Habitat management includes vegetation mowing or pruning at railway verges,
or the removal of specific fruiting plants (Andreassen et al. 2005; Eriksson 2014;
Jacobson 2005). Vegetation removal (forest clearing) was successfully employed
along a railway in Norway, achieving a reduction in about half the number of
moose casualties (Andreassen et al. 2005; Jaren et al. 1991). It combined a
decreased attractiveness of verges for wildlife, hence leading to animals spending
less time foraging close to railways, and higher visibility, providing a shorter
reaction time by animals. However, Helldin et al. (2011) and Eriksson (2014) found
the opposite effect, suggesting that tree-clearing may increase moose and roe deer
train collisions in Sweden, as areas cleared after mowing offer attractive foraging
opportunities for some species. In another study using Before-After-Control-Impact
(BACI), tree clearance had no effect on the frequency of wildlife collisions
(Eriksson 2014). Helldin et al. (2011) showed that vegetation management requires
regular maintenance; otherwise, mortality may return to previous levels after plant
growth. These authors mention that tree-clearance can reduce collisions if applied
frequently, but it can increase collisions if applied at intervals greater than 3–4
years. Finally, it is relevant to mention that habitat management (vegetation
removal) can limit the movements of some species, hence increasing barrier effects;
for example, small vertebrates are generally reluctant to cross large open spaces due
to greater exposure to predators (Hunt et al. 1987; Yanes et al. 1995).
Population control of a particular species may sometimes be used to reduce its
numbers near railways. This method should only be applied on very common
species, or those that can compromise human safety due to collisions. This method
has been used to prevent collision with vehicles on roads (Glista et al. 2009), but its
use in railways may not be as necessary since most animals will not affect trains’
movements.
Supplemental feeding stations placed far from railways may influence animal
movement, keeping animals away from linear infrastructures and thus contributing
to reducing mortality (Andreassen et al. 2005; Wood and Wolfe 1988).
Reducing Train Speed
Greater speeds are undoubtedly associated with a greater risk of wildlife mortality
on roads as well as on, railways (e.g., Cserkész and Farkas 2015; Frikovic et al.
1987). Thus, train speed moderation, at least at critical points (mortality hotspots)
and during periods of higher crossing movements (e.g., migration), should contribute to reducing animal mortality, as slower trains have fewer collisions (Becker
and Grauvogel 1991; Belant 1995).
36
F. Carvalho et al.
or the removal of specific fruiting plants (Andreassen et al. 2005; Eriksson 2014;
Jacobson 2005). Vegetation removal (forest clearing) was successfully employed
along a railway in Norway, achieving a reduction in about half the number of
moose casualties (Andreassen et al. 2005; Jaren et al. 1991). It combined a
decreased attractiveness of verges for wildlife, hence leading to animals spending
less time foraging close to railways, and higher visibility, providing a shorter
reaction time by animals. However, Helldin et al. (2011) and Eriksson (2014) found
the opposite effect, suggesting that tree-clearing may increase moose and roe deer
train collisions in Sweden, as areas cleared after mowing offer attractive foraging
opportunities for some species. In another study using Before-After-Control-Impact
(BACI), tree clearance had no effect on the frequency of wildlife collisions
(Eriksson 2014). Helldin et al. (2011) showed that vegetation management requires
regular maintenance; otherwise, mortality may return to previous levels after plant
growth. These authors mention that tree-clearance can reduce collisions if applied
frequently, but it can increase collisions if applied at intervals greater than 3–4
years. Finally, it is relevant to mention that habitat management (vegetation
removal) can limit the movements of some species, hence increasing barrier effects;
for example, small vertebrates are generally reluctant to cross large open spaces due
to greater exposure to predators (Hunt et al. 1987; Yanes et al. 1995).
Population control of a particular species may sometimes be used to reduce its
numbers near railways. This method should only be applied on very common
species, or those that can compromise human safety due to collisions. This method
has been used to prevent collision with vehicles on roads (Glista et al. 2009), but its
use in railways may not be as necessary since most animals will not affect trains’
movements.
Supplemental feeding stations placed far from railways may influence animal
movement, keeping animals away from linear infrastructures and thus contributing
to reducing mortality (Andreassen et al. 2005; Wood and Wolfe 1988).
Reducing Train Speed
Greater speeds are undoubtedly associated with a greater risk of wildlife mortality
on roads as well as on, railways (e.g., Cserkész and Farkas 2015; Frikovic et al.
1987). Thus, train speed moderation, at least at critical points (mortality hotspots)
and during periods of higher crossing movements (e.g., migration), should contribute to reducing animal mortality, as slower trains have fewer collisions (Becker
and Grauvogel 1991; Belant 1995).
36
F. Carvalho et al.