Study

Field trial results of the use of a scent fence (Duftzaun®) to prevent large mammal losses due to traffic accidents, Rhein-Sieg district, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

  • Published source details Lutz W. (1994) Ergebnisse der Anwendung eines sogenannten Duftzaunes zur Vermeidung von Wildverlusten durch den Straßenverkehr nach Gehege-und Freilandorientierungen. Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft, 40, 91-108

Summary

In some European countries, the high number of game animal losses due to collision with road traffic has become of concern. In 1991, a scent fence, Duftzaun®, entered the German market. This study assessed the effectiveness of Duftzaun® both through behavioural observations in a controlled environment (for a summary see: http://www.conservationevidence.com/ViewEntry.asp?ID=1459), and through comparison of the number of game animals lost in the year Duftzaun® was trialled with those of previous years when no traffic accident remedial measures were in place (summarised here).

Study site: In November 1992, a Duftzaun® “scent fence” was set up along a 2.8 km stretch of the K55, a county road that runs through a forested area and crosses traditional deer passes in the Rhein-Sieg district, midwestern Germany.

Materials: The base materials of Duftzaun® consist of “scent foam”, the carrier substance of which is made up of rigid polyurethane foam, and “scent concentrate”. The product comes with the scent mixture integrated into the foam matrix; however, after 4 weeks, and then quarter-annually, scent concentrate needs to be re-applied by injecting it into the polyurethane foam. Chemical analysis of the scent concentrate, undertaken by the research institute of food chemistry in Aachen, revealed the following composition: 60.7% butyric acid, 16% caproic acid, 7.8% oleic acid, 3.6% caprylic acid, and six other fatty acids.

Monitoring: Traffic accidents involving game animals were recorded for 3 years following setting up of the scent fence, and compared to the records of game-traffic accidents of the two previous years (1991-92) and during 1 year after the end of the trials (1996).

Five species of large mammal were recorded as killed in traffic accidents over the study period (wild boar Sus scrofa, red deer Cervus elaphus, roe deer Capreolus capreolus, red fox Vulpes vulpes and badger Meles meles). The number of these mammals killed in accidents during the years Duftzaun® was set up along the K55 did not statistically differ from that of the two years prior to, or the year after, the intervention. Results are summarised in Table 1 (kindly provided by the author; not presented in the original paper).

 

Tables 1a, b and c. Road accidents involving game along the K55.

a. Prior to trial
Year
Species
Total
 
Wild boar
3
1991
Roe deer
11
 
Red fox
1
Total 1991
 
15
     
 
Wild boar
1
 
Roe deer
10
1992
Red fox
1
 
Red deer
1
 
Badger
1
Total 1992
 
14
 
b. Years of trial
Year
Species
Total
 
Wild boar
3
1993
Roe deer
19
 
Red fox
1
 
Red deer
1
Total 1993
 
24
     
 
Wild boar
3
1994
Roe deer
12
 
Red fox
2
 
Unknown
1
Total 1994
 
18
     
1995
Wild boar
3
 
Roe deer
14
 
Red fox
3
Total 1995
 
20
 
c. Year after trial
Year
Species
Total
     
1996
Wild boar
1
 
Roe deer
7
 
Red deer
1
Total 1996
 
9

 

Note: If using or referring to this published study, please quote the original paper. This German language paper, translated and summarised for Conservation Evidence, has a basic English and French abstract, and is available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/7652231480170137/fulltext.pdf

 

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust