Lasers as Nonlethal Avian Repellents

Blackwell, Bradley F.; Bernhardt, Glen E.; Dolbeer, Richard A.

doi:10.2307/3802891

Cited by 54 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Australia, some free-range poultry farms use trained Maremma breed dogs to limit interaction between wild fauna and poultry (AGDAFF, 2009;Gibbs, ;Scott, Singh, et al, 2018b). Laser equipment is used for several years to scare off wild birds, in particular geese (Blackwell, Bernhardt, & Dolbeer, 2002;Gorenzel, Blackwell, Simmons, Salmon, & Dolbeer, 2002;Werner & Clark, 2006). In the Netherlands, there is experience with lasers to scare off wild birds around oil-rig platforms in the sea, airports, fruit orchids, in the aquaculture sector, and garbage landfills (BCG, 2018).…”

Section: Known Carriers Of Ai Viruses Visit the Outdoor Facility Regumentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantification of visits of wild fauna to a commercial free‐range layer farm in the Netherlands located in an avian influenza hot‐spot area assessed by video‐camera monitoring

Elbers

Gonzáles

2019

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free‐range poultry farms have a high risk of introduction of avian influenza viruses (AIV), and it is presumed that wild (water) birds are the source of introduction. There is very scarce quantitative data on wild fauna visiting free‐range poultry farms. We quantified visits of wild fauna to a free‐range area of a layer farm, situated in an AIV hot‐spot area, assessed by video‐camera monitoring. A total of 5,016 hr (209 days) of video recordings, covering all 12 months of a year, were analysed. A total of 16 families of wild birds and five families of mammals visited the free‐range area of the layer farm. Wild birds, except for the dabbling ducks, visited the free‐range area almost exclusively in the period between sunrise and the moment the chickens entered the free‐range area. Known carriers of AIV visited the outdoor facility regularly: species of gulls almost daily in the period January–August; dabbling ducks only in the night in the period November–May, with a distinct peak in the period December–February. Only a small fraction of visits of wild fauna had overlap with the presence of chickens at the same time in the free‐range area. No direct contact between chickens and wild birds was observed. It is hypothesized that AIV transmission to poultry on free‐range poultry farms will predominantly take place via indirect contact: taking up AIV by chickens via wild‐bird‐faeces‐contaminated water or soil in the free‐range area. The free‐range poultry farmer has several possibilities to potentially lower the attractiveness of the free‐range area for wild (bird) fauna: daily inspection of the free‐range area and removal of carcasses and eggs; prevention of forming of water pools in the free‐range facility. Furthermore, there are ways to scare‐off wild birds, for example use of laser equipment or trained dogs.

show abstract

Section: Known Carriers Of Ai Viruses Visit the Outdoor Facility Regumentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantification of visits of wild fauna to a commercial free‐range layer farm in the Netherlands located in an avian influenza hot‐spot area assessed by video‐camera monitoring

Elbers

Gonzáles

2019

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reduction of perching sites should make airports less attractive to birds and thus reduce the risk of damaging bird strikes (Dolbeer 1984). Numerous harassment, management, and frightening techniques are available for reducing human -bird conflicts (Wright 1967;Feare and Swannack 1978;Good and Johnson 1978;Feare and Wadsworth 1981;Lyon and Caccamise 1981;Dolbeer 1984Dolbeer , 1994Cleary 1994;Solman 1994;Dolbeer et al 1995;Belant et al 1998;Seamans et al 2001Seamans et al , 2002Blackwell et al 2002;Avery andGenchi 2004, Seamans 2004). A perch exclusion that is often suggested is the placement of strands of wire or specialized pointed products (Lefebvre and Mott 1987;Johnson and Glahn 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Evaluation of two perch deterrents for starlings, blackbirds and pigeons

Seamans

Barras

Bernhardt

2007

International Journal of Pest Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One possible response is the large-scale killing of nuisance bird populations, an approach that is generally undesirable and often impractical (Feare 1984;Dolbeer 1986;Smith et al 1999;Blackwell et al 2003). Subsequently, various non-lethal techniques to control bird problems, not all effective, have been evaluated (Bomford and O'Brian 1990;Belant et al 1998;Blackwell et al 2002;Avery and Genchi 2004;Seamans et al 2007). Inevitably, however, the effectiveness of non-lethal avian deterrents, whether targeting use of structures, food resources, or open areas, requires integration of methods to enable pest management workers to capitalize on aspects of the ecology of the problem species (Dolbeer 1990;Clark 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Electric shock strips as bird deterrents: does experience count?

Seamans¹,

Blackwell²

2011

International Journal of Pest Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Lasers as Nonlethal Avian Repellents

Cited by 54 publications

References 7 publications

Quantification of visits of wild fauna to a commercial free‐range layer farm in the Netherlands located in an avian influenza hot‐spot area assessed by video‐camera monitoring

Quantification of visits of wild fauna to a commercial free‐range layer farm in the Netherlands located in an avian influenza hot‐spot area assessed by video‐camera monitoring

Evaluation of two perch deterrents for starlings, blackbirds and pigeons

Electric shock strips as bird deterrents: does experience count?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About