from around the tracks and occurrence of this spillage is prevented (Gibeau and
Heuer 1996; Wells et al. 1999), or fences are built along the tracks (Boscagli 1985).
In the Czech Republic, the above mentioned technical measures are used quite
rarely. The most common technical solution is the application of odour repellents
near railway tracks. However, their effectiveness is questionable. Their effectiveness depends on many factors. Among them is, for example, seasonal food availability and its nutritional value (Van Beest et al. 2010), weather, frequency of
product application and its concentration (Diaz-Varela et al. 2011; Knapp et al.
2004; Wagner and Nolte 2001). The reason for the ineffectiveness of repellents can
often be the excessive disturbance of animals (e.g. by hunting), which then changes
their behaviour (Benhaiem et al. 2008) making them less responsive to the repellents. The most probable reason for their frequent ineffectiveness is the fact that the
environment around tracks is highly food-attractive for the animals and the applied
odours are not able to discourage the animals from being near the railway. Other
studies (Elmeros et al. 2011; Schlageter and Haag-Wackernagel 2012a, b) came to
similar conclusions, i.e. ineffectiveness of odour repellents in places with attractive
food for animals. In contrast, in the vicinity of roads, odour repellents appear to be
an efficient tool to reduce the number of animals killed in collisions with cars
(e.g. Kušta et al. 2015).
Management Measures
On the other hand, we recommend paying close attention to management measures,
whose implementation is often the cheapest and can be most effective option of
solving collisions.
We should study in detail the ecological and behavioural needs of animals that
are threatened by railway transport. It is very important to identify critical areas
where collisions occur most frequently and establish databases on animal mortality
on railways with the information on location, time and external collision factors.
Fencing is an option for sites with high collision rates, and also in the case of
main corridors with significantly high capacity, but it requires maintenance and has
a major impact on the fragmentation of habitats and populations. For the wider
countryside, the most important management measures include the management of
wildlife in such numbers that match the capacity of the environment (applies to the
species that can be managed by hunting). Animals must not be overpopulated in a
given area in any case. Their high numbers do not only cause frequent damage to
agricultural land, crops and forests, but also cause significantly frequent WTC as
well as WVC.
Furthermore, hunting must not interfere with the appropriate social structure (i.e.
age and sex) of the population and a correct sex ratio must be retained. In this
context, the heads of the herd and their young need to be protected. This prevents
excessive migration of animals due to excessive stress and the need to find new
locations.
15 Railway Ecology—Experiences and Examples in the Czech Republic
255
Heuer 1996; Wells et al. 1999), or fences are built along the tracks (Boscagli 1985).
In the Czech Republic, the above mentioned technical measures are used quite
rarely. The most common technical solution is the application of odour repellents
near railway tracks. However, their effectiveness is questionable. Their effectiveness depends on many factors. Among them is, for example, seasonal food availability and its nutritional value (Van Beest et al. 2010), weather, frequency of
product application and its concentration (Diaz-Varela et al. 2011; Knapp et al.
2004; Wagner and Nolte 2001). The reason for the ineffectiveness of repellents can
often be the excessive disturbance of animals (e.g. by hunting), which then changes
their behaviour (Benhaiem et al. 2008) making them less responsive to the repellents. The most probable reason for their frequent ineffectiveness is the fact that the
environment around tracks is highly food-attractive for the animals and the applied
odours are not able to discourage the animals from being near the railway. Other
studies (Elmeros et al. 2011; Schlageter and Haag-Wackernagel 2012a, b) came to
similar conclusions, i.e. ineffectiveness of odour repellents in places with attractive
food for animals. In contrast, in the vicinity of roads, odour repellents appear to be
an efficient tool to reduce the number of animals killed in collisions with cars
(e.g. Kušta et al. 2015).
Management Measures
On the other hand, we recommend paying close attention to management measures,
whose implementation is often the cheapest and can be most effective option of
solving collisions.
We should study in detail the ecological and behavioural needs of animals that
are threatened by railway transport. It is very important to identify critical areas
where collisions occur most frequently and establish databases on animal mortality
on railways with the information on location, time and external collision factors.
Fencing is an option for sites with high collision rates, and also in the case of
main corridors with significantly high capacity, but it requires maintenance and has
a major impact on the fragmentation of habitats and populations. For the wider
countryside, the most important management measures include the management of
wildlife in such numbers that match the capacity of the environment (applies to the
species that can be managed by hunting). Animals must not be overpopulated in a
given area in any case. Their high numbers do not only cause frequent damage to
agricultural land, crops and forests, but also cause significantly frequent WTC as
well as WVC.
Furthermore, hunting must not interfere with the appropriate social structure (i.e.
age and sex) of the population and a correct sex ratio must be retained. In this
context, the heads of the herd and their young need to be protected. This prevents
excessive migration of animals due to excessive stress and the need to find new
locations.
15 Railway Ecology—Experiences and Examples in the Czech Republic
255