The Monk Parakeet (Myiopsitta Monachus) as a Potential Pest for Agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin

The Monk Parakeet (Myiopsitta Monachus) as a Potential Pest for Agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Monk Parakeet ( Myiopsitta Monachus ) as a Potential Pest for Agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin Jorge Castro, Carmen Sáez, Mercedes Molina-Morales This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-458787/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 29 Dec, 2021 Read the published version in Biological Invasions → Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The monk parakeet ( Myiopsitta monachus ) has been introduced in the last decades to many cities of the Mediterranean basin. For most of this time it has been restricted primarily to urban areas, but it is starting to spread to rural habitats. It is considered a pest for agriculture in its native range, consuming a wide variety of crops such as grains, fruits, and vegetables. However, there is very little information about its potential role as a pest for agriculture in the areas where it is exotic. Here we conducted an experimental survey of the impact of the monk parakeet on corn in SE Spain using camera traps. The monk parakeet was the animal that produced the highest damage, being responsible for 98.6% of the time employed by all animals consuming kernels. The percentage of cobs damaged ranged from 36.8–100% depending on the cultivar, whereas the crop loss (measured as the length of the cob consumed with respect to the total length of the cob) ranged from 17.7–71.1%. The results suggest that the monk parakeet may be a serious pest for agriculture in the Mediterranean basin if their populations continue growing. Agroecology Behavioral Ecology camera traps damage to crops Exotic species Invasive species Maize Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction The monk parakeet ( Myiopsitta monachus ) is currently one of the most successful invasive bird species. Native to South America, it has been introduced to four continents (Avery 2020 ), and its population is growing quickly in many areas, particularly in North America and the Mediterranean basin (Domènech et al. 2003 ; Strubbe and Mathysen 2009; Postigo et al. 2017 ; Souviron-Priego et al. 2018 ). It is considered a pest in its natural range, consuming a wide range of crops producing grains, fruits, and vegetables (Canavelli et al. 2012 ; Avery 2020 ). In the areas where it has been introduced, it inhabits mostly cities, feeding on plants from parks and gardens and likely food supplied by citizens (Sol et al. 1997 ; Rodríguez-Pastor et al. 2012 ). However, the species is spreading to rural habitats (e.g., Hernández-Brito et al. 2020 ), and models predict much higher habitat occupancy in the near future (Muñoz and Real 2006 ). This raises the possibility that it could become a pest for agriculture in the areas where it is exotic. In fact, damage to crops has been reported both in Western Europe and North America (Senar et al. 2016 ). However, precise information regarding the damage produced to crops by the monk parakeet in the areas invaded is almost absent despite its potential economic impact (Mencheti and Mori 2014; but see Senar et al. 2016 ). In this work we conducted an evaluation of damage to different cultivars of maize produced by the monk parakeet by recording videos with camera traps. This provides a very accurate estimate of the impact of the parakeet, as it allows for the detection and clear identification of the animal that produces the damage and its magnitude compared to other potential animals causing damage. Additionally, the damage produced to crops by some animals may boost the damage produced by others in clearing access for the second agent. In such a case, we lack information about how the interaction with other animals might boost the attack to the crops by the monk parakeet, or if on the contrary, the monk parakeet creates an opportunity for crop consumption by other animals. These aspects may be ruled out with direct observation, and the use of camera traps is a particularly suitable approach for this. Methods 2.1 Study Site And Natural History Of The System The study was conducted during the summer of 2020 in the Vega de Granada, a flat and irrigated agricultural area of small-sized farms located at ca. 650 m a.s.l. The entire area is used mainly for crop production, mostly vegetables, maize, tree plantations, and pasture. The soil is deep and loamy, and the climate is Mediterranean-type, with hot, dry summers and mild winters. The mean annual rainfall is 388 ± 29 L m 2 y − 1 and the mean temperature is 15.3 ± 0.1 ºC (period 2006–2020). The study was performed in “Huerta de La Paloma” farm (study site hereafter), a private property 1.8 ha in size located in the “Vega de Granada” (SE Spain, 37º 10' 03.43'' N, 3º 36' 57.80'' W). It is at ca. 1 km from the city of Granada and devoted to research on plant-animal interactions in agroforestry systems and organic production. Different vegetables are planted every year, and ca. 25 3–6 m tall scattered fruit trees are dispersed across the farm, including plums, apples, pears, peaches, persimmons, jujube, fig trees, orange trees, and almond trees. There are also well developed edges around the farm and several larger trees such as poplars, walnuts, and Nettle trees ( Celtis australis ) (Fig. 1 a). The monk parakeet ( Myiopsitta monachus ) is a non-native species that is spreading in the area. It was first registered in the city of Granada in 1993 (Molina et al. 2016 ). During the beginning of the XXI century, the number of individuals increased and the monk parakeet started to be a common bird in the area. Currently, there are two colonies in the surroundings of the study site, with a total approximate number of 30 individuals (JC and MMM, personal observation). Damage to the crops by the monk parakeet has been observed in the study site and surrounding areas in recent years, although without methodical sampling. In 2019 (one year before this study), a preliminary survey was done by direct observation using binoculars and crop inspection that allowed us to confirm consumption of corn and other crops such as peaches, apples, pears, jujube, and even almond flowers during the blooming season (JC and MMM, personal observation). In 2020, we planned an experimental sowing to determine the damage produced to maize, one of the most common crops in the Vega de Granada. 2.2 Experimental Design And Sampling Of Animal Activity In April of 2020, two cultivars of popcorn (red and blue popcorn; Fig. 2 a) were planted in the study site in two parallel furrows 95 m in length and separated from each other by 50 cm. Plants within the furrows were sowed in groups of 3–4 seeds (thinned later by 2–3 plants), with a distance between groups of ca. 25 cm. The two cultivars were sowed along the furrows consecutively, each covering a length of 45 m per furrow and separated from each other by a gap of 5 m (Fig. 1 a). The blue cultivar unexpectedly produced some plants with a larger stalk and ear size (Table 1 ), and with a kernel color and pattern similar to the carousel popcorn (Fig. 2 a). In addition, another furrows 35 m in length and parallel to the pop corn was planted with a commercial maize commonly grown in the study site (Pioneer® P1524; Pioneer hereafter) at a distance of 15 m from the popcorn, using the same planting framework as described for the popcorn (Fig. 1 a). This produced the following four different corn-type availabilities within the experimental area: 1) Red popcorn, 2) Blue popcorn, 3) Carousel popcorn, and 4) Pioneer. Plant height, number of cobs per plant, cob diameter and length, and grain mass for all the cultivars is shown in Table 1 . Table 1 Characteristics of the cultivars used in the study. In parentheses, sample size used for each variable. (1) Sampled in August 2020 once the stalks reached their maximum size and the kernels were ripening. (2) Sampled in October 2020 after manual harvest (see Sect. 2.3 for further description of the sampling protocol). (*) All available plants were harvested. There were significant differences among cultivars in all the parameters measured (one-way ANOVAs except for kernel mass, that was analyzed with a GLM with an exponential distribution and reciprocal as link function; p < 0.0001 in all cases). Cultivar Plant height 1 (cm) # Cobs per plant 1 Cob diameter 2 (mm) Cob length 2 (cm) Kernel mass (g, 10 seeds) Red popcorn 170.4 ± 2.0 (50) 1.04 ± 0.04 (50) 23.43 ± 0.16 (75) 18.62 ± 0.40 (75) 1.97 ± 0.03 Blue popcorn 124.4 ± 1.6 (50) 3.46 ± 0.17 (50) 11.61 ± 0.11 (76) 9.55 ± 0.15 (76) 0.69 ± 0.01 Carousel popcorn* 184.4 ± 5.0 (8) 2.25 ± 0.31 (8) 20.41 ± 0.31 (17) 16.53 ± 0.57 (17) 2.28 ± 0.03 Pioneer 224.0 ± 3.4 (30) 1.40 ± 0.09 (30) 24.92 ± 0.38 (41) 18.77 ± 0.41 (41) 3.23 ± 0.03 Animal activity in the maize was monitored using video recordings with camera traps. All recordings were taken in summer of 2020 from August 25th to September 20th. For this, wooden poles 6 cm in diameter and 1.50 m in height were inserted perpendicularly into the ground at a distance of 1.5 m from the maize, and camera traps with day and night vision were attached to the poles (Fig. 1 b). We used five to eight cameras simultaneously depending on the availability on each particular day, and the recordings covered both daytime and nighttime periods. One camera was a Moultrie Realtree Original, whereas the remaining were Moultrie M-990i models (Moultrie Products, Alabama, USA). Nighttime recordings lasted 30 sec. for each video, whereas the daytime recordings lasted 90 sec. (except for the Realtree Original, which lasted 60 sec.). The recordings were taken in 12 batches regularly distributed throughout the sampling period. The cameras were activated simultaneously and recorded for approximately 24 hours per batch in order to collect recordings both during the day and at night. The videos were later revised noting the following variables for each: 1) Species identification and number of individuals per video. For this we considered as individuals any independently detected animal recorded during the duration of the video, but ensured that a particular individual was not counted more than one time. In cases where we could not guarantee that a new individual was not one that previously left the recording area, it was not added to the final number. 2) Number of individuals that consumed kernels per video, following the same restrictions as described above. 3) Time of consumption; the total time (in seconds) spent by the animals consuming corn. We considered an animal to be consuming corn when it was clearly picking at or plucking kernels and ingesting them (Supplementary Information 1). 2.3 Damage To Cobs The damage to the cobs was sampled on 21st of September once they were dry and ready for harvest. For this, we harvested a random sample of cobs along the whole length of the furrows for each of the three initially planted cultivars, and we measured the following variables in the laboratory: 1) cob diameter (average of two perpendicular diameters in the central part of the cob), 2) cob length, and 3) length of the portion consumed (Fig. 2 c). For the last two variables, we measured the length of the cob that contained grains, not the total length of the cob (this may be larger in cases where some grains at the tip of the cob abort and do not ripen). 2.4 Population Size Of Monk Parakeets The number of individual monk parakeets foraging in the study site was estimated by direct observation. For this, two people with binoculars and connected by mobile phones occupied two different positions that allowed them to cover the full farm. Counts were done simultaneously in the morning or afternoon during a period of 30 min. The number of individuals foraging in the farm during any particular sampling was considered as the sum of the maximum number that could be counted by the two observers, ensuring that there was no repetition of individuals. A total of 10 samplings were done from the 26th of August to the 1st of October 2020. 2.5 Statistical Analysis The number of individuals per video, the number of individuals consuming corn, and the time of consumption was analyzed on a per-video basis, discarding all the videos that did not record any animal activity. Although one of the camera traps recorded during a different duration (60 sec. versus 90 sec. for the rest of the cameras), we have not corrected for different recording durations given that the possibility that an animal could be recorded at any camera can be considered a random process. For these three variables, we used a one-way ANOVA with data previously log-transformed. For damage to the cobs, we analyzed two variables: 1) Cobs damaged , the percentage of attacked cobs (a categorical variable, yes/no); and 2) Crop loss , i.e., the proportion of crop loss estimated as the percentage of cob length consumed (thus a variable that ranged from 0 to 100% per cob). The percentage of cobs damaged was analyzed with a chi square test. The crop loss was analyzed with a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) using an exponential distribution and a reciprocal link function. Analyses were performed with JMP 10.0 software (SAS Institute). Throughout the paper, mean values are followed by SE. Results 3.1. Animal Activity On Maize A total of 5501 videos were recorded, totaling 446700 seconds of recordings (124.08 hours). Of those, 4936 videos were recorded in daylight (429750 seconds of recording) and 565 during night (16950 seconds of recording). Not a single vertebrate was recorded during night hours (only moths were detected), and therefore this period is not considered further. For the daytime period, 49.6% of the time recorded were in the Red cultivar, 34.0% in the Blue cultivar (pooling both Blue and the intermingled Carousel plants), and 16.4% in the Pioneer cultivar. A large fraction of the videos were triggered due to the movement of the leaves in the wind but recorded no animals. A total of 5 vertebrate species were recorded foraging on the maize plants, all of them birds. Of those, the monk parakeet, house sparrow ( Passer domesticus ), common wood pigeon ( Columba palumbus ), and magpie ( Pica pica ) were recorded consuming corn. A blackbird ( Turdus merula ) was recorded only once, but without consumption of corn. The monk parakeet was the most abundant species detected in the videos (79% of the independent birds recorded), the species with the most individual consumption of corn (97.3% of the independent birds recorded), and the species that spent the most time consuming corn (98.6% of the time that any animal was recorded consuming corn), with strong statistical differences among species (Table 2 ). The activity of the monk parakeet peaked during the early morning hours and was virtually absent from noon to early afternoon (Fig. 3 ). Table 2 Summary of the abundance of individuals, individuals consuming corn, and duration of consumption for the species recorded consuming corn both as the sum of the total instances recorded and in a per video basis (in parentheses, range). Statistical analyses are performed for data on a per-video basis (one-way ANOVAs done with log-transformed data). *Independent detections are individuals that appear in the videos, having ensured that we do not count any of them more than once. † d.f. = 3, 692 and p < 0.0001 in all cases. Monk parakeet House sparrow Pigeon Magpie F† Number of videos recording the species 477 189 22 8 Total number of independent detections (ID)* 1380 337 23 9 Total number of ID consuming corn 1041 10 13 6 Total time consuming corn (in seconds) 61937 77 595 210 Individuals per video (mean ± SE) 2.89 ± 0.09 (1–11) 1.78 ± 0.08 (1–6) 1.04 ± 0.04 (1–2) 1.12 ± 0.12 (1–2) 34.96 Individuals consuming kernels per video (mean ± SE) 2.18 ± 0.07 (1–9) 0.05 ± 0.02 (1) 0.59 ± 0.02 (1–2) 0.75 ± 0.25 (1–2) 250.78 Duration of consumption per video (mean ± SE; in seconds) 129.8 ± 4.8 (1-549) 0.4 ± 0.2 (1–25) 27.1 ± 7.9 (1–90) 26.2 ± 10.6 (34–72) 416.67 3.2. Damage To The Crop The percentage of cobs damaged differed among cultivars (Chi square = 70.62, d.f. = 3, p < 0.0001), being 90.7% for the Red cultivar, 36.8% for the Blue cultivar, 48.8% for Pioneer, and 100% for the Carousel cultivar. The crop loss also differed among cultivars (L-R chi square = 95.14; d.f.=3; p < 0.0001), being 71.1 ± 3.5% for the Red cultivar, 17.7 ± 3.3% for Blue cultivar, 17.7 ± 3.4% for Pioneer, and 65.1 ± 7.1% for the Carousel cultivar. 3.4 Population Size Of Monk Parakeets The number of monk parakeets registered in the study site during the 30 min sampling ranged from 5 to 22, with an average of 12.2 ± 1.6. Discusion The use of camera traps has allowed for precise identification of the agents that cause damage in maize in the study area. Some consumption of cobs occurred in the study area before the arrival of the parakeets, and local farmers typically attribute this to rats (JC, personal communication). Other bird species such as pigeons and house sparrows also perch on the maize plants, but their potential role as a pest for the crop was unknown. Our results document with high precision that, according to our data, all of these animals are irrelevant compared with the damage produced by the monk parakeet, which was responsible for more than 98% of the time spent consuming corn. Moreover, the feeding behavior of the parakeet is particularly voracious (Supplementary Information 1), and it is very likely that the amount of kernels ingested by this bird in relation to other species is even above the percentage of time consuming corn registered. In this sense, it is particularly remarkable that the foraging of the house sparrow seemed entirely linked to the previous activity of the parakeets: once the parakeet opened the leaves of the cob and started to consume it, this created an opportunity for the attack by the sparrows, which otherwise could not feed on the grains. Thus, although the magnitude of damage produced by the house sparrow is small, it is likely that its impact is the result of a facilitative interaction mediated by the parakeet. The damage produced by the monk parakeet was particularly high for some of the cultivars, with Red and Carousel popcorns reaching values above 70% of the crop loss. This implies the virtual destruction of the crop from an agronomic and economic point of view. On the other hand, the damage differed substantially among cultivars. A potential reason could be the size of the plant, the cob, or the kernel, which might explain the lowest values for the smallest plants (Blue cultivar). However, all of these parameters were highest in the Pioneer cultivar, which nonetheless suffered less attacks than the Red or the Carousel popcorn. It is therefore very likely that the parakeets chose the cultivars according to organoleptic properties apart from their sizes. On the other hand, it is remarkable that popcorn suffered the highest damage, contrary to the results reported by Senar et al. ( 2016 ) where the parakeets damaged commercial maize but not popcorn. The results relating to damage must be taken with caution given that our sampling was done in a small-scale experimental set-up where maize formed three furrows. It is not uncommon that damage caused by vertebrates (including the monk parakeet) are higher in the outer furrows than in the interior of the fields (Canavelli et al. 2012 ; Senar et al. 2016 ). In this sense, in a previous study, Senar et al ( 2016 ) documented a value of 28% of cobs damaged in larger fields of commercial maize in NE Spain, which is below the 48% that we found in our study area for Pioneer (although still significant damage). Nonetheless, another key factor for the damage is the population size of the animal. Considering this, it is notable that the damage in our study was produced by a small number of birds, with an estimated population utilizing the study site below 22 individuals. The monk parakeet started its colonization in cities, but it is spreading to rural habitats (Postigo et al. 2017 ; Hernández-Brito et al. 2020 ), such as in the case of our study site (a rural area close to the city). In addition, its population is growing exponentially in many cities of the Mediterranean basin (Domènech et al. 2003 ; Postigo et al. 2017 , 2019 ; Souviron-Priego et al. 2018 ). Moreover, the warm climatic conditions of the Mediterranean basin, the large proportion of croplands in the territory, and the dietary opportunism of the monk parakeets may favor their spread (Strubbe and Matthysen 2009 ; Bucher and Aramburú 2014 ; Postigo et al. 2019 ). It is therefore possible that the species has reached its lag phase in the invasion process, and in that case there are high possibilities that it may become a serious pest for agriculture in the Mediterranean basin. Declarations Data availability statement: The datasets generated during the current study and the video-recordings are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Author’s contribution JC and MMM conceived the idea and conducted the video-recordings. CS visualized the videos and extracted the data. JC analyzed the data and wrote the first draft of the ms. All authors reviewed and approved the ms. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (project PID2019-106806GB-I00). References Avery ML (2020). Monk parakeet ( Myiopsitta monachus Boddaert, 1783). In: Downs CT, Hart LA (eds). Invasive birds: global trends and impacts. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 76-84. Bucher EH, Aramburú RM (2014). Land-use changes and monk parakeet expansion in the Pampas grasslands of Argentina. Journal of Biogeography 41:1160-1170. Canavelli SB, Aramburú R, Zaccagnini ME (2012). Aspectos a considerar para disminuir los conflictos originados por los daños de la cotorra (Myiopsitta monachus) en cultivos agrícolas. Hornero 27:89-101. Domènech J, Carrillo J, Senar JC (2003). Population size of the monk parakeet Myiopsitta monachus in Catalonia. Revista Catalana d’Ornitologia 20:1-9. Hernández-Brito D, Blanco G, Tella JL, Carrete M (2020). A protective nesting association with native species counteract biotic resistance for the spread of an invasive parakeet from urban into rural habitats. Frontiers in Zoology 17:13 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-020-00360-2 ). Menchetti M, Mori E (2014). Worldwide impact of alien parrots (Aves Psittaciformes) on native biodiversity and environment: a review. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 26:172-194. Molina B, Postigo JL, MUñoz AR, Del Moral JC (eds) (2016). La cotorra argentina en España, población reproductora en 2015 y método de censo . SEO/BirdLife. Madrid. Muñoz AR, Real R (2006). Assessing the potential range expansion of the exotic monk parakeet in Spain. Diversity and Distributions 12:656-665. Postigo JL, Shwartz A, Strubbe D, Muñoz A-R (2017). Unrelenting spread of the alien monk parakeet Myiopsitta monachus in Israel. Is it time to sound the alarm? Pest Management Science 73:349-353. Postigo JL, Strubbe D, Mori E, Ancillotto L, Carneiro I, Latsoudis P, Menchetti M, Pârâu LG, Parrott D, Reino L, Weiserbs A, Senar JC (2019). Mediterranean versus Atlantic monk parakeets Myiopsitta monachus : towards differentiated management at the European scale. Pest Management Science 75:915-922. Rodríguez-Pastor R, Senar JC, Ortega A, Faus J, Uribe F, Montalvo T (2012). Distribution patterns of invasive Monk parakeets ( Myiopsitta monachus ) in an urban habitat. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 35:107-117. Senar JC, Domènech J, Arroyo L, Torre I, Gordo O (2016). An evaluation of monk parakeet damage to crops in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 39:141-145. Sol D, Santos DM, Feria E, Clavell J (1997). Habitat selection by the monk parakeet during colonization of a new area in Spain. The Condor 99:39-46. Souviron-Priego L, Muñoz AR, Olivero J, Vargas JM, Fa JE (2018). The legal international wildlife trade favours invasive species establishment: the monk and ring-necked parakeets in Spain. Ardeola 65:233-246. Strubbe D, Matthysen E (2009). Establishment success of invasive ring-necked and monk parakeets in Europe. Journal of Biogeography 36:2264-2278. Supplementary Files SupplemtInform1MFDC2157.mov Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 29 Dec, 2021 Read the published version in Biological Invasions → Version 1 posted Reviewers invited by journal 20 Jun, 2021 Reviews received at journal 20 Jun, 2021 Editor assigned by journal 23 Apr, 2021 First submitted to journal 23 Apr, 2021 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-458787","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":34515937,"identity":"ee1b1f11-f2ac-43ed-8f87-6fdab4cbd6e9","order_by":0,"name":"Jorge Castro","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Granada","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jorge","middleName":"","lastName":"Castro","suffix":""},{"id":34515938,"identity":"a42ce000-3421-4cc5-832c-d33151a5afa1","order_by":1,"name":"Carmen Sáez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Granada","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Carmen","middleName":"","lastName":"Sáez","suffix":""},{"id":34515939,"identity":"3af55977-138d-4f7e-80d0-6bd0eb438262","order_by":2,"name":"Mercedes Molina-Morales","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Granada","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mercedes","middleName":"","lastName":"Molina-Morales","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2021-04-24 14:50:43","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-458787/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-458787/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02702-5","type":"published","date":"2021-12-29T06:49:21+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":10738872,"identity":"ad55360a-d104-420c-9e4c-94f6a6c388c4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-06-24 15:09:21","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1266555,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"a) Study site (“Huerta de la Paloma” farm) in detail; red arrows show the initial and final points of the furrows of maize used in the study. b) Furrows of maize (popcorns red and blue) with camera traps installed at regular intervals on poles 1.5 m from the plants. Red arrows mark the beginning and the end of the furrows of popcorn (larger line) and Pioneer (shorter line) cultivars.","description":"","filename":"fig1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-458787/v1/04f7acc5ee5fe14871fb923a.png"},{"id":10739102,"identity":"39f646b5-fc05-4fb7-9994-8df653f7e22f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-06-24 15:12:21","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1201590,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"a) Detailed image of the Red (left), Blue (middle) and Carrousel (right) cultivars used in the study. b) Detailed image of the damage to the cobs of the Pioneer cultivar by the monk parakeet while on the stalk. c) The damage to the cobs of Red popcorn in detail.","description":"","filename":"fig2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-458787/v1/a071e6cd95a74751b4439761.png"},{"id":10738630,"identity":"d0d0c99c-fa5c-494c-aa3d-e58f7b7e1e6a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-06-24 15:06:21","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":18380,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Daily pattern of activity of the monk parakeet on maize (hours according to solar time). The pattern is similar across cultivars; data from all cultivars have been pooled for representation.","description":"","filename":"fig3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-458787/v1/d85edc02219f26b7b5b1ff75.png"},{"id":16821651,"identity":"31945805-6e17-4329-adbe-ae950bfde8d7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-12-29 06:49:24","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2438119,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-458787/v1/531df841-2f4a-4c8b-a733-e9d8b1ae441c.pdf"},{"id":10738633,"identity":"03a53fe1-b52c-4668-b8c2-048c1db16516","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-06-24 15:06:25","extension":"mov","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":96128428,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplemtInform1MFDC2157.mov","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-458787/v1/6fe1e49ee1203351afffe131.mov"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eThe Monk Parakeet (\u003cem\u003eMyiopsitta Monachus\u003c/em\u003e) as a Potential Pest for Agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe monk parakeet (\u003cem\u003eMyiopsitta monachus\u003c/em\u003e) is currently one of the most successful invasive bird species. Native to South America, it has been introduced to four continents (Avery \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and its population is growing quickly in many areas, particularly in North America and the Mediterranean basin (Dom\u0026egrave;nech et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Strubbe and Mathysen 2009; Postigo et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Souviron-Priego et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). It is considered a pest in its natural range, consuming a wide range of crops producing grains, fruits, and vegetables (Canavelli et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Avery \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In the areas where it has been introduced, it inhabits mostly cities, feeding on plants from parks and gardens and likely food supplied by citizens (Sol et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Pastor et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). However, the species is spreading to rural habitats (e.g., Hern\u0026aacute;ndez-Brito et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and models predict much higher habitat occupancy in the near future (Mu\u0026ntilde;oz and Real \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). This raises the possibility that it could become a pest for agriculture in the areas where it is exotic. In fact, damage to crops has been reported both in Western Europe and North America (Senar et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). However, precise information regarding the damage produced to crops by the monk parakeet in the areas invaded is almost absent despite its potential economic impact (Mencheti and Mori 2014; but see Senar et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this work we conducted an evaluation of damage to different cultivars of maize produced by the monk parakeet by recording videos with camera traps. This provides a very accurate estimate of the impact of the parakeet, as it allows for the detection and clear identification of the animal that produces the damage and its magnitude compared to other potential animals causing damage. Additionally, the damage produced to crops by some animals may boost the damage produced by others in clearing access for the second agent. In such a case, we lack information about how the interaction with other animals might boost the attack to the crops by the monk parakeet, or if on the contrary, the monk parakeet creates an opportunity for crop consumption by other animals. These aspects may be ruled out with direct observation, and the use of camera traps is a particularly suitable approach for this.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Study Site And Natural History Of The System\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted during the summer of 2020 in the Vega de Granada, a flat and irrigated agricultural area of small-sized farms located at ca. 650 m a.s.l. The entire area is used mainly for crop production, mostly vegetables, maize, tree plantations, and pasture. The soil is deep and loamy, and the climate is Mediterranean-type, with hot, dry summers and mild winters. The mean annual rainfall is 388\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;29 L m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e y\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e and the mean temperature is 15.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 \u0026ordm;C (period 2006\u0026ndash;2020). The study was performed in \u0026ldquo;Huerta de La Paloma\u0026rdquo; farm (study site hereafter), a private property 1.8 ha in size located in the \u0026ldquo;Vega de Granada\u0026rdquo; (SE Spain, 37\u0026ordm; 10\u0026apos; 03.43\u0026apos;\u0026apos; N, 3\u0026ordm; 36\u0026apos; 57.80\u0026apos;\u0026apos; W). It is at ca. 1 km from the city of Granada and devoted to research on plant-animal interactions in agroforestry systems and organic production. Different vegetables are planted every year, and ca. 25 3\u0026ndash;6 m tall scattered fruit trees are dispersed across the farm, including plums, apples, pears, peaches, persimmons, jujube, fig trees, orange trees, and almond trees. There are also well developed edges around the farm and several larger trees such as poplars, walnuts, and Nettle trees (\u003cem\u003eCeltis australis\u003c/em\u003e) (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe monk parakeet (\u003cem\u003eMyiopsitta monachus\u003c/em\u003e) is a non-native species that is spreading in the area. It was first registered in the city of Granada in 1993 (Molina et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). During the beginning of the XXI century, the number of individuals increased and the monk parakeet started to be a common bird in the area. Currently, there are two colonies in the surroundings of the study site, with a total approximate number of 30 individuals (JC and MMM, personal observation). Damage to the crops by the monk parakeet has been observed in the study site and surrounding areas in recent years, although without methodical sampling. In 2019 (one year before this study), a preliminary survey was done by direct observation using binoculars and crop inspection that allowed us to confirm consumption of corn and other crops such as peaches, apples, pears, jujube, and even almond flowers during the blooming season (JC and MMM, personal observation). In 2020, we planned an experimental sowing to determine the damage produced to maize, one of the most common crops in the Vega de Granada.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Experimental Design And Sampling Of Animal Activity\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn April of 2020, two cultivars of popcorn (red and blue popcorn; Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea) were planted in the study site in two parallel furrows 95 m in length and separated from each other by 50 cm. Plants within the furrows were sowed in groups of 3\u0026ndash;4 seeds (thinned later by 2\u0026ndash;3 plants), with a distance between groups of ca. 25 cm. The two cultivars were sowed along the furrows consecutively, each covering a length of 45 m per furrow and separated from each other by a gap of 5 m (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea). The blue cultivar unexpectedly produced some plants with a larger stalk and ear size (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), and with a kernel color and pattern similar to the carousel popcorn (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea). In addition, another furrows 35 m in length and parallel to the pop corn was planted with a commercial maize commonly grown in the study site (Pioneer\u0026reg; P1524; Pioneer hereafter) at a distance of 15 m from the popcorn, using the same planting framework as described for the popcorn (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea). This produced the following four different corn-type availabilities within the experimental area: 1) Red popcorn, 2) Blue popcorn, 3) Carousel popcorn, and 4) Pioneer. Plant height, number of cobs per plant, cob diameter and length, and grain mass for all the cultivars is shown in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable border=\"1\" id=\"Tab1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics of the cultivars used in the study. In parentheses, sample size used for each variable. (1) Sampled in August 2020 once the stalks reached their maximum size and the kernels were ripening. (2) Sampled in October 2020 after manual harvest (see Sect. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2.3\u003c/span\u003e for further description of the sampling protocol). (*) All available plants were harvested. There were significant differences among cultivars in all the parameters measured (one-way ANOVAs except for kernel mass, that was analyzed with a GLM with an exponential distribution and reciprocal as link function; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001 in all cases).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCultivar\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlant height\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(cm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e# Cobs per\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eplant\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCob diameter\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCob length\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(cm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKernel mass\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(g, 10 seeds)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRed popcorn\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e170.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(50)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.04\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(50)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.43\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(75)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.62\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(75)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.97\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlue popcorn\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e124.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(50)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.46\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(50)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.61\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(76)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.55\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(76)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.69\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCarousel popcorn*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e184.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.41\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.53\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.28\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePioneer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e224.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.40\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.92\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(41)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.77\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(41)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.23\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnimal activity in the maize was monitored using video recordings with camera traps. All recordings were taken in summer of 2020 from August 25th to September 20th. For this, wooden poles 6 cm in diameter and 1.50 m in height were inserted perpendicularly into the ground at a distance of 1.5 m from the maize, and camera traps with day and night vision were attached to the poles (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eb). We used five to eight cameras simultaneously depending on the availability on each particular day, and the recordings covered both daytime and nighttime periods. One camera was a Moultrie Realtree Original, whereas the remaining were Moultrie M-990i models (Moultrie Products, Alabama, USA). Nighttime recordings lasted 30 sec. for each video, whereas the daytime recordings lasted 90 sec. (except for the Realtree Original, which lasted 60 sec.). The recordings were taken in 12 batches regularly distributed throughout the sampling period. The cameras were activated simultaneously and recorded for approximately 24 hours per batch in order to collect recordings both during the day and at night. The videos were later revised noting the following variables for each:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) Species identification and number of individuals per video. For this we considered as individuals any independently detected animal recorded during the duration of the video, but ensured that a particular individual was not counted more than one time. In cases where we could not guarantee that a new individual was not one that previously left the recording area, it was not added to the final number.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2) Number of individuals that consumed kernels per video, following the same restrictions as described above.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3) Time of consumption; the total time (in seconds) spent by the animals consuming corn. We considered an animal to be consuming corn when it was clearly picking at or plucking kernels and ingesting them (Supplementary Information 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/span\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e2.3 Damage To Cobs\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe damage to the cobs was sampled on 21st of September once they were dry and ready for harvest. For this, we harvested a random sample of cobs along the whole length of the furrows for each of the three initially planted cultivars, and we measured the following variables in the laboratory: 1) cob diameter (average of two perpendicular diameters in the central part of the cob), 2) cob length, and 3) length of the portion consumed (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ec). For the last two variables, we measured the length of the cob that contained grains, not the total length of the cob (this may be larger in cases where some grains at the tip of the cob abort and do not ripen).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e2.4 Population Size Of Monk Parakeets\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe number of individual monk parakeets foraging in the study site was estimated by direct observation. For this, two people with binoculars and connected by mobile phones occupied two different positions that allowed them to cover the full farm. Counts were done simultaneously in the morning or afternoon during a period of 30 min. The number of individuals foraging in the farm during any particular sampling was considered as the sum of the maximum number that could be counted by the two observers, ensuring that there was no repetition of individuals. A total of 10 samplings were done from the 26th of August to the 1st of October 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e2.5 Statistical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe number of individuals per video, the number of individuals consuming corn, and the time of consumption was analyzed on a per-video basis, discarding all the videos that did not record any animal activity. Although one of the camera traps recorded during a different duration (60 sec. versus 90 sec. for the rest of the cameras), we have not corrected for different recording durations given that the possibility that an animal could be recorded at any camera can be considered a random process. For these three variables, we used a one-way ANOVA with data previously log-transformed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor damage to the cobs, we analyzed two variables: 1) \u003cstrong\u003eCobs damaged\u003c/strong\u003e, the percentage of attacked cobs (a categorical variable, yes/no); and 2) \u003cstrong\u003eCrop loss\u003c/strong\u003e, i.e., the proportion of crop loss estimated as the percentage of cob length consumed (thus a variable that ranged from 0 to 100% per cob). The percentage of cobs damaged was analyzed with a chi square test. The crop loss was analyzed with a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) using an exponential distribution and a reciprocal link function. Analyses were performed with JMP 10.0 software (SAS Institute). Throughout the paper, mean values are followed by SE.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch2\u003e3.1. Animal Activity On Maize\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 5501 videos were recorded, totaling 446700 seconds of recordings (124.08 hours). Of those, 4936 videos were recorded in daylight (429750 seconds of recording) and 565 during night (16950 seconds of recording). Not a single vertebrate was recorded during night hours (only moths were detected), and therefore this period is not considered further. For the daytime period, 49.6% of the time recorded were in the Red cultivar, 34.0% in the Blue cultivar (pooling both Blue and the intermingled Carousel plants), and 16.4% in the Pioneer cultivar. A large fraction of the videos were triggered due to the movement of the leaves in the wind but recorded no animals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 5 vertebrate species were recorded foraging on the maize plants, all of them birds. Of those, the monk parakeet, house sparrow (\u003cem\u003ePasser domesticus\u003c/em\u003e), common wood pigeon (\u003cem\u003eColumba palumbus\u003c/em\u003e), and magpie (\u003cem\u003ePica pica\u003c/em\u003e) were recorded consuming corn. A blackbird (\u003cem\u003eTurdus merula\u003c/em\u003e) was recorded only once, but without consumption of corn. The monk parakeet was the most abundant species detected in the videos (79% of the independent birds recorded), the species with the most individual consumption of corn (97.3% of the independent birds recorded), and the species that spent the most time consuming corn (98.6% of the time that any animal was recorded consuming corn), with strong statistical differences among species (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The activity of the monk parakeet peaked during the early morning hours and was virtually absent from noon to early afternoon (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable border=\"1\" id=\"Tab2\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSummary of the abundance of individuals, individuals consuming corn, and duration of consumption for the species recorded consuming corn both as the sum of the total instances recorded and in a per video basis (in parentheses, range). Statistical analyses are performed for data on a per-video basis (one-way ANOVAs done with log-transformed data). *Independent detections are individuals that appear in the videos, having ensured that we do not count any of them more than once. \u0026dagger; d.f. = 3, 692 and p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001 in all cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMonk\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eparakeet\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHouse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esparrow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePigeon\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMagpie\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026dagger;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of videos recording the species\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e477\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e189\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal number of independent detections (ID)*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1380\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e337\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal number of ID consuming corn\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal time consuming corn (in seconds)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61937\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e595\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e210\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndividuals per video (mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.89\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1\u0026ndash;11)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.78\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.08 (1\u0026ndash;6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.04\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04 (1\u0026ndash;2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.12\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.12 (1\u0026ndash;2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndividuals consuming kernels per video (mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.18\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1\u0026ndash;9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.05\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02 (1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.59\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02 (1\u0026ndash;2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.25 (1\u0026ndash;2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e250.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDuration of consumption per video (mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SE; in seconds)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e129.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1-549)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1\u0026ndash;25)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7.9 (1\u0026ndash;90)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10.6 (34\u0026ndash;72)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e416.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.2. Damage To The Crop\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe percentage of cobs damaged differed among cultivars (Chi square\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;70.62, d.f. = 3, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001), being 90.7% for the Red cultivar, 36.8% for the Blue cultivar, 48.8% for Pioneer, and 100% for the Carousel cultivar. The crop loss also differed among cultivars (L-R chi square\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;95.14; d.f.=3; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001), being 71.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.5% for the Red cultivar, 17.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.3% for Blue cultivar, 17.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.4% for Pioneer, and 65.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7.1% for the Carousel cultivar.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.4 Population Size Of Monk Parakeets\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe number of monk parakeets registered in the study site during the 30 min sampling ranged from 5 to 22, with an average of 12.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.6.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discusion","content":" \u003cp\u003eThe use of camera traps has allowed for precise identification of the agents that cause damage in maize in the study area. Some consumption of cobs occurred in the study area before the arrival of the parakeets, and local farmers typically attribute this to rats (JC, personal communication). Other bird species such as pigeons and house sparrows also perch on the maize plants, but their potential role as a pest for the crop was unknown. Our results document with high precision that, according to our data, all of these animals are irrelevant compared with the damage produced by the monk parakeet, which was responsible for more than 98% of the time spent consuming corn. Moreover, the feeding behavior of the parakeet is particularly voracious (Supplementary Information 1), and it is very likely that the amount of kernels ingested by this bird in relation to other species is even above the percentage of time consuming corn registered. In this sense, it is particularly remarkable that the foraging of the house sparrow seemed entirely linked to the previous activity of the parakeets: once the parakeet opened the leaves of the cob and started to consume it, this created an opportunity for the attack by the sparrows, which otherwise could not feed on the grains. Thus, although the magnitude of damage produced by the house sparrow is small, it is likely that its impact is the result of a facilitative interaction mediated by the parakeet.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe damage produced by the monk parakeet was particularly high for some of the cultivars, with Red and Carousel popcorns reaching values above 70% of the crop loss. This implies the virtual destruction of the crop from an agronomic and economic point of view. On the other hand, the damage differed substantially among cultivars. A potential reason could be the size of the plant, the cob, or the kernel, which might explain the lowest values for the smallest plants (Blue cultivar). However, all of these parameters were highest in the Pioneer cultivar, which nonetheless suffered less attacks than the Red or the Carousel popcorn. It is therefore very likely that the parakeets chose the cultivars according to organoleptic properties apart from their sizes. On the other hand, it is remarkable that popcorn suffered the highest damage, contrary to the results reported by Senar et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) where the parakeets damaged commercial maize but not popcorn.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results relating to damage must be taken with caution given that our sampling was done in a small-scale experimental set-up where maize formed three furrows. It is not uncommon that damage caused by vertebrates (including the monk parakeet) are higher in the outer furrows than in the interior of the fields (Canavelli et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Senar et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In this sense, in a previous study, Senar et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) documented a value of 28% of cobs damaged in larger fields of commercial maize in NE Spain, which is below the 48% that we found in our study area for Pioneer (although still significant damage). Nonetheless, another key factor for the damage is the population size of the animal. Considering this, it is notable that the damage in our study was produced by a small number of birds, with an estimated population utilizing the study site below 22 individuals. The monk parakeet started its colonization in cities, but it is spreading to rural habitats (Postigo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Hern\u0026aacute;ndez-Brito et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), such as in the case of our study site (a rural area close to the city). In addition, its population is growing exponentially in many cities of the Mediterranean basin (Dom\u0026egrave;nech et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Postigo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Souviron-Priego et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the warm climatic conditions of the Mediterranean basin, the large proportion of croplands in the territory, and the dietary opportunism of the monk parakeets may favor their spread (Strubbe and Matthysen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Bucher and Arambur\u0026uacute; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Postigo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). It is therefore possible that the species has reached its lag phase in the invasion process, and in that case there are high possibilities that it may become a serious pest for agriculture in the Mediterranean basin.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement:\u003c/strong\u003e The datasets generated during the current study and the video-recordings are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor\u0026rsquo;s contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJC and MMM conceived the idea and conducted the video-recordings. CS visualized the videos and extracted the data. JC analyzed the data and wrote the first draft of the ms. All authors reviewed and approved the ms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci\u0026oacute;n (project PID2019-106806GB-I00).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAvery ML (2020). Monk parakeet (\u003cem\u003eMyiopsitta monachus\u003c/em\u003e Boddaert, 1783). In: Downs CT, Hart LA (eds). Invasive birds: global trends and impacts. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 76-84.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBucher EH, Arambur\u0026uacute; RM (2014). Land-use changes and monk parakeet expansion in the Pampas grasslands of Argentina.\u0026nbsp;Journal of Biogeography 41:1160-1170.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCanavelli SB, Arambur\u0026uacute; R, Zaccagnini ME (2012). Aspectos a considerar para disminuir los conflictos originados por los da\u0026ntilde;os de la cotorra (Myiopsitta monachus) en cultivos agr\u0026iacute;colas.\u0026nbsp;Hornero 27:89-101.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDom\u0026egrave;nech J, Carrillo J, Senar JC (2003).\u0026nbsp;Population size of the monk parakeet \u003cem\u003eMyiopsitta monachus\u003c/em\u003e in Catalonia.\u0026nbsp;Revista Catalana d\u0026rsquo;Ornitologia 20:1-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHern\u0026aacute;ndez-Brito D, Blanco G, Tella JL, Carrete M (2020).\u0026nbsp;A protective nesting association with native species counteract biotic resistance for the spread of an invasive parakeet from urban into rural habitats. Frontiers in Zoology 17:13 (\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-020-00360-2\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-020-00360-2\u003c/a\u003e).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMenchetti M, Mori E (2014). Worldwide impact of alien parrots (Aves Psittaciformes) on native biodiversity and environment: a review.\u0026nbsp;Ethology Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution 26:172-194.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMolina B, Postigo JL, MU\u0026ntilde;oz AR, Del Moral JC (eds) (2016). \u003cem\u003eLa cotorra argentina en Espa\u0026ntilde;a, poblaci\u0026oacute;n reproductora en 2015 y m\u0026eacute;todo de censo\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;SEO/BirdLife. Madrid.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMu\u0026ntilde;oz AR, Real R (2006). Assessing the potential range expansion of the exotic monk parakeet in Spain. Diversity and Distributions 12:656-665.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePostigo JL, Shwartz A, Strubbe D, Mu\u0026ntilde;oz A-R (2017). Unrelenting spread of the alien monk parakeet \u003cem\u003eMyiopsitta monachus\u003c/em\u003e in Israel. Is it time to sound the alarm? Pest Management Science 73:349-353.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePostigo JL, Strubbe D, Mori E, Ancillotto L, Carneiro I, Latsoudis P, Menchetti M, P\u0026acirc;r\u0026acirc;u LG, Parrott D, Reino L, Weiserbs A, Senar JC (2019). Mediterranean versus Atlantic monk parakeets \u003cem\u003eMyiopsitta monachus\u003c/em\u003e: towards differentiated management at the European scale. Pest Management Science 75:915-922.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez-Pastor R, Senar JC, Ortega A, Faus J, Uribe F, Montalvo T (2012). Distribution patterns of invasive Monk parakeets (\u003cem\u003eMyiopsitta monachus\u003c/em\u003e) in an urban habitat. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 35:107-117.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSenar JC, Dom\u0026egrave;nech J, Arroyo L, Torre I, Gordo O (2016).\u0026nbsp;An evaluation of monk parakeet damage to crops in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 39:141-145.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSol D, Santos DM, Feria E, Clavell J (1997).\u0026nbsp;Habitat selection by the monk parakeet during colonization of a new area in Spain.\u0026nbsp;The Condor 99:39-46.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSouviron-Priego L, Mu\u0026ntilde;oz AR, Olivero J, Vargas JM, Fa JE (2018).\u0026nbsp;The legal international wildlife trade favours invasive species establishment: the monk and ring-necked parakeets in Spain. Ardeola 65:233-246.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStrubbe D, Matthysen E (2009). Establishment success of invasive ring-necked and monk parakeets in Europe. Journal of Biogeography 36:2264-2278.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"biological-invasions","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"binv","sideBox":"Learn more about [Biological Invasions](https://www.springer.com/journal/10530)","snPcode":"10530","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10530/3","title":"Biological Invasions","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"camera traps, damage to crops, Exotic species, Invasive species, Maize","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-458787/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-458787/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe monk parakeet (\u003cem\u003eMyiopsitta monachus\u003c/em\u003e) has been introduced in the last decades to many cities of the Mediterranean basin. For most of this time it has been restricted primarily to urban areas, but it is starting to spread to rural habitats. It is considered a pest for agriculture in its native range, consuming a wide variety of crops such as grains, fruits, and vegetables. However, there is very little information about its potential role as a pest for agriculture in the areas where it is exotic. Here we conducted an experimental survey of the impact of the monk parakeet on corn in SE Spain using camera traps. The monk parakeet was the animal that produced the highest damage, being responsible for 98.6% of the time employed by all animals consuming kernels. The percentage of cobs damaged ranged from 36.8\u0026ndash;100% depending on the cultivar, whereas the crop loss (measured as the length of the cob consumed with respect to the total length of the cob) ranged from 17.7\u0026ndash;71.1%. The results suggest that the monk parakeet may be a serious pest for agriculture in the Mediterranean basin if their populations continue growing.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Monk Parakeet (Myiopsitta Monachus) as a Potential Pest for Agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2021-06-24 15:06:19","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-458787/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2021-06-21T00:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2021-06-21T00:00:00+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2021-04-24T00:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Biological Invasions","date":"2021-04-23T16:06:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"biological-invasions","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"binv","sideBox":"Learn more about [Biological Invasions](https://www.springer.com/journal/10530)","snPcode":"10530","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10530/3","title":"Biological Invasions","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3c1755ee-f236-40e7-8aa8-bd8272939dee","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 24th, 2021","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":5230936,"name":"Agroecology"},{"id":5230937,"name":"Behavioral Ecology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2021-12-29T06:49:21+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-458787","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02702-5","journal":{"identity":"biological-invasions","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Biological Invasions"},"publishedOn":"2021-12-29 06:49:21","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 29th, 2021"},"versionCreatedAt":"2021-06-24 15:06:19","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10530-021-02702-5","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02702-5","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-458787","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-458787","identity":"rs-458787","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"7rjqhiLT3MXkJMwkYKINL","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}