who have an experimental crosswalk within their home range and thus repeatedly
experience the signal and the passing train. However, there will always be a proportion of animals (offspring, dispersers, and migratory animals) that are not yet
conditioned or do not know about the danger of traffic. Thus, rather than using
abstract stimuli, such as whistles or bangs that would alert humans, it may be more
effective to use natural sounds that already communicate a message for animals,
such as a human voice indicating the presence of people, or a deer warning or
distress call for alarming other animals.
Such approaches have been tested in Poland using animal alarm calls, barking
dogs and sounds from hunting scenes (Werka and Wasilewski 2009;
Babińska-Werka et al. 2015); in Japan, using sika deer warning calls (Shimura et al.
2015); in Italy, using sounds of dogs and humans to scare wildlife off roads when
cars approach (Mertens et al. 2014); and in Northern Sweden, using human voices
from a conventional radio to alert semi-domestic reindeer (Larsson-Kråik 2005).
Experiences from these studies suggest that such warning systems may be effective
in causing the animals to leave the disturbed site.
The basic idea is thus to condition a movement response to an auditory and/or
visual stimulus that is strong enough to evoke the desired, subtle response in most
individuals, but weak enough to avoid causing a panic reaction and allowing the
animals to experience reinforcement through the passing train.
We intend to address questions such as which signals will work best, how
quickly animals learn to respond appropriately, and to what extent this reduces the
risk of collisions. If the systems prove successful in moving wildlife away from the
railway track when trains approach, they could replace more costly crossing
structures such as bridges or tunnels and provide the necessary complement to
fences in an inclusive mitigation system (Huijser et al. 2009; Seiler et al. 2016). If
the system is to replace fencing, however, the deterrent or warning effect must be
extendable over several kilometers. This may be evaluated in a later study. If the
system does not operate successfully, i.e., if animals show very little response to
warning signals, and if collisions in the crosswalks are not reduced, the gaps in the
fences may need to be closed.
Complementary Studies
Besides the aforementioned system of crosswalks and fences, the project will
involve complementary activities such as in-depth analyses of WTC statistics; field
surveys to assess unreported collisions; improvements to the reporting and registration routines of WTCs; studies on the indirect costs of WTCs due to delays in
train traffic; exploration of possible animal detection and warning systems that can
be mounted on train engines instead of in railway infrastructure; and continued
video monitoring of train-animal encounters. Collaborations with similar research
projects in Norway and Austria have been initiated. An international reference
group will be established together with a group of private companies interested in
testing their technical solutions and ideas for a warning system.
288
A. Seiler and M. Olsson
experience the signal and the passing train. However, there will always be a proportion of animals (offspring, dispersers, and migratory animals) that are not yet
conditioned or do not know about the danger of traffic. Thus, rather than using
abstract stimuli, such as whistles or bangs that would alert humans, it may be more
effective to use natural sounds that already communicate a message for animals,
such as a human voice indicating the presence of people, or a deer warning or
distress call for alarming other animals.
Such approaches have been tested in Poland using animal alarm calls, barking
dogs and sounds from hunting scenes (Werka and Wasilewski 2009;
Babińska-Werka et al. 2015); in Japan, using sika deer warning calls (Shimura et al.
2015); in Italy, using sounds of dogs and humans to scare wildlife off roads when
cars approach (Mertens et al. 2014); and in Northern Sweden, using human voices
from a conventional radio to alert semi-domestic reindeer (Larsson-Kråik 2005).
Experiences from these studies suggest that such warning systems may be effective
in causing the animals to leave the disturbed site.
The basic idea is thus to condition a movement response to an auditory and/or
visual stimulus that is strong enough to evoke the desired, subtle response in most
individuals, but weak enough to avoid causing a panic reaction and allowing the
animals to experience reinforcement through the passing train.
We intend to address questions such as which signals will work best, how
quickly animals learn to respond appropriately, and to what extent this reduces the
risk of collisions. If the systems prove successful in moving wildlife away from the
railway track when trains approach, they could replace more costly crossing
structures such as bridges or tunnels and provide the necessary complement to
fences in an inclusive mitigation system (Huijser et al. 2009; Seiler et al. 2016). If
the system is to replace fencing, however, the deterrent or warning effect must be
extendable over several kilometers. This may be evaluated in a later study. If the
system does not operate successfully, i.e., if animals show very little response to
warning signals, and if collisions in the crosswalks are not reduced, the gaps in the
fences may need to be closed.
Complementary Studies
Besides the aforementioned system of crosswalks and fences, the project will
involve complementary activities such as in-depth analyses of WTC statistics; field
surveys to assess unreported collisions; improvements to the reporting and registration routines of WTCs; studies on the indirect costs of WTCs due to delays in
train traffic; exploration of possible animal detection and warning systems that can
be mounted on train engines instead of in railway infrastructure; and continued
video monitoring of train-animal encounters. Collaborations with similar research
projects in Norway and Austria have been initiated. An international reference
group will be established together with a group of private companies interested in
testing their technical solutions and ideas for a warning system.
288
A. Seiler and M. Olsson