LYNNE M. SEIBERT

Veterinary Behavior Consultants, Roswell, Georgia, USA

Emotional well-being in pet birds is affected by additional unique challenges. Many psittacine species have the capacity to live as long as humans, requiring a lifelong commitment on the part of their caregivers. Unlike dogs and cats in the United States, most pet birds remain reproductively intact, which creates behavioral challenges, especially at puberty and during breeding seasons when new behaviors appear. The intelligence of psittacine birds has been documented in numerous studies and illustrates the importance of providing intellectual challenges for these highly intelligent species (Pepperberg, 1987, 1994).

Understanding the behavioral and emotional needs of psittacine birds has important applications. First, we can improve the conditions for birds kept in captivity and provide for the expression of species-typical behaviors. We can reduce the incidence of behavior problems in pet birds, such as screaming, repetitive behaviors, feather-damaging behaviors, self-trauma, and aggression. Inadequate attention to birds’ mental health is an important welfare issue as it can lead to emotional suffering and poor quality of life. Boredom and social deprivation are examples of the negative influences on birds’ mental well-being.

A better understanding of the emotional requirements of psittacine birds could enhance the success of captive breeding programs for endangered psittacine species. Parrots possess the largest number of threatened species of any avian family. There are at least 90 psittacine species at risk for extinction (Collar and Juniper, 1992). The Psittacidae family contains more threatened species than would be expected by chance, with an increased extinction risk with increasing body size and deceasing fecundity (Bennett and Owens, 1997). Threats include habitat destruction, live bird trade, introduced species (cats and rats), persecution, hunting for food, and fluctuations in environmental conditions.

This chapter discusses the importance of mental health and well-being in captive birds, with practical recommendations for bird caregivers to maximize the mental wellness of birds in their care.

20.1 Species Diversity

The large variety of psittacine species presents an important limitation to generalizing about their behavioral needs and mental health. There are three families within the order Psittaciformes: Psittacidae, Cacatuidae, and Loriidae. The family Psittacidae is the largest, including approximately 280 species of parrots, macaws, parakeets, rosellas, and lovebirds. The family Cacatuidae includes more than 20 species of cockatoos and a single species of cockatiel. Loriidae includes more than 50 species of lories and lorikeets (Forshaw, 1989).

Psittacine birds exhibit considerable range in appearance, with wide variations in size (from 10 g to >1500 g), structure (crested or noncrested), and coloration. Some species are sexually dimorphic. Some are primarily arboreal (yellow-winged Amazon, Amazona aestiva xanthopteryx), while others are terrestrial foragers (budgerigar, Melopsittacus undulatus).

Psittacine birds occupy diverse habitats, living anywhere from tropical rain forest to dry savannah. Tropical and subtropical lowland forested areas offer the most species diversity. Psittacine birds are neither sedentary, nor migratory, but mobile within a geographical area. Many travel substantial distances between roosting and feeding sites.

Social behavior varies among the different species as well. Some appear to be solitary (kakapo, Strigops habroptilus), while most species are highly social. With so much variation in habitat and life history, recommendations for maintaining emotional health would need to be specific for the species and individuals involved.

20.2 Mental States and Experiences of Birds

It is important to recognize both positive and negative mental states in birds. Unfortunately, there are very few published ethograms for psittacine birds. Studies are needed that illustrate the meanings of various postures and actions of captive birds so that caregivers can more accurately assess mental and physical well-being. Fear or anxiety in captive birds is generally associated with increased vocalizations, defensive postures (such as crouching or flight intention movements), avoidance, frantic behaviors, displacement behaviors (such as preening), aggression, or escape attempts. Anxiety can also suppress normal behaviors, manifesting as freezing behavior or lack of interaction with the environment.

In a study evaluating neophobia, or latency to approach a novel object, Mettke-Hofmann et al. (2002) found that the natural ecology of the species influences neophobia. Sixty-one parrot species with different habitat preferences were studied in aviaries. The species with the shortest latency and longest duration of exploration were species inhabiting complex habitats and species that fed on seasonal foods (nectar, fruit, and nuts). The species with the longest latency and shortest duration of exploration were seed eaters. This study documents behavioral differences in captive species based on their natural habitats that must be considered when providing ideal captive environments.

In clinical situations, caregivers often report fearful behaviors with no known etiology. Fears can develop as a result of classical conditioning, in which the bird associates the owner with an aversive event. This situation has been reported in a case study of a Goffin’s cockatoo (Cacatua goffini) that developed a persistent fear response toward its owner following an episode of fear-evoking construction noises (Seibert et al., 2001).

20.3 Importance of Social Interactions

The importance of providing some forms of social companionship must be considered for captive birds. Psittacine birds often form flocks. The benefits of flock membership include improved defense against predators, increased competitive ability, increased feeding efficiency, and access to mates (Wilson, 1975).

Feeding together in organized flocks may be advantageous to the individual, who is able to benefit from the collective knowledge of the group. By following the flock, an individual has a better chance of locating adequate amounts of food when resources are unpredictable. Small foraging groups are better able than individual birds to exclude competitors from feeding sites. There is some evidence that birds with more limited fasting ability, smaller birds, are more likely to flock than larger birds (Gill, 1995).

Indefensible areas also promote flocking behavior in birds. There is increased security in a large group, with individuals nearest the center of the flock having the least chance of becoming the victim of a predator. Flocking improves the efficiency of predator detection, allowing the individual more time for other activities. Alarm calling is common within flocks and serves to alert other members of the group to possible danger.

South and Pruett-Jones (2000) studied feral flocks of Monk parakeets in a natural environment. The birds formed foraging groups of 2 to 31 birds (mean <10). Individual vigilance declined with increasing flock size, indicating that the flock serves an important function for predator detection.

The number of birds in the flock appears to be very important to the breeding success of large macaw species. Only a portion of the flock will be engaged in breeding activity during any one season, with the nonbreeding birds appearing to form a buffer zone of territorial defense (Harrison, 1994).

20.4 Pair Bonding

Pair bonding has been defined as a mutually beneficial relationship between sexually mature female and male birds (Doane and Qualkinbush, 1994). Wilson (1975) defines pair bonding as a close and long-lasting association between a male and a female, serving the primary function of cooperative rearing of young. Pairs are characterized by allopreening, courtship feeding (also called allofeeding), pair participation in agonistic encounters, and close spatial associations (Levinson, 1980).

Allopreening has been cited as the most important behavior for maintenance of social bonds. Close spatial associations are also evidence of a bond. Among bonded pairs of canary-winged parakeets (Brotogeris v. versicolurus), mates maintained very close proximity and were usually touching (Arrowood, 1988). Many psittacine species maintain pair bonds throughout the year.

In captive environments, many birds do not have the opportunity to form close social bonds with conspecifics. In other situations, social pairings between birds can increase stress due to incompatibility. Captive environments should provide some opportunities for the expression of social behaviors and the maintenance of healthy social relationships with humans or other birds.

Meehan et al. (2003a) evaluated the influence of isosexual pairing of orange-winged Amazon parrots (Amazona amazonica) on the development of abnormal behaviors. Paired parrots used inanimate enrichment devices more than singly housed cohorts. Paired parrots also spent less time screaming, less time preening, and were more active. Parrots housed in pairs did not develop stereotypic behaviors, were less fearful of human handlers, and had reduced latency to approach a novel object. This study demonstrates the potential importance of social bonds between nonreproductive pairs of birds (Fig. 20.1).

The general daily activities (feeding, maintenance, and roosting behaviors) of flocks of orange-fronted parakeets (Hardy, 1965) and white-fronted Amazons (Levinson, 1980) were highly predictable. Two activity peaks were commonly observed, one in the early morning and one in the late afternoon. During the periods of high activity, the birds engaged in feeding, agonistic behaviors, increased mobility, and increased vocalizations.

Pet birds are often exposed to unpredictable environments. Feedings, photoperiods, baths, attention, exercise, and social interactions are often provided based on the varying schedules of the caregivers. This unnatural state of affairs does not allow the bird to develop a sense of control, or the skills for coping with stress and challenges. McMillan (2002) has discussed the adverse effects of unpredictability on the mental well-being of animals.

20.6 Developmental Factors

Many psittacine offspring have relatively long infancies. Weaning may require up to a year in some species, increasing the requirements for parental care (Doane and Qualkinbush, 1994). The detrimental effects of early maternal deprivation on neural development and adult functioning are well-documented in primate species (Ruppenthal et al., 1976; Suomi et al., 1976).

Captive psittacine breeding programs have historically involved removal of the newly hatched birds from their parents and hand weaning by humans, due to the notion that this practice produces better quality pet birds. However, the rearing of baby birds by human surrogates may not be sufficient for the development of healthy adult coping skills and stress responses. The justifications for the practice of hand weaning are beginning to be questioned and alternatives considered.

Aengus and Millam (1999) studied the effects of neonatal handling of parent-raised orange-winged Amazon parrots. One group was handled daily for 10 to 30 minutes from day 10 to fledging. The control group was handled only to obtain their weights. There were significant differences in tameness between these groups, documenting that tameness toward humans is possible for parent-raised birds that are exposed to human handling. Sensitive periods for socialization to humans need to be determined.

There may be effective interventions for individuals that were deprived of maternal care. Bredy et al. (2003) evaluated the effects of environmental enrichment in rats that were deprived of early maternal care and found that peripubertal enrichment did compensate for some of the effects of early maternal deprivation. Francis et al. (2002) also found that environmental enrichment helped to compensate for the negative effects of postnatal maternal separation.

20.7 Foraging Opportunities

Psittacine flocks generally maintain separate foraging and roosting sites. Levinson (1980) observed separate roosting and feeding areas in white-fronted Amazon parrots. In their observations of sulphur-crested cockatoos (Cacatua galerita), Lindenmayer et al. (1996) noted that the birds traveled considerable distances between roosting sites and areas where foraging occurred. Orange-fronted parakeets (Aratinga canicularis) in natural habitats maintained separate roosting and feeding sites 1 mile apart (Hardy, 1965).

Pet birds are often fed commercially prepared diets on a free-choice feeding schedule, drastically reducing the amount of time spent in feeding behaviors. Meal feeding has been suggested to simulate natural feeding behavior more closely (Fig. 20.2). In addition, captive birds may prefer foraging devices that require them to perform work for food (Coulton et al., 1997). Opportunities to forage have been shown to reduce feather picking behavior in Amazon parrots (Meehan et al., 2003b). Foraging enrichments required the subjects to manipulate objects with openings, chew through barriers for food, sort through inedible materials, and open containers. In addition to preventing the development of feather-damaging behaviors in the enriched group, the same enrichments were used to reverse the development of feather-damaging behaviors in control birds. In this study, the foraging enrichments were used more than physical enrichments, which provided perching, swinging, and climbing opportunities.

Wilson (1999) has discussed sleep requirements for pet birds. It is generally accepted that natural photoperiod variation is ideal for the mental and physical health of pet birds. A two-cage system, including a sleeping cage in a quiet room, provides pet birds with a quiet secluded sleeping area.

In addition to the proper amount of light, the type of lighting can also affect a bird’s sensory experience. There is evidence that birds’ perceptive abilities extend into the ultraviolet range (Bennett and Cuthill, 1994; Hausmann et al., 2003). Hausmann et al. (2003) found that 68% of psittacine birds surveyed have fluorescent plumage. A bird housed in a room with windows that block ultraviolet light has a more limited sensory experience than one that is exposed to full-spectrum or natural lighting. Housing birds strictly indoors without adequate exposure to UVB light exposure may contribute to feather-damaging behavior (West et al., 2018).

20.9 Consequences of Poor Mental Health

Emotional suffering and poor quality of life are evidenced by the prevalence of behavior problems in pet birds and the reduction or absence of species-typical behaviors. Abnormal behaviors include feather-damaging behavior, barbering and self-mutilation, screaming, aggression and biting, misdirected sexual behaviors, and phobias (Davis, 1991).

20.9.1 Feather picking and self-mutilation

Feather-damaging behavior, also called behavioral feather picking or pterotillomania (Lumeji and Hommers, 2008) is one of the most common behavior problems seen in captive psittacine birds (Lawton, 1996). It is characterized by feather removal, feather damage, and/or soft tissue trauma with no apparent medical, nutritional, or physical explanation (Fig. 20.3).

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Join