Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2021 | 13(5): 18189–18199
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5991.13.5.18189-18199
#5991 | Received 14 April 2020 | Final
received 17 February 2021 | Finally accepted 01 April 2021
Nest tree preference shown by Ring-necked Parakeet Psittacula
krameri (Scopoli, 1769)
in northern districts of Tamil Nadu, India
M. Pandian
No. F1901, AIS
Housing Complex, Natesan Nagar West, Virugambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600092, India.
pandian.m14@gmail.com
Editor: V. Gokula, National College, Tiruchirappalli, India. Date of publication: 26 April 2021
(online & print)
Citation: Pandian, M. (2021). Nest tree preference
shown by Ring-necked Parakeet Psittacula krameri (Scopoli, 1769) in
northern districts of Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(5): 18189–18199. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5991.13.5.18189-18199
Copyright: © Pandian 2021. Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: None.
Competing interests: The author
declares no competing interests.
Author details: M. Pandian has completed MSc, PhD in Botany, and BLIS from
University of Madras and Bachelor of Education (BEd)
from Annamalai University. His area of interest is the ecology of birds
and published a few papers on house sparrows and waver birds. He is
serving in Tamil Nadu Police Department.
Acknowledgements: I thank D. Balaji
(Villupuram), S. Kamarajan (Minnal),
& V. Sumathi (Chennai) for assistance in data collection, S. Suresh, assistant professor (University of
Madras), and A. Giridharan (Minnal)
for help with data analysis & photography.
Abstract: This paper pertains
to the nesting aspects of Psittacula krameri with specific reference to nesting-related
habitats, number of individuals encountered, inter-specific interactions, and
abnormalities in 71 villages covering seven northern districts of Tamil
Nadu. A total of 797 nests (500 active
and 297 non-active nests) and 1,119 individuals were enumerated on 284 trees and
13 temples/buildings belonging to eight species, seven genera, and five
families. The highest number of nests
(320) and birds (469) occurred on Borassus flabellifer L., followed by Cocos nucifera L., Albizia lebbeck
(L.) Benth., Madhuca
longifolia J.F.Gmel., Phoenix
sylvestris (L.) Roxb.,
and Ficus benghalensis
L. This species prefers dead trees than
living trees for nesting. The study
reveals that 63.4% nests (n= 505) and 65.1% birds (n= 729) were found on dead
trees of B. flabellifer, C. nucifera,
and P. sylvestris. They generally prefer to build nests on trees
situated near agricultural lands, followed by those near water bodies, human
settlements, and temples/buildings.
Pearson’s chi-square test indicates that the birds showed preference towards
certain nesting sites/nesting species.
Inter-specific interactions occurred between P. krameri and Blue Rock Pigeon, Spotted Owlet, Indian
Roller, and Black-rumped Flameback
for sharing of cavities/holes for construction of nests. Abnormalities in bird’s beak, cere, colour of feathers, and a suspected psittacine beak
& feather disease (PBFD) were observed.
Keywords: Active nests, beak
deformity, inter-specific competition, nesting trees.
INTRODUCTION
The
Ring-necked Parakeet or Rose-ringed Parakeet Psittacula
krameri (Scopoli, 1769)
(Aves: Psittaciformes: Psittaculidae)
is a native of the Indian subcontinent and Sub-Saharian
Africa and now occurs in 35 countries (Menchetti et
al. 2016) such as Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Spain (Braun
& Wink 2013). A subspecies P.
krameri manilensis
is distributed in southern India and Sri Lanka (BirdLife
International 2018). Intensive trade,
accidental or deliberate release of this species into new environments and its
adaptation has led to the establishment of viable populations outside its native range (Strubbe & Matthygen 2009; Neo
2012). Tolerance to human presence, an
omnivorous diet and a great reproductive rate (Thabethe
et al. 2013) make them successful invasive alien species and are even
considered pests in the introduced European countries (Strubbe
& Matthygen 2007). Many bird species use cavities as nesting
sites, as it reduces the risk of predation more than other nest sites (Nice
1957; Cody 1985; Newton 1994). Psittacula krameri
depends on trunk holes/cavities for their reproduction. They compete with other birds for
nest-cavities due to their aggressive behaviour in Mauritius (Jones 1980) and
Belgium (Strubbe & Matthyen
2009). In India, they widely inhabit
several habitats (Rasmussen & Anderton 2005) and breeding occurs during
December–May. In northern India, about
15% of P. krameri populations build
their nests in wall holes or crevices in buildings (Grandi
et al. 2016). In view of the limited
resources of nest-cavities, inter-specific competitions exist between P.
krameri and other birds (Wesolowski
2007; Cornelius 2008).
This species is
considered a major agricultural pest in its native range (Khan 2002b) and in
countries where it has invaded (Schackermann et al.
2014). The birds consume dry &
fleshy fruits and seeds (Ali & Ripley 1968, 1987); they cause considerable
damage to agricultural crops such as corn (Zea
mays L.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench), paddy (Oryza sativa L.), safflower (Carthamus tinctorius
L.), sunflower (Helianthus annus L.), fruits,
and stored grains (Shivanarayan et al. 1981; Dhindsa & Saina 1994;
Mukherjee et al. 2000; Shivashankar & Subramanya
2008). Abnormalities/deformities in
beak, cere, and colour were observed among P. krameri individuals due to various reasons (Low
1992; Zwart 1995; Butler 2003; Kanwar 2019).
Gokula et al. (1999) observed intra-specific
differences between Psittacula cyanocephala and P. columboides
in Siruvani of Tamil Nadu.
The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species has evaluated the status of this bird as ‘Least Concern’
because its population appears to be increasing but in view of its popularity
as a pet and control by farmers due to its invasiveness, this has reduced its
numbers in its native range (BirdLife International
2018). Except the above few works, no
literatures are available on the study of the nesting habitats and
abnormalities of P. krameri in Tamil
Nadu. Hence, this study was carried out
to fill the gaps. The objectives of this
study are to assess the nesting tree preference of P. krameri, and identification of the nesting sites.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
The present study was carried out in 71 villages in
seven districts of northern Tamil Nadu, viz., Chennai, Thiruvallur,
Ranipet, Kancheepuram, Chengelpet,
Villupuram, and Kallakurichi spread over 17,680km2
(Fig. 1). Agriculture is the
primary occupation in these areas except Chennai City and adjoining areas. The major crops in the study area are
Oryza sativa L., Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench, Pennisetum glaucumi (L.) R.Br., Eleusine
coracana Gaertn., Setaria italica
(L.) P.Beauvois., Saccharum
officinarum L. (Poaceae),
Vigna radiata (L.) R.Wilczek., and Arachis hypogaea L. (Fabaceae).
Small-scale cultivation of ornamental flowers, vegetables, and fruits
also occurs. The maximum and minimum
temperatures of these districts are 37oC and 28oC,
respectively. The average annual rainfall of the state is 907mm (Tamil Nadu
2020).
Methods
Three informants
from villages who were traditionally engaged in farming and well acquainted
with the location of tall trees, groves,
and birds in the study districts were selected.
Along with them areas were identified that had considerable populations
of P. krameri and their nesting sites
in 71 villages covering seven districts in the northern region of Tamil
Nadu. The determined nesting sites were
surveyed during the breeding season from 01 November 2019 to 31 March 2020 between
06.00 & 09.00 h and 15.00 & 18.00 h when the birds are usually
active. The individuals and number of
nests were determined using total count method (Bibby et al. 2000). P. krameri
usually follow communal roosting during non-breeding periods and in the
breeding season the flock splits and moves to various habitats searching for
cavities to construct nests. Hence, the
movements of birds, the nesting trees, excavating cavities on the trunks, holes
and crevices in temples/buildings, entry and exit of birds from such cavities,
number of nests, active/non-active nests, and inter-specific interactions with
other birds for sharing nesting sites were observed using binoculars without
causing any disturbance to the birds.
The active nest cavities were ascertained by watching the frequent
visits of birds to the cavities, carrying
nesting materials: prolonged presence of any one of the pair in the
cavity was presumed as the birds incubating eggs, and prey delivery to
hatchlings. Non-active/abandoned
cavities were ascertained by non-visiting of birds to the cavities during the
study period after excavating cavities.
The eggs and other breeding activities were not studied. Locations of the nesting trees and
temples/buildings were determined using GPS.
Pearson’s chi-square test was applied to determine whether
Ring-necked Parakeet individuals select trees, temples/buildings equally across
the study area for construction of nests using SPSS (Statistical Package for
Social Sciences) version 25.0 software.
The test of significance was assessed at p< 0.05. Photographs and videos were taken using Nikon
P1000 digital camera.
RESULTS
Psittacula krameri individuals and
their preference of nesting sites
In the present
study, a total of 284 trees belonging to five families, seven genera, and eight
species were found with nests of P. krameri,
of which Borassus flabellifer
L. harboured the maximum numbers of nests (n= 164; 55.2%),
followed by Cocos nucifera L. (n= 90; 30.3%), Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth. (n= 10; 3.4%), and Madhuca longifolia J.F.Macbr. (n= 9; 3%). Temples/buildings shared about 4.4% of
nesting sites. A total of 797 nests (500
active nests and 297 non-active nests) and 1,119 individuals of P. krameri were enumerated on the 297 nesting sites
(nesting trees -284 and temples/buildings-13) in seven districts (Table
1). Maximum of 72 nests and 88 birds
were observed in Gadavari Kandigai
Village and in four villages no nests were counted but individuals of P.
krameri were enumerated. The details of villages containing nests and
birds are given in Table 2.
Of the total B.
flabellifer trees (164) enumerated in the
study area, 158 were dead and six were living trees. Among B. flabeliifer,
maximum of 98.1% nests (n= 314) and 96.2% birds (n= 451) were found on dead
trees and only 1.9% nests (n= 6), and 3.8% birds (n= 18) were enumerated on
living B. flabellifer trees.
Out of 797 nests
enumerated, 63.4% nests (n= 505) were found on dead trees of B. flabellifer, C. nucifera, and P.
sylvestris.
Similarly out of 1,119 birds counted, 65.1% birds (n= 729) were observed
on these dead trees. About 26% nests (n=
208) and 16.8% birds (n= 188) were counted on temples and buildings. The remaining 10.3% nests (n= 84) and 16.4%
birds (n= 184) were found on the living trees of B. flabellifer,
M. longifoia, F. religiosa, F. benghalensis,
A. indica, and A. lebbeck.
Except roosting of birds, no nests were found on F. religiosa and A. indica. Out of total nests (797) enumerated during
the current breeding season, 62.7% (n= 500) were active nests and the remaining
37.3% nests (n= 297) were non-active nests.
The study reveals that the birds constructed 72.2% of active nests (n=
361) on the trunk cavities of three palm species, followed by 17.4% active
nests (n= 87) on temples/buildings and 10.4% active nests (n= 52) on living
trees, viz., B. flabellifer, M. longifolia, F. benghalensis,
and A. lebbeck.
Chi-square test was
used to determine whether any significance existed between the type of nesting
sites such as trees, temples/ buildings and the number of birds, nests, active
nests and non-active nests. The test
revealed that there exists statistically significant association between
nesting sites (trees/temples/buildings) and the number of birds (p< 0.05),
nests (p< 0.05), active nests (p< 0.000) and non-active nests (p<
0.05) in the study area.
Preference of
habitats for nesting
The study also tested the relationship between the
selection of nesting sites and surrounding habitats such as agricultural lands,
water bodies, human settlements, and temples/buildings by P. krameri populations (Fig. 2). About 39.4% of nesting sites (n= 117), 29.1%
nests (n= 234), and 33% birds (n= 369) occurred near agricultural lands. Thirty-five per cent of nesting sites (n=
104), 22.8% nests (n= 182), and 24.3% birds (n= 272) occurred adjacent to water
bodies such as bunds of lakes, ponds, rivers, or canals. About 22.2% nesting sites (n= 66), 28.3%
nests (n= 226), and 28.1% birds (n= 314) were found near human settlement
areas; 19.5% nests (n= 155), and 14.6% birds (n= 164) were counted on 13 temples/buildings
(3.4%). The study also revealed that a
maximum of active nests 35.2% (n= 176) were found on trees located in the
agricultural areas, followed by 26.6% active nests (n= 133) near water bodies,
24.6% nests (n= 124) in the human settlement areas, and 12.6% nests (n= 63) on
temples/buildings (Image 1).
Statistically a significant association exists between the type of
habitats such as agricultural lands, water bodies, residential areas, temple
& number of birds (p< 0.05), nests (p< 0.05), active nests (p<
0.05), and non-active nests (p< 0.05).
Hence, all four types of habitats had an impact on the number of birds
and nests in the study area.
Observation of
inter-specific interactions
A pair of P. krameri
competed with a pair of Blue Rock Pigeon Columba livia
(Aves: Columbiformes: Columbidae)
that had occupied one hole in a temple wall at Thiruvalangadu
Village (13.1307°N & 79.7747°E), finally they chased away the blue rock
pigeons, occupied the hole and continued breeding. Similar incidents of P. krameri competing with a Black-rumped
Flameback Dinopium
benghalense (Aves: Piciformes:
Picidae), a Spotted Owlet Athene
brama (Aves: Strigiformes:
Strigidae), and an Indian Roller Coracias
benghalensis (Aves: Coraciiformes:
Coraciidae) in Gadavarikandigai
Village (13.1300°N & 79.6226°E) for
sharing trunk cavities were observed (Image 2).
Observation on
abnormalities
In the present
study, one male bird with beak deformity was observed on the compound wall of a
temple in Thiruvalangadu Village (Thiruvallur
District). The upper mandible of this
bird was found elongated, curved and this colourless over grown part of the
beak had elongated up to the neck. One
female bird with swollen and distorted cere and a big
nostril was observed in Gadavarikandigai Village (Ranipet District).
Another bird with colour abnormality, i.e., yellow feathers on its back
and four individuals (three females and one male) with loss of feathers
and wart like skin on their heads were observed in Gadavarikandai
Village. During the entire study period,
they had the same symptoms without regeneration of new feathers on their heads
(Image 3a–d).
DISCUSSION
Psittacula krameri
individuals and their preference of nesting sites
In the present
study, it was observed that P. krameri
individuals selected a variety of trees for nesting, but they showed a
preference towards palms (Arecaceae): B. flabellifer, C. nucifera and P.
sylvestris.
Among the palms, they prefered B. flabellifer (55.2%; n= 164) in the study area since
40.1% of nests (n= 320) and 41.9% birds (n= 469) occurred on them. The present observation of maximum number of
nests and birds were found on B. flabellifer
trees. The present study also reveals
that they largely preferred dead palm trees for construction of nests. Except six B. flabellifer
trees, all the palm trees (n= 158) that bore nests were dead trees. It suggests that the birds selected dead tree
trunks for easy excavation of cavities using their powerful beaks. Once they select a dead palm tree, both male
and female individuals were involved in excavating holes in the tree
trunks. In Tamil Nadu indiscriminate
felling of B. flabellifer trees for
firewood and due to urbanization, widening of roads, and construction of
buildings have been reported (M. Pandian pers. obs.). The study further reveals that the birds
utilized the already existing cavities in living trees such as M. longifolia, F. benghalensis,
and A. lebbeck for building nests. No incident of excavation of cavities on the
above three tree species was noticed during the study period.
Ali & Rilpey (1969) reported that in India, apart from the
cavities of trees this bird also utilizes existing crevices in buildings for
construction of nests. In Pakistan, this
bird selected holes in trees as well as crevices in buildings for construction
of nests (Jahan et al. 2018). Breeding
of P. krameri in buildings is very common in
Britain, Germany, Belgium, and Japan (Braun 2004, 2007). Some breeding pairs build nests in wall holes
or crevices of buildings in north India and Spain. In Pavia (northern Italy), the entire
population breeds in scaffold holes of the Visconti castle and towers (Grandi et al. 2016).
The present study reveals that 26% nests (n= 208) and 16.8% birds (n=
188) were counted on 10 temples and three buildings in the study area. The present observation of successful
utilization of available holes/crevices in the temple and buildings for
construction of nests by P. krameri population
matches the findings of Ali & Rilpey (1969),
Jahan et al. (2018), and Braun (2004, 2007).
Preference of
habitats for nesting
As a social bird, P.
krameri generally prefers to build nests on
trees situated near agricultural lands. Occurrence of 29.1% nests (n= 234) and
33% birds (n= 369) on the trees situated near the agricultural lands prove that
the birds preferred to breed in agricultural areas where abundant food
materials are available. Another 22.8%
nests (n= 182) and 24.3% birds (n= 272) were found on trees located near water
bodies. Maximum nests of P. krameri were found in the areas where cultivation of
crops occurs and near water bodies in Punjab (Khan 2002a) and Hawaii (Paton et
al. 1982). In the present study,
occurrence of 51.9% nests (n= 416) and 57.3% birds (n= 641) in agricultural
lands and close to water bodies in rural villages clearly indicates that the
birds selected nesting sites in agrarian landscapes ensuring availability of
abundant food material. Hence it matches
with the observations of Khan (2002a) and Paton et al. (1982). This bird also preferred trees near human settlements and
holes/crevices of temples/buildings for construction of nests. It suggests that the birds tolerate the presence of human.
Observation of
inter-specific interactions
Cavity nesters pose
a unique habitat problem. Obligate
cavity nesters are associated with intra and inter-specific competition for
nest sites (Collias & Collias
1984; Nilsson 1984). Jones (1980) had
stated that incidents of competition between P. krameri
and mynas Acridotheres
tristis for sharing nest cavities in trees was
reported in Mauritius. In view of the
limited availability of nest-holes, inter-specific competition usually occurs
between secondary cavity nesting birds in human altered landscapes (Cornelius
2008). They compete with native birds
for sharing trunk-holes in Belgium also (Strubbe
& Matthysen 2009). In the present study too P. krameri
competed with a Blue Rock Pigeon, for sharing a hole in a temple, with a
Spotted Owlet, an Indian Roller and a Black-rumped Flameback for sharing trunk holes in B. flabellifer trees during the breeding period. Hence, the present observation of
inter-specific competition with other birds for sharing nesting sites
corroborates with the findings of Jones (1980) and (Strubbe
& Matthysen 2009).
Observation of
abnormalities
Beak abnormalities
may occur due to various causes such as malnutrition, infections, injury,
mutations, defective bone growth, tear of rhamphotheca, and misalignment of
maxilla & mandible (Oslen 2003; Handel et al.
2010; Zylberberg et al. 2018). Deformed beaks take many forms with
upper/lower mandibles elongated, curved or mandibles crossed and are more
prevalent in passerines (Craves 1994).
Pomeroy (1962) has observed that abnormal bills in wild birds are rare
with an estimated frequency of less than 0.5%.
British Trust for Ornithology (BTO 2014) has recorded 36 species with
beak deformities including ring-necked parakeets. In India, Kasambe
et al. (2009) and Soni et al. (2019) have reported
bill deformities in Yellow-billed Blue Magpie, Crow, and Common Myna. Kanwar (2019)
has recorded beak abnormality in Ring-necked Parakeets in Chandigarh. In the present study, the upper mandible of
one male bird was found colourless, curved and elongated up to its neck. This type of beak deformity may cause
hardship to the bird while foraging and feeding chicks. Out of 1,119 birds studied, only one
individual, i.e., 0.09% had a bill deformity.
Hence, it confirms the view of Pomeroy (1962) that abnormal bills in
wild birds are rare with an estimated frequency of less than 0.5%
One female bird with
swollen and distorted cere with a big nostril was
observed. Cornification and
keratinization of the cere can progress to close up
the nostrils. These abnormalities in cere might have been caused by the mite, Knemidokoptes pilae
(Zwart 1995). The study reveals that one
female bird with similar symptoms of swollen and distorted cere
with big opening was found. The observed
symptoms matched the findings of Zwart (1995).
Colour mutations in P.
krameri such as yellow (Bhargava & Hanfee 1996), white-rose (Mahabal
et al. 2015), albinism (Mahabal et al. 2016), and
cinnamon green (Kushwaha & Kumar 2018) have been reported in India. In U.K., many colour mutations have occurred
in captive birds (Low 1992; Butler 2003).
Hence, the present observation of yellow colour mutation of feathers in
the study area corroborates the findings of the aforesaid authors.
Pass & Perry
(1984) and Ritchie et al. (1991) had stated that psittacine beak & feather
disease (PBFD) caused by a virus has emerged as a major threat to the wild
parakeet populations. The observed four P.
krameri individuals with similar symptoms of
feather loss and warty skin on their heads are suspected to have PBFD.
CONCLUSION
The present study
was confined to a small geographical area covering 71 villages in seven
northern districts of Tamil Nadu. Since
a total of 1,119 individuals and 797 nests were enumerated in this region, it
is considered a hotspot for breeding of this species. A systematic survey of the entire state would
throw more light on the status and distribution of Ring-necked Parakeets in the
state, and help in drafting an action plan to conserve their habitats in and
around villages and also in the urban areas.
Table 1. Details of nesting sites,
nests, non-active nests and birds counted in seven districts of Tamil Nadu.
|
Nesting trees / temples /buildings |
Family |
No. of nesting trees/sites studied |
Total No. of birds |
Total No. of Nests |
Active nests |
Non-active nests |
|||||
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
|||
1 |
Borassus flabellifer |
Arecaceae |
164 |
55.2% |
469 |
41.9% |
320 |
40.2% |
232 |
46.4% |
88 |
29.6% |
2 |
Cocos nucifera |
Arecaceae |
90 |
30.3% |
266 |
23.8% |
185 |
23.2% |
129 |
25.8% |
56 |
18.9% |
3 |
Phoenix sylvestris |
Arecaceae |
3 |
1.0% |
12 |
1.1% |
6 |
0.8% |
6 |
1.2% |
0 |
0.0% |
4 |
Madhuca latifolia |
Sapotaceae |
9 |
3.0% |
42 |
3.8% |
27 |
3.4% |
16 |
3.2% |
11 |
3.7% |
5 |
Ficus religiosa |
Moraceae |
1 |
0.3% |
6 |
0.5% |
0 |
0.0% |
0 |
0.0% |
0 |
0.0% |
6 |
Ficus benghalensis |
Moraceae |
3 |
1.0% |
18 |
1.6% |
1 |
0.1% |
1 |
0.2% |
0 |
0.0% |
7 |
Azadiracta indica |
Meliaceae |
4 |
1.3% |
18 |
1.6% |
0 |
0.0% |
0 |
0.0% |
0 |
0.0% |
8 |
Albizia lebbeck |
Fabaceae |
10 |
3.4% |
100 |
8.9% |
50 |
6.3% |
29 |
5.8% |
21 |
7.1% |
9 |
Temples/ buildings |
- |
13 |
4.4% |
188 |
16.8% |
208 |
26.1% |
87 |
17.4% |
121 |
40.7% |
Total |
5 |
297 |
100.0% |
1119 |
100.0% |
797 |
100.0% |
500 |
100.0% |
297 |
100.0% |
Table 2. List of villages where nests of
individuals of Psittacula krameri
were counted.
|
District |
Name of the village |
Total no. of nests counted |
Total no. of the birds counted |
1 |
Tiruvallur |
Tiruvallur |
15 |
10 |
2 |
Pugathur |
13 |
22 |
|
3 |
Chinna Kadambur mottur |
6 |
8 |
|
4 |
Sembedu |
4 |
6 |
|
5 |
Periya Kadambur mottur |
7 |
10 |
|
6 |
Mambakkam |
8 |
12 |
|
7 |
Thiruvalanggadu |
54 |
70 |
|
8 |
Chennai |
Egmore DPI |
7 |
20 |
9 |
Egmore |
19 |
26 |
|
10 |
LIC |
6 |
10 |
|
11 |
Anna Salai EB
office |
1 |
2 |
|
12 |
Ranipet |
Nanthiveduthangal |
10 |
14 |
13 |
Soganur |
3 |
7 |
|
14 |
Gadavari kandigai |
72 |
88 |
|
15 |
Mathimangalam |
4 |
16 |
|
16 |
Kunnathur |
3 |
6 |
|
17 |
Pallakunnathur |
6 |
10 |
|
18 |
Pazhayapalayam |
10 |
14 |
|
19 |
Pazhayapalayam mottur |
1 |
2 |
|
20 |
Minnal |
13 |
18 |
|
21 |
Marankandigai |
8 |
8 |
|
22 |
Chinna Vailambadi |
17 |
29 |
|
23 |
Paranji |
2 |
14 |
|
24 |
Gangai mottur |
21 |
32 |
|
25 |
Melandurai |
23 |
37 |
|
26 |
Kizhanthurai |
8 |
12 |
|
27 |
Poiyappakkam |
1 |
2 |
|
28 |
Kumpinipet |
4 |
8 |
|
29 |
Melakadu |
21 |
56 |
|
30 |
Arumpakkam |
16 |
28 |
|
31 |
Paruthiputhur |
1 |
2 |
|
32 |
Nagavedu |
15 |
24 |
|
33 |
Padi |
8 |
18 |
|
34 |
Kanchipuram |
Kanchipuram East |
6 |
8 |
35 |
Baluchettichatram |
2 |
5 |
|
36 |
Chengalpattu |
Padalam |
16 |
24 |
37 |
Ottivakkam |
17 |
14 |
|
38 |
Maduranthangam |
0 |
2 |
|
39 |
Palur |
4 |
2 |
|
40 |
Villupuram |
Mailam |
3 |
4 |
41 |
Kolliyangunam |
5 |
8 |
|
42 |
Nallamur |
4 |
6 |
|
43 |
Thenkalavai |
13 |
14 |
|
44 |
Kiledayalam |
20 |
30 |
|
45 |
Nedimozhiyanur |
14 |
28 |
|
46 |
Vilangambadi |
24 |
44 |
|
47 |
Thenkolapakkam |
5 |
10 |
|
48 |
Kutteripattu |
26 |
24 |
|
49 |
Sozhiyasorkulam |
6 |
12 |
|
50 |
Thenputhur |
6 |
12 |
|
51 |
Kenipattu |
10 |
12 |
|
52 |
Thiruvakkarai |
1 |
2 |
|
53 |
Kanniyam |
1 |
2 |
|
54 |
Konamangalam |
3 |
6 |
|
55 |
Thazhuthali |
4 |
4 |
|
56 |
Perumbakkam |
0 |
6 |
|
57 |
vanur |
11 |
18 |
|
58 |
Aurovile |
1 |
2 |
|
59 |
Veedur |
2 |
2 |
|
60 |
Siruvai |
11 |
24 |
|
61 |
Pombur |
6 |
6 |
|
62 |
Thenkodipakkam |
4 |
6 |
|
63 |
Gingee |
60 |
44 |
|
64 |
Thiruvamathur |
11 |
4 |
|
65 |
Tindivanam |
0 |
12 |
|
66 |
kodukur |
1 |
2 |
|
67 |
Tirumangalam |
0 |
0 |
|
68 |
Kallakuruchi |
Tirukkovilur |
38 |
26 |
69 |
Kizhayur |
30 |
20 |
|
70 |
Koduvur |
1 |
2 |
|
71 |
Thirumangalam |
0 |
1 |
|
Total |
7 |
71 |
797 |
1119 |
For
figures & images - - click here
REFERENCES
Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (1968). Handbook of the
Birds of India and Pakistan, Vol 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 380pp.
Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (1987). Handbook of the
birds of India and Pakistan, Compact Edition. Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, 278pp.
Bhargava, R. & H. Hanfee
(1996). Sightings of a Yellow Rose-ringed Parakeet. Newsletter
for Birdwatchers 36: 81.
Bibby, C.J., N.D. Burgess, D.A. Hill & S.H. Mustoe
(2000). Birds Census Techniques, 2nd Edition.
Academic Press, New York, 302pp.
BirdLife International
(2018). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Accessed on 01 April 2020. https://iucnredlist.org/species/22685441/132057695
BTO (2014). British Trust for
Ornithology. Species Affected, Garden Bird Survey. bto.org.
Accessed on 15 December 2019.
Braun, M. (2004). Alien species in
urban habitats: Ecology and niche expansion of Ring-necked Parakeets (Psittacula krameri Scopoli, 1769) in Heidelberg, Germany: Marburg
University, 127pp.
Braun, M. (2007). How does thermal
insulation on buildings as a result of EU climate protection-affect the
breeding biology of tropical Ring-necked Parakeets (Psittacula
krameri) in temperate Central Europe?. Ornithol Jahresh Baden-Wurtt 23: 39–56.
Braun, M.P. & M. Wink (2013). Nesting development
of ring-necked parakeets (Psittacula krameri) in a nest box population. The Open
Ornithology Journal 6: 9–24.
Butler, C.J. (2003). Population
biology of the introduced Rose-ringed Parakeet Psittacula
krameri in the UK. Thesis, Department of Zoology,
University of Oxford, 312pp.
Cody, M.L. (1985). Habitat selection
in the Sylviine Warblers of Western Europe and North
America, 86–129 pp. In: Cody, M.L. (ed.) Habitat selection in Birds. Academic
Press, Orlando, Florida, New York, 558pp.
Collias, N.E & E.C. Collias (1984). Nest building and bird
behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 336pp.
Cornelius, C. (2008). Spatial variation
in nest-site selection by a secondary cavity-nesting bird in a human-altered
landscape. The Condor 110(4): 615–626.
Craves, J.A. (1994). Passerines with
deformed bills-North American Birds. Banders 19(1): 14–18.
Dhindsa M.S. & H.K. Saina (1994). Agricultural Ornithology: an
Indian perspective. Journal of Bioscience 19: 391–402.
Gokula, V., C.
Venkataraman, S. Saravanan & S. Swaminathan (1999). Inter and
intraspecific variation in the resource use of Blossom-headed and Blue-winged
parakeets in Siruvani, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 96(2): 225–231.
Grandi, G., M. Menchetti & E. Moris (2016). Use of putlog holes
of Visconti Castle by breeding ring-necked parakeets (Psittacula
krameri) in Pavia (northern Italy). In: Atti del III Congresso Nazionale
Fauna Problematica, Cesena., Palazzo del Ridotto, 24–26 November
2016: 90—91.
Handel, C.M., L.M. Pajot,
S.M. Matsuka, C.V. Hement,
J. Terenzi, S.L. Talbot, D.M. Mulcahy,
C.V. Meteyer & K.A. Trust (2010). Epizootic of beak
deformities among wild birds in Alaska: an emerging disease in North America? The
Auk 127 (4): 882–898.
Jahan, I., S. Begum, M. M. Feeroz,
D.K. Das & A.K. Datta (2018). Nesting pattern of
birds in Jahangirnagar University Campus, Bangladesh. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 10(5): 11618–11635. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2799.10.5.11618-11635
Jones, C.G. (1980). The parrots on the
way of extinction. Oryx 15: 350–354.
Kanwar, K. (2019). Beak Deformities
in Birds: Special on World Parrot Day. Babushahi.com/trends.php?id=87473
Accessed on 15 December 2019.
Khan, A.K. (2002a). Breeding habitats
of the rose-ringed Parakeet (Psittacula krameri) in the cultivations of central Punjab.
International Journal of Agriculture & Biology 4(3): 401–403.
Khan, H. (2002b). Foraging, feeding,
roosting and nesting behavior of the rose-ringed parakeet
(Psittacula krameri)
in the cultivations of central Punjab. Pakistan Journal of Biological
Science 1: 37–38.
Kasambe, R., A. Joshi &
S. Meppayur (2009). Bill deformities in
House Crow Corvus splendens
and Large-billed Blue Magpie Urocrissa flavirostris in India. Newsletter for Birdwatchers
49(5): 73–77.
Kushwaha, S. & A. Kumar (2018). Report on cinnamon
green Rose-ringed Parakeet, Psittacula krameri (Scopoli 1769) (Aves:
Psittacula) from Jhansi, India. Journal of
Wildlife Research 6(3): 34–36.
Low, R. (1992). Parrots. Their
breeding and care, Blandford, London, UK, 432pp.
Mahabal, A., R.M. Sharma
& A. Sayyed (2015). Colour aberrations in Indian Birds. Birding
ASIA 24: 119–121.
Mahabal, A., H.V. Grouw, R.M. Sharma
& S. Takkur (2016). How common is
albinism really? Colour aberrations in Indian birds reviewed. Dutch Birding
38: 301–309.
Menchetti, M., E. Mori &
F.M. Angelici (2016). Effects of the
recent world invasion by ring-necked parakeets Psittacula
krameri, pp. 253–266. In: Angelici,
F.M. (ed.). Problematic wildlife. A Cross-disciplinary Approach.
Springer, New York, xvi+603pp.
Mukherjee A., C.K. Board & B.M. Parasharya (2000). Damage of
rose-ringed parakeet, Psittacula krameri Bordeat, to safflower, Carthamus
tinctorius L. Pavo
38: 15–18.
Neo, M.L. (2012). A review of three
alien parrots in Singapore. Nature in Singapore 5: 241–248.
Newton, I. (1994). The role of nest
sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: a review. Biological
Conservation 70: 265–276.
Nice, M.M. (1957). Nesting success in
altricial birds. Auk 74: 305–321.
Nilsson, S.G. (1984). The evolution of
nest-site selection among hole-nesting birds. The importance of nest predation
and competition. Ornis Scand 15: 167–175.
Oslen, G.H. (2003). Oral biology and
beak disorder of birds. Veterinary Clinics of North America. Exotic Animal
Practice 6(3): 505–521.
Pass, D.A. & R.A. Perry (1984). The pathogens of
psittacine beak and feather disease. Australian Veterinary Journal 61:
69–74.
Paton, P., C. Griffin & L. Griffin (1982). Rose-ringed
parakeet nesting in Hawaii: A potential agricultural threat. Elepaio 43(5): 37–39.
Pomeroy, D.E. (1962). Birds with abnormal
birth. British Birds 55: 49–72
Rasmussen, P.C. & J.C. Anderton (2005). Birds of South
Asia: The Ripley Guide. 2 vols. Smithsonian Institution & Lynx
Editions, Washington D.C. & Barcelona, 378pp.
Ritchie, B.W., F.D. Niasro,
K.S. Latimer, W.L. Steffens, D. Pest & P.D. Lukert
(1991). Haemagglutination by
psittacine beak & feather disease virus and use of haemagglutination
inhibition for detection of antibodies against the virus. American Journal
of Veterinary Research 52: 1810–1815.
Schackermann, J., H.V. Wehrden, N. Weiss & A. Klein (2014). High trees increase
sunflower predation by birds in an agricultural landscape. Vol 2. Frontiers
in Ecology and Evolution 2: 35. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2014.00035
Shivanarayan, N., K.S. Babu & M.H. Ali (1981). Breeding biology of
Rose-ringed Parakeet, Psittacula krameri at Maruteru. Pavo 19: 92–96.
Shivashankar, T. & S. Subramanya
(2008). Prevention of Rose-ringed parakeet Psittacula krameri
damage to Sunflower Helianthus annus. Indian
Birds 4(2): 60–65.
Soni, S., N.K. Sahi & T.K. Kler (2019). Records of beak
deformities in Punjab, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 116:
52–53.
Strubbe, D. & E. Matthyen (2007). Invasive
Ring-necked Parakeets Psittacula krameri in Belgium: habitat selection and impact on
native birds. Ecogeography 30(4):
578–588.
Strubbe, D. & E. Matthyen (2009). Establishment
success of native Ring-necked and Monk Parakeets in Europe. Journal of
Biogeography 36(12): 2264–2278.
Tamil Nadu (2020). Government of Tamil
Nadu website www.tn.gov.in. Accessed on 13 April 2020.
Thabethe, V., L. Thompson,
L. Hart & M. Brown (2013). Seasonal effects on the
thermoregulation of invasive rose-ringed parakeets (Psittacula
krameri). Journal of Thermal Biology 38(8):
553–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2013.09.006
Wesolowski, T. (2007). Lessons from
long-term hole-nester studies in a primeval temperate forest. Journal of
Ornithology 148: 395–405.
Zwart, P. (1995). Diseases of the
respiratory tract in Psittacine birds. Veterinary Quarterly
17(1): 52–53.
Zylberberg, M., C.V. Hemert, C.M. Handel & J.C. Derisi
(2018). Avian keratin disorder of Alaska Black-capped
Chickadees is associated with Poecivirus infection. Virology
Journal 15(1): 100.