SPATIAL ECOLOGY OF AND PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD MONK PARAKEETS NESTING ON ELECTRIC UTILITY STRUCTURES IN DALLAS AND TARRANT COUNTIES, TEXAS A Dissertation by JANET ELAINE REED Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Robert A. McCleery Co-Chair of Committee, Nova J. Silvy Committee Members, Fred E. Smeins Donald J. Brightsmith Wm. Alex McIntosh Head of Department, Michael P. Masser August 2014 Major Subject: Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Copyright 2014 Janet Elaine Reed ABSTRACT Monk parakeets (Myiopsitta monachus) were introduced to the United States (US) where they established naturalized populations. They often build their bulky twig nests on electric utility structures, causing economic damage. From May 2010–February 2013, we examined the spatial ecology of and public attitudes toward monk parakeets nesting on electric utility structures in Dallas and Tarrant counties, Texas, US. As nest sites, monk parakeets selected electric switchyards and substations constructed with multiple flat surfaces and acute-angles, within small fenced areas, with large canopy trees and taller anthropogenic structures within 100 m. Multi-scale analysis of urban land use-land cover (LULC) suggested the surrounding landscape had little impact on nest-site selection. Monk parakeets used canopy LULC more often than pavement, grass, buildings, or water. They traveled farthest from their nests during winter. Flock sizes were highly variable, yet largest during nonbreeding season. They foraged on a broad range of native vegetation and exhibited a diverse diet of flowers, fruits, acorns, grass blades, wild dry seeds, leaf buds, insect larvae, and commercial bird seed. We evaluated sociological variables as predictors of opposition to managing monk parakeets nesting on electric utility structures. Most survey participants were affluent, well-educated, older Caucasians who were unknowledgeable about, inexperienced with, and unsure about the impacts of monk parakeets. They indicated least opposition to nest removal and structural modification. When opposing, they ii would most likely do so socially and through petitions. Participants were influenced by their desire for monk parakeets to feed at their bird feeders or nest in their yard, people and groups important to them, and their perceived ease of opposing. Our results suggest LULC manipulation and food-based strategies are not reasonable for controlling urban monk parakeets. We recommend an outreach program explaining monk parakeet biology and the impacts of their nesting habits. We suggest targeting affluent areas adjacent to electric structures with nests and the predictors driving participants’ behaviors. To provoke least opposition, we advise nest removal and structural modification. We recommend electric companies conduct cost-benefit analyses exploring feasibility of modifying construction elements preferred by monk parakeets and redesigning new construction to reduce risk of future nesting on electric utility structures. iii DEDICATION Anyone can be a father, but it takes someone special to be a dad, and that’s why I call you dad, because you are so special to me. —Wade A. Boggs, American baseball player With much love and respect, I dedicate this work to Roger C. Stone (1935– 2013), the man whom I considered my Dad. When I was a young adult, Roger stepped in and filled the empty shoes of a strong male figure in my life. He was one of my greatest champions of my quest for knowledge. I am forever grateful for his unwavering support and encouragement for whatever I pursued. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank my committee chair, Dr. Robert A. McCleery, co-chair, Dr. Nova J. Silvy, and committee members, Dr. Fred E. Smeins, Dr. Donald J. Brightsmith, and Dr. Wm. Alex McIntosh, for their guidance and support throughout the course of this project. I also thank the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences faculty and staff for making my time at Texas A&M University a first-class experience. I extend my gratitude to Luminant Environmental Research Program and Oncor Electric Delivery (hereinafter called Oncor) for funding this research. It was an honor to be a Luminant Environmental Research Program fellow. I appreciate the direction of Oncor Vice Presidents of Environment, Health, Safety, and Training, Deborah A. Boyle (former) and Ray Averitt (current). I also thank Oncor personnel for their logistical assistance at electric utility stations. I extend a special thank you to Dr. J. Jill Heatley for her veterinarian expertise and advice for handling wild monk parakeets. I thank volunteer field assistants Amelia Hudson, Laura Siffring, and Lorna Hanko for their hard work and dedication assisting with electric station surveys and trapping and marking monk parakeets. I thank the residents, businesses, and bird club members of Tarrant and Dallas counties for sharing information about monk parakeets and their nest locations. I also thank the volunteer reviewers and residents and businesses who graciously participated in the public attitudes survey. I extend a special thank you to Justin Chown for facilitating a portion of the statistical analyses. v I thank my friends and colleagues for their support and encouragement throughout the doctoral process. A special thank you goes to Alan B. Alley, my greatest advocate, for encouraging me when I doubted myself. Finally, I thank my charismatic pet monk parakeets, Monkey and Pistol, for entertaining me while I analyzed data and wrote this dissertation. Their mischievous antics brought much laughter to the experience. Dissertation chapters have several coauthors, which were determined using guidelines provided by Dickson and Conner (1978) and the CBE Style Manual Committee (1994). Authorships for chapters are as follows: Chapter II: Janet E. Reed, Robert A. McCleery, Nova J. Silvy, Fred E. Smeins, and Donald J. Brightsmith Chapter III: Janet E. Reed, Robert A. McCleery, Nova J. Silvy, Fred E. Smeins, and Donald J. Brightsmith Chapter IV: Janet E. Reed, Robert A. McCleery, Nova J. Silvy, Fred E. Smeins, and Donald J. Brightsmith Chapter V: Janet E. Reed, Wm. Alex McIntosh, Robert A. McCleery, Nova J. Silvy, Fred E. Smeins, and Donald J. Brightsmith vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................ii DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER II UNDERSTANDING HABITAT USE AND BEHAVIORS OF NON- NATIVE MONK PARAKEETS IN DALLAS, TEXAS ................................................... 4 Synopsis ......................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 8 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 11 Trapping ................................................................................................................... 11 Telemetry .................................................................................................................. 13 Diurnal Activity Patterns .......................................................................................... 14 Urban LULC Selection ............................................................................................. 15 Movements ............................................................................................................... 16 Data Analyses ........................................................................................................... 17 Results .......................................................................................................................... 18 Diurnal Activity Patterns .......................................................................................... 21 Flock-size Variation and Flock Composition ........................................................... 24 Urban LULC Selection ............................................................................................. 27 Movements ............................................................................................................... 29 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 33 Diurnal Activity Patterns .......................................................................................... 33 Flock-size Variation and Flock Composition ..........................................................