Effectiveness of an acoustic wildlife warning device using natural calls to reduce the risk of train collisions with animals

Babińska-Werka, Joanna; Krauze‐Gryz, Dagny; Wasilewski, Michał; Jasińska, Karolina

doi:10.1016/j.trd.2015.04.021

Cited by 28 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Earlier studies from Poland (Werka and Wasilewski 2009;Babińska-Werka et al 2015) have been promising, but further technical and methodological development is needed to develop a cost-effective and robust alternative to fences and crossing structures.…”

Section: Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such approaches have been tested in Poland using animal alarm calls, barking dogs and sounds from hunting scenes (Werka and Wasilewski 2009;Babińska-Werka et al 2015); in Japan, using sika deer warning calls (Shimura et al 2015); in Italy, using sounds of dogs and humans to scare wildlife off roads when cars approach (Mertens et al 2014); and in Northern Sweden, using human voices from a conventional radio to alert semi-domestic reindeer (Larsson-Kråik 2005). Experiences from these studies suggest that such warning systems may be effective in causing the animals to leave the disturbed site.…”

Section: The Deterrent Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternative methods, such as wildlife deterrents or warning systems, need to be developed to keep animals off railways, at least when trains approach. Initial attempts with such wildlife warning systems in other studies have produced promising results (Larsson-Kråik 2005;Werka and Wasilewski 2009;Babińska-Werka et al 2015;Shimura et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Wildlife Deterrent Methods for Railways—An Experimental Study

Seiler

Olsson²

2017

Railway Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since reliable accident statistics and consequent costs have become available, train collisions with wildlife, especially ungulates, have received increasing attention in Sweden. In contrast to collisions on roads, accidents involving wildlife on railways do not entail human injury or death, but can cause substantial train damage and lead to significant delays in railway traffic. Wildlife-train collisions (WTC) are rising in numbers and railways appear as a greater source of ungulate mortality per kilometer than roads. Nevertheless, railways are largely unprotected against wildlife collisions, and mitigation measures that have hitherto been applied to roads are either infeasible or economically unviable for railways. The Swedish Transport Administration is therefore seeking innovative and cost-effective measures for preventing collisions with larger wild animals. In this chapter, we present research on WTC in Sweden that has been used to define the baseline and set up criteria for a new mitigation project. This project aims to develop warning or deterring signals that encourage animals to leave the railway shortly before trains arrive. This will be carried out at several experimental crosswalks for animals along fenced railways where the effect of different signals on animal behaviour can be evaluated. If effective, these deterrent systems could replace fencing and/or crossing structures, and reduce mortality and barrier effects on wildlife. The project was begun in 2015 and will continue for at least 4 years.

show abstract

Section: Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Deterrent Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wildlife Deterrent Methods for Railways—An Experimental Study

Seiler

Olsson²

2017

Railway Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, trains equipped with ultrasonic warning devices killed fewer moose in Canada than those without (Muzzi and Bisset 1990). More recently, Babińska-Werka et al (2015) reported the development of a device in Poland that uses alarm calls from several wild animals in advance (30 s to 3 min) of an oncoming train that allows animals near the railway to react and escape in a natural way. The proportion of wildlife escaping from the tracks was higher, and individuals reacted faster, when the device was switched on and, importantly, animals did not show evidence of habituation to the warning signals (Babińska-Werka et al 2015).…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Mitigation Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In identified hotspots, anti-collision measures, such as warning signals (Babińska-Werka et al 2015; see also Chap. 17) or pole barriers, (Zuberogoitia et al 2015) should be placed.…”

Section: Monitoring Of Wtcs To Identify Hotspotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Railways as Barriers for Wildlife: Current Knowledge

Barrientos

Borda‐de‐Água

2017

Railway Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter we provide practical suggestions, together with examples, to identify, monitor and mitigate railway barrier effects on wildlife, as this is considered one of the railways' greatest impacts. Railways can be both physical and behavioral barriers to wildlife movement, as well as disturbance to populations living close to them. Also, mortality is recognized as an important contribution to the barrier effect. However, the consequences of habitat loss, and fragmentation due to railways alone remain largely unexplored. Barrier effects have mainly been mitigated with wildlife passes, with the effectiveness of this tool being one of the most-studied topics in Railway Ecology. Methods formerly employed to monitor pass usage, such as track beds or video-surveillance, are now being replaced by molecular ones. Among the latter methods, genetic fingerprinting allows individual-based approaches, opening the door to population-scale studies. In fact, genetic sampling allows for the assessment of functional connectivity, which is closely linked to successful reproduction and population viability, variables not necessarily coupled with crossing rates. There is strong evidence that railway verges offer new habitats for generalist species and for opportunistic individuals, a point that deserves to be experimentally explored in order to find wildlife-friendly policies. Preventing animals from crossing (e.g., by fencing), should be reserved for collision hotspots, as it increases barrier effects. Instead, it has been shown that warning signals or pole barriers effectively reduce collisions without increasing barrier effects. In this respect, we argue that computer simulations are a promising field to investigate potential impact scenarios. Finally, we present a protocol to guide planners and managers when assessing barrier effects, with emphasis on monitoring and mitigation strategies.

show abstract

Inducing fear using acoustic stimuli—A behavioral experiment on moose (Alces alces) in Sweden

Bhardwaj

Lodnert

Olsson³

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prey species may display anti‐predatory behavior, i.e., flight, increased vigilance, and decreased feeding, in response to the true presence of a predator or to the implied presence of a predator through, e.g., acoustic cues. In this study, we investigated the anti‐predatory reactions of moose ( Alces alces ) to acoustic stimuli related to hunting, at saltlick stones, a known attractant. In before‐during‐after‐control‐impact experiments, we compared the behavioral responses of individuals to: (i) two hunting‐related acoustic stimuli—hunting dog barking and human speaking; (ii) nonpredatory acoustic stimuli—bird sounds and; and (iii) no acoustic stimulus (control). We asked: (1) How does the probability of moose leaving the site differ depending on the stimulus they are exposed to?; (2) What affect do the acoustic stimuli have on the amount of time moose spend vigilant, feeding, or away from the site?; and (3) What affect do the stimuli have on the time between events at a site? We found that when exposed to the human stimulus, moose left the sites in 75% of the events, which was significantly more often compared to the dog (39%), bird (24%), or silent (11%) events. If moose did not leave the site, they spent more time vigilant, and less time feeding, particularly when exposed to a dog or human stimulus. Furthermore, moose spent the most time away from the site and took the longest to visit the site again after a human stimulus. Moose were also more likely to leave the site when exposed to the bird stimulus than during silent controls. Those that remained spent more time vigilant, but their behaviors returned to baseline after the bird stimulus ended. These findings suggest that acoustic stimuli can be used to modify the behavior of moose; however, reactions towards presumably threatening and nonthreatening stimuli were not as distinct as we had expected.

show abstract

Effectiveness of an acoustic wildlife warning device using natural calls to reduce the risk of train collisions with animals

Cited by 28 publications

References 20 publications

Wildlife Deterrent Methods for Railways—An Experimental Study

Wildlife Deterrent Methods for Railways—An Experimental Study

Railways as Barriers for Wildlife: Current Knowledge

Inducing fear using acoustic stimuli—A behavioral experiment on moose (Alces alces) in Sweden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About