Visual deterrents and physical barriers as non-lethal pigeon control on University of South Africa’s Muckleneuk campus

Abstract

A study on a population of pigeons on the University of South Africa’s Muckleneuk campus was conducted over 2 years. Counts were conducted during a baseline year (March 2013–February 2014) to establish the pigeon population index inhabiting the campus buildings, and again in the management year (August 2014–August 2015) once Eagle Eyes™, Fire (Flash) Flags, bird spikes and a combination thereof were implemented on the buildings. An efficacy reduction percentage was determined for each of the control structures. The total pigeon index on the campus declined by 50 % once the control structures were implemented. Control structures; however, differed markedly in efficacy from each other. Whilst bird spikes indicated the highest efficacy at reducing the pigeon population index, seasonality also influenced the efficacy of the control structure. Quantified understanding of the efficacy of pigeon control measures allows urban management to make informed decisions about reducing pigeon populations.

Pigeon Presence on PV Modules ARE Largely Random Events

“…Two studies were identified from the literature focusing on feral pigeons at university campuses in South Africa. The first study explored the perceptions of 246 staff members employed on the Muckleneuk campus of the University of South Africa (UNISA) to ascertain the extent and nature of the perceived pigeon problem with suggested control methodologies [11]. UNISA is located in Pretoria in the Gauteng Province of South Africa.…”

“…Two specific techniques exist that were identified in the UNISA study mentioned previously, being lethal and non-lethal techniques. Lethal control strategies include shooting, poisoning and trapping [11] along with the use of falcons [18]. Non-lethal control strategies are generally directed at the pigeons' visual, auditory and tactile senses; however, habitat modification and reduction of pigeon presence can also be achieved by physical barriers [11].…”

Autonomous Detection and Deterrence of Pigeons on Buildings by Drones

“…Pigeons can detect sounds at frequencies as low as 0.05 Hz up to 11,000 Hz whereas the human range is 20-20,000 Hz [14], [15]. On the other hand, visual deterrents, such as decoys, moving lights, and reflective items, are often deemed ineffective because pigeons can rapidly habituate to visual disturbance [16]. Meanwhile, physical barriers, including spikes, wires, nets, or gel repellents, are widely used in urban environments for feral pigeons due to their efficacy [17].…”

“…Meanwhile, physical barriers, including spikes, wires, nets, or gel repellents, are widely used in urban environments for feral pigeons due to their efficacy [17]. However, these barriers have high initial costs, degrade over time if not taken care of [16], can only be applied to treated areas [18], and are harmful to animals. Finally, natural predation is one of the most effective methods for deterring birds, owing to their long-term efficacy without disturbing humans [19].…”

An experimental study on the effectiveness of a gel repellent on feral pigeons

“…electrical deterrents) and/or the visual impact of the devices (e.g., nets) especially on historic buildings. A variety of less costly and inconspicuous repelling methods are now available (Clark 1998;Stock and Haag-Wackernagel 2014;Harris et al 2016), but their efficacy has been rarely rigorously tested (e.g. Haag-Wackernagel 2000;Jenni-Eiermann et al 2014).…”