Transportation Research Part D 38 (2015) 6–14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd

Effectiveness of an acoustic wildlife warning device using
natural calls to reduce the risk of train collisions with animals
Joanna Babińska-Werka, Dagny Krauze-Gryz ⇑, Michał Wasilewski, Karolina Jasińska
Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW, Department of Forest Zoology and Wildlife Management, Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Polanda r t i c l e

i n f oKeywords:
Railway lines
Animal–vehicle collisions
Acoustic warning device
Roe deera b s t r a c t
The subject of study was the effectiveness of the UOZ-1 device – which emits the natural
warning calls of animals – in protecting animals living near railway tracks. We performed
the investigations in central Poland between 2008 and 2012 at two study sites along the E
20 line where the UOZ-1 devices had been installed. We used digital cameras to register
animal activity 24 h a day, resulting in 2262 mammal observations (involving 2956 individuals). In 76% of the observations, no rail transport was observed. When a train did
approach and acoustic signals were emitted, most of the wild mammals escaped (93–85% of cases, depending on the species). Regarding the most numerous species, the roe
deer, the effectiveness of the device was tested by comparing the animals’ reactions whena train approached with the device switched on or off. With sound signals emitted, animals
escaped more often (84% vs. 68%), and their reaction to an oncoming train was 20 s faster.
We found no proof that animals habituated to the warning signals because the proportionof roe deer that showed no reaction was similar in the ﬁrst and last year of the study. There
was also no difference between the reaction time to an oncoming train (on average 35 s).
The results of this research indicate that the UOZ-1 is more effective in reducing the risk of
train–animal collision, by prompting animals to leave the railway track faster and withgreater frequency, than only the sound of an oncoming train.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
As Poland’s railway lines are modernised, it is required to assure safety of passengers but also to maintain the effect of railtransport on the environment as reduced as possible. Numerous studies addressed the negative inﬂuence of technical infrastructure on the populations of different groups of vertebrates and on their environments in relation to new road developments (review in Spellerberg, 2002; review in Forman et al., 2003; Steiner et al., 2014). Research on possible collisions
between trains and wildlife focussed mainly on medium or large mammals (Wasilewski et al., 2009; Kušta et al., 2011;
Jasińska et al., 2014, review in: Steiner et al., 2014), including the Sika deer Cervus nippon (Ando, 2003) and the moose
Alces alces (Modafferi, 1991; Jaren et al., 1991; Andersen et al., 1991; Child et al., 1991; Gundersen et al., 1998).
Several technical devices aiming to deter animals from roads, railway lines, airports or cultivated ﬁelds have been
invented. Most of these devices make sounds, including, for example, ultrasonic whistles that emit soundwaves at frequencies above 20 kHz. However, tests of these devices on animals such as the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Curtis
et al., 1995; Belant et al., 1998), black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus) (Romin and Dalton, 1992; Putman, 1997), dingo⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +48 22 59 38 145.
E-mail addresses: joanna_werka@sggw.pl (J. Babińska-Werka),(M. Wasilewski), sep.wedrowny@gmail.com (K. Jasińska).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.04.021
1361-9209/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

dagny.krauze@wl.sggw.pl(D.

Krauze-Gryz),

michal_wasilewski@sggw.pl

J. Babińska-Werka et al. / Transportation Research Part D 38 (2015) 6–14

7

(Canis lupus dingo) (Edgar et al., 2007) and birds (Woronecki, 1988) have indicated that they are ineffective. There are otherdevices that produce noise, such as various types of rattles, klaxons and sirens, whistles, recordings of human voices, andexplosions or ﬁred shots (Woronecki, 1988; Koehler et al., 1990; Ujvári et al., 2004). They might be effective, but have only
produced the desired effect over very short periods (Woronecki, 1988; Koehler et al., 1990; Ujvári et al., 2004). Indeed, irrespective of type, frequency or intensity of the emitted sound, experiments have usually showed a steady process of habituation (Bomford and O’Brien, 1990). Under these circumstances, devices that use natural calls and other sounds made byanimals might be the most promising. However, little research on this topic has been conducted (Koehler et al., 1990;
Gilsdorf et al., 2002).
A device that ﬁlls this gap is the UOZ-1 (in which UOZ stands for urza˛ dzenie ochrony zwierza˛ t, meaning ‘‘animal protection
device’’). It is produced in Poland by NEEL Ltd. (www.neel.com.pl access on 10.10.14). The assumption is that natural warning
calls used in UOZ-1 can modify the behaviour of wild animals by hastening their escape from rail track in advance of an
oncoming train. Emitted sound signals are supposed to produce natural reactions in animals because they are translated asa warning of growing danger and a direct threat to life. The sound sequence in the UOZ-1 combines several natural alarm calls
known to animals. These are: the warning call of the jay Garrulus glandarius, the sound made by a frightened brown hare Lepus
europaeus, the growling and barking of the dog Canis familiaris, the howl of the wolf Canis lupus, the squeal of the wild boar Sus
scrofa, and the warning voice of roe deer Capreolus capreolus. In natural conditions, these animal sounds would usually be
associated with a growing threat to animals, aggression within a species, predatory behaviour, or even death (Kossak, 2007).
The UOZ-1 device is cylinder-shaped, 110 cm high and 30 cm wide in diameter (Fig. 1). It is prepared to work in a range oftemperatures from 40 to +55 °C. They are installed in groups every 70 m, each one on the alternate side of the railway
tracks and permanently mounted on concrete foundations. This distance is assumed to be a minimal effective operational
range of a single UOZ-1 device; hence, it ensures a continuous protected area. The complete animal protection system consists of UOZ-1 devices installed adjacent to the rail tracks and interoperating with UOZ-MDS control modules, installed incontainers of the automatic block signal system or in specialised KUOZ containers. The sound emission is activated by signals
received from an automatic railway system; just before (usually 60 s, time is set in the range of 30 s to 3 min) the arrival of a
train at a given location, the device switches on and emits a sequence of sounds, switching off again as a train passes. Poweris provided to the device via cables from the KUOZ container or automatic block signal system container, with a 230 V 50 Hz
separated voltage. The maximum amount of power drawn by a single UOZ-1 device is approximately 40 VA, which is thehighest setting of signals emitted. The actual average amount of power drawn while in standby mode is approximately
25 VA (www.neel.com.pl, access on 10.10.14). An average installation cost of one device (in Poland) is from 30,000 to
50,000 PLN (approximately 8000–14,000 USD), including projects, equipment and installation. The more devices are
installed in one place the lower unit cost. The maintenance cost includes service check twice a year, two technicians can service up to 30 devices in one day (Stolarski M., pers. inf.).
The aim of this study was to determine the reactions of mammals to sound signals emitted by the UOZ-1 device before
the passing of a train, and thus characterise its effectiveness by comparing the frequency and speed of different reaction to an
approaching train with the UOZ-1 devices switched on and off. Our study also focused on animal reactions in successive
years to determine whether animals would begin to react differently to the emitted signals over time, suggesting that they
have become accustomed to the acoustic stimuli.
Study area
We performed the research in central Poland along a modernised part of the E 20 line between Mińsk Mazowiecki andSiedlce (ca. 50 km). The track here runs through a ﬁeld-forest mosaic. Approximately half of the distance (24.4 km) was surrounded by a mosaic of the following habitat types: small and fragmentary patches of woodland (42%), open areas (mostly

Fig. 1. Installation of UOZ-1 protective devices along the railway line.

8

J. Babińska-Werka et al. / Transportation Research Part D 38 (2015) 6–14

cultivated ﬁelds, 35%), shrubs (15%), meadows (4%) and dispersed buildings (5%). The other half was adjacent to a rather densely built up area (in total, the immediate vicinity of the line included 11 small localities inhabited by approx. 20,000 people
in total), roads and railway stations. Trains run almost all day with a break between the hours 0000–0400. On average, there
was a train every 16 min, with freight trains travelling approximately 70 km/h every 60 min, passenger trains (at c.
100 km/h) every half-hour, and express trains (at c. 120 km/h) every 85 min (Polskie Koleje Państwowe, 2014).
The acoustic UOZ-1 animal protection devices were installed in 2005 at 10 locations along the line under study. The locations had been indicated in the environmental decision issued for the investment. Overall, approximately 3.7 km of line were
safeguarded by installing 62 UOZ-1 devices (Fig. 1).
The study area was characterised by the presence of ungulates – moose, red deer Cervus elaphus, roe deer and wild boar,
as well as medium-sized mammal species such as brown hare, fox Vulpes vulpes, badger Meles meles, raccoon-dog Nyctereutes
procyonoides, martens Martes spp. and otter Lutra lutra. Both forests and ﬁelds were also frequented by stray dogs and cats
Felis silvestris catus (Nadleśnictwo Mińsk Mazowiecki, 2014; Nadleśnictwo Siedlce, 2014).
Methods
On the basis of snow tracking, we selected two (of ten) stretches on the line E20 that were safeguarded by UOZ-1 devices,where we registered the most numerous animal tracks crossing the railway tracks. Our assumption was that this would
result in a sufﬁcient number of observations during the study period. The study sites were approximately 20 km fromone another (Rudka 52°90 N, 21°500 E and Stawy Broszkowskie 52°100 N, 22°50 E). Both were surrounded by forest on both sidesof the railway track, and the nearest buildings were approximately 300 m away, in the case of Rudka, and 1000 m away at
Stawy Boszkowskie. There were ﬁsh ponds approximately 50–500 m from the line at the Stawy Broszkowskie site (Fig. 2).
Each of the studied stretches of line was ﬁtted with 4 UOZ-1 devices distributed along both sides of the track and separated by distances of 70 m (Fig. 3). In total, approximately 350 m of a line were safeguarded. We monitored the presence ofanimals by or on the lines all day, throughout the year, using 2 sets of IQEye 755 series digital cameras of 5 megapixel resolution equipped with motion-sensors. Each set comprised two cameras arranged opposite one another, 230 m apart; thecameras, with infra-red illuminators, were mounted on power-line poles (Fig. 3). The cameras were able to observe the entire
230 m length of rail line separating them. Additionally, they could observe up to 100 m past the other camera during the day
and approximately 20 m past the other camera at night. Additionally, it was possible to monitor the immediate vicinity of
the rail line up to approximately 15 m from the tracks on both sides. Thus, cameras monitored longer stretches of line
(approximately 350 m) from dawn to dusk, and approximately 230 m at night, indicating that the length of a monitored
stretch was 230–350 m. Recorded images with the emitted sounds from the UOZ-1 were registered using the Milestone
XProtect Viewer program. At both locations, we collected data between August 2008 and November 2012. While the
UOZ-1devices were active for the entire observation period at the Broszkowskie Ponds (52 consecutive months), the cameras
at Rudka were switched off between April 2011 and October 2012 so that the reactions of animals when the devices were
switched off (altogether 19 months) and on (33 months) could be compared.
We noted all cases of animals present on or near the railway line that were recorded. Animals were not marked. Each
recorded sighting was counted as the presence of a single specimen or a group of animals of a given species. In relation
to the location of animals prior to a train passing, we differentiated between: 1 escape from the track to the line’s immediatesurroundings, i.e., to the forest where animals were able to shelter; 2 escape across the track, crossing the line to shelter inforest on the other side, and 3 no reaction – continued feeding, a break in feeding activity or a raising of the head. We calculated the amounts of the different reactions displayed by the observed animal species for which we collected a sufﬁcientnumber of observations as a train approached and the UOZ-1 device came into operation. Additionally, in relation to roe deeras the most abundant species, we calculated how fast these animals escaped after the UOZ-1 devices switched on, and how
long before the train arrived when this escape occurred. To test the effectiveness of the UOZ-1 devices, we compared the datacollected when the UOZ-1 devices were turned on and when they were turned off, including: 1 the amount of different reactions displayed by the roe deer, 2 the time in advance of the train arrival which caused them to escape. To test the possibility
that animals were becoming accustomed to the warning signals over time, we compared for roe deer: 1 the number of different reactions to emitted sounds that were observed in consecutive years of study, 2 the mean escape times in advance of
the arrival of an approaching train with UOZ-1 devices operating. These analyses were conducted only for the years 2008–2011 on account of the small number of observations made in 2012 (during the entire year UOZ-1 devices were experimentally switched off in one of the study sites).
To test the signiﬁcance of observed differences between the number of reactions displayed by animals to an approaching
train (i.e., wild vs. domestic animals, roe deer with UOZ-1 devices switched on and off, or reactions of roe deer in consecutive
years), we used a chi-square test. In relation to the mean escape times of roe deer with the UOZ-1 device either operationalor non-operational, a Mann–Whitney test was used. We tested the mean escape times of roe deer in response to acoustic
signals in consecutive years using a one-way ANOVA. All the tests were conducted using Statgraphics Plus 4.1.
Results
We recorded 2262 cases of animals crossing or coming near railways, with 2956 individual animals observed: 11 wild and2 domesticated animal species. Roe deer, foxes and hares were the most frequent species near the tracks, with 1074, 559 andJ. Babińska-Werka et al. / Transportation Research Part D 38 (2015) 6–14

9Fig. 2. The location of the study area with the two study sites enclosed by a dotted line.

200 cases, respectively. Observations of cats and dogs (128 and 137, respectively) were less frequent. Large mammals, suchas wild boar and moose, were observed in 59 and 35 cases, respectively. Other species included red deer, badgers,
raccoon-dogs, martens, red squirrels Sciurus vulgaris and otters.
Most (approximately 76%) observations related to situations in which animals fed or wandered near or on the railway line
during the intervals between train arrivals. Remaining cases concerned the behaviour of animals at times when trains wereapproaching or passing, and the warning device was either in operation or switched off. During the periods when UOZ-1
were switched on, we observed 443 cases of animals reacting to the sound signals. For all species, the dominant reaction
to the natural warning calls was to escape (this involved either movement away from the tracks into the surrounding area
or ﬂight across the line to the other side; see video). The reactions of wild animals (n = 377) were between 93% and 85%,
whereas domestic animals (n = 54) were signiﬁcantly less likely to escape (48–50%, chi-square test, v2 = 110.14, df = 2,
p < 0.0001) (Fig. 4).

10

J. Babińska-Werka et al. / Transportation Research Part D 38 (2015) 6–14

Fig. 3. Deployment of the array of digital cameras along the studied rail line.

Fig. 4. Behaviour of the most frequently observed animal species along the studied sections of the E20 rail line with trains arriving following the warning
signals from the UOZ-1 device in the years 2008–2012.

Most often we observed that wild mammals escaped from the tracks in the direction of the immediate vicinity (mostly
into the forest). This explained approximately 80% of reactions in brown hares and roe deer, and between 63% and 56% ofcases in wild boars and foxes, respectively. For dogs and cats, this ﬁgure was lower (approximately 40%). Less often, animals
escaped across the track. This occurred more frequently in red foxes and wild boar (29% and 26%, respectively), whereas forother species, this ﬁgure was between 5% and 11%. Our data revealed only 3 cases in which moose were associated with anoncoming train. All these animals escaped, two away from the tracks and one across them. No response to the UOZ-1 device
was most commonly noted in domestic pet species, i.e., dogs and cats (50–52%), whereas for wild species this was between
7% and 15% (Fig. 4).
Individuals of the commonest species – the roe deer – escaped on average 50 s (SD = 43.3, n = 43) after the device
switched on and 35 s (SD = 38.3, n = 47) before the train arrived.
Next, we compared the number of reactions of roe deer to train arrival with sounds emitted from the UOZ-1 device(n = 146) and with the UOZ-1 device experimentally turned off (n = 104). When warning signals were emitted, we found thatanimals signiﬁcantly responded (84% vs. 68%) to an approaching train by escaping (from the tracks or across the tracks). The
proportion of cases in which roe deer showed no reaction to the arrival of a train was far lower when the UOZ-1 device wasturned on compared to when it was switched off (16% vs. 32%) (chi square test, v2 = 9.9, df = 2, p < 0.01) (Fig. 5).
The next comparison concerned the mean amount of time taken by roe deer to escape from an oncoming train, either
when the warning device was in operation (n = 47) or when the devices had been switched off experimentally (n = 63).
When the UOZ-1 device was turned on, animals reacted faster by more than 20 s (35 s vs. 9 s), (W = 906.5; p < 0.001;
Mann–Whitney test).
To determine whether animals become accustomed to the warning signals emitted by the UOZ-1, we examined the proportions of different reactions of roe deer to the UOZ-1 sound signals in consecutive years (Fig. 6). The proportion of animals
that did not react to acoustic signals was highest in the ﬁrst and the last year (26% and 32% of cases, respectively), comparedto 11–12% in the years 2009–2010. Roe deer escaped (from and across the railway track in total) in 88–89% of cases in the

11

J. Babińska-Werka et al. / Transportation Research Part D 38 (2015) 6–14

Fig. 5. Comparison of the reactions of roe deer to an oncoming train when the UOZ-1 device was on (+) or off () (chi-square = 9.9, df = 2, p < 0.01).
Sampling period was 33 and 19 months, respectively.

Fig. 6. Reactions to acoustic signals emitted by the UOZ-1 device observed most often in roe deer in successive years of the study (chi-square test, v2 = 8.16,
df = 3, p < 0.05, escape from and across the track combined).

years 2009 and 2010 and less often in the ﬁrst year (74%) and the last (69%) (chi-square test, v2 = 8.16, df = 3, p < 0.05, escapefrom and across the track were combined because of the low number of observations).
To check whether the reaction time changed over time, we compared times of escape of roe deer in advance of the arrivalof a train when the UOZ-1 device was turned on (Table 1). In consecutive years, roe deer escaped 10–47 s before train arrival,
the earliest in the ﬁrst year and the latest in the second, but this difference was not statistically signiﬁcant (one-way ANOVA,F = 2.6, p > 0.05).

Table 1Comparison for consecutive years regarding the time of escape of roe deer in advance of train arrival with the UOZ-1
devices turned on.
Year

Escape time
n

Mean

SD

2008
2009
2010
2011
Sum/mean

26
7
9
5
47

47.2
9.9
20.0
34.4
35.1

44.1
15.0
25.6
21.6
38.3

One-way ANOVA

F = 2.6, p > 0.05

12

J. Babińska-Werka et al. / Transportation Research Part D 38 (2015) 6–14

Discussion
When railways or roads are modernised, solutions to safeguard against collisions with animals are sought. With fences,
underpasses and overpasses need to be built to minimise habitat fragmentation. This makes this option often the mostexpensive (Glista et al., 2009), so it is only justiﬁably used for the routes most frequently used (Putman, 1997). An alternativeis the deployment of devices (acoustic or optical) in which the task is to warn animals against approaching danger. For most
mammal species, audible signals are of greater stimulatory signiﬁcance than visual ones (e.g., Zieliński et al., 1991, 1995;
Werka et al., 2004). In turn, either animals fail to react to artiﬁcial emitted sounds, or the effectiveness of the latter appears
to be short lived (Woronecki, 1988; Curtis et al., 1995; Putman, 1997; Belant et al., 1998; Ujvári et al., 2004; Edgar et al.,2007). As Koehler et al. (1990) and Gilsdorf et al. (2002) have shown, animals should react to devices emitting naturalsounds. This assumption was justiﬁed in practice (Kužir and Mužinić, 1998; Bender, 2005; Biedenweg et al., 2011).
The UOZ-1 device tested in this study used natural sounds, and in most cases animals such as moose, red deer, roe deer,wild boar, brown hares and foxes responded with an escape reaction to the sounds emitted from the UOZ-1. Animals usuallyescaped away from the tracks into the immediate vicinity (i.e., a forest where they could ﬁnd a shelter). However, some animals also reacted by escaping across the rail tracks – a behaviour presumably associated with the presence of some type ofknown refuge area on the other side of the line.
With roe deer, the experimental deactivation of the UOZ-1 device conﬁrmed a high level of effectiveness in reducing therisk of a collision, with the animals’ speed of reaction to an oncoming train being three times greater with the device turnedon and a higher frequency of escape reactions. It may be assumed that sounds from the UOZ-1 devices featured additional
acoustic stimuli (other than vibration of the ground and increasing noise as a train approaches) acting shortly before a train
arrives, serving as an additional factor warning animals of approaching danger earlier than the train itself. This is of particular importance where high-speed trains are involved.
The method tested here does not violate continuity of ecological corridors and migration routes. During the periods whentrains are not passing, the UOZ-1 devices remain inactive, ensuring that animals can move freely down the tracks with nodisturbance. Indeed, the sections of line ﬁtted with the UOZ-1 had signiﬁcantly more tracks left by mammals than did
stretches of line without them as recorded through snow tracking (Jasińska et al., 2014). However, ﬁve years of observations
showed that of 25 cases of wildlife–train collisions that occurred on the studied line, only one occurred near the UOZ-1
device when a red deer chased by dogs was killed as it ran across the path of an oncoming train (Wasilewski et al., 2009;
Jasińska et al., 2014).
It is probable that the device under study is effective because it uses several different sounds issued naturally by a rangeof animal species, each carrying subtly different information capable of being ‘‘read’’ by individuals of both the emitter andother species (for a review, see Carrasco and Blumstein, 2012). For example, mammals (i.e., red squirrels) are known to react
to warning calls of a jay (Randler, 2006). The noise made by a brown hare attacked by a predator acts as a warning signal for
individuals of its own species, but likely may be interpreted in an identical, appropriate way by other mammals with whomit shares predators (Carrasco and Blumstein, 2012). In central Poland’s mosaic of woods and ﬁelds, it is free-ranging dogs thatoccupy the carnivore niche, certainly inﬂuencing populations of roe deer or hares by active predation (Misiorowska and
Wasilewski, 2012; Krauze-Gryz and Gryz, 2014), as well as smaller carnivores such as foxes in this or other ways
(Krauze-Gryz et al., 2012), therefore dog barking can be expected to be a strong stimuli. However, some of the sounds emitted – notably the cry of a hare being attacked by a predator – can potentially draw carnivores (Okarma and Tomek, 2008).
Predators seeking more accessible food (i.e., because of a higher population density of prey, Barrientos and Bolonio, 2009) ora form of a carrion are known to become victims of collisions with higher frequency (review in Little et al., 2002). In ourstudy, analysis of video footage from the monitored stretches of rail line did not conﬁrm cases of animals being drawn to
the railway track. Because only one collision occurred in the immediate vicinity of the UOZ-1 devices (Jasińska et al.,2014) there was no carrion to attract carnivores. However, most foxes that were observed near rail tracks escaped whensounds from the UOZ-1 devices were emitted.
The remaining question concerns the possibility of animals becoming accustomed to the natural sounds that are emitted
by the UOZ-1. Our ﬁndings over 5 years of study showed that roe deer reacted with similar escape frequency in the ﬁrst andthe last year of study, and the time with which they reacted did not change. By contrast, the results of work performed atpermanent supplementary feeding stations frequented by roe deer, red deer and wild boar show that animals rapidly
became habituated to emitted stimuli in the form of the same natural sounds that emitted by the UOZ-1 (Kowalczyk, unpublished results). This can be explained by the observation that the acoustic signals – initially interpreted as conveyed information regarding a direct threat to life and resulting in fear and escape from the area – are reacted to less and less over time
when no threat actually materialises. This is not the case for the railway line where the natural sounds that are heard always
give way to the trembling of the ground, noise and then the appearance of the speeding train. Any adaptation to a real
emerging threat like this would be maladaptive and has not been observed to occur in practise. This is consistent withthe results of various experiments involving artiﬁcial sounds to scare animals away, which conﬁrms that the relative best
results are obtained where the sounds are reinforced by the appearance of genuine danger (Bomford and O’Brien, 1990).
The results of our study is not directly comparable with other data. Thus far, most studies have focused on ways to keep
animals away from roads by testing different types of stimuli. One of the few studies that did concern railway lines involved
moose, in which the use of ultrasound-emitting whistles ﬁtted to locomotives was tested. The results obtained suggested

J. Babińska-Werka et al. / Transportation Research Part D 38 (2015) 6–14

13

that these devices might be effective; however, further follow up studies were required (Muzzi and Bisset, 1990). Studies
comparable with ours, that were performed along roads but involved visual stimuli, indicated a relatively high level of efﬁcacy of the UOZ-1 device. D’Angelo et al. (2006) reported that white-tailed deer (O. virginianus) only showed a very limited
reaction to light-based warning devices that were installed along roads (only between 1 and a maximum of 20% of individuals were observed to react predictably).
In summary, acoustic devices employing the natural warning calls of several species can be regarded as an effective way
to reduce risk of animals being hit by trains: (1) they increased the frequency of an escape reaction, (2) animals reacted byescaping earlier before the train approaches, and (3) based on the current sampling period, animals did not become accustomed and habituated to the natural sounds that the UOZ-1 emits.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank P. Lurz, M. Gryz, J. Gryz and three anonymous Reviewers for their valuable comments on the
manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.
2015.04.021.
References
Andersen, R., Wiseth, B., Pedersen, P.H., Jaren, J., 1991. Moose–train collisions: effects of environmental conditions. Alces 27, 79–84.
Ando, Ch., 2003. The relationship between deer–train collisions and daily activity of the sika deer, Cervus nippon. Mammal Study 28, 135–143.
Barrientos, R., Bolonio, L., 2009. The presence of rabbits adjacent to roads increases polecat road mortality. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 405–418.
Belant, J., Seamans, T., Tyson, L., 1998. Evaluation of electronic frightening devices as white-tailed deer deterrents. In: Baker, R.O., Crabb, A.C. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Eighteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, 2–5 March 1998, Costa Mesa, California. University of California at Davis, Davis, CA, USA, pp.
107–110.
Bender, H., 2005. Effectiveness of the eastern grey kangaroo foot thump for deterring conspeciﬁcs. Wildlife Res. 32, 649–655.
Biedenweg, T.A., Parson, M.H., Fleming, P.A., Blumstein, D.T., 2011. Sounds scary? Lack of habituation following the presentation of novel sounds. PLOS ONE
6, <http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0014549> (accessed 24.02.14).
Bomford, M., O’Brien, P.H., 1990. Sonic deterrents in animal damage control: a review of device tests and effectiveness. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 18, 411–422.
Carrasco, M.F., Blumstein, D.T., 2012. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) respond to yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota ﬂavivenstris) alarm calls. Ethology 118,
243–250.
Child, K.N., Barry, S.P., Aitken, D.A., 1991. Moose mortality on highways and railways in British Columbia. Alces 27, 41–49.
Curtis, P.D., Fitzgerald, C., Richmond, M.E., 1995. Evaluation of the Yard Gard ultrasonic yard protector for repelling white-tailed deer. In: Eastern Wildlife
Control Conferences, vol. 7, pp. 172–176.
D’Angelo, G.J., D’Angelo, J.G., Gallagher, C.R., Osborn, D.A., Miller, K.V., Warren, R.J., 2006. Evaluation of wildlife warning reﬂectors for altering white-tailed
deer behavior along roadways. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 34, 175–183.
Edgar, J.P., Appleby, R.G., Jones, D.N., 2007. Efﬁcacy of an ultrasonic device as a deterrent to dingoes (Canis lupus dingo): a preliminary investigation. J. Ethol.
25, 209–213.
Forman, R.T.T., Sperling, D., Bissonette, J.A., Clevenger, A.P., Cutshall, C.D., Dale, V.H., Fahrig, L., France, R., Goldman, C.R., Heanue, K., Jones, J.A., Swanson, F.J.,
Turrentine, T., Winter, T.C., 2003. Road Ecology Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Gilsdorf, J.M., Hygnstorm, S.E., VerCauteren, K.C., 2002. Use of frightening devices in wildlife damage management. Integr. Pest Manage. Rev. 7, 29–45.
Glista, D.J., DeVault, T.R., DeWoody, J.A., 2009. A review of mitigation measures for reducing wildlife mortality on roadways. Lanscape Urban Plan. 91, 1–7.
Gundersen, H., Andreassen, H.P., Storaas, T., 1998. Spatial and temporal correlates to norvegian moose–train collisions. Alces 34, 385–394.
Jaren, V.R., Anderson, R., Ulleberg, M., Pederson, P., Wiseth, B., 1991. Moose–train collisions: the effects of vegetation removal with a cost-beneﬁt analysis.
Alces 27, 93–99.
Jasińska, K., Werka, J., Krauze-Gryz, D., Wasilewski, M., 2014. Urza˛ dzenia akustyczne UOZ-1 sposobem na ograniczenie kolizji z udziałem zwierza˛ t na
liniach kolejowych. Sylwan 158, 143–150 (in Polish).
Koehler, A.E., Marsh, R.E., Salmon, T.P., 1990. Frightening methods and devices/stimuli to prevent mammal damage – a review. In: Davis, L.R., Marsh, R.E.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, 6–8 March 1990, Costa Mesa, California. University of Kalifornia at Davis, Davis, CA,
USA, pp. 168–173.
Kossak, S. 2007. Zasada działania atrapy bodźców kluczowych zastosowanej w urza˛ dzeniu UOZ-1 wypłaszaja˛ cym zwierze˛ta z torów kolei szybkiego ruchu.
In: Jackowiak, B. (Ed.), Oddziaływanie infrastruktury transportowej na przestrzeń przyrodnicza˛ . Warszawa – Poznań – Lublin, Poland, pp. 173–187 (inPolish).
Krauze-Gryz, D., Gryz, J., 2014. Free-ranging domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in Central Poland: density, penetration range and diet composition. Polish J.
Ecol. 62, 183–192.
_
M., 2012. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: space use and intraguild interactions among
Krauze-Gryz, D., Gryz, J., Goszczyński, J., Chylarecki, P., Zmihorski,
three opportunistic predators – cat Felis catus, dog Canis familiaris and fox Vulpes vulpes – under human pressure. Can. J. Zool. 90, 1402–1413.
Kušta, T., Ježek, M., Keken, Z., 2011. Mortality of large mammals on railway tracks. Sci. Agric. Bohem. 42, 12–18.
Kužir, S., Mužinić, J., 1998. Birds and air trafﬁc safety on Zagreb airport (Croatia). Environmentalist 18, 231–237.
Little, S.J., Harcourt, R.G., Clevenger, A.P., 2002. Do wildlife passages act as prey-traps? Biol. Conserv. 107, 135–145.
Misiorowska, M., Wasilewski, M., 2012. Survival and causes of death among released brown hares (Lepus europaeus Pallas, 1778) in Central Poland. Acta
Theriol. 57, 305–312.
Modafferi, R.D., 1991. Train moose-kill in Alaska: characteristics and relationship with snowpack depth and moose distribution in lower Sustina Valley.
Alces 27, 193–207.
Muzzi, P.D., Bisset, A.R., 1990. Effectiveness of ultrasonic wildlife warning devices to reduce moose fatalities along railway corridors. Alces 26, 37–43.
Nadleśnictwo Mińsk Mazowiecki, 2014. Nadleśnictwo Mińsk Mazowiecki homepage. <http:// minsk.warszawa.lasy.gov.pl> (accessed 25.02.14).
Nadleśnictwo Siedlce, 2014. Nadleśnictwo Siedlce homepage. <http://Siedlce.warszawa.lay.gov.pl> (accessed 25.02.14).
Okarma, H., Tomek, A., 2008. Łowiectwo. Wydawnictwo Edukacyjno-Naukowe H2O. Kraków, Poland (in Polish).
Polskie Koleje Państwowe (PKP S.A.), 2014. PKP S.A. Homepage. <http://pkp.pl> (accessed 25.02.14).
Putman, R.J., 1997. Deer and road trafﬁc accidents: options for management. J. Environ. Manage. 51, 43–57.

14

J. Babińska-Werka et al. / Transportation Research Part D 38 (2015) 6–14

Randler, C., 2006. Red Squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) Respond to Alarm Calls of Eurasian Jays (Garrulus glandarius). Ethology 112, 411–416.
Romin, L., Dalton, L., 1992. Lack of response by mule deer to wildlife warning whistles. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 20, 382–384.
Spellerberg, I.F., 2002. Ecological Effects of Roads. Science Publishers Inc, Enﬁeld, NH, USA.
Steiner, W., Leisch, F., Hackländer, K., 2014. A review on temporal pattern of deer-vehicle accidents: Impact of seasonal, diurnal and lunar effects in cervids.
Accid. Anal. Prevent. 66, 168–181.
Ujvári, M., Baagøe, J., Madsen, A.B., 2004. Effectiveness of acoustic road markings in reducing deer-vehicle collisions: a behavioral study. Wildlife Biol. 10,
155–159.
_
Wasilewski, M., Babińska-Werka, J., Nasiadka, P., 2009. Mozliwość
wykorzystania sygnałów dźwie˛kowych do odstraszania zwierza˛ t od torów kolejowych.
Studia Materiały Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Leśnej 2 (21), 97–104 (in Polish).
Werka, T., Walasek, G., Świrszcz, K., 2004. Effects of stimulus modality on the shuttle activity in rats. Behav. Brain Res. 151, 327–329.
Woronecki, P.P., 1988. Effect of ultrasonic, visual, and sonic devices on pigeon numbers in a vacant building. In: Crabb, A.C., Marsh, R.E. (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Thirteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, 1–3 March 1988, Costa Mesa, California. University of California at Davis, Davis, CA, USA, pp. 266–272.
Zieliński, K., Werka, T., Nikolaev, E., 1991. Intertrial responses of rats in two-way avoidance learning to visual and auditory stimuli. Acta Neurobiol. Exp. 51,
71–88.
Zieliński, K., Werka, T., Wilson, W.J., Nikolaev, E., 1995. Inhibition of delay of the two-way avoidance response and warning-signal salience. Animal Learn.
Behav. 23 (4), 438–446.