Ninety-three percent of all reported bird strikes occur below 1,067 m, which based on the typical approach and departure angles of aircraft is within 8–13 km of an airport. Concomitantly, the Federal Aviation Administration and the International Civil Aviation Organization recommend that any feature that would attract hazardous wildlife to the approach and departure airspace be restricted. Thus, preventing the establishment of wildlife attractants, such as municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) within 8 km or 13 km extents (U.S. and international recommendations, respectively) of airports, has been recommended to mitigate the risk of bird–aircraft collisions (strikes). However, robust evidence linking wildlife attractants at these spatial scales to an increase in strikes is lacking. We investigated the effect of densities of MSWLFs and construction and demolition (C&D) landfills, landscape diversity, and human population density on the adverse effect (AE; strikes that caused damage or had a negative effect on flight) bird strike rate involving species broadly associated with MSWLFs. We predicted that airports surrounded by a high density of MSWLFs, high human population densities, and high landscape diversity would increase the AE strike rate. We evaluated our predictions via generalized linear mixed models with bird strike data from 2009 through 2017 at 111 Part 139 airports. Only U.S. airports were used because of high wildlife strike reporting rates. Part 139 certificated airports are those that facilitate air carriers with >30 seats for passengers and crew. Our average model included density of MSWLFs and C&D landfills for both the 8and 13-km extent from the airports. We found no significant contribution by any variable to the AE strike rate variance. Our results indicated that the effects of landfills on AE strike rates are inconclusive. Possible explanations for our findings include the influence of unmeasured landscape features and lack of fine-scale data on bird habitat use at landfill facilities. Future research should investigate bird 3-dimensional space use in addition to bird and habitat survey techniques.
{"title":"Collective effect of landfills and landscape composition on bird–aircraft collisions","authors":"M. Pfeiffer, B. F. Blackwell, T. Devault","doi":"10.26077/RCFE-Z054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/RCFE-Z054","url":null,"abstract":"Ninety-three percent of all reported bird strikes occur below 1,067 m, which based on the typical approach and departure angles of aircraft is within 8–13 km of an airport. Concomitantly, the Federal Aviation Administration and the International Civil Aviation Organization recommend that any feature that would attract hazardous wildlife to the approach and departure airspace be restricted. Thus, preventing the establishment of wildlife attractants, such as municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) within 8 km or 13 km extents (U.S. and international recommendations, respectively) of airports, has been recommended to mitigate the risk of bird–aircraft collisions (strikes). However, robust evidence linking wildlife attractants at these spatial scales to an increase in strikes is lacking. We investigated the effect of densities of MSWLFs and construction and demolition (C&D) landfills, landscape diversity, and human population density on the adverse effect (AE; strikes that caused damage or had a negative effect on flight) bird strike rate involving species broadly associated with MSWLFs. We predicted that airports surrounded by a high density of MSWLFs, high human population densities, and high landscape diversity would increase the AE strike rate. We evaluated our predictions via generalized linear mixed models with bird strike data from 2009 through 2017 at 111 Part 139 airports. Only U.S. airports were used because of high wildlife strike reporting rates. Part 139 certificated airports are those that facilitate air carriers with >30 seats for passengers and crew. Our average model included density of MSWLFs and C&D landfills for both the 8and 13-km extent from the airports. We found no significant contribution by any variable to the AE strike rate variance. Our results indicated that the effects of landfills on AE strike rates are inconclusive. Possible explanations for our findings include the influence of unmeasured landscape features and lack of fine-scale data on bird habitat use at landfill facilities. Future research should investigate bird 3-dimensional space use in addition to bird and habitat survey techniques.","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"38 1","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90227363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Human–wildlife interactions are believed to be increasing worldwide, and a number of studies have analyzed the risks posed by larger carnivores. However, people can also perceive smaller species of carnivores as threatening, particularly in urban areas. Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) started to colonize British cities in the 1930s, and there is growing public concern about foxes biting people, particularly babies. These events are generally described in the press as attacks and generate intense media coverage and speculation that foxes view human infants as potential prey. Because foxes rely primarily on auditory cues for hunting, we conducted acoustic playback experiments in the gardens of 15 residential houses in northwest Bristol, United Kingdom, in December 2015 and 11 gardens from May to June 2016 to determine whether urban foxes were attracted to infant distress calls (cries). Foxes were not more likely to be attracted to infant cries or laughs than silence, although a minority of foxes cautiously approached and contacted the source of both types of infant vocalization. Their behavior appeared to be investigative rather than aggressive or predatory. Our review of the incidents reported in the British media showed that most people were bitten or scratched while sleeping, and adults were more likely to be bitten than children. The nature of the interactions and the wounds inflicted suggest that the foxes were using their mouth or forefeet to investigate an unusual object. Most incidents occurred inside people’s homes, even though it is unusual for foxes to enter houses. The data suggested that incidents where people were bitten were chance events, possibly involving a particularly bold fox. To minimize the risk to the public, more quantitative data are required on the age, social status, and health of the foxes that enter houses and those that bite people.
{"title":"Do Urban Red Foxes Attack People? An Exploratory Study and Review of Incidents in Britain","authors":"Bethany Bridge, S. Harris","doi":"10.26077/D6F5-F6F3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/D6F5-F6F3","url":null,"abstract":"Human–wildlife interactions are believed to be increasing worldwide, and a number of studies have analyzed the risks posed by larger carnivores. However, people can also perceive smaller species of carnivores as threatening, particularly in urban areas. Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) started to colonize British cities in the 1930s, and there is growing public concern about foxes biting people, particularly babies. These events are generally described in the press as attacks and generate intense media coverage and speculation that foxes view human infants as potential prey. Because foxes rely primarily on auditory cues for hunting, we conducted acoustic playback experiments in the gardens of 15 residential houses in northwest Bristol, United Kingdom, in December 2015 and 11 gardens from May to June 2016 to determine whether urban foxes were attracted to infant distress calls (cries). Foxes were not more likely to be attracted to infant cries or laughs than silence, although a minority of foxes cautiously approached and contacted the source of both types of infant vocalization. Their behavior appeared to be investigative rather than aggressive or predatory. Our review of the incidents reported in the British media showed that most people were bitten or scratched while sleeping, and adults were more likely to be bitten than children. The nature of the interactions and the wounds inflicted suggest that the foxes were using their mouth or forefeet to investigate an unusual object. Most incidents occurred inside people’s homes, even though it is unusual for foxes to enter houses. The data suggested that incidents where people were bitten were chance events, possibly involving a particularly bold fox. To minimize the risk to the public, more quantitative data are required on the age, social status, and health of the foxes that enter houses and those that bite people.","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"8 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78491444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Natalia S. Novoselova, A. Novoselov, Arthur Macarrão, Guilherme Gallo-Ortiz, W. R. Silva
The rising number of aircraft collisions with birds requires the development of appropriate mitigation measures to control their populations in the vicinity of airports. The black vulture (Coragyps atratus; vultures) is considered one of the most dangerous species for aviation in Brazil. To better understand the spatial distribution patterns of flying vultures and the risks they may pose to aviation, we studied natural and anthropogenic superficial factors and then numerically estimated and mapped the risk of collision with birds over the Airport Safety Area (ASA) for the Amarais Airport and Presidente Prudente Airport in the southeast part of Brazil. To conduct our research, we surveyed soaring black vultures monthly between September 2012 and August 2013 from 26 points within 20-km ASA zones. We obtained the environmental parameters (i.e., relief, surface temperature, surface covering type, and anthropogenic pressure) from satellite imagery and georeferenced them with our vulture survey. The tabulated data were examined using Spearman’s rank correlation and principal component analysis to determine if any the relationships existed between vulture flight patterns and ASA environmental characteristics. We found that the contrast in surface temperatures correlated well with the intensity of vulture soaring flights. Vultures tend to soar using the strongest thermals in their surroundings. Relief parameters, including altitude above sea level, slope exposure, and inclination, were not related with the vulture soaring activity. Water bodies and roadways were the most attractive landscapes for soaring vultures. We recorded the least number of soaring vultures over the uninterrupted urbanized lands. However, the scattered enclaves of urban settlement surrounded by natural and rural landscapes were selected by soaring birds. To mitigate the bird strike risk in ASA zones, we propose that managers should plot the objects generating thermals that attract vultures on risk assessment maps and reroute aviation to avoid them.
{"title":"Remote Sensing Applications for Abating Aircraft–Bird Strike Risks in Southeast Brazil","authors":"Natalia S. Novoselova, A. Novoselov, Arthur Macarrão, Guilherme Gallo-Ortiz, W. R. Silva","doi":"10.26077/3Z5D-EB31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/3Z5D-EB31","url":null,"abstract":"The rising number of aircraft collisions with birds requires the development of appropriate mitigation measures to control their populations in the vicinity of airports. The black vulture (Coragyps atratus; vultures) is considered one of the most dangerous species for aviation in Brazil. To better understand the spatial distribution patterns of flying vultures and the risks they may pose to aviation, we studied natural and anthropogenic superficial factors and then numerically estimated and mapped the risk of collision with birds over the Airport Safety Area (ASA) for the Amarais Airport and Presidente Prudente Airport in the southeast part of Brazil. To conduct our research, we surveyed soaring black vultures monthly between September 2012 and August 2013 from 26 points within 20-km ASA zones. We obtained the environmental parameters (i.e., relief, surface temperature, surface covering type, and anthropogenic pressure) from satellite imagery and georeferenced them with our vulture survey. The tabulated data were examined using Spearman’s rank correlation and principal component analysis to determine if any the relationships existed between vulture flight patterns and ASA environmental characteristics. We found that the contrast in surface temperatures correlated well with the intensity of vulture soaring flights. Vultures tend to soar using the strongest thermals in their surroundings. Relief parameters, including altitude above sea level, slope exposure, and inclination, were not related with the vulture soaring activity. Water bodies and roadways were the most attractive landscapes for soaring vultures. We recorded the least number of soaring vultures over the uninterrupted urbanized lands. However, the scattered enclaves of urban settlement surrounded by natural and rural landscapes were selected by soaring birds. To mitigate the bird strike risk in ASA zones, we propose that managers should plot the objects generating thermals that attract vultures on risk assessment maps and reroute aviation to avoid them.","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"36 1","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87601266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book Review: The Figure of the Animal in Modern and Contemporary Poetry","authors":"Yunxiang Yan","doi":"10.26077/ACD1-0A61","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/ACD1-0A61","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"56 1","pages":"23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85162321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-02DOI: 10.1017/9781108235730.018
S. M. Alexander, D. Draper
{"title":"Worldviews and Coexistence with Coyotes","authors":"S. M. Alexander, D. Draper","doi":"10.1017/9781108235730.018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235730.018","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88818379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-02DOI: 10.1017/9781108235730.023
J. Glikman, B. Frank, S. Marchini
{"title":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","authors":"J. Glikman, B. Frank, S. Marchini","doi":"10.1017/9781108235730.023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235730.023","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73366522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-02DOI: 10.1017/9781108235730.008
K. Slagle, Jeremy T. Bruskotter
{"title":"Tolerance for Wildlife","authors":"K. Slagle, Jeremy T. Bruskotter","doi":"10.1017/9781108235730.008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235730.008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88238268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：