Bull
481
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Ashwin et al.
Bull. Iraq nat. Hist. Mus.
(2023) 17 (3): 481-498. https://doi.org/10.26842/binhm.7.2023.17.3.0481
ARTICLE REVIEW
IMPACT OF LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE INTRUSIONS ON
AVIFAUNA: A REVIEW
C. P. Ashwin*, P. J. Clince and P. R. Arun
Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON) (South India Centre of
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Govt. of India. Anaikatty (PO), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu – 641 108.
*Corresponding author E-mail: ashwincp95@gmail.com
Recived Date: 08 December 2022, Accepted Date 26 April 2023, Published Date:20 June 2023
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
ABSTRACT
This review examines the reported impacts of three major linear infrastructure
developments, namely railways, roads and power lines on avifauna. These infrastructures are
proliferating worldwide posing serious threats to wildlife including avifauna. The major
impacts involved with linear infrastructures are habitat degradation, fragmentation, direct
mortality by collision and electrocution. The factors affecting collision mortality can be
divided into intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The intrinsic factors include species morphology
and species behavior whereas the extrinsic factors are the external factors such as weather,
landscape features and the technical aspects of the infrastructure. Power lines affect a large
number of birds, killing more than one billion birds globally each year. Studies suggest the
implementation of anti-collision devices such as wire markers; flight diverters and physical
barriers like trees, diversion poles or noise barriers are effective mitigation measures to reduce
bird mortality due to the linear infrastructures. Therefore, understanding the overall impact of
linear infrastructures is crucial for effectively managing their impacts on avifauna and helping
make future developments less destructive and more sustainable.
Keywords: Avifauna, Collision, Impact, Linear infrastructures, Mitigation.
INTRODUCTION
Major linear infrastructure intrusions such as roadways, railways, canals, pipelines and
power lines are the common human-made features in the globe and all are essential lifelines
of urban infrastructure and serve to maintain effective connectivity between places through
transporting people, energy, fuel, water and facilitate economic development of the country.
Power lines, roads or railways, are among the most ubiquitous man-made features worldwide
and are known to have negative impacts on natural habitats and ecosystems. Such linear
intrusions into natural areas cause habitat loss and fragmentation causing barrier effects,
which in turn result in connectivity loss between habitat patches and populations, also will
cause the spread of invasive alien species and direct wildlife mortality by collision and
electrocution (Raman, 2011; Loss et al., 2014; Santos et al., 2016). Many large terrestrial and
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Iraq Natural History Research Center & Museum, University of Baghdad
https://jnhm.uobaghdad.edu.iq/index.php/BINHM/Home
Copyright © Bulletin of the Iraq Natural History Museum Online ISSN: 2311-9799-Print ISSN: 1017-8678
https://doi.org/10.26842/binhm.7.2023.17.3.0481
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1348-2929
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6560-2016
mailto:ashwincp95@gmail.com
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://jnhm.uobaghdad.edu.iq/index.php/BINHM/Home
482
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Impact of linear infrastructure
wetland birds and some smaller, fast-flying species are prone to colliding with power lines
and other man-made structures. A high proportion of threatened species are directly affected
by these linear infrastructures.
The wildlife mortality rate caused by linear infrastructures can vary widely and depends on
several factors, such as environmental factors, both spatial and temporal including topography
and habitat features and light levels, weather conditions, season, and phenology and the
infrastructure specifications such as design, thickness, arrangement and distance between the
wires, (Scott et al., 1972, Anderson, 1978; Henderson et al., 1996; Savereno et al., 1996,
Shaw, 2009; Jenkins et al., 2010; Shobrak, 2012). Though the power lines and associated
structures can cause a significant threat to avifauna, it is becoming increasingly evident that
these infrastructures can also have positive effects on biodiversity, especially on birds. Birds
such as raptors and storks also make use of these infrastructures for their daily activities such
as roosting, nesting, perching and hunting (Tryjanowski et al., 2014; Mainwaring, 2015).
Altogether it is essential to understand the both positive as well as negative impacts of these
linear infrastructures for any developing country to effectively manage those impacts and help
make future developments less destructive and more sustainable.
The study's primary goal is to: i) draw conclusions about the impact of linear infrastructures
on avifauna from the available scientific evidence, ii) identify obvious gaps in our knowledge
about the possible impacts, and iii) propose effective management plans for the impact of
linear infrastructures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We collected data on studies associated with power lines, roads and railways by searching
the databases such as J store, Google Scholar, Bio One, and google web search, google
scholar with the broad search terms ‘‘linear infrastructure, impact on biodiversity, birds, or
mammals combined with specific terms such as ecology, avoidance, collision, electrocution,
fragmentation, degradation, edge effect, disturbance, clearing, mitigations, and management.
All the peer-reviewed articles related to the impact of linear infrastructures on avifauna were
selected for the review. More emphasis was given to power lines and bird-power line
collisions because they represent one of the major threats to avifauna among the other linear
infrastructures.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Linear infrastructure and avifauna: The major impacts of these infrastructures on avifauna
include mortality due to direct collision, habitat loss and fragmentation, vehicular noise and
emissions and radiations from power lines. The impacts of linear infrastructures on avifauna
can broadly be classified into these major types: 1) Direct physical impacts and electrocution,
2) Impacts from emissions and radiations, and 3) Impacts from changes in the habitat (Wylie
and Bell, 1973; Murcia, 1995; Goosem, 2007; Jenkins et al., 2010, Moroń et al., 2014,
D’Amico et al., 2018).
483
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Ashwin et al.
Direct physical impacts: Direct physical impacts on the avifauna from linear infrastructures
are primarily resultant of collisions with vehicles, railways and power lines. Carcasses attract
predators and scavengers to roads and railway sites consequently increasing mortality risk by
being exposed to traffic. Bertwistle (2001) observed that the seasonal migration of animals to
winter refugia in Canada is one of the factors which significantly increased the chance of
collision on roads and railways. Similarly, birds perching on the poles and train catenaries and
those perch and inhabit the vicinity of roads increase the chances of bird mortality due to
collision (Van Rooyen and Ledger, 1999; Anderson, 2002). Godinho et al. (2017)
documented bird mortality due to railways and their associated structures in Portugal and they
surveyed 16.3 km of railway and found 5.8 dead birds/km. Most birds recorded belonged to
the order Passeriformes, while were only a small number of aquatic birds. Power lines also
affect a large number of birds, killing more than one billion birds globally each year (McNeil
et al., 1985; Bevanger, 1994; Loss et al., 2014). Birds with poor flying adaptations, young or
inexperienced birds and birds flying in large flocks, heavy birds such as Swans, Cranes,
Bustards, Raptors, Storks and Ravens are at a higher risk of collision with objects including
vehicles (Bevanger, 1994; Janss, 2000). Bird species, especially those under the threatened
categories are at high risk from tower line collision and risking the loss of small populations
(McNeil et al., 1985; Bevanger, 1998; Janss, 2000; Janss and Ferrer, 2000; Real et al., 2001;
Sundar and Choudhury, 2005). Worldwide, studies have shown high mortality rates of several
bustard species because of power-line collisions, for example, 30% of Denham’s Bustard
Neotis denhami (Children & Vigors, 1826) die annually from power-line collisions in South
Africa (Shaw, 2009; Jenkins et al., 2010). In Spain, Janss recorded higher casualties of Great
Bustard Otis tarda Linnaeus, 1758, Little Bustard Tetrax tetrax (Linnaeus, 1758) and
Common Crane Grus grus (Linnaeus, 1758) due to power line collisions (Janss, 2000). The
mortality of the Sarus Crane Grus antigone (Linnaeus, 1758) due to rural power lines in Uttar
Pradesh, India was studied by Sundar and Choudhury. Breeding and nonbreeding Sarus
Cranes were assessed during the time and they found that, Similar proportions of non-
breeding and breeding Sarus Crane were killed, together accounting for nearly 1% of the total
Sarus Crane population annually (Sundar and Choudhury, 2005).
McNeil et al. (1985) conducted a study on avian mortality with power lines in the
Chacopata lagoon in North-eastern Venezuela and observed more casualties in Brown Pelican
Pelicanus occidentalis Linnaeus, 1766, which cause a drastic population decline in the species.
Brown et al. (1987) observed power lines were the major cause of mortality for Whooping
Crane Grus americana (Linnaeus, 1758) and Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758 in
south-central Colorado and concluded that power line collisions cause a large number of
mortalities in cranes and waterfowl (Brown et al., 1987). A study on waterfowl collisions
with power lines in Lake Sangchris done by Anderson (1978) reported that Mallard Anas
platyrhynchos, Blue-Winged Teal Spatula discors Linnaeus, 1766 and American Coot Fulica
Americana Gmelin, 1789 are the major victims of power line mortality (Anderson, 1978;
Jenkins et al., 2010). Mortality of birds due to electrocution with power lines mostly affects
raptors, storks, ravens and thermal soarers; thermal soarers are a type of bird that uses rising
columns of warm air (thermals) to gain altitude and maintain flight without flapping their
wings e.g., eagles, vultures, pelicans etc. (Infante and Peris, 2003; Janss, 2000). Among the
484
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Impact of linear infrastructure
other linear infrastructures power lines affect a large number of birds, majority of the bird
species use electricity infrastructures for perching, nesting, roosting and hunting. For example,
White Stork Ciconia ciconia (Linnaeus, 1758) in Poland and Eurasian Kestrel Falco
tinnunculus Linnaeus, 1758 in Spain (Fargallo et al., 2001, Tryjanowski et al., 2009), have an
increased risk of electrocution. In short, Anseriformes, Podicipediformes, Charadriiformes,
Falconiformes and Gruiformes are orders more susceptible to power line collision (Brown and
Drewien, 1995).
Linear infrastructures and several associated structures, commonly related to the decline of
biodiversity, but several researchers also mentioned the positive impact of roads, railways,
power lines and associated structures on certain bird species or communities. For example, it
provides alternate foraging habitat, and through providing a warm surface that assists in
conserving metabolic energy during cold weather (Delgado et al., 2007; Morelli et al., 2014;
Moroń et al., 2014; Wiącek et al., 2015). Railways surfaces provide a source of sand,
employed by several bird species to make the sand bathing, useful to clean the feathers and
good foraging ground (Devictor et al., 2007: Morelli et al., 2014; Wiącek et al., 2015). They
are also seen to be using power lines and related structures for perching and hunting (mainly
for insectivorous species and raptors) (Prather and Messmer, 2010; Morelli et al., 2014;
D’Amico et al., 2018). Many raptors use electricity poles and towers for perching as it gives a
wide view of a large area for hunting, thus enhancing the efficiency of the predator (Boeker
and Nickerson, 1975; Lehman et al., 2007; Prather and Messmer, 2010).
Similarly, raptors and corvids also make use of electrical infrastructures associated with
roads and railways as perches from which to scavenge road-killed animals more effectively
(Dean et al., 2006; D’Amico et al., 2018). They also provide song posts and roosting/nesting
platforms for several species (Møller et al., 2006; Prather and Messmer, 2010; D’Amico et al.,
2018). For example, the Pied Crow Corvus albus Statius Muller, 1776 was found to be
making use of electricity structures for nesting in treeless, but potentially suitable habitats in
arid shrub lands of South African Karoo (Cunningham et al., 2016). Many bird species from
small passerines to storks make use of electricity infrastructures for communal roosting
(Prather and Messmer, 2010) and as an anti-predator behavior (Blumstein et al., 2004, Møller
et al., 2006).
Factors affecting collision mortality: The factors affecting collision mortality can be
divided into intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The intrinsic factors include species morphology
and species behavior (Bevanger, 1998; Janss, 2000; Rubolini et al., 2001; Jenkins et al., 2010)
whereas the extrinsic factors are the external factors such as weather, landscape features and
technical aspects of the infrastructure viz. design, arrangement of wires, the distance between
the wires, and thickness of the wires (Scott et al., 1972; Anderson, 1978; Henderson et al.,
1996; Savereno et al., 1996; Jenkins et al., 2010; Shobrak, 2012). Though birds of varying
sizes and taxonomic groups collide with power lines, the frequency of casualties is more
related to species morphology, behaviour and flight performance (McNeil et al., 1985;
Savereno et al., 1996). The collision of most species with power lines is due to the overhead
ground wire (earth wire) as the bird suddenly changes the flight altitude to avoid collision
485
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Ashwin et al.
with the conductor wires (McNeil et al., 1985; Bevanger, 1994). This may be because of poor
visibility when the flying birds cannot see the wires from a reasonable distance (Morkill and
Anderson, 1991; Alonso et al., 1994). Some species of ducks and bustards are also prone to
power line collision due to poor vision as they have a very narrow range of visual field in the
direction of travel due to differences in beak arrangement and morphology (Silva et al., 2023).
Nocturnal bird species are more vulnerable to power line collision than others, especially; the
migratory species are at high risk as they cross numerous power lines and other human
artefacts on the way to and from their breeding grounds (Martin, 1990; Bevanger, 1994;
Dixon et al., 2020; Hamer et al., 2021). Young and immature birds are more susceptible to
power line mortality due to a lack of awareness of the environment or a lack of previous
experience with such utility structures (Savereno et al., 1996). Species spending more time in
the air face higher threats from power lines compared to ground-dwelling species (Bevanger,
1994) and species with high wing loading and low aspect are also highly susceptible to
collision (Rayner, 1988; Janss, 2000; Norberg, 2012). Most birds collide with obstacles
during flight as they have no prior knowledge of human artefacts such as power lines,
vehicles, railway infrastructures or wind turbines.
Bird collision and mortality with power lines will also depend on the weather conditions to
a great extent (Scott et al., 1972; Anderson, 1978; McNeil et al., 1985). Thick fog and wind
impair bird flight; mist, snow and rainfall reduce the visibility of flying birds and make it
difficult to see the power lines (Avery et al., 1977; Kerlinger and Moore, 1989; Bevanger,
1994; Jenkins et al., 2010). Landscape characteristics such as topography and habitats are key
factors for bird collision and electrocution with power lines (Bevanger, 1994; D’Amico et al.,
2018). Increased risk of collision was observed in areas where power lines are crossing
varying altitudes with rise and depressions. Birds use coasts and valleys as directional cues
during migratory and local movements and are at high risk if these areas are traversed with
power lines (Bevanger, 1994, D’Amico et al., 2018, Travers et al., 2023).
Impacts from radiation and emissions: Birds are negatively affected due to noise, light,
vibrations, emission of harmful gases, particulate matter and electromagnetic radiation from
linear infrastructures. There is a less recognized impact of electromagnetic radiation produced
by the power lines. Electromagnetic radiation from power lines was found to reduce breeding
performance in birds nesting in these structures. Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor (Vieillot,
1808) nesting under power lines has been observed to have reduced fledgling and
reproductive success compared to that in the reference site in Delaware County, Ohio
(Doherty and Grubb, 1998). This study monitored the breeding biology of birds using nest
boxes placed under transmission lines and in reference areas. Similar observations were made
in Canada. American Kestrel Falco sparverius Linnaeus, 1758 exposed to the electromagnetic
field (EMF) were found to be more active during courtship and incubation which increases
the chances of egg breakage. They conclude that electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure
affected the reproductive success of kestrels, increasing fertility, egg size, embryonic
development, and fledging success but reducing hatching success (Fernie et al., 2000).
486
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Impact of linear infrastructure
Numerous chemical and physical pollutants are used during road construction and
maintenance which affect the surrounding environment in various ways and varying degrees.
Atmospheric pollution from vehicle emissions contains carbon monoxide, atmospheric lead,
hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, particulate matter, and sometimes nickel
(Lagerwerff and Specht, 1970) which cause serious impacts on various species of flora and
fauna. The concentration of lead in soil and plants are found to be higher near roads and it
affects the level of lead in small mammals, bats, birds and larger herbivorous species, as
animals primarily accumulate lead through their dietary intake (Chow, 1970; Wylie and Bell,
1973; Goldsmith et al., 1976; Fakayode and Olu-Owolabi, 2003; Sharma and Prasad, 2010).
Lead concentrations in carcasses and stomach contents of adult and nestling Barn Swallow
(Hirundo rustica) in the right-of-way of a major Maryland highway were found greater than
Barn Swallows nesting within a rural area (Grue et al., 1984). Lead contamination in bird's
results in loss of weight and vision, wing and leg paralysis, altered nerve function,
behavioural alterations, different immune responses, and altered levels of brain enzymes
(Grue et al., 1984). A similar process is also observed from emissions of oxides of nitrogen
from vehicle exhausts, cadmium and zinc from engine oils and tyres, and nickel from gasoline,
in roadside soil and vegetation and causing serious impacts on associated avifauna by
Lagerwerff and Specht (1970).
Researchers also reported that some species (especially nocturnal birds) get disturbed and
disoriented because of the light, noise and vibrations from trains and vehicle traffic (Santos et
al., 2017), and it may also disrupt the activities of birds and other fauna inhabiting the vicinity
of roads and railway lines (Reijnen and Foppen, 2006; van Rooyen, 2009; Polak et al., 2013).
The virtually continuous flow of traffic on busy roads constitutes a linear source of noise
which eventually ended up disrupting birds’ vocal activities (Wiącek et al., 2015). Railways
are generally believed to produce an eco-friendlier mode of transport than roads (Borken-
Kleefeld et al., 2010), vehicle-related mortality, fuel consumption and air emissions were
much lesser. Most studies suggested that wildlife can ignore or adapt to disturbances due to
rail transport to a certain extent (Waterman et al., 2002; Ghosh et al., 2010; Mundahl et al.,
2013; Wiącek et al., 2015).
Impacts from habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation: Habitat degradation due to
linear infrastructures such as roads, railways and power lines always has a negative effect on
its surroundings; it alters the microclimate, soil, vegetation and hydrological properties
(Forman and Alexander, 1998; Eigenbrod et al., 2009). Different infrastructures may have
different impacts on the environment, e.g., even paved and unpaved roads can have different
impacts on wildlife; because the paved roads are much wider and intensively used (van der
Ree et al., 2015). Similarly, power lines may cause a minor fragmentation impact compared
to roads and railways (Girvetz et al., 2008; Bruschi et al., 2015). The intrusion of linear
infrastructures leads reduction in habitat area and increased habitat isolation, which in turn
affects biodiversity and wildlife movement across the natural habitat (Goosem, 2007; Karlson
and Mörtberg, 2015). Habitat loss takes place when infrastructure construction leads to the
reduction of the available habitat for several species. Habitat fragmentation involves the
splitting of natural habitats and ecosystems into smaller and more isolated patches, which fail
487
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Ashwin et al.
to maintain viable populations and genetic diversity in the long run because of the limited
gene flow (Fahrig, 2003). Whereas general information on habitat fragmentation is abundant,
studies exclusively focused on railway-related fragmentation are non-existent because
researchers did not differentiate between railway- and road-related fragmentation, assessing
these two different infrastructures as a whole (Jaeger et al., 2007; Girvetz et al., 2008;
Bruschi et al., 2015).
The linear infrastructure disrupts the movement and creates barrier/edge effects; which
reduces the availability and suitability of adjacent areas. Edges (boundaries of linear
infrastructure systems between different habitats) can act as barriers for birds, affecting their
genetic diversity, abundance, distribution, and nest survival, which ultimately leads to their
local extinctions (Newmark and Stanley, 2011; Mammides et al., 2015). The edges caused by
linear infrastructures, alter the physical and chemical properties of the environment and
increases sunlight penetration, temperature and wind exposure, especially in forested habitats.
This will directly influence the vegetation structure and bird community because the
vegetation structure had a compelling effect on species richness (Murcia, 1995; Khamcha et
al., 2018). The response of avian guilds to edge effects varies across regions and species with
specific or specialized diets or foraging behaviors that may affect more. Species richness and
abundance of most of the avian guilds were reduced close to the edge and the birds with the
nectarivore-insectivore guild, such as sunbirds were the only ones to show a positive response
to the edge (Khamcha et al., 2018). On other hand, a comprehensive study from eastern
Poland shows that the abundance of bird species especially the insectivores was reported to be
the highest near the railway line. The mean number of species near the line was 10.2 ± 3.2
species and differed significantly (Wiącek et al., 2015). The high diversity of plants and
invertebrates on railway embankments ultimately attracts insectivorous birds, thus acting as a
potential habitat for these species (Moroń et al., 2014). This concludes that the transportation
corridors, running through different habitats, can also create edge effects, thereby increasing
biodiversity around.
Management of impacts: The reduction in mortality due to railways, road and power lines
are one of the most important aims of the mitigation and management measures to be taken
and it is handy to have a more robust understanding about the important areas of mortality.
The mitigation measures for railway lines are more complicated compared to the other linear
transportation structures as the speed and trajectory of a train cannot be changed easily to
avoid collisions; therefore, mitigation measures must almost entirely rely on preventing the
animals from crossing the train tracks (Santos et al., 2017). Special crossing structures should
be designed specifically for comfortable wildlife passing such as pipe culverts, box culverts,
amphibian tunnels, wildlife underpasses and overpasses and exclusion fences (van Rooyen,
2009; van der Grift et al., 2015; Carvalho et al., 2017). But it is less effective in the case of
flying mammals and birds because they do not use such physical structures and fly over trains
and overhead wires (Van der Grift, 1999; Glista et al., 2009; Dorsey et al., 2015). Physical
barriers like trees, diversion poles, flight diverters, or noise barriers can be used in such
situations to minimize the collision, especially for birds (Jacobson, 2005; Kociolek et al.,
2015; Zuberogoitia et al., 2015) and bats (Ward et al., 2015). The pole barriers employed by
488
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Impact of linear infrastructure
Zuberogoitia (2015) consisted of (1) gray PVC poles of 2 m in height and 8 cm in width,
regularly separated by 1–2 m, with shredded pieces of colored paper (white or orange)
attached to the highest part of the pole, or (2) tree trunks (20–26 cm diameter and 350 cm
height) separated by 1 m. Trees can be a better barrier, especially to large animals, and
forcing birds and bats to fly high above the trains. Lighting and reflectors can act as wildlife
deterrents for nocturnal species (Carvalho et al., 2017). Since the chances of collision and
mortality are likely to be more during breeding and migration time, minimizing the
maintenance during those times can make a positive reduction in the mortality rate of birds
(WII, 2016).
Several studies suggested that the implementation of anti–collision devices such as wire
markers can be an effective mitigation measure to reduce power line collision (Morkill and
Anderson, 1991; Alonso et al., 1994; Janss, 2000; Janss and Ferrer, 2000). Beaulaurier (1981)
observed a 45% reduction (range 28–60%) in bird mortality in marked wires. Alonso et al.
(1994) observed a 60% decrease in bird mortality at marked spans of line with respect to the
same span of unmarked line in south–western Spain. A study by Brown and Drewien (1995)
found that wire marking is effective in reducing avian mortality by 61% with dampers and
63% with plates used as markers in south-central Colorado. Power line electrocutions not only
affect bird populations but also create significant economic loss to electricity companies as it
causes breaks in the energy supply (Bevanger, 1994). Minimizing collision and electrocution
can be achieved by making changes in the design of electricity infrastructures. Removal of
earth wire (ground wire) can be effective to reduce both collision and electrocution and
maintain a gap between the wires will further reduce electrocution (Bevanger, 1994; Lehman
et al., 1999). The best way to reduce power line collision and mortality is by avoiding power
lines in sensitive areas (Brown and Drewien, 1995).
Power line planning and routing should be made very carefully to minimize the impacts
and intensive studies must be conducted to enumerate the effects of these lines, especially in
hotspots (McNeil et al., 1985, Morkill and Anderson, 1991; Bagli et al., 2011). Routing of
power lines along existing linear infrastructures is also effective and the same has been
effectively implemented in some areas (Bagli et al., 2011). Replacing the aerial wires with
underground cabling can also be seriously considered in potential habitats, where endangered
species may otherwise get seriously affected (Jenkins et al., 2010). Also, the installation of
safe perches and nesting platforms along power line routes may generate benefits for bird
species to be more co-existing with this infrastructure (D’Amico et al., 2018). Such artificial
structures can also be used successfully to enhance the biodiversity of urban environments. So,
the intelligent use of such structure by managing agencies can reduce the direct and indirect
impacts of linear infrastructure intrusions and support and sustain the biodiversity of the area
(Bissonette, 2002; Benítez-López et al., 2010). Environmental impact assessment studies that
are currently not mandatory in some countries (e.g., India) should be made mandatory to
facilitate such planning along the potential habitats of sensitive faunal groups before
implementation of the projects and the effects should be regularly monitored during the
operation phase.
489
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Ashwin et al.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the extensive literature review, we find that the rate of mortality, factors
affecting mortality and population effects in relation to infrastructures are poorly investigated.
The major impacts of linear infrastructures are habitat degradation, fragmentation, and direct
mortality by collision and electrocution. Research and careful planning have led to solutions
that begin mitigating the negative effects of these infrastructures all over the world. But there
are very few attempts to be made to understand the impact of linear infrastructure on avifauna
in Asian countries, even for the endangered species. Systematic research and collaborative
efforts should be made by the scientific community, government and power line companies to
integrate biodiversity conservation and infrastructure development. But in practice, planning
and routing of linear infrastructures are primarily based on economic feasibility only rather
than environmental considerations. This needs to change for a better sustainable development
paradigm with ecological concerns given equal or more weightage than purely economic
considerations.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
"The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare ".
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Director, SACON for his guidance and valuable support. We would like to thank
Mr Alby J Mattathil (Research Fellow) and Arjun Suresh (Research Fellow) of the Sálim Ali
Centre for their continued support.
LITERATURE CITED
Alonso, J. C., Alonso, J. A. and Muñoz-Pulido, R. 1994. Mitigation of bird collisions with
transmission lines through ground wire marking. Biological Conservation, 67(2):129-
134. [CrossRef]
Anderson, W. L. 1978. Waterfowl collisions with power lines at a coal-fired power plant.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 6(2): 77-83. [Click here]
Anderson, M. D. 2002. The effectiveness of two different marking devices to reduce large
terrestrial bird collisions with overhead electricity cables in the eastern Karoo, South
Africa. Report 1. Johannesburg: Eskom, 25 pp.
Avery, M., Springer, P. F and Cassel, J. F. 1977. Weather influences on nocturnal bird
mortality at a North Dakota tower. The Wilson Bulletin, 89 (2): 291-299. [Click here]
Bagli, S., Geneletti, D. and Orsi, F. 2011. Routeing of power lines through least-cost path
analysis and multicriteria evaluation to minimise environmental impacts.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3): 234-239. [CrossRef]
Beaulaurier, D. L. 1981. Mitigation of bird collisions with transmission lines (No.
DOE/BP/02010-T1). Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder,
CO (USA). [Click here]
https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(94)90358-1
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3781293
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4160911
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.10.003
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6675370
490
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Impact of linear infrastructure
Benítez-López, A., Alkemade, R. and Verweij, P. A. 2010. The impacts of roads and other
infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta-analysis. Biological
conservation, 143(6): 1307-1316. [CrossRef]
Bertwistle, J. 2001. Description and analysis of vehicle and train collisions with wildlife in
Jasper National Park, Alberta Canada, 1951-1999. In: Proceedings of the 2001
International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Irwin, C. L., Garrett, P. and
McDermott, K. P. (Eds.). Center for Transportation and the Environment, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, p. 433-434. (Abstract). [Click here]
Bevanger, K. 1994. Bird interactions with utility structures: collision and electrocution,
causes and mitigating measures. IBIS, 136(4): 412-425. [CrossRef]
Bevanger, K. 1998. Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by electricity
power lines: a review. Biological Conservation, 86(1): 67-76. [CrossRef]
Bissonette, J. A. 2002. Scaling roads and wildlife: the Cinderella principle. Zeitschrift für
Jagdwissenschaft, 48: 208-214. [CrossRef]
Blumstein, D. T., Fernández-Juricic, E., LeDee, O., Larsen, E., Rodriguez-Prieto, I. and
Zugmeyer, C. 2004. Avian risk assessment: effects of perching height and
detectability. Ethology, 110(4): 273-285. [CrossRef]
Boeker, E. L. and Nickerson, P. R. 1975. Raptor electrocutions. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 3(2):
79-81. [Click here]
Borken-Kleefeld, J., Berntsen, T. and Fuglestvedt, J. 2010. Specific climate impact of
passenger and freight transport. Environmental Science and Technology, 44 (15):
5700-5706. [CrossRef]
Brown, W. M. and Drewien, R. C. 1995. Evaluation of two power line markers to reduce
crane and waterfowl collision mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 23 (2): 217-227.
[Click here]
Brown, W. M., Drewien, R. C. and Bizeau, E. G. 1987. Mortality of cranes and waterfowl
from powerline collisions in the San Luis Valley, Colorado. In: Proceedings 1985
Crane Workshop, Grand Island, Nebraska, J. C. Lewis (ed.), pp. 128-135. Nebraska,
USA: Platte River Whooping Crane Habitat Maintenance Trust and US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Bruschi, D., Garcia, D. A., Gugliermetti, F. and Cumo, F. 2015. Characterizing the
fragmentation level of Italian’s National Parks due to transportation infrastructures.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 36: 18-28. [CrossRef]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.009
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4w71z50t
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1994.tb01116.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00176-6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02192410
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2004.00970.x
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3781263
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es9039693
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3782794
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.02.006
491
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Ashwin et al.
Carvalho, F., Santos, S. M., Mira, A. and Lourenço, R. 2017. Methods to Monitor and
Mitigate Wildlife Mortality in Railways. In: Borda-de-Água, L., Barrientos, R., Beja,
P., Pereira, H. (eds) Railway Ecology. Springer, Cham, p. 23-24. [CrossRef]
Chow, T. J. 1970. Lead accumulation in roadside soil and grass. Nature, 225: 295-296.
[CrossRef]
Cunningham, S. J., Madden, C. F., Barnard, P. and Amar, A. 2016. Electric crows: powerlines,
climate change and the emergence of a native invader. Diversity and Distributions,
22(1): 17-29. [CrossRef]
D’Amico, M., Catry, I., Martins, R. C., Ascensão, F., Barrientos, R. and Moreira, F. 2018.
Bird on the wire: Landscape planning considering costs and benefits for bird
populations coexisting with power lines. Ambio, 47: 650-656. [Click here]
Dean, W. R. J., Milton, S. J. and Anderson, M. D. 2006. Use of road kills and roadside
vegetation by Pied and Cape Crows in semi-arid South Africa. Ostrich-Journal of
African Ornithology, 77(1-2): 102-104. [CrossRef]
Delgado, J. D., Arroyo, N. L., Arévalo, J. R. and Fernández-Palacios, J. M. 2007. Edge effects
of roads on temperature, light, canopy cover, and canopy height in laurel and pine
forests (Tenerife, Canary Islands). Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(4): 328-340.
[CrossRef]
Devictor, V., Julliard, R., Couvet, D., Lee, A. and Jiguet, F. 2007. Functional homogenization
effect of urbanization on bird communities. Conservation Biology, 21(3):741-751.
[CrossRef]
Dixon, A., Batbayar, N., Bold, B., Davaasuren, B., Erdenechimeg, T., Galtbalt, B.,
Tsolmonjav, P., Ichinkhorloo, S., Gunga, A., Purevochir, G. and Rahman, M. L. 2020.
Variation in electrocution rate and demographic composition of Saker Falcons
electrocuted at power lines in Mongolia. Journal of Raptor Research, 54(2):136-146.
[CrossRef]
Doherty, P. F and Grubb, T. C. 1998. Reproductive success of cavity-nesting birds breeding
under high-voltage powerlines. The American Midland Naturalist, 140 (1): 122-128.
[CrossRef]
Dorsey, B., Olsson, M. and Rew, L. J. 2015. Ecological effects of railways on wildlife. In:
van der Ree, R. , Smith, D. J. , Grilo, C.(eds.), Handbook of road ecology, p 219-227.
Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
Eigenbrod, F., Hecnar, S. J. and Fahrig, L. 2009. Quantifying the road-effect zone: threshold
effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecology and
Society, 14 (1): 24. [Click here]
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57496-7_3
https://doi.org/10.1038/225295a0
https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12381
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-018-1025-z
https://doi.org/10.2989/00306520609485516
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.005
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00671.x
https://doi.org/10.3356/0892-1016-54.2.136
https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(1998)140%5b0122:RSOCNB%5d2.0.CO;2
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Handbook+of+road+ecology&author=B+Dorsey&author=M+Olsson&author=LJ+Rew&publication_year=2015&
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268024
492
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Impact of linear infrastructure
Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology,
Evolution, and Systematics, 34: 487-515. [CrossRef]
Fakayode, S. O. and Olu-Owolabi, B. I. 2003. Heavy metal contamination of roadside topsoil
in Osogbo, Nigeria: its relationship to traffic density and proximity to
highways. Environmental Geology, 44:150-157. [Click here]
Fargallo, J. A., Blanco, G., Potti, J. and Viñuela, J. 2001. Nestbox provisioning in a rural
population of Eurasian Kestrels: breeding performance, nest predation and parasitism.
Bird Study, 48 (2): 236-244. [CrossRef]
Fernie, K. J., Bird, D. M., Dawson, R. D. and Laguë, P. C. 2000. Effects of electromagnetic
fields on the reproductive success of American kestrels. Physiological and
Biochemical Zoology, 73 (1): 60-65. [CrossRef]
Forman, R. T. and Alexander, L. E. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29: 207-231. [CrossRef]
Ghosh, S., Kim, K.H and Bhattacharya, R. 2010. A survey on house sparrow population
declines at Bandel, West Bengal, India. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society,
31 (5): 448-453. [Click here]
Girvetz, E. H., Thorne, J. H., Berry, A. M. and Jaeger, J. A. 2008. Integration of landscape
fragmentation analysis into regional planning: A statewide multi-scale case study
from California, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86 (3-4): 205-218. [CrossRef]
Glista, D. J., DeVault, T. L. and DeWoody, J. A. 2009. A review of mitigation measures for
reducing wildlife mortality on roadways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(1):1-7.
[CrossRef]
Goldsmith, C. D., Scanlon, P. F. and Pirie, W. R. 1976. Lead concentrations in soil and
vegetation associated with highways of different traffic densities. Bulletin of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 16: 66-70. [Click here]
Goosem, M. 2007. Fragmentation impacts caused by roads through rainforests. Current
Science, 93(11): 1587-1595. [Click here]
Godinho, C., Marques, J. T., Salgueiro, P., Catarino, L., de Castro, C. O., Mira, A. and Beja,
P. 2017. Bird Collisions in a Railway Crossing a Wetland of International Importance
(Sado Estuary, Portugal). In: Borda-de-Água, L., Barrientos, R., Beja, P., Pereira, H.
(eds) Railway Ecology. Springer, Cham, p. 103-115. [CrossRef]
Grue, C. E., O'Shea, T. J. and Hoffman, D. J. 1984. Lead concentrations and reproduction in
highway-nesting barn swallows. The Condor, 86 (4): 383-389. [CrossRef]
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00254-002-0739-0
https://doi.org/10.1080/00063650109461223
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/316726
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.207
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ki-Hyun-Kim-11/publication/263439052_A_Survey_on_House_Sparrow_Population_Decline_at_Bandel_West_Bengal_India/links/546bba650cf2f5eb1809249f/A-Survey-on-House-Sparrow-Population-Decline-at-Bandel-West-Bengal-India.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.02.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.11.001
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01753107
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24099089
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57496-7_7
https://doi.org/10.2307/1366811
493
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Ashwin et al.
Hamer, T. E., Denis, N., Cardoso, T. P., Rocca, C. E., Luzenski, J. G., Harness, R. E., Mojica,
E. K., Dwyer, J. F. and Landon, M. A. 2021. Influence of local weather on collision
risk for nocturnal migrants near an electric power transmission line crossing
Kittatinny Ridge, New Jersey. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 133 (2):190-201.
[CrossRef]
Henderson, I. G., Langston, R. H. W. and Clark, N. A. 1996. The response of common terns
Sterna hirundo to power lines: an assessment of risk in relation to breeding
commitment, age and wind speed. Biological Conservation, 77(2-3):185-192.
[CrossRef]
Infante, O. and Peris, S. 2003. Bird nesting on electric power supports in northwestern
Spain. Ecological Engineering, 20 (4): 321-326. [CrossRef]
Jacobson, S. L. 2005. Mitigation measures for highway-caused impacts to birds. General
Technical Report, In: Johnm, R. C. and Rich, T. D. (eds.), Bird Conservation
Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third
International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California,
Volume 2 Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Albany, CA: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, p. 1043-1050.
Jaeger, J. A. G., Schwarz-von Raumer, H.-G., Esswein, H., Müller, M. and Schmidt-Lüttmann,
M. 2007. Time series of landscape fragmentation caused by transportation
infrastructure and urban development: a case study from Baden-Württemberg,
Germany. Ecology and Society, 12 (1): 22. [Click here]
Janss, G. F. E. 2000. Avian mortality from power lines: a morphologic approach of a species-
specific mortality. Biological Conservation, 95 (3): 353-359. [CrossRef]
Janss, G. F. E. and Ferrer, M. 2000. Common crane and great bustard collision with power
lines: collision rate and risk exposure. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28 (3): 675-680.
[Click here]
Jenkins, A. R., Smallie, J. J. and Diamond, M. 2010. Avian collisions with power lines: a
global review of causes and mitigation with a South African perspective. Bird
Conservation International, 20 (3): 263-278. [CrossRef]
Karlson, M. and Mörtberg, U. 2015. A spatial ecological assessment of fragmentation and
disturbance effects of the Swedish road network. Landscape and Urban Planning,
134:53-65. [CrossRef]
Kerlinger, P. and Moore, F. R. 1989. Atmospheric structure and avian migration. In: Current
Ornithology, (ed. D. M. Power), Vol. 6, p. 109-142. Plenum Press, New York.
[CrossRef]
https://doi.org/10.1676/19-00030
https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(95)00144-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(03)00013-2
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267840
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00021-5
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3783619
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270910000122
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.009
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9918-7_3
494
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Impact of linear infrastructure
Khamcha, D., Corlett, R. T., Powell, L. A., Savini, T., Lynam, A. J. and Gale, G. A. 2018.
Road induced edge effects on a forest bird community in tropical Asia. Avian
Research, 9(1):1-13. [Click here]
Kociolek, A., Grilo, C. and Jacobson, S. 2015. Flight doesn't solve everything: Mitigation of
road impacts on birds. Handbook of Road Ecology, 281-289. [CrossRef]
Lagerwerff, J. V. and Specht, A.W. 1970. Contamination of roadside soil and vegetation with
cadmium, nickel, lead, and zinc. Environmental Science and Technology, 4(7): 583-
586. [CrossRef]
Lehman, R. N., Ansell, A. R., Garret, M. G., Miller, D. A. and Olendorff, R. R. 1999.
Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: the American story. USGS
Publications Warehouse, 20 pp. [Click here]
Lehman, R. N., Kennedy, P. L. and Savidge, J. A. 2007. The state of the art in raptor
electrocution research: a global review. Biological conservation, 136: 159-174.
[CrossRef]
Loss, S. R., Will, T. and Marra, P. P. 2014. Refining estimates of bird collision and
electrocution mortality at power lines in the United States. PLOS ONE, 9(7): e101565.
[CrossRef]
Mainwaring, M. C. 2015. The use of man-made structures as nesting sites by birds: A review
of the costs and benefits. Journal for Nature Conservation, 25:17-22. [CrossRef]
Mammides, C., Schleuning, M., Böhning-Gaese, K., Schaab, G., Farwig, N., Kadis, C. and
Coulson, T. 2015. The indirect effects of habitat disturbance on the bird communities
in a tropical African forest. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24:3083-3107. [Click here]
Martin, G. R. 1990. The visual problems of nocturnal migration. p. 185-197. In: Gwinner, E.
(ed.) Bird Migration: physiology and ecophysiology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. [Click
here]
McNeil, R., Rodriguez, J. R. and Ouellet, H. 1985. Bird mortality at a power transmission
line in northeastern Venezuela. Biological Conservation, 31(2):153-165. [CrossRef]
Møller, A. P., Nielsen, J. T. and Garamszegi, L. Z. 2006. Song post exposure, song features,
and predation risk. Behavioral Ecology, 17(2):155-163. [CrossRef]
Morelli, F., Beim, M., Jerzak, L., Jones, D. and Tryjanowski, P. 2014. Can roads, railways
and related structures have positive effects on birds? A review. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 30:21-31. [CrossRef]
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40657-018-0112-y
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch33
https://doi.org/10.1021/es60042a001
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70194606
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.09.015
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101565
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.02.007
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-015-1001-x
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-74542-3_13
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-74542-3_13
https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(85)90046-1
https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arj010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.006
495
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Ashwin et al.
Morkill, A. E. and Anderson, S. H.1991. Effectiveness of marking powerlines to reduce
Sandhill Crane collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 19 (4): 442-449. [Click here]
Moroń, D., Skórka, P., Lenda, M., Rożej-Pabijan, E., Wantuch, M., Kajzer-Bonk, J., Celary,
W., Mielczarek, Ł. E. and Tryjanowski, P. 2014. Railway embankments as new
habitat for pollinators in an agricultural landscape. PLOS ONE, 9(7): e101297.
[CrossRef]
Mundahl, N. D., Bilyeu, A. G. and Maas, L. 2013. Bald Eagle nesting habitats in the Upper
Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Journal of Fish and Wildlife
Management, 4(2):362-376. [CrossRef]
Murcia, C.1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, 10(2):58-62. [CrossRef]
Newmark, W. D. and Stanley, T. R. 2011. Habitat fragmentation reduces nest survival in an
Afrotropical bird community in a biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 108(28):11488-11493. [CrossRef]
Norberg. U. M. 2012. Vertebrate flight: mechanics, physiology, morphology, ecology and
evolution. Springer-Verlag; Berlin Heidelberg, 308 pp. [Click here]
Polak, M., Wiącek, J., Kucharczyk, M. and Orzechowski, R. 2013. The effect of road traffic
on a breeding community of woodland birds. European Journal of Forest
Research, 132: 931-941. [Click here]
Prather, P. R. and Messmer, T. A. 2010. Raptor and corvid response to power distribution line
perch deterrents in Utah. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(4):796-800.
[CrossRef]
Raman, T. S. 2011. Framing ecologically sound policy on linear intrusions affecting wildlife
habitats. Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysuru, India . [Click here]
Rayner, J. M. V. 1988. Form and function in avian flight. In: Johnston, R. F. (ed.), Current
Ornithology, vol. 5, Plenum Press, New York, p. 1-66. [Click here]
Real, J., Grande, J. M., Mañosa, S. and Sánchez-Zapata, J. A. 2001. Causes of death in
different areas for Bonelli's Eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus in Spain. Bird study, 48 (2):
221-228. [CrossRef]
Reijnen, R. and Foppen, R. 2006. Chapter 12: Impact of road traffic on breeding bird
populations. In: Davenport, J. and Davenport, J. L. (eds.). The ecology of
transportation: managing mobility for the environment, P. 255-274. Springer, The
Netherlands. [Click here]
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3782156
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101297
https://doi.org/10.3996/012012-JFWM-009.1
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)88977-6
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1104955108
https://books.google.iq/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oGrvCAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&ots=vgy6mjws7m&sig=sXRUtCPQc7e8J_JuSMH4q3fka64&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10342-013-0732-z
https://doi.org/10.2193/2009-204
https://www.conservationindia.org/wp-content/files_mf/Linear-intrusions_Shankar-Raman.pdf
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-6787-5_1
https://doi.org/10.1080/00063650109461221
https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/impact-of-road-traffic-on-breeding-bird-populations
496
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Impact of linear infrastructure
van Rooyen, C. 2009. Bird Impact Assessment Study. Bravo Integration Project: Phase 4,
20pp. [Click here]
Rubolini, D., Bassi, E., Bogliani, G., Galeotti, P. and Garavaglia, R. 2001. Eagle Owl Bubo
bubo and power line interactions in the Italian Alps. Bird Conservation
International, 11(4): 319-324. [CrossRef]
Santos, S. M., Carvalho, F. and Mira, A. 2017. Current knowledge on wildlife mortality in
railways, Chapter 2 . In: Railway Ecology, Springer, p. 11-22. [CrossRef]
Santos, S. M., Mira, A., Salgueiro, P. A., Costa, P., Medinas, D. and Beja, P. 2016. Avian
trait-mediated vulnerability to road traffic collisions. Biological Conservation, 200:
122-130. [CrossRef]
Savereno, A. J., Savereno, L. A., Boettcher, R. and Haig, S. M. 1996. Avian behavior and
mortality at power lines in coastal South Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24(4):
636-648. [Click here]
Scott, R. E., Roberts, L. J. and Cadbury, C. J. 1972. Bird deaths from power lines at
Dungeness. British Birds, 65(7): 273-286. [Click here]
Shaw, J. M. 2009. The End of the Line for South Africa’s National Bird. Modelling power
line collision risk for the blue crane. M.Sc. in Conservation Biology. Percy FitzPatrick
Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town.
Sharma, S. and Prasad, F.M. 2010. Accumulation of lead and cadmium in soil and vegetable
crops along major highways in Agra (India). E-journal of Chemistry, 7(4): 1174-1183.
[CrossRef]
Shobrak, M. 2012. Electrocution and collision of birds with power lines in Saudi Arabia:
(Aves). Zoology in the Middle East, 57(1): 45-52. [CrossRef]
Silva, J. P., Marques, A. T., Bernardino, J., Allinson, T., Andryushchenko, Y., Dutta, S.,
Kessler, M., Martins, R. C., Moreira, F., Pallett, J., Pretorius, M. D., Scott, H. A.,
Shaw, J. M. and Collar, N. J. 2023. The effects of powerlines on bustards: how best
to mitigate, how best to monitor? Bird Conservation International, 33(e 33): 1-14.
[CrossRef]
Sundar, K. S. G. and Choudhury, B. C. 2005. Mortality of sarus cranes (Grus antigone) due to
electricity wires in Uttar Pradesh, India. Environmental Conservation, 32 (3): 260-269.
[CrossRef]
Travers, M. S. 2023. Reducing collisions with structures. In: Conservation of Marine Birds,
Academic Press, p. 379-401. [CrossRef]
https://www.eskom.co.za/OurCompany/SustainableDevelopment/EnvironmentalImpactAssessments/Bravo4kendalzekus/DSR%20Appendices/Bird%20Impact%20Assessment%20Study.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270901000363
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57496-7_2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.004
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3783152
https://britishbirds.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/article_files/V65/V65_N07/V65_N07_P273_286_A054.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/678589
https://doi.org/10.1080/09397140.2012.10648962
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270922000314
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892905002341
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-88539-3.00004-2
497
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Ashwin et al.
Tryjanowski, P., Kosicki, J.Z., Kuźniak, S. and Sparks, T.H. 2009, February. Long-term
changes and breeding success in relation to nesting structures used by the white stork,
Ciconia ciconia. In Annales Zoologici Fennici, 46(1): 34-38. [CrossRef]
Tryjanowski, P., Sparks, T. H., Jerzak, L., Rosin, Z. M. and Skorka, P. 2014. A paradox for
conservation: electricity pylons may benefit avian diversity in intensive
farmland. Conservation Letters, 7(1):34-40. [CrossRef]
Van der Grift, E. A. 1999. Mammals and railroads: impacts and management
implications. Lutra, 42: 77-98. [Click here]
Van der Ree, R., Smith, D. J. and Grilo, C. (eds). 2015. The ecological effects of linear
infrastructure and traffic: challenges and opportunities of rapid global
growth. Handbook of Road Ecology, Chapter 1, Wiley Online Library, p. 1-9.
[CrossRef]
Van Rooyen, C. S. and Ledger, J. A. 1999. Birds and utility structures: Developments in
southern Africa. In: Ferrer, M. and Janns, G. F. M. (eds.), Birds and Power lines.
Quercus: Madrid, Spain, p 205-230.
Van der Grift, E. A., van der Ree, R. and Jaeger, J. A. G. 2015. Guidelines for evaluating the
effectiveness of road mitigation measures. In: van der Ree, R., Smith, D. J. and Grilo,
C. (Eds.), Handbook of Road Ecology, p129-137. John Wiley and Sons. [CrossRef]
Ward, A. I., Dendy, J. and Cowan, D. P. 2015. Mitigating impacts of roads on wildlife: an
agenda for the conservation of priority European protected species in Great
Britain. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 61:199-211. [Click here]
Waterman, E., Tulp, I., Reijnen, R., Krijgsveld, K. and Braak, C. 2002. Disturbance of
meadow birds by railway noise in The Netherlands. Geluid, 1: 2-3. [Click here]
Wiącek, J., Polak, M., Filipiuk, M., Kucharczyk, M. and Bohatkiewicz, J. 2015. Do birds
avoid railroads as has been found for roads? Environmental Management, 56:643-652.
[Click here]
WII (Wildlife Institute of India). 2016. Eco-friendly measures to mitigate impacts of linear
infrastructure on wildlife. [Click here]
Wylie, P. B. and Bell, L. C. 1973. The Effect of automobile emissions on the lead content of
soils and plants in the Brisbane area. Search, 4(5): 161-162.
Zuberogoitia, I., del Real, J., Torres, J. J., Rodríguez, L., Alonso, M., de Alba, V., Azahara, C.
and Zabala, J. 2015. Testing pole barriers as feasible mitigation measure to avoid bird
vehicle collisions (BVC). Ecological Engineering, 83:144-151. [CrossRef]
https://doi.org/10.5735/086.046.0104
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12022
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40153893_Mammals_and_railroads_Impacts_and_management_implications
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch1
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch16
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-015-0901-0
http://icben.ethz.ch/2003/pdf/106_t7.pdf
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-015-0528-7
https://moef.gov.in/wpcontent/uploads/2019/07/eco_friendly_measures_mitigate_impacts_linear_infra_wildlife_compressed.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.06.026
498
BULLETIN OF THE IRAQ NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Impact of linear infrastructure
Bull. Iraq nat. Hist. Mus.
(2023) 17 (3): 481-498.
: مراجعة Avifauna تأثير تدخالت البنية التحتية الخطية على فونا الطيور
آرون آر بي و كلينس جيه بي ،* أشوين بي س ي
)مركز جنوب الهند ملعهد ،(SACONمركز سليم علي لعلم الطيور والتاريخ الطبيعي )
، الحكومة. الهند وزارة البيئة والغابات وتغير املناخ ،الحياة البرية في الهند ، دهرادون(
641108 -( ، كويمباتور ، تاميل نادو POآنايكاتي )
20/6/2023، تأريخ النشر: 26/4/2023القبول: ، تأريخ 8/12/2022تأريخ االستالم:
الخالصة
تتناول هذه املراجعة التأثيرات املشار عنها للتطورات الثالثة للبنية التحتية الخطية
. تنتشر وناطيور االفيف Avifaunaالطرق وخطوط الكهرباء على ، السكك الحديدية و
طيرة للحياة البرية بما في شكل تهديدات خمما يهذه البنى التحتية في جميع أنحاء العالم
الرئيسية التي تنطوي عليها البنى التحتية الخطية و التاثيرات . االفيفونا طيور ذلك
عن طريق االصطدام والصعق بالكهرباء. ةملباشر ا اتالتجزئة، و الهالكتدهور املوائل،
. وخارجية داخلية عوامل إلىهالكات التصادم على تؤثر التي العوامل تقسيم يمكن
العواملفي حين ان ،األنواع وسلوك األنواع مورفولوجياالداخلية العواملتتضمن
. التحتية للبنية التقنية والجوانب الطبيعية املناظر وخصائص الطقستتمثل ب الخارجية
على طائر مليار من أكثر تقتلو ، الطيور من كبير عدد على الكهرباء خطوط تؤثر
عالمات مثل للتصادم مضادة أجهزةتنفيذ إلى الدراسات تشير .عام كل العالم مستوى
أو التحويل أعمدة أو األشجار مثل املادية والحواجز الطيران محوالت تعد األسالك؛
التأثير فهم فإن لذلك،. الطيور من موت خفيفللتفعالة تدابير الضوضاء حواجز
ثاثيرها على الطيور بشكل فعال إلدارة األهمية بالغ أمر الخطية التحتية للبنى الكلي
.استدامة وأكثرخطورة أقل املستقبلية التطورات جعل في واملساعدة