Samantha Ball, Anthony Caravaggi, Thomas C. Kelly, Gerry Keogh, Fidelma Butler
{"title":"野生动物反击:确定与哺乳动物与飞机碰撞相关的二次攻击风险","authors":"Samantha Ball, Anthony Caravaggi, Thomas C. Kelly, Gerry Keogh, Fidelma Butler","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Wildlife–aircraft collisions are becoming increasingly common and pose a serious threat to the global aviation industry. While wildlife strike mitigation is a well-researched area, often focusing on a specific species or taxonomic group, secondary strike risk with scavenger or predatory species is rarely considered within the literature. Dublin Airport is the largest civil airport in the Republic of Ireland, reporting an average of 23.9 (±12.8 SD) strikes with native Irish hares (<i>Lepus timidus hibernicus</i>) annually. We employed motion-activated camera traps to identify the species attracted to simulated hare-strike events and to record the time to initial carcass detection. We used commercially available rat carcasses as a proxy for hare carcasses to assess the secondary strike risk associated with such events. We recorded 542 detections within 24 hours of carcass deployment from 82 trials. Hooded crows (<i>Corvus cornix</i>) were the most frequently detected species, involved in 86% of interactions. Initial carcass detection took an average of 4 hours and 54 minutes for avian species, with birds spending an average of 5 minutes and 29 seconds with a carcass. In comparison, it took mammal species an average of 9 hours and 32 minutes to detect the carcass in the first instance. Mammals remained with the carcass for an average of 2 minutes and 35 seconds. These data indicate that current clean-up practices at Dublin Airport (i.e., immediate clean-up and closing of the runway to facilitate clean-up operations) are adequate for reducing the likelihood of a secondary strike event.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70071","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The wildlife strikes back: determining the secondary strike risk associated with a mammal–aircraft collision\",\"authors\":\"Samantha Ball, Anthony Caravaggi, Thomas C. Kelly, Gerry Keogh, Fidelma Butler\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jwmg.70071\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Wildlife–aircraft collisions are becoming increasingly common and pose a serious threat to the global aviation industry. While wildlife strike mitigation is a well-researched area, often focusing on a specific species or taxonomic group, secondary strike risk with scavenger or predatory species is rarely considered within the literature. Dublin Airport is the largest civil airport in the Republic of Ireland, reporting an average of 23.9 (±12.8 SD) strikes with native Irish hares (<i>Lepus timidus hibernicus</i>) annually. We employed motion-activated camera traps to identify the species attracted to simulated hare-strike events and to record the time to initial carcass detection. We used commercially available rat carcasses as a proxy for hare carcasses to assess the secondary strike risk associated with such events. We recorded 542 detections within 24 hours of carcass deployment from 82 trials. Hooded crows (<i>Corvus cornix</i>) were the most frequently detected species, involved in 86% of interactions. Initial carcass detection took an average of 4 hours and 54 minutes for avian species, with birds spending an average of 5 minutes and 29 seconds with a carcass. In comparison, it took mammal species an average of 9 hours and 32 minutes to detect the carcass in the first instance. Mammals remained with the carcass for an average of 2 minutes and 35 seconds. These data indicate that current clean-up practices at Dublin Airport (i.e., immediate clean-up and closing of the runway to facilitate clean-up operations) are adequate for reducing the likelihood of a secondary strike event.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Wildlife Management\",\"volume\":\"89 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70071\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Wildlife Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.70071\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.70071","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The wildlife strikes back: determining the secondary strike risk associated with a mammal–aircraft collision
Wildlife–aircraft collisions are becoming increasingly common and pose a serious threat to the global aviation industry. While wildlife strike mitigation is a well-researched area, often focusing on a specific species or taxonomic group, secondary strike risk with scavenger or predatory species is rarely considered within the literature. Dublin Airport is the largest civil airport in the Republic of Ireland, reporting an average of 23.9 (±12.8 SD) strikes with native Irish hares (Lepus timidus hibernicus) annually. We employed motion-activated camera traps to identify the species attracted to simulated hare-strike events and to record the time to initial carcass detection. We used commercially available rat carcasses as a proxy for hare carcasses to assess the secondary strike risk associated with such events. We recorded 542 detections within 24 hours of carcass deployment from 82 trials. Hooded crows (Corvus cornix) were the most frequently detected species, involved in 86% of interactions. Initial carcass detection took an average of 4 hours and 54 minutes for avian species, with birds spending an average of 5 minutes and 29 seconds with a carcass. In comparison, it took mammal species an average of 9 hours and 32 minutes to detect the carcass in the first instance. Mammals remained with the carcass for an average of 2 minutes and 35 seconds. These data indicate that current clean-up practices at Dublin Airport (i.e., immediate clean-up and closing of the runway to facilitate clean-up operations) are adequate for reducing the likelihood of a secondary strike event.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Wildlife Management publishes manuscripts containing information from original research that contributes to basic wildlife science. Suitable topics include investigations into the biology and ecology of wildlife and their habitats that has direct or indirect implications for wildlife management and conservation. This includes basic information on wildlife habitat use, reproduction, genetics, demographics, viability, predator-prey relationships, space-use, movements, behavior, and physiology; but within the context of contemporary management and conservation issues such that the knowledge may ultimately be useful to wildlife practitioners. Also considered are theoretical and conceptual aspects of wildlife science, including development of new approaches to quantitative analyses, modeling of wildlife populations and habitats, and other topics that are germane to advancing wildlife science. Limited reviews or meta analyses will be considered if they provide a meaningful new synthesis or perspective on an appropriate subject. Direct evaluation of management practices or policies should be sent to the Wildlife Society Bulletin, as should papers reporting new tools or techniques. However, papers that report new tools or techniques, or effects of management practices, within the context of a broader study investigating basic wildlife biology and ecology will be considered by The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews of relevant topics in basic wildlife research and biology.