| Summary: | Context. Bird–aircraft collisions impose an economic cost and safety risk, yet ecological studies that inform bird hazard management are few, and to date no study has formally compared species’ strike profiles across airports. In response to strike risks, airports have implemented customised management on an airport-by-airport basis, based on the assumption that strike risk stems from prevailing local circumstances. We tested this assumption by comparing a decade of wildlife–aircraft strikes at three airports situated in the same bioregion (likely to have similar fauna) of Victoria, Australia. Aim. To compare the assemblage of wildlife struck by aircraft at three major airports in the same bioregion. Method. Standardised wildlife strike data were analysed from three airports (Avalon, Melbourne and Essendon Airports), in the Victorian Volcanic Plains bioregion, central Victoria, Australia. Ten discrete 1-year sampling periods from each airport were compared, spanning the period 2009–19. Bird data were comparable, and data on mammals were considered less reliable, so emphasis was placed on birds in the present study. Results. In total, 580 bird strikes were analysed, with the most commonly struck species being Australian magpie (Cracticus tibicen; 16.7%), Eurasian skylark (Alauda arvensis; 12.2%), Australian pipit (Anthus australis; 12.1%), masked lapwing (Vanellus miles; 5.9%), nankeen kestrel (Falco cenchroides; 5.0%), house sparrow (Passer domesticus; 4.8%), welcome swallow (Hirundo neoxena; 4.3%) and tree martin (Petrochelidon nigricans; 4.0%). The assemblage of birds struck by aircraft over the decade of study differed between airports. The most commonly struck species drove the assemblage differences between airports. Conclusions and implications. In the present study system, airports experienced discrete strike risk profiles, even though they are in the same bioregion. The airports examined differed in terms of air traffic movement rates, aircraft types, landscape context and bird hazard management effort. ...
|
|---|