Numbered neck collars for long-distance identification of parakeets

Abstract

Most parakeets, parrots, and cockatoos are difficult to mark because of their strong beaks and ability to manipulate items with their feet. We developed a marking method that consists of a numbered tag hung on a neck collar. We used this method to successfully monitor Monk Parakeets (Myiopsitta monachus) and Ring‐necked Parakeets (Psittacula krameri) in Barcelona, Spain, from 2003 to 2009. We marked 881 Monk Parakeets and 88 Ring‐necked Parakeets with collars. Fifteen tags placed on adult Monk Parakeets in 2003 (N= 57) lasted until 2008 and nine until 2009. Three of 12 Ring‐necked Parakeets marked in 2003 were resighted in 2008. We estimated that 4.5% of Monk Parakeets and 5.8% of Ring‐necked Parakeets lost their tags, with median intervals between attachment and tag loss of 347 and 370 d, respectively. Behavioral observations revealed no differences in the time budgets of marked and unmarked Monk Parakeets. In addition, the mass of marked Monk Parakeets did not change between successive recaptures. These results suggest that neck collars had no adverse effects on the birds. Neck collars may also be a suitable marking method for other psittacines, with stronger, more durable components likely needed for larger species.

Estimating age‐dependent survival when juveniles resemble females: Invasive ring‐necked parakeets as an example

“…). However, data from other similar wild species are also within the range found in the urban populations (Amazona vittata 0.89, Cacatua pastinator 0.93-0.94, Cacatua leadbeateri 0.81-0.93; reviewed inSenar et al (2012)), including data on wild monk parakeets (0.81, Bucher et al…”

“…This value is very similar to the survival probability of about 0.80 previously found for the monk parakeet in the same area (Conroy & Senar, 2009). It could be argued that survival of birds in cities is higher than in natural habitats because of the lower predation rate in these urban habitats (Chamberlain et al, 2009;Fischer, Cleeton, Lyons, & Miller, 2012;Møller, 2009;Rebolo-Ifrán et al, 2015;Walter, Fischer, Baruch-Mordo, & VerCauteren, 2011 Barcelona (2003Barcelona ( -2016 rates than ring-necked and monk parakeets (Amazona finschi 0.73, Forpus passerinus 0.57; reviewed in Senar et al (2012) (1991)). This suggests that the high survival probabilities estimated here for ring-necked parakeets may be an inherent characteristic of the species rather than a simple consequence of urban life.…”

“…The Museum is located in Ciutadella Park, which hosts one of the largest ring-necked parakeet colonies in the city . Between spring 2003 and spring 2016, we tagged a total of 156 individuals with metal rings as well as aluminum neck collars with numbered tags that could be read without having to trap the bird (Senar, Carrillo-Ortiz, & Arroyo, 2012). During the study period, we obtained 157 recaptures and collected 282 resightings of the numbered birds from several sources: via transects conducted in Ciutadella Park to locate the birds, via reports from birdwatchers in Barcelona, and via observations made during the course of other activities, such as censuring Monk parakeets (Myiopsitta monachus).…”

Sex and Age Effects on Monk Parakeet Home-Range Variation in the Urban Habitat

“…This made us confident that the size of the area sampled was adequate to locate most daily home-range movements of the birds. Monk parakeets were captured using a modified Yunick trap at the Natural Sciences Museum of Barcelona, and marked with metal rings and a medal attached to a collar [25]. These unique identification tags allowed the identification of the birds without having to recapture them.…”

“…The limited knowledge on movement patterns of parrots is probably due to the fact that parrots are difficult to capture and that their strong beaks easily destroy most devices that allow individual identification of the birds without having to recapture them [20]. However, we recently designed a metal tag attached to the bird neck with a collar that has proved very useful for the long distance identification of marked parakeets [25]. The method is simple and cheap, which allows marking a high number of individuals in an economically feasible way.…”