Line of Sight: Simulated Aerial Avian Predators Can Reduce Problematic Bird Flyovers of Airfields

O’Shea, William; Coughlan, Neil E.; Kelly, Thomas C.; Mitham, Neil; Nicholson, Jeremy K.

doi:10.26077/faeb-a2bd

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, the majority of damaging bird strikes generally occur at the level of the airfield during take-off and final-approach maneuverers (Dolbeer 2006(Dolbeer , 2011. Accordingly, there is a clear need to develop innovative strategies to reduce bird strike risks at airfields (Cleary and Dolbeer 2005;Lambertucci et al 2015;Swaddle et al 2016;O'Shea et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Non-lethal methods typically aim to disrupt an aspect of the target species' behaviour, causing avoidance of, or dispersal from, a specific area (e.g. O'Shea et al 2020). In particular, grassland management within airport environments can be used to successfully reduce airfield bird abundances and species richness (Brough and Bridgman 1980;Cleary and Dolbeer 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the presence of long grass at airfields can successfully deters avian species, land-use practises outside airport boundaries can also affect airfield bird species accumulations and their daily movements (Kelly and Allan 2006;Blackwell et al 2009). For example, problematic bird species can overfly airfields on daily movements between roosting and foraging sites (O'Shea et al 2020). Therefore, whereas most airport wildlife management practises are designed to reduce feeding and roosting opportunities for birds across airfield grassland and hard-surface areas such as runways and taxiways, accumulations of birds on adjacent buildings and/or agricultural lands can also substantially increase bird-strike risks (Cleary and Dolbeer 2005;Blackwell et al 2013;Pullins et al 2018;O'Shea et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, problematic bird species can overfly airfields on daily movements between roosting and foraging sites (O'Shea et al 2020). Therefore, whereas most airport wildlife management practises are designed to reduce feeding and roosting opportunities for birds across airfield grassland and hard-surface areas such as runways and taxiways, accumulations of birds on adjacent buildings and/or agricultural lands can also substantially increase bird-strike risks (Cleary and Dolbeer 2005;Blackwell et al 2013;Pullins et al 2018;O'Shea et al 2020). In essence, wildlife hazard management is a complex process that requires a multifaceted and targeted approach at the landscape scale (Seamans et al 2013;Dolbeer et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Equally, static predator effigies, which exploit birds' natural fear of predation, can be effectively used to reduce bird abundances (e.g. Cleary and Dolbeer 2005;O'Shea et al 2020). Ground-based and aerial predator substitutes, such as trained dogs and raptor species, have also been shown to be an effective deterrent of roosting and feeding birds at airfields, presumably because they represent a predatory threat to birds (Carter 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The fox in the box: acoustic deterrent and simulated predator disturbance to reduce problematic bird accumulations

Coughlan

O’Shea²,

Cuthbert³

et al. 2022

Wildlife Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The fox in the box: acoustic deterrent and simulated predator disturbance to reduce problematic bird accumulations

Coughlan

O’Shea²,

Cuthbert³

et al. 2022

Wildlife Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Systematic review and meta-analysis of bird management techniques used in aerodromes

Portela

Weber

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aeronautical accidents caused by collisions with birds have grown dramatically in recent decades. To minimize these effects, aerodrome managers may adopt several bird management techniques in order to keep them away from the airport environment. However, the efficiency of these techniques is still unclear. Therefore, here we evaluated the effectiveness of the main bird management techniques applied in aerodromes and compared their efficiency in decreasing bird abundance through a meta-analysis. Using a systematic review, we selected 24 papers on bird management in aerodromes (airfields and airports) and 15 papers provided 43 effect sizes needed for a meta-analysis. We found 13 techniques applied to bird management in aerodromes. The most applied technique was the control of grass height followed by falconry, dog patrol and use of effigies, respectively. At general, management techniques were not efficient in reducing bird abundance in aerodromes. However, individual bird management techniques were efficient. Falconry was the most effective method to disperse birds, followed by effigies and control of grass height, respectively. Techniques using noise and dog patrol were not effective. Despite that no technique alone is able to completely eliminate the risk of collisions between birds and aircrafts, their use associated with knowledge of habitat use for the target species may significantly reduce the risk of accidents. We also stress that it is necessary to design studies with robust methodology and clarity in the data to assist in decision making by aerodrome operators.

show abstract

Line of Sight: Simulated Aerial Avian Predators Can Reduce Problematic Bird Flyovers of Airfields

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

The fox in the box: acoustic deterrent and simulated predator disturbance to reduce problematic bird accumulations

The fox in the box: acoustic deterrent and simulated predator disturbance to reduce problematic bird accumulations

Systematic review and meta-analysis of bird management techniques used in aerodromes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About