
Citation: | Joshua M. Diamond, Michael S. Ross. 2019: Exotic parrots breeding in urban tree cavities: nesting requirements, geographic distribution, and potential impacts on cavity nesting birds in southeast Florida. Avian Research, 10(1): 39. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0176-3 |
Exotic parrots have established breeding populations in southeast Florida,including several species that nest in tree cavities. We aimed to determine the species identity,nest site requirements,relative nest abundance,geographic distribution,and interactions of parrots with native cavity-nesting bird species.
We searched Miami-Dade County,Florida,and nearby areas for natural cavities and holes excavated by woodpeckers,recording attributes of potential nest trees. We inspected all cavities with an elevated video inspection system to determine occupancy by parrots or other birds. We mapped nearly 4000 citizen science observations of parrots in our study area corresponding to our study period,and used these to construct range maps,comparing them to our nesting observations.
Not all parrots reported or observed in our study area were actively breeding. Some parrots were observed at tree cavities,which previous studies have suggested is evidence of reproduction,but our inspections with an elevated video inspection system suggest they never initiated nesting attempts. Several parrot species did successfully nest in tree cavities,Red-masked Parakeets (Psittacara erythrogenys) and Orange-winged Parrots (Amazona amazonica) being the most common (n = 7 and 6 nests,respectively). These two parrots had similar nesting requirements,but Orange-winged Parrots use nests with larger entrance holes,which they often enlarge. Geographic analysis of nests combined with citizen science data indicate that parrots are limited to developed areas. The most common parrots were less abundant cavity nesters than the native birds which persist in Miami's urban areas,and far less abundant than the invasive European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris).
Exotic parrots breeding elsewhere in the world have harmed native cavity-nesting birds through interference competition,but competitive interference in southeast Florida is minimized by the urban affinities of parrots in this region. The relative abundance and geographic distribution suggest that these parrots are unlikely to invade adjacent wilderness areas.
The Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater; Figs. 1 and 2) is the only widespread brood parasite in the United States and Canada. The Bronzed Cowbird (M. aeneus) is restricted to the southern United States (Peer and Sealy, 1999a; Ellison and Lowther, 2009) and the Shiny Cowbird (M. bonariensis) is found in limited numbers in the southeastern United States (Reetz et al., 2010; Post and Sykes, 2011). It was believed that the Shiny Cowbird would rapidly invade and spread into the southeastern states (Cruz et al., 1998; 2000), but their range expansion has stalled for reasons that are unclear. The Bronzed and Shiny Cowbirds are found primarily in the Neotropics and this region also has the remaining two species in the parasitic cowbird clade, the Giant (M. oryzivorus) and Screaming (M. rufoaxillaris) Cowbirds. The latter is one of the most special-ized brood parasites in the world, primarily parasitizing a single species and on occasion four other species (DiGiacomo et al., 2010). In contrast, the Shiny Cowbird (266 hosts), followed closely by the Brown-headed Cowbird (247 hosts; Lowther, 2012), has the largest number of known host species of any brood parasite.
Cowbirds are considered grassland and edge species, but they also search for host nests in forested habitats. Brown-headed Cowbirds (hereafter cowbirds) commute large distances (7–15 km) on a daily basis between breeding and foraging locations (Dufty, 1982; Rothstein et al., 1984; Thompson, 1994; Curson et al., 2000). Their foraging habitat includes grasslands and pastures where they feed on seeds and invertebrates (Ortega, 1998), and they show a distinct preference for foraging in association with livestock which flush insects in these areas (Ortega, 1998). Historically, cowbirds followed and foraged in association with bison (Bison bison) herds (Mayfield, 1965). Their preference of open habitats has also impacted the evolution of host defenses, because all hosts known to eject cowbird eggs mostly nest in grasslands or open areas along edges apparently due to the fact these hosts have had the longest period of time to evolve defenses (Peer and Sealy, 2004).
The cowbird is a host generalist and usually parasitizes open-cup nesting species and avoids those that nest in cavities (Ortega, 1998; but see Peer et al., 2006; Hoover and Robinson, 2007). Cowbirds use hosts that feed their young insects (Ortega, 1998), but they also parasitize those with diets of seed and fruit despite the fact their young do not survive on such diets (Rothstein, 1976; Middleton, 1991; Kozlovic et al., 1996). Parasitism frequencies vary regionally, within hosts, and seasonally. For example in the fragmented forests of Illinois, parasitism frequencies are often 100% (Robinson, 1992; Fig. 3). Birds nesting at forest edges and in shrublands are parasitized at intermediate frequencies and those nesting in grasslands in the same region are rarely parasitized (Peer et al., 2000). In contrast, in the center of the cowbird's historic range in Kansas where the landscape consists almost wholly of grasslands, grassland species are parasitized at high frequencies (Elliott, 1978; Rivers et al., 2010). Parasitism of some host species, notably the Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and Dickcissel (Spiza americana), also vary geographically (Linz and Bolin, 1982; Jensen and Cully, 1995; Searcy and Yasukawa, 1995) possibly due to alternative host choices within given avian communities (e.g., Barber and Martin, 1997).
Individual female cowbirds sometimes specialize on a particular host species and in other cases use multiple hosts (Alderson et al., 1999; Strausberger and Ashley, 2005), and host usage by individual female cowbirds is an area in need of further research. Estimates of the numbers of eggs laid by individual females in the wild range from 13 to more than 40 (Scott and Ankney, 1983; Fleischer et al., 1987; Alderson et al., 1999; see also Holford and Roby, 1993), but there is some consensus that cowbirds lay eggs on about 70–80% of the days during their breeding season (Fleischer et al., 1987). Multiple parasitism is relatively common in cowbirds (Robinson, 1992; Rivers et al., 2010; Fig. 4) and can result from multiple females parasitizing a nest or indi-vidual females laying multiple eggs within a single nest (Alderson et al., 1999; McLaren et al., 2003; Rivers et al., 2012).
In comparison to other brood parasite-host systems, cowbirds and their hosts have interacted for a relatively short time; the Molothrus clade is only 2.8–3.8 million years old (Rothstein et al., 2002). Perhaps as a result, the Brown-headed Cowbird lacks some adaptations possessed by other brood parasites (Mermoz and Ornelas, 2004) including mimicry of host eggs (Rothstein and Robinson, 1998; but see Peer et al. 2002), or evidence of specialized nestling adaptations such as directly killing nestmates (Lichtenstein and Sealy, 1998; Peer et al., 2013). Among the adaptations possessed by cowbird are that females have a larger hippocampus to remember where host nests are located (Sherry et al., 2003); laying eggs rapidly and before sunrise to avoid detection by hosts (Scott, 1991; Sealy et al., 1995; see also Peer and Sealy, 1999b); thick eggshells presumably to withstand puncture-ejection by hosts (Picman, 1989); greater pore diameter in their eggshells for increased embryonic respiration and shorter incubation periods (Jaeckle et al., 2012; see also Briskie and Sealy, 1990); removal of host eggs by females in conjunction with parasitism to enhance incubation efficiency (Peer and Bollinger, 1997; 2000) and for nutrition (Sealy, 1992); egg puncture and killing nestlings to force hosts to renest providing additional chances for parasitism (Arcese et al., 1996; Elliott, 1999; Hoover and Robinson, 2007; Dubina and Peer, 2013); and possibly forcing hosts to accept parasitism through mafia enforcement tactics (Hoover and Robinson, 2007).
Likewise, host defenses against cowbird parasitism appear to be relatively unsophisticated. For example, many hosts aggressively defend their nests against cowbirds, but the success of this strategy in preventing parasitism is limited (Sealy et al., 1998). Only approximately 10% of hosts reject cowbird eggs (Peer and Sealy, 2004; Fig. 5) and there is a bimodal response in that most hosts either accept or reject 100% of the time (Rothstein, 1975; Peer and Sealy, 2004), although more intermediate rejecters have been recently discovered (Peer et al., 2000, 2002, 2006). Smaller hosts are more likely to desert parasitized nests likely due to bill-size constraints that prevent egg ejection or simply because nest desertion evolves more easily than egg ejection (Hosoi and Rothstein, 2000). One host, the Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petchia), is unique because it often buries cowbird eggs in a new nest lining (Sealy, 1995) and it also has a specific referential call for cowbirds (Gill and Sealy, 2004). The lack of adaptive response to parasitism in newly parasitized hosts and some others appears to be due to an evolutionary lag (Rothstein, 1975; Peer and Sealy, 2004). Hosts with small bills that have difficulty in removing the cowbird egg or those with eggs that resemble cowbird eggs and may mistake them for their own may be in an evolutionary equilibrium (e.g., Rohwer and Spaw, 1988), but there is no compelling evidence of equilibrium among cowbird hosts to date (Peer and Sealy, 2004).
The Brown-headed Cowbird, and to a lesser extent the Shiny Cowbird, is unique among brood parasites because there are control programs designed to aid endangered species by culling cowbirds. To some extent, these control measures have been implemented based on misconceptions concerning impacts cowbirds have at the level of host populations and on incorrectly assuming that cowbirds rather than anthropogenic habitat destruction are limiting host populations (Rothstein and Peer, 2005). Unfortunately, there is no indication that control measures will cease despite some host populations having surpassed mandated minimum population goals and the expenditure of scarce management funds that could be put to better use (Hammer, 2011, unpubl. report). The management debate is exacerbated by the negative attitudes directed towards cowbirds by both birdwatchers and scientists (Ortega, 1998; see Peer et al., 2013, pers. observ.) that is not as apparent in other brood parasites. For example, an article in a North American journal solicited cowbird recipes (Schram, 1994)! In contrast, there is concern in Europe over the decline of the Common Cuckoo (Douglas et al., 2010). Birdwatchers and even some ornithologists in North America would likely rejoice if such declines occurred in the cowbird. This unfortunate attitude and scapegoating of the cowbird are detrimental to the conservation of endangered songbird species because it diverts attention from more important factors such as the anthropogenic habitat degradation underlying the declines of these species.
Avery ML, Moulton MP. Florida's non-native avifauna. Manag Vertebr Invasive Species, USDA Natl Wildl Res Cent Symp. 2007. p. 365-77.
|
Berkunsky I, Daniele G, Kacoliris FP, Díaz-Luque JA, Silva Frias CP, Aramburu RM, et al. Reproductive parameters in the critically endangered blue-throated Macaw: limits to the recovery of a parrot under intensive management. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:1-7.
|
Blackburn TM, Lockwood JL, Cassey P. Avian invasions: the ecology & evolution of exotic birds. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.
|
Cameron M. Parrots: the animal answer guide. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2012.
|
Cornelius C, Cockle K, Politi N, Berkunsky I, Sandoval L, Ojeda V, et al. Cavity-nesting birds in neotropical forests: cavities as a potentially limiting resource. Ornitol Neotrop. 2008;19:253-68.
|
Dahlin CR, Blake C, Rising J, Wright TF. Long-term monitoring of Yellow-naped Amazons (Amazona auropalliata) in Costa Rica: breeding biology, duetting, and the negative impact of poaching. J Field Ornithol. 2018;89:1-10.
|
Doren RF, Jones DT. Management in Everglades National Park. In: Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC, editors. Strangers in paradise: impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1997. p. 267-75.
|
Dudley J, Saab V. A field protocol to monitor cavity-nesting birds. Res Pap. RMRS-RP-44. US Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Rocky Mt. Res. Stn. Fort Collins, Colorado; 2003.
|
Epps SA. Parrots of South Florida. Sarasota: Pineapple Press, Inc.; 2007.
|
Garrett KL. Population status and distribution of naturalized parrots in southern California. West Birds. 1997;28:181-95.
|
Goodfellow P. Avian architecture: how birds design, engineer, and build. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2011.
|
Grandi G, Menchetti M, Mori E. Vertical segregation by breeding ring-necked parakeets Psittacula krameri in northern Italy. Urban Ecosyst. 2018;21:1-7.
|
James FC. Nonindigenous birds. In: Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC, editors. Strangers in paradise: impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1997. p. 139-56.
|
Owre OT. A consideration of the exotic avifauna of southeastern Florida. Wilson Bull. 1973;85:491-500.
|
Pranty B. The budgerigar in Florida: the rise and fall of an exotic psittacid. N Am Birds. 2001;55:389-97.
|
Pranty B, Epps SA. Distribution, population status, and documentation of exotic parrots in Broward County, Florida. Florida Field Nat. 2002;30:111-50.
|
Pranty B, Lovell HW. Presumed or confirmed nesting attempts by Black-hooded parakeets (Nanadayus nenday) in Florida. Florida Field Nat. 2011;39:75-110.
|
Runde DE, Pitt WC, Foster JT. Population ecology and some potential impacts of emerging populations of exotic parrots. In: Witmer GW, Pitt WC, Fagerstone KA, editors. Managing vertebrate invasive species: proceedings of an international symposium. USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. 2007. p. 338-60.
|
Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC, editors. Strangers in paradise: Impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1997.
|
Xingyi Jiang, Yanyun Zhang. 2024: Sounding the alarm: Functionally referential signaling in Azure-winged Magpie. Avian Research, 15(1): 100164. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2024.100164 | |
Julia Zurdo, Paula Gómez-López, Adrián Barrero, Daniel Bustillo-de la Rosa, Julia Gómez-Catasús, Margarita Reverter, Cristian Pérez-Granados, Manuel B. Morales, Juan Traba. 2023: Selecting the best: Interspecific and age-related diet differences among sympatric steppe passerines. Avian Research, 14(1): 100151. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100151 | |
Na Zhu, Jing Shang, Shuping Zhang. 2023: Short-term night lighting disrupts lipid and glucose metabolism in Zebra Finches: Implication for urban stopover birds. Avian Research, 14(1): 100138. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100138 | |
Chun Ting Chung, Hok Sze Wong, Man Long Kwok, Qi Meng, King Ming Chan. 2021: Dietary analysis of the House Swift (Apus nipalensis) in Hong Kong using prey DNA in faecal samples. Avian Research, 12(1): 5. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00242-z | |
Charlotte E. Hacker, Brandon D. Hoenig, Liji Wu, Wei Cong, Wei Cong, Jingjing Yu, Yunchuan Dai, Ye Li, Jia Li, Yadong Xue, Yu Zhang, Yunrui Ji, Hanning Cao, Diqiang Li, Yuguang Zhang, Jan E. Janecka. 2021: Use of DNA metabarcoding of bird pellets in understanding raptor diet on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau of China. Avian Research, 12(1): 42. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00276-3 | |
Satish Pande, Reuven Yosef, Federico Morelli, Rajkumar Pawar, Ram Mone. 2018: Diet and habitat affinities in six raptor species in India. Avian Research, 9(1): 36. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-018-0129-2 | |
Kazuto KAWAKAMI, Masaki FUJITA, Motohiro HASEGAWA, Hiroshi MAKIHARA. 2011: Dietary characteristics of the Malayan Night Heron (Gorsachius melanolophus) in the Yaeyama Islands, southern Japan. Avian Research, 2(2): 87-93. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2011.0015 | |
Lubna ALI, Noor-un-nisa, Syed Shahid SHAUKAT, Rafia Rehana GHAZI. 2011: Sex and age classes of prey items (rats/mice) in the diet of the Barn Owl (Tyto alba) in Sindh, Pakistan. Avian Research, 2(2): 79-86. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2011.0012 | |
Xuan ZHANG, Ning HUA, Qiang MA, Wenjie XUE, Xuesong FENG, Wei WU, Chendong TANG, Zhijun MA. 2011: Diet of Great Knots (Calidris tenuirostris) during spring stopover at Chongming Dongtan, China. Avian Research, 2(1): 27-32. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2011.0003 | |
Baohua WU, Tao LI, Xiaoping YU. 2010: Winter diet and digestive tract of the Golden Pheasant (Chrysolophus pictus) in the Qinling Mountains, China. Avian Research, 1(1): 45-50. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2009.0018 |