Thermal Imagery Applied to Reducing Bird Hazards to Aircraft at Airports

Airports worldwide are at a disadvantage when it comes to being able to spot birds and warn aircrews about the location of flocks either on the ground or close to the airfield. Birds simply cannot be easily seen during the day and are nearly invisible targets for planes at night or during low visibility. Thermal imaging (infrared) devices can be used to allow ground and tower personnel to pinpoint bird locations day or night, thus giving the airport operators the ability to launch countermeasures or simply warn the aircrews. This technology is available now, though it has been predominately isolated to medical and military system modifications. The cost of these devices has dropped significantly in recent years as technology, capability, and availability have continued to increase. Davison Army Airfield (DAAF), which is located about 20 miles south of Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC, is the transient home to many bird species including an abundance of ducks, seagulls, pigeons, and migrating Canadian geese. Over the past few years, DAAF implemented a variety of measures in an attempt to control the bird hazards on the airfield. Unfortunately, when it came to controlling these birds on or near our runways and aircraft movement areas we were more reactive than proactive. We would do airfield checks several times an hour to detect and deter any birds in these areas. The deterrents used included vehicle/human presence, pyrotechnics, and the periodic use of a trained border collie. At the time, we felt like we were doing all we could to reduce the threat to aircraft and human life. It was not until a near fatal accident in October 1998, when we truly realized how dangerous our operating environment really was to aircraft at or near the airfield. It was at this time, we had a C-12 (twin-engine passenger plane) land on our primary runway at night. The tower cleared the aircraft to land, and upon touchdown to the runway the aircraft collided with a flock of geese. Neither the tower nor the crew of the aircraft saw the geese because they were obscured in the darkness. The end result was 12 dead geese and $374,000 damage to the C-12. Fortunately, there were no human fatalities, but it was painfully clear we needed to improve our method of clearing the runway at night and during low visibility conditions. It was through this realization that we ventured to the U.S. Army Communications and Electronics Command for ideas on ways to deal with our threat. It was through a sub-organization within this command, Night Vision Labs, that we realized the possibilities of modifying thermal imagery and infrared technology to detecting wildlife on airports.

THE EFFECT OF INTENSE LIGHT ON BIRD BEHAVIOR AND PHYSIOLOGY

It has been known for centuries that light (photoperiod) is possibly the major environmental stimuli affecting bird behavior and physiology. The length of the light period stimulates the breeding cycle, migration, fat deposition, and molt in most species of birds. Therefore, it is only natural that one would think of using light as a means of bird control. In fact, light has already been used as a bird control; flood-light traps have been used to trap blackbirds (Meanley 1971); Meanley states that 2000-W search lights have been used to alleviate depredation by ducks in rice fields. Pulsing light is already used on aircraft, aircraft hangers and high towers as a means of detourinq birds (Schaefer, 1968). With some positive results already obtained with light as a bird control, the next step is to see if a better light source (the laser) might not have a greater effect. The laser is basically an intense and coherent light with extreme directivity and, thus, might have greater influence on a bird’s behavioral and physiological responses.

Report on Recent Large Bird Ingestions into Transport Turbofan Engines

Today I am going to give you a report on recent bird ingestion events into transport category turbofan engine in commercial service. We are still having these events. We may not ever completely eliminate all such events, but our purpose for meeting is to put all our resources to work to try. The events that I am going to report on today represent some of the more significant events over the last couple of years. The events are significant because of the potential for jeopardizing the safety of the aircraft involved and the aircraft occupants. The events I am going to discuss all involve encounters with large birds. Each situation reflects a bird control issue or event that resulted in a high workload for the flight crew because something out of the ordinary happened that they had to respond to. Some of the situations involve areas outside the US or Canada but serve as a lesson because that the same situation can happen here.

TESTS OF BIRD DAMAGE CONTROL MEASURES IN SUDAN, 1975

The Red-billed Quelea (Quelga quelaa), because of its widespread destruction of grain crops throughout its range in Africa, is one of the most studied and written about granivorous bird species. Less publicized are more local bird pests in Africa which may be equally Important. The Village Weaver, (Ploceus cucullatus), for example, is a pest in many countries, while some other Ploecids with limited destructive habits create local problems. Significant crop losses also occur where there are large populations of Golden Sparrows (Passer luteus), House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), Red Bishops (Euplectes oryx), Doves (Streptopelia spp.), Glossy Starlings (Lamprotornis chalybaeus), Parakeets (Psittacula spp.), and some waterfowl (Mackworth-Praed and Grant, 1952; Pans Manual No. 3, 1974; Park, 1974). Crop losses from local bird pests were reported in early February 1975 to the Sudan Plant Protection Bird Control Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture. A mechanized farm scheme in Khartoum North had large concentrations of Red Bishops roosting in maize and feeding on an early-maturing wheat variety (Mexicana). Small flocks of Golden Sparrows and House Sparrows also were present. Bird damage was clearly visible, especially at the corners and along the edges of the ripening wheatfields. Ground spraying with Queletox (60% a.1. Fenthion) on roosts of the Golden and House Sparrows was conducted along hedge rows of acacia (Acacia mellifera) located at the north end of the farm. Although the spray killed large numbers of roosting birds, damage con- tinued as the wheat matured. Pilot field trials were thus organized to test the effectiveness of other crop protection techniques. Because birds fed throughout many blocks of wheat which matured at different periods, it was felt that several different experiments could be conducted without Interfering with each other. The control techniques Included an acoustical repellent, a chemical repellent, a chemical frightening agent, and a trap. The experiments, conducted from February 7 through February 23, 1975, were not designed as an integrated control operation.

AN OVERVIEW OF DEPREDATING BIRD DAMAGE CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA

To many people, California is synonomous with Disneyland, freeways, Los Angeles smog, Yosemite, the California missions, or for you bird aficionados, the California Condor. But do you think about California when you eat strawberry shortcake? You should -- California leads the nation in strawberry production. How about artichokes? California produces over 98% of the artichokes raised in the United States. Dates? California produces over 99% of the dates in the United States. Yes, California is all of these, and it is much more. California may well be the most diverse state in the United States. Within its 100.2 million acres, California has the lowest place in the U.S. in Death Valley and one of the highest mountains with Mt. Whitney. Because California is such a diverse state and has a wide variety of micro- climates, it supports a uniquely diverse agriculture. Agriculture uses only about 36 million acres of its total 100.2 million acres, and most of the cash return from crops is produced on 8,6 million acres that are irrigated. California produces about 250 crops and livestock commodities (excluding nursery crops) and provides the U.S. with about 25% of its table foods. California leads the nation in the production of 46 commercial crops and livestock commodities; its farmers and ranchers marketed $8.6 billion of crop and livestock products in 1975, and the state’s harvested farm production in 1975 set a new record at 51.1 million tons. HISTORY OF BIRD PROBLEMS Records such as this are not achieved without some risk. Crops growing in Cali- fornia have always had competition from many types of vertebrate pests. The wide variety of crops grown in California and the varied climates and situations in which they are grown has resulted in many different species of birds damaging crops. Birds have compet- ed with man for his crops since the dawn of agriculture. McAtee (1932) cited examples of bird damage that occurred in a wide variety of crops in California during the early 1900s. During the 1920s, many requests for Information and relief from damage caused by a wide variety of birds, culminated in the assignment, in May 1929, of two biologists, S. E. Piper and Johnson Neff, of the former U.S. Bio- logical Survey, to initiate field studies in California. In cooperation with the Cali- fornia Department of Food and Agriculture and County Agricultural Commissioners, the study was to determine the problems and devise control procedures relative to bird depredations. Piper and Neff found such damage as Horned Larks pulling sprouting crops, House Finches disbudding deciduous fruit trees and devouring mature fruit. Blackbirds were a problem in the rice crop. Early controls were varied and, for the most part, lacked effectiveness. Flagging of fields was common to deter Horned Larks. Windmill devices were tried to frighten birds. Shooting to kill birds was common; scarecrows were.used. The six-year study brought forth the basis of most of the depredating bird control techniques still in use in California. At the end of the study, these two biologists compiled a book called “Procedure and Methods in Controlling Birds Injurious to Crops in California.” This was and still is the “Bible” for bird damage control techniques used in California. The thorough investigations conducted by these biologists resulted in techniques that have remained valid in California for over 40 years.

BIRD DAMAGE TO TART CHERRIES IN MICHIGAN, 1972

Bird damage to commercial fruits has long been a problem in many coun- tries, but the true magnitude of the damage incurred is difficult to determine objectively. Often the opinions of fruit growers provide the only measure of importance. In 1972, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Michigan Department of Agriculture, and the Statistical Reporting Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture obtained quantitative information on bird damage to tart cherries (Prunus mahalob) in Michigan. The results of the survey are presented in this paper.

Bird Depredation

A survey of catfish producers by the United States Department of Agriculture, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) in 1996 indicated that the two primary sources of catfish losses in commercial operations were disease (45%) and wildlife (37%) (CEAH 1997a). A variety of avian and mammalian predators are amracred to aquaculture facilities in the United States (Parkhurs: er al. 1992) because ponds and open raceways provide a constant and readily accessible food supply for these animals. However, the mere presence of these predators arcund aquaculture faciliries does not necessarily mean that significant depredation problems are occurring. At catfish farms, three species or species groups of birds are primarily cited by catfish producers as causing most depredation problems (Wywialowski 1999). These include doublecrested cormorants, wading birds (herons and egrets), and American white pelicans, in order of importance to catfish producers (Wywialowski 1993). Although all of these species consume catfish, their biology, distribution, dietary preferences dictare the extent of depredation problems they cause and the approaches needed to alleviate their depredations. With the exception of total bird exclusion from ponds, there are no simple solutions for resolving all bird depredation problems in catfish aquaculture. Thus, in most cases, an integrated management approach to alleviating bird depredations must be considered.

HIGHLIGHTS OF BIRD CONTROL RESEARCH IN ENGLAND, FRANCE, HOLLAND, AND GERMANY

The purpose of this paper is to present a brief review of the research being conducted in England, France, Germany, and The Netherlands on problems caused by nuisance and depredating birds. Much of the information presented has been obtained through correspondence with collaborators. In the fall of 1962, I discussed depredating bird and bird-airport problems with research workers in these countries, and also attended the meeting of the International Union of Applied Ornithology held in Frankfurt/Main. In November 1963, I attended an international symposium about the bird-airport problem, held in Nice, France. This paper will draw attention to the current research which I think will interest American investigators, but will not report every aspect of the foreign investigations. Details appear in the publications that are listed.

METHIOCARB, A CHEMICAL BIRD REPELLENT: A REVIEW OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS ON CROPS

Since 1964, when the effectiveness of methiocarb for preventing pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) from damaging sprouting corn was proven in South Dakota, an aggressive program has been carried out by personnel of the Denver Wildlife Research Center and many cooperators to develop methiocarb as a broad spectrum avian repellent. The successful use of methiocarb for preventing damage caused by several species of birds to sprouting corn in several states and to sprouting soybeans in South America is reviewed. Recent results obtained from spraying methiocarb on ripening rice in California, ripening sorghum in Colorado and Oklahoma, cherries in Michigan, and grapes in New Hampshire are summarized.

Effects of addition of a bird repellent to fish diets on their growth and bioaccumulation

The effects of adding the nonlethal bird repellent methyl anthranilate (MA), at levels of 100 and 1000 mg/kg, to fish feed on the bioaccumulation and growth of juvenile (10 g) hybrid striped bass (Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis) and juvenile (1g) African cichlid fish Aulonocara jacobfreibergi were investigated under laboratory conditions. The bird repellent did not have any effect on the fish growth or survival over a period of 6 weeks. MA residues at low levels of 11.2 ± 2.6 mg/g were found in lipophilic tissues (liver) of MA-fed fish. Control fish, which had no MA added to their diet, had a much lower level of 0.6 ± 0.3 mg/g MA in their liver. Fish muscle was found to contain negligible MA residues, while the outer body surface mucus did not contain any MA. Following a 6-week depuration period, during which the previously MA-fed hybrid striped bass were fed a feed to which no MA was added, the levels of MA residues detected were reduced by one order of magnitude.

BIRD HAZARDS TO AIRCRAFT

When I spoke to the third Bird Control Seminar in 1966 on "Ecological Control of Bird Hazards to Aircraft", I reviewed what we had accomplished up to that time. I spoke about the extent of the problem, the bird species involved and the methods we used to make the airports less attractive to birds that created hazards to aircraft. I wish to discuss today our accomplishments since 1966. I have presented a number of papers on the topic including one with Dr. W. W. H. Gunn, in 1967 at a meeting in the United Kingdom, and others in the United States (1968 and 1970) and at the World Conference on Bird Hazards to Aircraft in Canada in 1969. There is no longer any question about the consequences of collision between birds and aircraft. Aircraft have not become less vulnerable either. Engines on the Boeing 747 have been changed as a result of damage caused by ingested birds. Figures crossing my desk daily show that while we are reducing the number of serious incidents and cutting down repair costs, we will continue to have bird strikes. Modification of the airport environment (Solman, 1966) has gone on continuously since 1963. The Department of Transport of Canada has spent more than 10 million dollars modifying major Canadian airports to reduce their attractiveness to birds. Modifications are still going on and will continue until bird attraction has been reduced to a minimum.

SELLING BIRD CONTROL

The remarks that I have prepared deal with direct contacts selling pest and bird control programs. I am going to limit my remarks to what I feel are the more important aspects of selling Bird Control. I think it is safe to say that one of the most difficult aspects of selling for most sales personnel is prospecting, that is, finding accounts to call on. Our sales personnel have to more or less come up with their own leads. They have to find out who to contact once they get there. I have found that the best prospect most of us have for selling Bird Control accounts are our present pest control accounts. Generally speaking, we try to main¬tain contact with our applicators in the field, who are in these accounts every day, asking them if there are any of their accounts that are having bird control problems. Another method of finding potential accounts, is driving around looking. It is more difficult to drive around and look for rat and/or roach problems, but generally speaking if a building or some type of business has a bird problem, it is fairly easy to locate. Another thing we can do is call on specific accounts. There are generally cer¬tain accounts that just by the manufacturing process do attract birds, for example: food plants, mills, beet plants, grain elevators, food processors, and so on. Other type operations which lend themselves to bird problems are industrial plants because of the super-structure (physical plant) that they have. Sub-stations and power plants are very attractive to birds. Some other situations that should be checked for bird problems are lumber yards and contractors' storage buildings. After deciding on a contact we get into what I call my basic four. There are four basic things that I try to impress upon our personnel to keep in mind when they go in to make a contact. The first one is the interview or actually making the contact so that you get an opportunity to have the interview, either calling for an appointment or making a "cold" call. The second one is closing for the survey. The third one is making the survey and preparing a proposal. The fourth and last one is the proposal presentation and closing of the sale. An additional item which would make a basic five is after you make the sale don't forget to follow up on the sale.

THE ROLE OF BIRD MANAGEMENT IN FIRE PROTECTION

Two years ago, Mike Fall and I showed you some ideas we had regarding mod¬ern architecture and bird problems. This year we've switched to considering bird hazards in older frame dwellings and on buildings where a fire hazard may be ap¬parent. During a class project some time ago, I was examining a nest of house sparrows and discovered that these birds incorporated cellulose cigarette filters into their nests. Filters were stripped of their paper wrapping and were apparently used by the sparrows as a substitute for or a supplement to fluffy air-born seeds and seed mat¬erials. The incidence of the cigarette filters varied. In the nests that I sampled the numbers varied anywhere from six up to two dozen filter remnants. We feel that the incidence will probably vary with the relative availability of discarded cigarette filter butts. We are concerned with the incidence of filters as an index to the possibility that the birds are picking up live cigarette butts, and this leads us to investigate some records of fires over the past three quarters of a century that were claimed to have been caused by birds.

BIRD DEPREDATION ON RICE AND OTHER GRAINS IN ARKANSAS

In Arkansas, blackbirds are responsible for appreciable damage to rice, grain sorghum, oats, wheat, rye, and corn. By far, the greatest damage is to rice. As is shown in the following table, the losses to rice producers amounted to an estimated $3,049,055 in 1968, the last year that a survey was made. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of this loss was to standing rice destroyed and to the cost of bird control measure in standing rice. The remaining losses ($2,140,320 ) are to seeding or to efforts to control bird depredations to new seeding, (see Table 1). Blackbird damage to grain sorghum and corn was mostly to standing grain; that to oats, wheat and rye, to seeding, although there is occasional damage to standing grain. Additional problems are caused by blackbirds in feed lots. The total losses to Arkansas agricultural producers due to blackbirds in 1968 was about $3,500,000. Bird damage in a specific locality and on specific crops seems to vary in intensity from year to year. However, surveys during the past ten years suggest a fairly consistent level of total damage state-wide. The damage in 1968-and I believe in 1969—was somewhat lighter than we have come to expect from past exper¬ience. (See table 2.) On a per acre basis the damage in 1968 showed a considerable decline when compared to previous years. A part of this decline is probably a temporary situation. Some of the decline in losses to rice and grain sorghum, however, are due to changes in varieties, such as development of bird-resistant milo, and to changes in cultural methods. Further appreciable reductions due to changes in these factors seem unlikely, (see table 3.) Since rice producers sustain the greatest losses to birds, they have generated the greatest demand for bird control programs. Three species are responsible for most of the damage to rice. They are the red-winged blackbird, common grackle and brown-headed cowbird. These birds have created problems for rice producers since the first successful rice crop was grown near Lonoke, Arkansas, in 1904.

SAMPLING OF CORN TO ASSESS BIRD DAMAGE: A Preliminary Review of a Comprehensive Study

"How large a sample is needed to survey the bird damage to corn in a county in Ohio or New Jersey or South Dakota?" Like those in the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the U.S.D.A. who have been faced with a question of this sort we found only meager information on which to base an answer, whether the problem related to a county in Ohio or to one in New Jersey, or elsewhere. Many sampling methods and rates of sampling did yield reliable estimates but the judgment was often intuitive or based on the reasonableness of the resulting data. Later, when planning the next study or survey, little additional information was available on whether 40 samples of 5 ears each or 5 samples of 200 ears should be examined, i.e., examination of a large number of small samples or a small number of large samples. What information is needed to make a reliable decision? Those of us involved with the Agricultural Experiment Station regional project concerned with the problems of bird damage to crops, known as NE-49, thought we might supply an ans¬wer if we had a corn field in which all the damage was measured. If all the damage were known, we could then sample this field in various ways and see how the estimates from these samplings compared to the actual damage and pin-point the best and most accurate sampling procedure. Eventually the investigators in four states became involved in this work1 and instead of one field we were able to broaden the geographical base by examining all the corn ears in 2 half-acre sections of fields in each state, 8 sections in all. When the corn had matured well past the dough stage, damage on each corn ear was assessed, without removing the ear from the stalk, by visually estimating the percent of the kernel surface which had been destroyed and rating it in one of 5 damage categories. Measurements (by row-centimeters) of the rows of kernels pecked by birds also were made on selected ears representing all categories and all parts of each field section. These measurements provided conversion factors that, when fed into a computer, were applied to the more than 72,000 visually assessed ears. The machine now had in its memory and could supply on demand a map showing each ear, its location and the intensity of the damage.