.
| Hares in the long grass: increased aircraft related mortality of the Irish hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus) over a 30-year period at Ireland’s largest civil airport.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, B, and Walker, S (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1–48.
| Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Blackwell, BF, DeVault, TL, Fernández-Juricic, E, and Dolbeer, RA (2009). Wildlife collisions with aircraft: a missing component of land-use planning for airports? Landscape and Urban Planning 93, 1–9.
| Wildlife collisions with aircraft: a missing component of land-use planning for airports?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Blackwell, BF, Seamans, TW, Schmidt, PM, De Vault, TL, Belant, JL, Whittingham, MJ, Martin, JA, and Fernández-Juricic, E (2013). A framework for managing airport grasslands and birds amidst conflicting priorities. Ibis 155, 199–203.
| A framework for managing airport grasslands and birds amidst conflicting priorities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bolger R, Kelly T (2008) ‘Wildlife Management Plan 2008.’ (Dublin Airport Authority: Dublin, Ireland)
Brooks, ME, Kristensen, K, van Benthem, KJ, Magnusson, A, Berg, CW, Nielsen, A, Skaug, HJ, Mächler, M, and Bolker, BM (2017). glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal 9, 378–400.
| glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brough, T, and Bridgman, CJ (1980). An evaluation of long-grass as a bird deterrent on British airfields. Journal of Applied Ecology 17, 243–253.
| An evaluation of long-grass as a bird deterrent on British airfields.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Carter NB (2000) The use of border collies in avian and wildlife control programs. In ‘The 9th Wildlife damage management conference proceedings’, State College, PA, USA, 5–8 October 2000. (Eds MC Brittingham, J Kays, R McPeake) pp. 70–76. (Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management, University of Nebraska: Lincoln)
Cleary EC, Dolbeer RA (2005) ‘Wildlife hazard management at airports: a manual for airport personnel.’ (Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards: Washington, DC, USA)
Cook, A, Rushton, S, Allan, J, and Baxter, A (2008). An evaluation of techniques to control problem bird species on landfill sites. Environmental Management 41, 834–843.
| An evaluation of techniques to control problem bird species on landfill sites.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dolbeer, RA (2006). Height distribution of birds recorded by collisions with civil aircraft. Journal of Wildlife Management 70, 1345–1350.
| Height distribution of birds recorded by collisions with civil aircraft.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dolbeer, RA (2011). Increasing trend of damaging bird strikes with aircraft outside the airport boundary: implications for mitigation measures. Human–Wildlife Interactions 5, 235–248.
| Increasing trend of damaging bird strikes with aircraft outside the airport boundary: implications for mitigation measures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dolbeer, RA (2020). Population increases of large birds in North America pose challenges for aviation safety. Human–Wildlife Interactions 14, 345–357.
| Population increases of large birds in North America pose challenges for aviation safety.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dolbeer RA, Wright SE, Weller JR, Begier MJ (2015) Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States 1990–2009. Report to the associate administrator for airports, Office of Airport safety and standards, Airport and Safety and Certification, Washington, DC, USA.
Dolbeer RA, Begier MJ, Miller PR, Weller JR, Anderson AL (2019) Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States 1990-2019. Report of the Associate Administrator of Airports, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Airport Safety and Certification, Washington, DC, USA.
Hartig F (2020) DHARMa: residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package version 0.3.2.0. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa
ICAO Annex 14 (2016) Chp 4, Obstacle restriction and removal. In ‘Aerodromes: aerodrome design & operation’. Vol. 1. Edn 7. pp. 4.1–4.12. International Civil Aviation Organisation, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Kelly TC, Allan J (2006) Ecological effects of aviation. In ‘The ecology of transportation: managing mobility for the environment’. (Eds J Davenport, JL Davenport) pp. 5–24. (Springer: Dordtrecht, The Netherlands)
Lambertucci, SA, Shepard, ELC, and Wilson, RP (2015). Human–wildlife conflicts in a crowded airspace. Science 348, 502–504.
| Human–wildlife conflicts in a crowded airspace.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lenth, RV (2016). Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software 69, 1–33.
| Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Metz, IC, Ellerbroek, J, Mühlhausen, T, Kügler, D, and Hoekstra, JM (2020). The bird strike challenge. Aerospace 7, 26.
| The bird strike challenge.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
O’Shea, W, Coughlan, NE, Kelly, TC, Mitham, N, and Nicholson, J (2020). Line of sight: simulated aerial avian predators can reduce problematic bird flyovers of airfields. Human–Wildlife Interactions 14, 358–364.
| Line of sight: simulated aerial avian predators can reduce problematic bird flyovers of airfields.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pullins, CK, Guerrant, TL, Beckerman, SF, and Washburn, BE (2018). Mitigation translocation of red-tailed hawks to reduce raptor–aircraft collisions. The Journal of Wildlife Management 82, 123–129.
| Mitigation translocation of red-tailed hawks to reduce raptor–aircraft collisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
R Core Team (2020) ‘R: a language and environment for statistical computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria)
Roos, S, Smart, J, Gibbons, DW, and Wilson, JD (2018). A review of predation as a limiting factor for bird populations in mesopredator-rich landscapes: a case study of the UK. Biological Reviews 93, 1915–1937.
| A review of predation as a limiting factor for bird populations in mesopredator-rich landscapes: a case study of the UK.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Seamans TW, Martin JA, Belant JL (2013) Tactile and auditory repellents to reduce wildlife hazards to aircraft. In ‘Wildlife in airport environments. Preventing animal–aircraft collisions through science-based management’. (Eds TL DeVaut, BF Blackwell, JL Belant) pp. 37–46. (Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA)
Spelt, A, Williamson, C, Shamoun-Baranes, J, Shepard, E, Rock, P, and Windsor, S (2019). Habitat use of urban-nesting lesser black-backed gulls during the breeding season. Scientific Reports 9, 10527.
| Habitat use of urban-nesting lesser black-backed gulls during the breeding season.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Swaddle, JP, Moseley, DL, Hinders, MK, and Smith, EP (2016). A sonic net excludes birds from an airfield: implications for reducing bird strike and crop losses. Ecological Applications 26, 339–345.
| A sonic net excludes birds from an airfield: implications for reducing bird strike and crop losses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
