Right from the onset, there have been many things wrong with the campaigns against Myiopsitta monachus ( Cotorra argentina) in all the cities and municipalities within Spain. Here , I will concentrate on Seville, however, it should be noted that many of the salient points can apply to the other regions.
There are many discrepancies and inaccuracies reported by the media and indeed some experts and in fact city officials, in their dissemination of information. It is difficult to plead the case for 2 species of parrots when they are discussed and categorized as one. Myiopsitta monachus and Psittacula krameri are very different in their nesting and behaviour and it is incorrect and misleading to generalize and talk about ‘the parrots’ and any possible deleterious impacts of their existence without differentiating between the two species.
Here are just a few examples within the media :
https://www.diariodesevilla.es/sevilla/cotorra-Kramer-desplaza-murcielagos-Parque_0_1245476005.htmlUn ejemplar de cotorra de Kramer posado en la rama de un árbol junto al Archivo de Indias. / JUAN CARLOS MUÑOZ
https://www.diariodesevilla.es/sevilla/Sevilla-control-cotorra-Kramer-Parque-Maria-Luisa-entorno_0_1343865865.htmlUna cotorra de kramer en un árbol de Sevilla. / JUAN CARLOS MUÑOZ (Sevilla)
https://www.servimedia.es/noticias/1165571?fbclid=IwAR0nFuUy-hDUHYw4Z9xth918WlieCsUo2Ltt3tdhah_nuEV4CJmujTZbD38Ejemplar de cotorra de Kramer | Foto: Álvaro Luna
Pay close attention to the caption under each photograph. What is the reason for misidentifying the Cotorra argentina as the Cotorra de kramer?
I have to wonder, because the only possible negative effects of these parrots in Seville, have to do with what essentially comes down to one study (non-experimental and anecdotal) ; and it’s subject is the Cotorra de kramer and NOT Cotorra Argentina.
Further more, aside from misidentifying parrots in the above article, I also question this public opinion study discussed in the above article, and how and if it has impacted the cities' decision in ending the lives of Cotorra argentina and even Cotorra krameri.
https://neobiota.pensoft.net/article/31017/ Assessment of social perception of an invasive parakeet using a novel visual survey method NeoBiota 46: 71-89 doi: 10.3897/neobiota.42.31017, Alvaro Luna, Pim Edelaar, Assaf Shwartz.
I have researched Myiopsitta monachus thoroughly, and there is a wealth of scientific papers that corroborate the fact that this species is not aggressive with other species, and in fact creates a beneficial niche within the environment for other species of native birds and fauna. This parrot is one of the very few that actually does not nest in mature tree hollows, and therefore does NOT compete with others. It’s unique, engineering marvels of nests that it fabricates through its sheer and ongoing hard work from small twigs and branches provide a home to many other birds who may not otherwise have nests available to them. This complicity includes sparrows, and in fact your sparrows are the ones that are recorded as being aggressive with other birds, not M. monachus.
One only has to look on Youtube, or other social media also, to see innumerable examples of videos and photographs of Cotorrra argentina feeding, foraging, bathing and sharing its nest with other birds.
Let us concentrate on these research articles and studies within Spain to try and understand reasons for thee proposed culls.
The research article on the bats, by its own admission, states that there are no published information on population size for this bat, and ‘relies on temporal changes in the number of trees used by the this bat species as a surrogate of changes in population size.’ So am I correct in understanding that in other words, If fewer nests are used by bats, and more nests are used by Psittacula krameri and the other 8 tree cavity bird dwellers (of which Myiopsitta monachus does NOT even figure) ; in the park, it must be deduced that P. krameri is responsible for the number of bats not returning to this site, based on the diminished number of nests the bats occupy? How and why does one go from this one assumption to statements made by the media that either of these species of parrots have DECIMATED the bat population or that they are DEMONS?
Nest-site competition and killing by invasive parakeets cause the decline of a threatened bat population https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.172477: Hernández-Brito D, Carrete M, Ibáñez C, Juste J, Tella JL. 2018 Nest-site competition and killing by invasive parakeets cause the decline of a threatened bat population. R. Soc. open sci. 5: 172477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172477 Received: 31 December 2017 Accepted: 3 April 2018
When one sees words like hypothesis linked to a study that dictates the unilateral slaughter of 2 species of birds, one that is not even linked to within that very study, one has to investigate further and question the judgement of those who are responsible for this decision.In fact in the above research article, it is said that the annual survival rate of noctules living in Maria Luisa park was low (0.74) compared to other forest bat species that forage at shorter distances.
Popa-Lisseanu, Ana & Bontadina, Fabio & Ibáñez, Carlos. (2009). Giant noctule bats face conflicting constraints between roosting and foraging in a fragmented and heterogeneous landscape. Journal of Zoology. 278. 126 - 133. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00556.x.
As seen in the above article, the effects of intense deforestation and the importance of the coastal wetlands of Donana as a stop-over site for migratory birds and bats is also stressed. Songbirds constitute a large part of the diet of these bats. ‘Most giant noctules found in the Iberian Peninsula during the early 20th century were dead or exhausted individuals found on the ground in Donana ( Ibanez et al., 1995). Given the information that the number of parakeets in Maria Luisa Park was scarce at that time, with the first introduction of the very first small group of P. Krameri being deliberately released into the Maria Luisa park, most probably in 1992, one should investigate and look further at the surrounding areas and true reasons and numbers for the decreased bat population over the previous decades, rather than conveniently attributing it to parrots of any species.
Please pay close attention to this paragraph from the above article dated all the way back fromm 2009:
“The availability and distribution of resources is likely to affect the activity of giant noctule bats on two fronts: (1) roosting sites; (2) adequate foraging grounds. In south- western Spain, these two resources are segregated, as (1) the area around Donana and the Guadalquivir marshlands, which were positively selected by the bats during their foraging activity, currently lacks sufficient roosting sites for a tree-dwelling bat that exhibits roost-switching; (2) the city of Seville, where a historic park offers a high density of roosts for giant noctules, is not an optimal foraging ground throughout the year. For this reason, this species must travel long distances on a daily basis to reach its foraging grounds or for moving between alternative roosting sites. This might not be optimal, as flying involves increased energetic costs for bats (Racey & Speakman, 1987).
South-western Spain, with the largest populations known worldwide of giant noctules, is a crucial geographical area for this threatened species and thus deserves attention and concerted conservation efforts. However, current park management practices that cut down old and hollow trees are seriously menacing the last shelters of these bats in this urban environment (Popa-Lisseanu et al., 2008). We recommend the creation of a network of artificial roost sites in Donana within the limits of the NP. This would reduce commuting distances between potential tree roosts and between roosts and foraging grounds, presumably reducing fitness costs as well as the subsequent risks of mortality during long flights. As the NP is banned to human access, it would also provide safe roosting sites for the bats. This would be a temporary solution until the natural vegetation in Donana has recovered and mature forests with suitable cavities become available for the bats. Given the importance of Donana as foraging habitat for the largest known giant noctule populations, these measures could have significant implications for the conservation of this rare species. ( From my understanding, NP is the Alcornocales Nature Park)”
The danger of various pollutants and sources of pollution that threaten the balance and environmental health of the area include metals from pyrite mines, pesticides and even waste from nearby chemical and petrochemical industries: https://theconversation.com/esta-donana-enferma-buscamos-los-sintomas-en-ratones-y-cangrejos-124105
Wind turbines : “Little is known about potential threats, but loss of mature woodland and loss of or disturbance to roost sites (old trees) have a negative impact on the species. In Cádiz (Southern Spain) it is estimated that a hundred Giant Noctules are killed each year by wind turbines (Ibáñez and Sánchez-Navarro, submitted), and more individuals have been found in other regions such as Soria and Navarra (Alcalde pers. comm. 2015). Exceptionally, all pups were found dead in 2005 at one of the two largest colonies in Spain (located in a city park). The cause of these deaths was not known (Juste pers. comm. 2006). One colony disappeared in Spain due to the cutting of old trees in a city park (Juste 2007), and the same seems to have happened in a Ukrainian forest (Vlaschenko et al. 2010)".https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/14918/22015318#threats
And what of the ‘extinction’ of the bats of the Real Alcázar de Sevilla, with no parrots there to be blamed? https://www.diariodesevilla.es/sevilla/noctulo-gigante-marcha-Alcazar_0_264573594.html
http://www.alcazarsevilla.org/wp-content/pdfs/APUNTES/apuntes3/estudio/contenidos_estudio.html According to this study, from what I understand, the disappearance of old trees with cavities as well as the mismanagement of choosing to prune and cut down branches, (since 2001), in the wrong seasons, has been the cause of their extinction in the Alcazar. It seems that back then, the researchers of the Biological Station of Doñana had voiced their concerns about the need to strengthen the colonies of these giant bats and also to to curb the negative effects the bats cause on the trunks of trees, due to the amount of excrement and urine deposited in the holes, leading to wood rotting and increasing the risks of broken tree limbs as well as shortening the life span of the trees. One would have to transfer this knowledge over to the Maria Luisa Park, and also attribute the same logic there, keeping in mind that parrots alone have been blamed for “damage to trees”. While in fact, I am confident that the excrement of bats should be of a more grave concern than the light pruning and feeding on buds and shoots that the whole community of native and non-native birds in the Maria Luisa Park may be responsible for. Several studies have also been done that parrots are beneficial for spreading seeds and therefore propagating vegetation to grow, in other words, they give back to the earth, and for this we choose to kill them.
PLOS ONE: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100593 Crowding in the City: Losing and Winning Competitors of an Invasive Bird Dailos Hernández-Brito Martina Carrete Ana G. Popa-Lisseanu Carlos Ibáñe José L. Tells
In fact, from what I can see in the above research article, several of the same points are raised, confirming my own conclusions that Myiopsitta monachus is not to be blamed for any possible decrease in numbers of bats, as well as the fact that the presence of Psittacula krameri may also be seen to have some positive impacts for the welfare and breeding prosperity of other species of native birds. Again, I will reiterate here, that there is NO evidence that Myiopsitta monachus threatens or is aggressive with other birds or bats, native or otherwise, and in fact there is a wealth of literature that clearly demonstrates the opposite.
Falco naumanni:
“Conservation Status “There still is not complete data on the distribution of the lesser kestrel. This information is needed in order to adequately conserve the species. Important subjects to study include problems with the foraging habitat, pesticide contamination affecting reproduction success and food availability, problems with breeding colonies, winter ecology and how to develop and coordinate an international conservation strategy. The winter distribution seems to be the most unknown.
Trends in the breeding populations of the lesser kestrel clearly show this species is seriously threatened worldwide. This bird is protected by law, but not all of the breeding sites are in protected areas. Legal protection of all sites is necessary for conservation because most of the causes of death are hunting or taking young from the nests.
Estimations of the abundance of the lesser kestrel show that breeding numbers have dropped by 95% since the 1950's. Sharp declines are especially obvious in its European range. A marked decrease in breeding range appeared all over Europe, most notably in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria where lesser kestrels are no longer breeding.” https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Falco_naumanni/
Sparrows : The population of sparrows has been on a downward spiral for decades now, in many parts of Europe where there are not even any parrots and even form before parrots were first seen in the parks in Seville. In fact, the reasons for the decrease in sparrows are multi-factorial and parrots are not the cause, One main reason is environmental toxins and the use of pesticides. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
255649442_Tendencia_decreciente_de_una_poblacion_de_Gorrion_Comun_Passer_domesticus_en_los_naranjales_del_Este_de_EspanaGil-Delgado, Jose & Vives-Ferrándiz Sánchez, Carmen & Tapiero, Audrey. (2013). Tendencia decreciente de una población de Gorrión Común Passer domesticus en los naranjales del Este de España. Ardeola: revista ibérica de ornitología. 49. 195-209.
According to a recent study, in most cases, parakeets in Europe only do limited damage and actual reports of inter-species competition are sparse and in fact up to half explicitly report no competition amongst non-native parrots and native species of birds Furthermore the application and acceptance of reports ( few in number); from the parrot’s native lands can also greatly negatively influence the reality of their threat levels in non-native ranges.
“In most cases, parakeets introduced to Europe only do limited damage and, for example, about half of the studies focusing on competition between introduced parakeets and native species explicitly report no evidence of impact."
The study also highlights that differences in the type of damage, and the way they are reported and summarised influences the outcomes of invasive species impact assessments.
"The generalised threat level that invasive species pose is often based on their worst known impacts, whilst the capabilities of a species to do damage often requires specific circumstances. While this is relevant information for identifying those invaders that can potentially have major impacts, it is not necessarily representative of the impacts the species is likely to have when introduced to a new area. Similarly, including damage reports from the native range or from other invaded ranges typically results in higher threat level estimates compared to what actually has been observed in Europe.”
This is the study: https://neobiota.pensoft.net/article/34222/ You will find both actual and Potential impact assessments based on different criteria as well as tables showing where the evidence has been actually experimentally derived, non-experimental, anecdotal or through indirect reports.
Please take the time to look through this information, in particular to the information cited below and included in attachments.: Please pay particular attention to Appendix B and C ; pages 7-8,11-16,19-21,23-24.pdf and note that in the tables provided Please note ’n’ refers to sample size and not impact assessment.
B: Supplementary methods…………………………………………………………pp 9-18
Appendix C: Supplementary results…………………………………………………………...pp 19-25, Supplementary material 1
Supplementary background, methods and results Rachel L. White, Diederik Strubbe, Martin Dallimer, Zoe G. Davies, Amy J.S. Davis, Pim Edelaar, Jim Groombridge, Hazel A. Jackson, Mattia Menchetti, Emiliano Mori, Boris P. Nikolov, Liviu G. Pârâu, Živa F. Pečnikar, Tristan J. Pett, Luís Reino, Simon Tollington, Anne Turbé, Assaf Shwartz
Data type: background, description, measurement
Explanation note: Appendix A: Supplementary background, Appendix B: Supplementary methods, Appendix C: Supplementary results.
Filename:Download file (858.26 kb)The following supporting information accompanies the NeoBiota article Assessing the ecological and societal impacts of alien parrots in Europe using a transparent and inclusive evidence-mapping scheme pages https://neobiota.pensoft.net/article/34222/
At this juncture, I will point your attention to misinformation posted on the SEO Birdlife page with regards to Myiopsitta monachus, and ask that this be reviewed and changed. https://www.seo.org/2015/03/09/aprende-a-distinguir-la-cotorra-argentina-de-la-de-kramer/ “Comportamiento y reproducción. Aunque en sus lugares de origen se trata de un ave bastante generalista, en España se instala preferentemente en parques y jardines. Su dieta, fundamentalmente frugívora, se basa en una gran variedad de frutos y semillas, si bien no es infrecuente que ingiera puestas y pollos de paseriformes. Muestra un comportamiento marcadamente gregario a la hora de criar. Pueden llegar a instalarse varias parejas muy próximas unas a otras en grandes estructuras construidas a base de palos y ramas, que son, en realidad, el resultado de la unión de varios nidos (dibujo 3).”
Cotorra argentina does NOT feed on any Passeriform chicks.This is completely false and only results in further misinformation and negative publicity against a species that does not need any more negative anecdotal claims made against it. Neither is there any documentation that supports that M. Monachus is any more aggressive during its breeding season than any other bird may be, to protect its babies from predators. There are many rats in Seville and squirrels and even birds of prey that not only prey on their eggs but also on the young of others. The communal multi-species living of M.monachus provides shelter and a level of safety to other birds also.
This species is a generalist and its feeding habits consist of seeds, leaf buds, fruits, berries, nuts, and blossoms, and very rarely, adult insects or larvae. Aramburú, R. and V. Corbalán. (2000). Diet of the Monk Parakeet Myiopsitta monachus monachus (Aves: Psittacidae) in a wild population. Ornitología Neotropical 11 (3):241-245. https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/on/v011n03/p0241-p0246.pdf
Carrillo-Ortiz, J. (2009). Dinámica de poblaciones de la Cotorra de pecho gris (Myiopsitta monachus) en la ciudad de Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona.
Even though, I am painfully aware that the contract to trap and probably kill many parrots has has already begun, although it is hard for me to learn exactly what has been done, especially from here in Canada, I am writing this letter in the hope of appealing to the voice of reason, justice and compassion within that framework, so that the irreversible tide of unnecessary deaths added to this gruesome chapter of history can be turned and stopped. I thank you, for your open mind, sympathetic ear and your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Shadan Akhgar.