Parrot Care: How to Care for Parrots in the Wild

The overriding goal of parrot conservation should be the maintenance of viable wild populations of all species within their native ranges and natural ecosystems. Captive populations are not an end-point of conservation efforts. Although in extreme cases it may be necessary to depend on an intermediate stage in captivity to achieve viable wild populations, as a rule wild populations should be sustained continuously if at all feasible. In large part, this is because the difficulties in re-establishing wild populations from captivity can be especially daunting for species such as parrots in which many important behavioural characteristics are learned and can be quickly modified or lost under captive conditions (see Snyder et al. 1996).

By retaining a strong focus on wild populations at all stages of the conservation process, the chances of simultaneously sustaining the species and preserving essential habitat are maximised. Reduction of fundamental causes of endangerment in the wild must remain the primary goal of conservation efforts.

Defining viable wild populations is not a simple task. Criteria for viability can include both genetic and demographic considerations, and can involve time scales ranging from a few years to the indefinite future. It is difficult to justify any particular minimum population size as a goal applicable to all parrot species, considering the variations among species in overall range, natural population fluctuations, life history parameters, and sensitivity to environmental threats. Nevertheless, there is probably broad agreement that viable wild populations should have the following characteristics:

1. Populations remain stable (or increase) over time,
2. Subpopulation numbers remain stable (or increase) over time,
3. The range of the species remains stable (or increases) over time, and
4. Populations are large enough and subdivided enough to minimise threats posed by inbreeding and catastrophic events.

Implicit in this last characteristic is a general goal of maintenance of multiple self-sustaining subpopulations of the species in as wide a geographic distribution as is feasible. In cases where abundant demographic data are available for a species, it is also sometimes possible to define viable populations in terms of probabilities of extinction (e.g., <5% in l00 years), based on modeling studies. Application of these concepts will vary among species, but should include consideration of both shortand long-term time scales.

Without accurate status assessments – specifying population sizes, ranges, and trends – there is no reliable way to determine which species deserve conservation attention and no way to measure progress in conservation programmes. All three characteristics are important, as a single determination of population size and range provides only an instantaneous “snapshot” of a species, and cannot reveal very much about its conservation status. A tiny population that is stable or increasing is a very different conservation entity than a tiny population that is rapidly declining, and repeated monitoring efforts are necessary to determine just which situation exists. All populations fluctuate to a greater or lesser extent, and distinguishing between short-term fluctuations due to chance events and long-term trends is of major importance. The measures employed for population recovery must be tailored to the severity of the crisis.

Just as single, short-duration assessments of population size and range have limited utility in determining whether populations are declining, they are also generally inadequate for identifying either the causes of population decline or appropriate conservation measures on more than a provisional basis. What appear to be obvious causes of decline, sometimes turn out on careful study to be only minor problems, while truly important causes can sometimes be missed in short-term assessments. Thus, while population size and range assessments are essential in conservation efforts, they can be easily misinterpreted if they are not carried out at biologically meaningful intervals and if they are not coupled with comprehensive biological studies.

The dangers involved in failing to follow all these paths simultaneously can be seen clearly in an example from another group of birds – the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus). This species was known to occur in very low and declining numbers for a period of decades, but research on behalf of the species was limited largely to surveys of population size and range until the 1980s, when comprehensive biological studies were begun (see Snyder and Snyder 1989). These latter studies quickly revealed that the presumed main cause of decline, habitat destruction, was in fact a minor problem in the near term, while the most important cause, mortality from lead poisoning, had not been recognised or addressed. Because the conservation efforts of many decades, primarily habitat protection, had failed to address the principal cause of decline, the species continued to decline and eventually reached such low numbers that captive breeding was the only remaining viable near-term conservation option. The important point of this discussion is that had the proper biological studies been initiated earlier, there is a real chance the species’ decline could have been reversed in the wild and without the enormous expense associated with current efforts (well over US$1 million annually).

Reproduced with permission of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the World Parrot Trust.