Bird Dispersal Techniques

Conflicts between humans and birds likely have existed since agricultural practices began. Paintings from ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Roman civilizations depict birds attacking crops. In Great Britain, recording of efforts at reducing bird damage began in the 1400s, with books on bird control written in the 1600s. Even so, the problem persists. Avian damage to crops remains an issue today, but we also are concerned with damage to homes, businesses, and aircraft, and the possibility of disease transmission from birds to humans or livestock. Successful dispersal techniques should capitalize on bird sensory capabilities. If birds cannot perceive the dispersal technique, it will not be effective in dispersing birds. Not only must birds be able to perceive a dispersal technique, they also must interpret the technique as a threat to their safety. A technique that worked initially may fail later as birds habituate to it and no longer perceive the technique as threatening. For some species, the introduction of limited lethal control reinforces non-lethal dispersal techniques, as the birds again perceive the non-lethal technique as potentially dangerous. For other species, changing techniques is necessary, because they may not react to the death of a flock member and therefore still not interpret the scare technique as a threat. In either case, changing techniques and using multiple techniques in an integrated manner are essential for deterring birds from sensitive areas. No single technique or tool will deter birds in every instance or situation; there is no silver bullet. Successful bird dispersal involves a combination of tools and timing of use, as well as the skill and persistence of biologists and wildlife control operators (WCOs). The following sections offer overviews of various techniques that have been used to mitigate bird problems in various situations, as well as examples that highlight successful bird dispersal programs

Electric shock strips as bird deterrents: does experience count?

Understanding how birds detect and react to deterrent methods which are employed to protect structures is important both for the effective control of property damage, and to ensure that human health and safety are not compromised. One such device is a shock strip that causes slight pain to birds when they use a perch. Our aims were to determine: (1) the efficacy of a shock strip to flocks of Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater), and Rock Pigeons (Columba livia); (2) the length of time to extinction of effect; (3) whether members of a flock show a behavioural response to treatment; and (4) whether the birds habituate to the treatment. When activated, shock strips were effective in displacing birds from treated areas. Birds had to experience the treatment; there was no discernible indication of flock members reacting to affected birds. When strips were deactivated after an initial period of activation, birds required more than 2 hours to return to treated areas. No habituation was observed. Because birds had to experience the shock, reduced coverage of a structure or use of sham devices to lower costs is considered inadvisable

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT APPROACHES FOR REDUCING WILDLIFE-AIRCRAFT COLLISIONS

Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) pose safety risks to aircraft and cost civil aviation over $390 million annually in the USA. We reviewed the results of prior studies to summarize the vegetation management techniques that have proven effective for wildlife strike reduction or have shown potential for achieving the same goal. Habitat components that may affect wildlife use of airports include food, cover, water, and loafing areas. Improperly managed natural and ornamental vegetation on airports can be important attractants for wildlife that pose strike hazards. However, effective vegetation management can reduce these hazards. Maintaining tall herbaceous vegetation may reduce the availability or attractiveness of loafing and feeding sites for some species of birds such as gulls. However, this management strategy may also increase cover and food resources for other hazardous species. Thus, optimum vegetation height management strategies require further research and may be site-specific. Food availability may be reduced by replacing attractive vegetation such as palatable forage with less attractive vegetation. Vegetation management may also include removal of vegetative cover for deer and small mammals and nesting sites for birds such as woody vegetation. Removal of ornamental trees and shrubs may also be used to reduce availability of perches for flocking birds and large predatory birds. Despite more than 30 years of substantive discussion on the importance of these habitat management techniques, few reliable studies of the effectiveness of these techniques have been conducted. Specific needs for reliable data include definitive studies of the response of entire bird communities to vegetation height management in the USA, and field evaluations of vegetation types thought to be unattractive to wildlife under operational airport conditions

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT APPROACHES FOR REDUCING WILDLIFE-AIRCRAFT COLLISIONS

Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) pose safety risks to aircraft and cost civil aviation over $390 million annually in the USA. We reviewed the results of prior studies to summarize the vegetation management techniques that have proven effective for wildlife strike reduction or have shown potential for achieving the same goal. Habitat components that may affect wildlife use of airports include food, cover, water, and loafing areas. Improperly managed natural and ornamental vegetation on airports can be important attractants for wildlife that pose strike hazards. However, effective vegetation management can reduce these hazards. Maintaining tall herbaceous vegetation may reduce the availability or attractiveness of loafing and feeding sites for some species of birds such as gulls. However, this management strategy may also increase cover and food resources for other hazardous species. Thus, optimum vegetation height management strategies require further research and may be site-specific. Food availability may be reduced by replacing attractive vegetation such as palatable forage with less attractive vegetation. Vegetation management may also include removal of vegetative cover for deer and small mammals and nesting sites for birds such as woody vegetation. Removal of ornamental trees and shrubs may also be used to reduce availability of perches for flocking birds and large predatory birds. Despite more than 30 years of substantive discussion on the importance of these habitat management techniques, few reliable studies of the effectiveness of these techniques have been conducted. Specific needs for reliable data include definitive studies of the response of entire bird communities to vegetation height management in the USA, and field evaluations of vegetation types thought to be unattractive to wildlife under operational airport conditions

Foods Scraps Composting and Vector Control

Nontraditional waste management facilities, particularly new projects to compost food scraps, are becoming more common because of national and state initiatives to promote recycling and extend landfill capacities. In fact, food waste is the third largest component of generated waste by weight, following yard trimmings and corrugated boxes. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that each American disposes of 1.3 pounds of food waste daily or nearly 474 pounds annually. While there is a clear need to recycle food waste, the location of waste management facilities and national initiatives on waste management are increasingly controversial, partly because of potential wildlife related impacts. Responsible development of the industry must include management of facilities to minimize waste material serving as attractants to vectors such as birds and mammals that pose hazards to human health and safety. Communication by Barnes Nursery, Inc. with local, state and federal officials about potential wildlife hazards posed by the development of their food waste composting business created an atmosphere of collaboration. We suggest a similar approach for others considering food waste composting operations. However, for those operations proposed within FAA siting criteria for certificated airports under Part 139 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or other airports receiving FAA funding, a Wildlife Hazard Assessment might be deemed mandatory. Good communication with the public and government agencies charged with the safety of the public will benefit your business

Wildlife in Airport Environments: Chapter 10 Managing Turfgrass to Reduce Wildlife Hazards at Airports

Multiple factors-including safety regulations, economic considerations, location, and attractiveness to wildlife recognized as hazardous to aviation- influence the choice of land cover at airports. The principal land covet at airports within North America has historically been turfgrass, usually coolseason perennial grass species native to Europe. However, recent research has determined that, from a wildlife perspective, not all turf grasses are alike. Some grasses are more palatable to herbivorous hazardous wildlife (e.g., Canada geese [Branta canadensis]) than others, and thus are more likely to increase the potential for wildlife-aircraft collisions when planted near critical airport operating areas. How turfgrasses are managed (e.g., by mowing or herbicide use) can also influence the degree of use by wildlife. In this chapter we (1) review the role of vegetation in the airport environment, (2) review traditional and current methods of vegetation management on airfields, (3) discuss selection criteria for plant materials in reseeding efforts, and (4) provide recommendations for future research

Bird Dispersal Techniques

Conflicts between humans and birds likely have existed since agricultural practices began. Paintings from ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Roman civilizations depict birds attacking crops. In Great Britain, recording of efforts at reducing bird damage began in the 1400s, with books on bird control written in the 1600s. Even so, the problem persists. Avian damage to crops remains an issue today, but we also are concerned with damage to homes, businesses, and aircraft, and the possibility of disease transmission from birds to humans or livestock. Successful dispersal techniques should capitalize on bird sensory capabilities. If birds cannot perceive the dispersal technique, it will not be effective in dispersing birds. Not only must birds be able to perceive a dispersal technique, they also must interpret the technique as a threat to their safety. A technique that worked initially may fail later as birds habituate to it and no longer perceive the technique as threatening. For some species, the introduction of limited lethal control reinforces non-lethal dispersal techniques, as the birds again perceive the non-lethal technique as potentially dangerous. For other species, changing techniques is necessary, because they may not react to the death of a flock member and therefore still not interpret the scare technique as a threat. In either case, changing techniques and using multiple techniques in an integrated manner are essential for deterring birds from sensitive areas. No single technique or tool will deter birds in every instance or situation; there is no silver bullet. Successful bird dispersal involves a combination of tools and timing of use, as well as the skill and persistence of biologists and wildlife control operators (WCOs). The following sections offer overviews of various techniques that have been used to mitigate bird problems in various situations, as well as examples that highlight successful bird dispersal programs

Evaluation of ElectroBraide Fencing as a White-Tailed Deer Barrier

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations continue to increase, resulting in direct threats to public safety and increased agricultural losses. A variety of fencing methods are used to reduce deer presence at airports and agricultural areas. Electric fences may offer a less expensive alternative to expensive woven-wire fences. We tested an electric fence product, ElectroBraideTM (Yarmouth, N.S., Canada), on free-ranging deer in northern Ohio. We conducted both 1- and 2-choice tests, measuring deer intrusions and corn consumption at 10 sites encompassed with charged, non-charged or no fence. Mean daily deer intrusions decreased in each test when the fence was powered. When power was immediately applied to the fence, intrusions decreased 88–99%. When power was delayed for 10 weeks, intrusions were reduced 90%. When power was turned on and off within a 4-week period, intrusions decreased 57%. Mean corn consumption differed between treated (\u3c 2–6.4 kg/day) and control sites (15–32 kg/day). Under the conditions and time duration of this test, the fence was an effective deer barrier

Wildlife in Airport Environments: Chapter 10 Managing Turfgrass to Reduce Wildlife Hazards at Airports

Multiple factors-including safety regulations, economic considerations, location, and attractiveness to wildlife recognized as hazardous to aviation- influence the choice of land cover at airports. The principal land covet at airports within North America has historically been turfgrass, usually coolseason perennial grass species native to Europe. However, recent research has determined that, from a wildlife perspective, not all turf grasses are alike. Some grasses are more palatable to herbivorous hazardous wildlife (e.g., Canada geese [Branta canadensis]) than others, and thus are more likely to increase the potential for wildlife-aircraft collisions when planted near critical airport operating areas. How turfgrasses are managed (e.g., by mowing or herbicide use) can also influence the degree of use by wildlife. In this chapter we (1) review the role of vegetation in the airport environment, (2) review traditional and current methods of vegetation management on airfields, (3) discuss selection criteria for plant materials in reseeding efforts, and (4) provide recommendations for future research

Frontal vehicle illumination via rear-facing lighting reduces potential for collisions with white-tailed deer

nimal–vehicle collisions cause many millions of animal deaths each year worldwide and present a substantial safety risk to people. In the United States and Canada, deer (Odocoileus spp.) are involved in most animal–vehicle collisions associated with human injuries. We evaluated a vehicle-based collision mitigation method designed to decrease the likelihood of deer–vehicle collisions during low-light conditions, when most collisions occur. Specifically, we investigated whether the use of a rear-facing light, providing more complete frontal vehicle illumination than standard headlights alone, enhanced vehicle avoidance behaviors of white-tailed deer (O. virginianus). We quantified flight initiation distance (FID), the likelihood of a dangerous deer–vehicle interaction (FID ≤ 50 m), and road-crossing behavior of deer in response to an oncoming vehicle using only standard high-beam headlights and the same vehicle using headlights plus an LED light bar illuminating the frontal surface of the vehicle. We predicted that frontal vehicle illumination would enhance perceived risk of deer approached by the vehicle and lead to more effective avoidance responses. We conducted 62 vehicle approaches (31 per lighting treatment) toward free-ranging deer over ~14 months. Although FID did not differ across treatments, the likelihood of a dangerous deer–vehicle interaction decreased from 35% of vehicle approaches using only headlights to 10% of vehicle approaches using the light bar. The reduction in dangerous interactions appeared to be driven by fewer instances of immobility (freezing) behavior by deer in response to the illuminated vehicle (n = 1) compared with approaches using only headlights (n = 10). Because more deer moved in response to the illuminated vehicle, road-crossing behavior likewise increased when the light bar was on, although these road crossings primarily occurred at FIDs \u3e 50 m and thus did not increase collision risk. Road-crossing behavior was influenced heavily by proximity to concealing cover; deer only crossed when the nearest cover was located on the opposite side of the road. We contend that frontal vehicle illumination via rearfacing lighting has potential to greatly reduce vehicle collisions with deer and other species. Future work should explore fine-tuning the method with regard to the visual capabilities of target species