New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Can We Keep Airplanes Safe without Killing So Many Birds?

Is slaughtering birds the best way to keep the wildlife away from airplanes?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In 2012, on the flat, grassy grounds of John F. Kennedy International Airport, wildlife-control agents killed 10,123 birds. The species “depredated” at JFK, which lies just northeast of the Jamaica Bay Wildlife refuge in the New York City borough of Queens, included thousands of gulls, hundreds of starlings and mourning doves, and a smattering of more majestic species such as ospreys and the American kestrel. The long-running JFK depredation program is just one of many efforts around the globe to prevent dangerous, expensive collisions between birds and aircraft.

Perhaps modern forensic tools could lead to a less deadly approach. The DNA found in carcasses of birds killed by aircraft illuminates new ways to control wildlife at airports, a team of Australian scientists suggests.

The forensic investigation began with a call from airport employees in Perth to Michael Bunce, then at Murdoch University. “Look, we've got an entire freezer full of birds,” he recalls airport staffers telling him. “Do you want them?” Soon he and his colleagues had 77 bird carcasses to work with.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers began scooping out the contents of the birds' digestive tracts and sequencing the DNA. In a 2013 study published in Investigative Genetics, Bunce and his colleagues matched the genetic sequences with known species of mice, crayfish and grasshoppers, as well as various grasses.

Such genetic analyses could inform how ground crews manage an airport's ecology to deter birds. “If there's available food for them, what do you do?” Bunce says. “Are you better off netting off waterways, poisoning for rodents or applying insecticides?” In Perth, his findings led the airport to install netting in waterways to control an invasive mosquito fish. Even if such research stops only one or two bird strikes, Bunce says, “it pays for itself many times over.”

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe