Modify vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to mammals

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    70%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to wildlife. Both studies were in Norway.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Survival (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in Norway found that clearing vegetation from alongside railways reduced moose-train collisions.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A before-and-after study, site comparison study in 1980–1988 along a railway through boreal forest in Nord-Trøndelag County, Norway (Jaren et al. 1991) found that vegetation removal alongside the railway reduced moose Alces alces deaths. Fewer moose were killed by trains after vegetation clearance (22 moose) than before (87 moose). Numbers also fell along uncleared sections but to a lesser extent with 27 killed after vegetation was cleared in experimental sections compared to 47 before. Vegetation clearance was estimated to be cost effective if more than 0.28 moose/km/year were expected to be killed in absence of clearance. Moose deaths were recorded along a 61-km section of railway in April–November of 1980–1988. In 1984, two sections with the highest casualties (totalling 22 km), had all bushes and trees removed from 20 m either side of the railway and all those <4 m high removed from a further 10 m width. Additional vegetation was removed at bends and on areas of browse attractive to moose. In 1986, cleared areas were sprayed with herbicide (Roundup) to reduce vegetation re-growth.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A site comparison study in 1985–2003 along a railway through forest in Hedmark County, Norway (Andreassen et al. 2005) found that vegetation clearance alongside the railway reduced moose Alces alces collisions with trains. Fewer moose were killed after clearance (1.3/km/year) than before (2.6/km/year). Providing feeding stations away from the railway during winter in addition to clearing vegetation alongside the railway did not significantly further reduce collisions (5% reduction) compared to clearing vegetation alone. Before clearance, there were 2.5 times more moose killed/km/year within treatment sections compared to comparison sections. Numbers killed/km in treatment sections were fairly constant but casualties tended to increase in comparison sections over the study period (see paper for details). Eight forest clearings (1–14 km long) were established from 1990 to 2002 along a 100-km-long railway section. Vegetation >30 cm high was cut each year from alongside the railway. Sections without treatments were monitored as comparison sites (49 km). Moose-train collisions were recorded from July 1985–April 2003.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

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 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