“Early on, it was feared that this parakeet would thrive in its new home, ravaging crops as its range expanded. Over the years, however, the threat of crop damage has not materialized. Despite their capacity to naturalize in a variety of places, the Monk Parakeet remains a popular species in the pet trade, accounting for 97% of all reported trade in parrots exported from South America between 2006–2012” https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/monpar/introduction/
In it's introduced range, Myiopsitta monachus has not caused the agricultural devastation predicted, nor has there been any solid evidence that native fauna are negatively affected by their establishment.This is a classic case of guilty until proven innocent, which would not be the case if these were native species, it would be the opposite; innocent until proven guilty. There is no justification for the wholesale or otherwise, killing of any parrots.
The USA government employed an extermination program of Monk Parakeets back in the 1970s. While they exterminated the majority of the Monk Parakeet population during that time, the program obviously failed and was ultimately unsuccessful. Some survived, and the USA now has a robust wild population. Killing these parrots has proven to be completely ineffective, as it causes the birds to double-clutch ( lay twice as many eggs), in an effort to preserve the population. What Seville officials need to understand is that they will not be able to kill all of them, and the great financial expenses as well as the huge moral burden they will be engaging in, will prove to be futile in the grand scheme of things. If Seville has concerns about future nesting on electrical utility structures, (which does not appear to be the case at this time), here are some links to dissertations and papers that have proven to be instrumental with electrical companies in the U.S. working to resolve these possible issues using non-lethal approaches. Removing nests before and after the breeding season is an effective way to handle Monk parakeet nests on utility poles WITHOUT killing them or harming their young.
Spatial Ecology of and Public Attitudes toward Monk Parakeets Nesting on Electric Utility Structures in Dallas and Tarrant Counties, Texas. Author : Reed, Janet Elaine http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/153616?fbclid=IwAR12JVQgo0YkyzuI-O446-ZignH_gNG2UNAoDcwsByCzYWn_u8OsOSQKWqM
Monk_parakeet_nest-site_selection_of_electric_utility_structures_in_Texas Robert McCleery, Nunez Y, Donald Brightsmith, Janet Reed, Fred Steins https://www.academia.edu/17250236/
Nest-building behavior of Monk Parakeets and insights into potential mechanisms for reducing damage to utility poles; Kevin R. Burgio, Margaret A. Rubega, Diego Sustaita https://peerj.com/articles/601/
Having taken a great deal of time to read, understand and interpret the various categories and tables of Impact scores assigned to the individual parrots discussed in this research article, I will discuss some of the key points. Please keep in mind that I am an ordinary person with no scientific background. Nonetheless, since I learned of this cull, I have undertaken the task of wading through different research papers and studies to try and make sense of the situation at hand, and the lack of evidence is clear.
Assessing the ecological and societal impacts of alien parrots in Europe using a transparent and inclusive evidence-mapping scheme https://neobiota.pensoft.net/article/34222/ ; Corresponding author: Rachel L. White (r.white2@brighton.ac.uk)
Academic editor: U. Star nger | Received 4 March 2019 | Accepted 28 May 2019 | Published 15 July 2019 Citation: White RL, Strubbe D, Dallimer M, Davies ZG, Davis AJS, Edelaar P, Groombridge J, Jackson HA, Menchetti M, Mori E, Nikolov BP, Pârâu LG, Pečnikar ZF, Pett TJ, Reino L, Tollington S, Turbé A, Shwartz A (2019)
https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.48.34222 After downloading and referring to Supplementary Article 1, found under the Data tab, I have surmised that the overall Impact values assessed through this study are a much clearer, fairer and more evidence-backed way to assess actual data for both parrots when considering their actual as well as potential Impact in various categories.
In table C3 - Overall impact scores ( mean and maximum for all 11 alien parrot species in Europe (i.e. using all possible evidence entries from all geographical areas, “ - “no data available, n=sample size. it can be seen That Myiopsitta monachus is shown to have very low actual Impact values. In Appendix B3- GISS impact categories & Severity levels, based on a scale of 0-5, it can be surmised that the MP ( Myiopsitta monachus) /Argentinian parrot/Monk/Quaker parrot poses little Actual or even Potential impact severity. My interpretation is that when the mean number is very low, it means that there is no known difference between the bird and other native birds. Unless Impact values are 4 or 5, I deduce that anything less is practically non-existent. Please keep in mid sample sizes when examining data. For example, if the actual reality over the whole country is that crops are not damaged at all by birds, but one guy reports that his cherry tree was stripped of cherries, and if he is the one guy who responds to the survey (n=10 and says that crop damage is severe,(eg. 10), then that is what will be reported.
Table C-5, Mean and maximum impact values for each parrot species by actual and potential evidence for each impact category and evidence type IR= Indirect report, An. = Anecdotal, Non-exp = Non-experimental, Exp = Experimental report, n=number of evidence entries used to calculate impact scores, etc..
As can be seen here there are no Experimental studies for MP, most results are anecdotally derived, Non-experimental and Indirect reports with small sample sizes.
It is consistently seen that Myiopsitta monachus is of little Actual impact severity and even poses very little Potential impact severity risks.
The same approach can be followed to chart and look at the Actual Impact value of the Rose-ringed parakeet (Psittacula krameri); which while higher than Myiopsitta monachus, in my opinion still does not offer justification for this cull.
Introduced species are essentially "non-native" species. Invasive species are those introduced species that spread widely or quickly and cause harm, be that to the environment, human health, other valued resources, or the economy. This has not been proven to the case with the Monk parakeet, and in fact there is very limited research that has been done on either of these factors, and what little has been done are mainly Indirect reports, anecdotal or Non-experimental. If one wants to consider those sample sizes as evidence, no matter how insufficient they may be; by that definition one also has to consider other evidences and reports that indicate that these parrots may be beneficial as an introduced species acting as hosts, pollinators, seed dispersers and even a food source for other native species.