Human activities, including ecotourism and research, can significantly impact wildlife behaviour during reproductive season, yet their effects are often underestimated. We conducted a study on psittacines in the Cerrado of Concepción, Paraguay, during the breeding season, focusing on responses to human presence. A total of 232 observations of nine psittacine species were recorded, with varied behavioural responses to human activities. Larger species exhibited higher flight initiation distances (FID), reflecting possible increased sensitivity. Notably, ecotourism and cavity monitoring correlated with birds flying away, emphasizing potential negative impacts. Conversely, activities like counting and remote photography showed positive correlations with relaxed avian behaviours. Our findings highlight the importance of considering human activities' nuances, especially during critical periods like breeding seasons, to minimize disturbance and promote coexistence with wildlife. Further studies are needed to understand behaviour better and we recommend adopting precautionary measures, such as limiting interventions during sensitive reproductive phases, to contribute to the well-being and conservation of psittacine species.
RepettoRGillisM. Public policies and the misuse of forest resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. xiii.
2.
GroomMPodolskyRMunnCA. Tourism as a sustained use of wildlife: a case study of Madre de Dios, Southeastern Peru. In: RobinsonJRedfordK (eds). Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991, pp. 393–412.
3.
PriceM. The impact of human disturbance on birds: a selective review. Aust Zool2008; 34(SPEC.ISS.): 163–196.
4.
BoteroAL. Efecto de la presencia humana sobre el comportamiento del pato de torrente Merganetta armata (Aves: Anatidae) en el río Quindío (sector Boquía), Salento-Colombia. Ornito Neotrop2017; 13(2): 2017.
5.
LeeATKMarsdenSJTatum-HumeE, et al.The effects of tourist and boat traffic on parrot geophagy in lowland Peru. Biotropica2017; 49(5): 716–725.
6.
BrightsmithDJStronzaAHolleK. Ecotourism, conservation biology, and volunteer tourism: a mutually beneficial triumvirate. Biol Conserv2008; 141(11): 2832–2842. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.08.020.
7.
GötmarkF. The effects of investigator disturbance on nesting birds. Curr Ornithol1992: 63–104.
8.
ZhangLWangYChenB, et al.Research activity induces change in nest position but does not affect nest success in a vulnerable babbler. Conserv Sci Pract2023; 5(12): 1–10.
9.
GeistV. On the relationship of social evolution and ecology in ungulates. Am Zool1974; 14(1): 205–220.
10.
CaroTM. Densities of mammals in partially protected areas: the Katavi ecosystem of western Tanzania. J Appl Ecol1999; 36(2): 205–217.
11.
StankowichTBlumsteinDT. Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci2005; 272(1581): 2627–2634.
12.
SzottIDPretoriusYKoyamaNF. Behavioural changes in African elephants in response to wildlife tourism. J Zool2019; 308(3): 164–174.
13.
MüllnerALinsenmairKEWikelskiM. Exposure to ecotourism reduces survival and affects stress response in hoatzin chicks (Opisthocomus hoazin). Biol Conserv2004; 118(4): 549–558.
14.
WalkerBHAnderiesJMKinzigAP, et al.Exploring resilience in social-ecological systems through comparative studies and theory development: introduction to the special issue. Ecol Soc2006; 11(1): 12.
15.
BejderLSamuelsAWhiteheadH, et al.Impact assessment research: use and misuse of habituation, sensitisation and tolerance in describing wildlife responses to anthropogenic stimuli. Mar Ecol Prog Ser2009; 395: 177–185.
FridADillL. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol2002; 6(1): 11.
18.
SiegelHS. Physiological stress in birds. Bioscience1980; 30(8): 529–534.
19.
SapolskyRMRomeroLMMunckAU. How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions. Endocr Rev2000; 21(1): 55–89.
20.
BrownJSLaundréJWGurungM. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal1999; 80(2): 385–399.
21.
RippleWJBeschtaRL. Wolves and the ecology of fear: can predation risk structure ecosystems?Bioscience2004; 54(8): 755–766.
22.
MyersNMittermeierRAMittermeierCG, et al.Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature2000; 403(6772): 853–858.
23.
SanoEERosaRBritoJLS, et al.Land cover mapping of the tropical savanna region in Brazil. Environ Monit Assess2010; 166: 113–124.
24.
De La Barreda-BautistaBLópez-CalocaAACouturierS, et al.Tropical dry forests in the global picture: the challenge of remote sensing-based change detection in tropical dry environments. Planet Earth2011: 231–256.
25.
PenningtonRTRichardsonJELavinM. Insights into the historical construction of species-rich biomes from dated plant phylogenies, neutral ecological theory and phylogenetic community structure. New Phytol2006; 172(4): 605–616.
26.
ColliGRVieiraCRDianeseJC. Biodiversity and conservation of the Cerrado: recent advances and old challenges. Biodivers Conserv2020; 29(5): 1465–1475. Available from. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-020-01967-x.
27.
FearnsidePM. Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil. Environ Conserv2001; 28(1): 23–38.
28.
SilvaJFFariñasMRFelfiliJM, et al.Spatial heterogeneity, land use and conservation in the Cerrado region of Brazil. J Biogeogr2006; 33(3): 536–548.
29.
De MarcoPVillénSMendesP, et al.Vulnerability of Cerrado threatened mammals: an integrative landscape and climate modeling approach. Biodivers Conserv2020; 29(5): 1637–1658. Available from. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-018-1615-x.
30.
SchmidtKPIngerRF. Amphibians and reptiles of the Hopkins-Branner expedition to Brazil. Fieldiana Zool1951; 31(42): 439–465.
31.
VanzoliniPE. Problemas faunísticos do Cerrado. Simpósio sobre o Cerrado1963; 307(321): 1.
32.
WerneckFP. The diversification of eastern South American open vegetation biomes: historical biogeography and perspectives. Quat Sci Rev2011; 30(13–14): 1630–1648.
33.
NaroskyTDel CastilloHClayR. Guía para la identificación de las aves del Paraguay. 2nd ed.Asunción: Guyra Paraguay, 2022, p. 251.
34.
PerpiñánDFernández-BellonHLópezC, et al.Lymphoplasmacytic myenteric, subepicardial, and pulmonary ganglioneuritis in four nonpsittacine birds. J Avian Med Surg2007; 21(3): 210–214.
35.
CookeAS. Observations on how close certain passerine species will tolerate an approaching human in rural and suburban areas. Biol Conserv1980; 18(2): 85–88.
36.
BurgerJGochfeldM. Human distance and birds: tolerance and response distances of resident and migrant species in India. Environ Conserv1991; 18(2): 158–165.
37.
Fernández-JuricicEJimenezMDLucasE. Factors affecting intra-and inter-specific variations in the difference between alert distances and flight distances for birds in forested habitats. Can J Zool2002; 80(7): 1212–1220.
38.
BlumsteinDT. Flight-initiation distance in birds is dependent on intruder starting distance. J Wildl Manage2003: 852–857.
39.
BlumsteinDTAnthonyLLHarcourtR, et al.Testing a key assumption of wildlife buffer zones: is flight initiation distance a species-specific trait?Biol Conserv2003; 110(1): 97–100.
40.
BlumsteinDTFernández-JuricicEZollnerPA, et al.Inter-specific variation in avian responses to human disturbance. J Appl Ecol2005; 42(5): 943–953.
41.
NuddsRLBryantDM. The energetic cost of short flights in birds. J Exp Biol2000; 203(10): 1561–1572.
42.
NuddsRLBryantDM. Consequences of load carrying by birds during short flights are found to be behavioral and not energetic. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol2002; 283(1): R249–R256.
43.
Fernández-JuricicEJimenezMDLucasE. Alert distance as an alternative measure of bird tolerance to human disturbance: implications for park design. Environ Conserv2001; 28(3): 263–269.
44.
FlegeltaubMBiroPABeckmannC. Avian nest abandonment prior to laying: a strategy to minimize predation risk?J Ornithol2017; 158(4): 1091–1098.
45.
WilsonKAWilsonMHFieldR. Behavior of Puerto Rican Parrots during failed nesting attempts. Wilson J Ornithol2016; 128(3): 490–503.
46.
CorneliusCCockleKPolitiN, et al.Cavity-nesting birds in Neotropical forests: cavities as a potentially limiting resource. Ornitol Neotrop2008; 19: 253–268.
47.
Romero-VidalPBlancoGHiraldoF, et al.Nesting innovations in neotropical parrots associated with anthropogenic environmental changes. Ecol Evol2023; 13(9): e10469.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
