Action: Scare birds from fish farms
- One before-and-after study from Israel found that the population of pygmy cormorants in the area increased after birds were scared away from fish farms, possibly due to lower persecution.
- One of two studies that examined fish stocks found that fewer fish were taken from a farm when heron distress calls were played. The other study, a literature review, found no evidence for the effects of scaring birds on fish stocks.
- Two replicated studies from Belgium and Australia found that using foot patrols to disturb birds from fish farms did not reduce the number of birds present or fish consumption.
- Ten of eleven studies from across the world, three controlled, found evidence that playing distress calls or using other acoustic deterrents (some with flashes of light) reduced the number of birds at fish farms, or changed bird behaviours. One of these involved underwater broadcasting. One study found effects were only temporary and five found that birds became habituated to noises. Four studies, one replicated and controlled, two before-and-after, found that acoustic deterrents were not effective in scaring birds.
- Five of seven studies, one controlled, found evidence that visual deterrents (including inflatable ‘Scarey Man’ scarecrows) reduced the number of birds at fish farms. Three found evidence for habituation to deterrents and three studies found no evidence that visual deterrents were effective.
- Two studies examined other deterrents, finding that trained raptors were effective but that the effects of helicopters and ultra-light aircraft were either inconclusive or very temporary.
Predation by birds at aquaculture facilities (e.g. fish ponds, raceways and shellfish farms) can cause significant commercial loss (Draulans 1987). With increasing protective wildlife legislation, demand for non-lethal, environmentally safe methods of bird exclusion and scaring have increased. Most fish farmers now rely primarily on non-lethal techniques to accomplish control (i.e. to reduce abundance or exclude fish-eating birds in and around the vicinity of fish farms). Control efforts may be optimized by compiling evidence relating to deterrent or exclusion device efficacy, taking into account costs, practicality of use and the possibility of developing integrated strategies (i.e. combining more than one deterrent method). Avian deterrents can be categorised as auditory, visual, chemical, exclusion, habitat modification and lethal (Bishop et al. 2003). Lethal deterrents are not considered here (except where, very rarely, used as part of an integrated approach).
Bishop, J., McKay, H., Parrott, D. & Allan, J. (2003) Review of international research literature regarding the effectiveness of auditory bird scaring techniques and potential alternatives. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.
Draulans, D. (1987) The effectiveness of attempts to reduce predation by fish-eating birds: a review. Biological Conservation, 41, 219–232.
Supporting evidence from individual studies
A trial at a fish pond in western Germany in 1976 (Behlert 1977) found that broadcasting the flight call of a grey heron Ardea cinerea during daylight caused herons standing near the pond to take off and deterred flying herons from landing. However, at dawn trials, the majority (ten of 12) of herons were not deterred from landing. Preliminary trials had revealed that distress calls were more effective at scaring herons than heron alarm calls, combined heron and other bird alarm calls or a white-tailed sea eagle Haliaeetus albicilla call.
A controlled trial in northern Israel in September and October 1978 (Spanier 1980) found that 88% (1,122 of 1,265) of black-crowned night-herons Nycticorax nycticorax feeding at fishpond were scared off when heron distress calls (both adult and juvenile) were played on 12 observation nights. Over the study period there was no apparent habituation to the distress calls, in contrast to when recordings of a gas gun were used, when herons became habituated after only one night (60% of birds remained at ponds after 12 nights). Distress calls also reduced the number of herons perched in nearby trees by approximately 50% and, despite less than 5% of scared herons leaving the area, the scaring significantly reduced fish losses over the study period.
A replicated trial in the winter of 1962-3 in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany (Ueckermann et al. 1981), tested the effectiveness of visual and acoustic deterrents on deterring grey herons Ardea cinerea from fish ponds and found that a ‘Flash-Harry’ (wind-powered rotating orange cross on a pole) had no effect, whilst birds quickly became used to streamer bands, broadcasting of bird distress/alarm calls and scarecrows. Shooting guns close to birds proved impractical. This study also investigated the use of netting on ponds, discussed in ‘Use netting to reduce fish loss to birds’.
A replicated study from Limburg, Belgium, over 49 nights in 1982-3 (Draulans & Van Vessem 1985), found that using foot patrols to disturb grey herons Ardea cinerea from 12 fish ponds did not necessarily reduce fish consumption. Low frequency disturbance (e.g. 3-5 farmer visits/night) caused a significant decrease in heron numbers but became less effective as heron numbers increased. Reduced numbers did not necessarily reduce fish consumption, as maximum predation occurred soon after bird arrival and disturbance mostly discouraged only well-fed birds from returning.
A 1987 literature review (Draulans 1987) found that there was little evidence that scaring devices at fish farms succeeded in increasing fish stocks/reducing losses. Devices could be classified as visual (scarecrows, flags, reflectors, lights, model etc), acoustic (gun shots, firecrackers and gas cannons) or biological (recordings of distress calls etc). Black-crowned night herons Nycticorax nycticorax were deterred by distress calls but only close to the speaker and no data are presented to support any positive effects on fish stocks. The use of dead birds, model predators and dogs is reported by several authors as almost completely ineffectual. Trained raptors seemed effective but expensive.
A series of experiments in Flevoland, the Netherlands, in 1981-3 (Moerbeek et al. 1987) found that pistol-fired flash cartridges (detonation after a light flash, or a flash only) appeared the most effective method of deterring great cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo from ponds and scared most birds away (although some alighted on nearby ponds). Gas cannons (producing a bang at regular or irregular intervals) had little effect as birds soon habituated to the noise; an overflying helicopter scared cormorants from ponds but they soon returned (on the day following the 2-day trial large numbers were present). An ultra-light aircraft proved inconclusive.
A before-and-after trial at 25 fish ponds in a catfish farm over 45 days in February and March 1992 in the Mississippi delta region, USA (Stickley & King 1995), found that using a ‘Scarey Man’ resulted in a rapid decrease in double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus numbers (320 birds/patrol before treatment vs. 8/patrol for the first seven days after erection and 16/patrol for the whole 46 day experiment). Clothing the devices to resemble marksmen, replacing them with actual marksmen and using propane gas exploders (at up to six Scarey Man positions for 23 days) did not further reduce cormorant numbers.
A 1995 review assessed effectiveness of techniques used to prevent double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus predation at aquaculture facilities in the Mississippi delta region, USA (Mott & Boyd 1995), and concluded that there was little good evidence for what worked and what did not. Pyrotechnics, human effigies, gas cannons, and live ammunition have been used with varying degrees of success in frightening cormorants, but the authors warn that birds can become habituated to them.
A replicated trial in New South Wales, Australia (Rowland 1995), found that hanging gill nets in fish ponds and using harassment patrols to deter cormorants Phalacrocorax spp. from fish farms was not effective. This study is discussed in ‘Use in-water devices to reduce fish loss from ponds’.
A replicated, controlled, paired sites study in winter-spring 1991 at four pairs of catfish farms in the Mississippi delta region, USA (Stickley et al. 1995), found a 71-99% reduction in double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus numbers following the deployment of six ‘Scarey Man’ devices for 10-19 days. However, signs of habituation became apparent (reduced flush success) within the trial period at three sites.
A before-and-study in May-June 1993 at a trout-rearing farm in Colorado, USA (Andelt & Hopper 1996), found a 48% reduction in black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax numbers following the broadcasting heron alarm/distress calls for 11 days (pre-treatment average 77 birds; treatment 40; post-treatment 69). However, numbers and the proportion remaining increased from nights over the treatment phase, indicating habituation. Great blue heron Ardea herodias numbers were unaffected (pre-treatment 15; treatment 13; post-treatment 16. Herons were counted during six pre-treatment (12-13 to 18-19 May 1993), five treatment (21-22 May to 31 May-1 June 1993), and five post-treatment (1-2 to 11-12 June 1993) nights. Calls were broadcast through each night of the 11 day treatment period: 15-sec sequences of night heron calls followed by 14 min without calls, then a similar sequence of great blue heron calls.
A series of before-and-after trials in trout farms in Colorado, USA, in 1990-2 (Andelt et al. 1997), found that pyrotechnics were effective at decreasing the number of black-crowned night-herons Nycticorax nycticorax and great blue herons Ardea herodia at farms. Firing pyrotechnics for 14 consecutive nights was more successful than doing so for seven nights. Frightening every fifth night was unsuccessful. Rotating lights did not reduce the number of attempted or successful fish captures. ‘Scarey Man’ reduced heron numbers during the first four nights but numbers of both species subsequently increased substantially to night 18, indicating habituation.
A controlled, replicated before-and-after experiment in January-April and October 1998, and March 1999, in Argyll, Scotland (Ross et al. 2001), found that an underwater playback system (UPS) was effective in deterring common eider Somateria mollissima from feeding on mussels Mytilus edulis at farms on two sea lochs (47-80% fewer birds feeding after use of the UPS; 2-37 birds feeding before use). Underwater recordings of an approaching ‘scare boat’ (scaring by boat being a conventional deterrent method) were played via an underwater loudspeaker, and also a ‘control’ i.e. playback of an unassociated sound. Average return time of eiders after chasing by boat also increased significantly, suggesting that effectiveness was strengthened by UPS.
Replicated ex situ experiments in Ohio, USA (Dolbeer et al. 2002), found that µ10mW, 633nm laser did not repel brown-headed cowbirds Molothrus ater or European starlings Sturnus vulgaris from a perch over three trials with stationary and moving laser beams treating a randomly selected perch. Effectiveness of a 68mW, 650nm laser in dispersing starlings and rock doves Columba livia from perches, and Canada geese Branta canadensis and mallard Anas platyrhynchos from grass plots was also tested. Starlings did not disperse when targeted with the beam, doves dispersed only in the first 5 min of six 80 min treatment periods. An average, 96% of individual geese in six groups of four birds, dispersed from laser-treated plots during 20-min periods (23 replicates). Mallard dispersed (average 57% of individuals) during 20-min treatment periods, but habituated to the beam after about 20 min.
A before-and-after study in northern Israel (Nemtzov 2005) found that pygmy cormorants Phalacrocorax pygmeus relocated away from colonies near fish farms during 1999-2002, following the use of gas cannons and pyrotechnics to scare birds before the start of nesting in winters between 1999-2000 and 2002-3. Between 1998 and 2004, the overall number of cormorant nests in the area increased from 60 to approximately 110 (reaching a high of approximately 155 in 2001), possibly due to greater reproductive success with lower levels of persecution following relocation.
At four sites around Lake Como, Italy, a controlled replicated experiment (Gagliardi et al. 2006) found that none of three deterrents (gas cannon detonations, fire crackers and shooting near birds) were effective or practical in deterring great crested grebes Podiceps cristatus from areas with commercially important common bleak Alburnus alburnus shoals. Grebe behavioural response was recorded during 3-h observation periods when deterrents were or were not, in use. Cannons had little effect. Crackers and shooting caused significant behavioural changes (less time feeding, resting and preening, and more time swimming) compared to control periods, but grebe numbers were only temporarily reduced in the vicinity.
- Behlert R. (1977) Phonoakustische Methode zur Vergrämung von Graureihern (Ardea cinerea) in Fischzuchtanlagen (Acoustic methods to deter grey herons (Ardea cinerea) from fishfarms). Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft, 23, 144-152
- Spanier E. (1980) The use of distress calls to repel night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) from fish ponds. Journal of Applied Ecology, 17, 287-294
- Ueckermann E., Spittler H. & Graumann F. (1981) Technical measures to protect fish ponds and fish farms against the heron Ardea cinerea. Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft, 27, 271-282
- Draulans D. & Van Vessem J. (1985) The effect of disturbance on nocturnal abundance and behaviour of grey herons (Ardea cinerea) at a fish-farm in winter. Journal of Applied Ecology, 22, 19-27
- Draulans D. (1987) The effectiveness of attempts to reduce predation by fish-eating birds: a review. Biological Conservation, 41, 219-232
- Moerbeek D.J., van Dobben W.H., Osieck E.R., Boere G.C. & de Jong C.M.B. (1987) Cormorant damage prevention at a fish farm in the Netherlands. Biological Conservation, 39, 23-38
- Stickley A.R. Jr. & King J.O. (1995) Long-term trial of an inflatable effigy scare device or repelling cormorants from catfish ponds. Proceedings of the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference, 6, 89-92
- Mott D.F. & Boyd F.L. (1995) A review of techniques for preventing cormorant depredations at aquaculture facilities in the southeastern United States. Colonial Waterbirds, 176-180
- Rowland S.J. (1995) Predation of Bidyanus bidyanus (Teraponidae) in ponds by cormorants. The Progressive Fish-Culturist, 57, 248-249
- Stickley A.R. Jr., Mott D.F. & King J.O. (1995) Short-term effects of an inflatable effigy on cormorants at catfish farms. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 23, 73-77
- Andelt W.F. & Hopper S.N. (1996) Effectiveness of alarm-distress calls for frightening herons from a fish rearing facility. The Progressive Fish-Culturist, 58, 258-262
- Andelt W.F., Woolley T.P. & Hopper S.N. (1997) Effectiveness of barriers, pyrotechnics, flashing lights, and Scarey ManÂ® for deterring heron predation on fish. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25, 686-694
- Ross B.P., Lien J. & Furness R.W. (2001) Use of underwater playback to reduce the impact of eiders on mussel farms. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 58, 517-524
- Dolbeer R., Bernhardt G. & Blackwell B. (2002) Lasers as nonlethal avian repellents. Journal of Wildlife Management, 66, 250-258
- Nemtzov S.C. (2005) Relocation of pygmy cormorants Phalacrocorax pygmeus using scare tactics to reduce conflict with fish farmers in the Bet She'an Valley, Israel. Conservation Evidence, 2, 3-5
- Gagliardi A., Martinoli A., Preatoni D., Wauters L.A. & Tosi G. (2006) Behavioral responses of wintering great crested grebes to dissuasion experiments: implications for management. Waterbirds, 29, 105-114