Reducing the Incidence of Mammals on Public Highways Using Chemical Repellent
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2012.13Keywords:
mammals, repellent, Wam Porocol®, wildlife-vehicle accidents (WVA)Abstract
In Lithuania, one of the measures to reduce the number of wildlife-vehicle accidents (WVA) is the fencing of highways. However, any gaps in the fencing have the potential to become an animal crossing site and consequently are likely to lead to increased WVA. Attempting to reduce the number of animals venturing onto roads, trials with the chemical repellent Wam Porocol® were conducted. This was the first such investigation in Lithuania. The effectiveness of Wam Porocol® was investigated over a six-month period in five gaps in the fencing, with five parallel control places without repellent also checked. In total, 11 mammal species (nine wild and two domestic) were registered, the most frequent of which were roe deer (32 cases), red foxes (18), raccoon dogs (16), red deer and martens (14 of each), plus domestic dogs (13 cases). Hoofed animals accounted for 42.1% of the total, with wild and domestic carnivores totalling 57%. It was found that, on average, every gap in the fencing allows the passage of 300–400 mammals onto the highway annually. Applying repellent, these numbers were reduced to 170–240 animals annually. Thus, the repellent Wam Porocol® reduced the number of mammals venturing onto highways by 42%. The daily average of gap-crossing mammal numbers was significantly lower (p < 0.025) using repellent than in control places.
References
Balčiauskas, L. 2009. Distribution of Species-Specific Wildlife-Vehicle Accidents on Lithuanian Roads, 2002–2007, Estonian Journal of Ecology 58(3): 157–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/eco.2009.3.01
Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L. 2007. First Data on the Usage of Wildlife Underpasses in Lithuania, Acta Biologica Universitatis Daugavpiliensis Suppliment 1: 28–36.
Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle Accidents in Lithuania, 2002–2007, Acta Biologica Universitatis Daugavpiliensis 8(1): 89–94.
Clevenger, A. P.; Chruszcz, B.; Gunson, K. E. 2001. Highway Mitigation Fencing Reduces Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions, Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 646–653.
Farrell, J. E.; Irby, L. R.; McGowen, P. T. 2002. Strategies for Ungulate-Vehicle Collision Mitigation, Intermountain Journal of Science 8(1): 1–18.
Forman, R. T. T.; Alexander, L. E. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.207
Fraser, D.; Hristienko, H. 1982. Moose-Vehicle Accidents in Ontario: a Repugnant Solution? Wildlife Society Bulletin 10(3): 266–270.
Groot Bruinderink, G. W. T. A.; Hazebroek, E. 1996. Ungulate Traffic Collisions in Europe, Conservation Biology 10(4): 1059–1067. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041059.x
Hedlund, J. H.; Curtis, P. D.; Curtis, G.; Williams, A. F. 2003. Methods to Reduce Traffic Crashes Involving Deer: What Works and What Does Not. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 20 p.
Knapp, K. K. 2005. Crash Reduction Factors for Deer-Vehicle Crash Countermeasures: State of the Knowledge and Suggested Safety Research Needs, Transportation Research Record 1908: 172–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1908-21
Knapp, K. K. 2004. Deer-Vechicle Crach Countermeasure Toolbox: a Desiction and Choise Resourse. Final Report No. DVCIC – 02. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 234 p.
Lavsund, S.; Sandegren, F. 1991. Moose-Vehicle Relations in Sweden: A Review, Alces 27: 118–126.
Litvaitis, J. A.; Tash, J. P. 2008. An Approach toward Understanding Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions, Environmental Management 42(4): 688–697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9108-4
Magnus, Z. 2006. Wildlife Roadkill Mitigation Information Kit. A Guide for Local Government and Land Managers. Sustainable Living Tasmania. 37 p.
Pokorny, B. 2006. Roe Deer-Vehicle Collisions in Slovenia: Situation, Mitigation Strategy and Countermeasures, Veterinarski Arhiv 76(Suppl.): 177–187.
Putman, R. J.; Langbein, J.; Staines, B. W. 2004. Deer and Road Traffic Accidents: a Review of Mitigation Measures: Costs and Cost-Effectiveness. Report for the Deer Commission for Scotland; Contract RP23A, UK.
Ratkevičiūtė, K.; Čygas, D.; Laurinavičius, A.; Mačiulis, A. 2007. Analysis and Evaluation of the Efficiency of Road Safety Measures Applied to Lithuanian Roads, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 2(2): 81–87.
Rea, R. V. 2003. Modifying Roadside Vegetation Management Practices to Reduce Vehicular Collisions with Moose Alces Alces, Wildlife Biology 9(2): 81–91.
Sielecki, L. E. 2001. Wildlife Accident Reporting System (WARS) 2000 Annual Report (1991 to 2000 Synopsis). British Columbia Ministry of Transportation, Engineering Branch, Environmental Management Section. 75 p.
Sullivan, T. L.; Messmer, T. A. 2003. Perceptions of Deer-Vehicle Collision Management by State Wildlife Agency and Dept of Transportation Administrators, Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(1): 163–173.
Trent, A.; Nolte, D.; Wagner, K. 2001. Comparison of Commercial Deer Repellents. U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology & Development Program. 6 p.
Trocmé, M.; Cahill, S.; de Vries, J. G.; Farrall, H.; Folkeson, L.; Fry, G.; Hicks, C.; Peymen, J. (Eds.). 2003. COST 341: Habitat Fragmentation Due to Transportation Infrastructure: the European Review. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. 253 p.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2012 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU) Press Technika
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
