Page E. Klug 

Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist 

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

National Wildlife Research Center 

Fargo, North Dakota 

 

William P. Bukoski 

District Supervisor

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services

Lihue, Hawaii

 

Aaron B. Shiels 

Research Wildlife Biologist

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

National Wildlife Research Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado 

 

Bryan M. Kluever 

Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

National Wildlife Research Center 

Gainesville, Florida

 

Shane R. Siers 

Supevisory Research Wildlife Biologist

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

National Wildlife Research Center 

Hilo, Hawaii

Human-Wildlife Conflicts

Rose-ringed parakeets (Psittacula krameri; 

hereafter RRPA; Figure 1) are an invasive 

species in the United States, present in 

Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Virginia, 

and with established populations in 

California, Florida, and Hawaii. They are 

also the most successful species of 

invasive parakeet, worldwide. RRPA can 

cause significant damage to agriculture, 

including grains, oilseeds, fruits, and 

ornamental plants. Large flocks of RRPA 

roost near human infrastructure resulting 

in concerns about human health and 

safety (e.g., collisions with aircraft, disease 

transmission, feces accumulation, and 

noise complaints). The population growth 

and spread of RRPA is of conservation 

concern given the potential impact on 

native wildlife, spread of invasive plant 

seeds, and destruction of native plants. 

Wildlife Damage Management 

Technical Series

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service

Wildlife Services

October 2019 Rose-Ringed

Parakeets

Figure 1. Adult, male rose-ringed parakeet (Psittacula krameri).

Quick Links

Human-Wildlife Conflicts 1

Damage Identification 3

Management Methods 3

Economics 7

Species Overview 7

Legal Status 9

Glossary & Key Words 10

Resources 11

Appendices 13
Agriculture

RRPA are a threat to small-scale and large-scale 

agricultural production across the globe in both native and 

introduced ranges. On Kauai Island (Hawaii), RRPA 

negatively impact seed (e.g., corn and sunflower) and fruit 

crops (e.g., mangos, lychee, longan, guava, rambutan, 

papaya, and passion fruit). Small, urban populations of 

RRPA on the mainland U.S. have shown less of an impact 

on outlying agricultural areas, but as RRPA populations 

increase the possibility of dispersal to agricultural areas 

increases. 

Natural Resources

Invasive species pose a threat to native ecosystems 

through predation, aggression, competition, or disease. In 

Australia, RRPA damage and kill trees by stripping bark, 

which may lead to changes in tree communities. RRPA 

have been observed eating fruit and seeds of native plants 

(e.g., loulu palm and koa trees in Hawaii), and destroying 

native flowers (e.g., cherry trees in Japan). Corn and 

invasive yellow guava are main food items for RRPA on 

Kauai, which helps to sustain RRPA and may contribute to 

the spread of invasive plants through partially eaten or 

dropped seeds. In Europe, RRPA directly compete with 

native wildlife for food and habitat (e.g., nesting cavities) 

and have attacked and harassed wildlife, including raptors 

and bats. RRPA also disrupt the foraging behavior of native 

species by causing a decrease in feeding or an increase in 

vigilance when RRPA are present. RRPA engage in 

antagonistic behaviors by excluding native species from 

backyard bird feeders and outcompeting native birds 

throughout their invasive range. RRPA can impact the 

breeding of other invasives (e.g., common myna) by 

increasing the number of suitable nesting cavities.

Human Health and Safety

Large flocks of RRPA can be a risk to people at urban 

roosting sites and agricultural foraging sites. Flocking RRPA 

near airports are a threat to human safety via airplane 

strikes. The presence of large nighttime roosts in urban 

and suburban areas produces noise complaints and 

unsanitary conditions from feces deposits and 

accumulation capable of increasing the risk of disease 

transmission to people. Food safety risks by way of 

foodborne illnesses may increase when large PPRA flocks 

come into contact with food used for human consumption. 

Figure 2. Rose-ringed parakeet damage to a) guava, b) corn, c) sunflower, d) mango, e) ornamental flowers, f) African tulip tree (Spathodea sp.), and g) royal palm roost tree.

Page 2 WDM Technical Series─Rose-Ringed Parakeets
Parakeets are negatively affected by viral diseases 

including beak and feather disease (psittacine circovirus), 

proventricular dilatation disease (avian bornaviruses), 

avian pox virus (avipoxviruses), and avian influenza 

(influenza A viruses). Pet birds including parrots are 

reservoirs of the highly contagious Newcastle’s disease 

(paramyxoviruses) that can infect domestic poultry 

operations. Parakeets are vectors for bacterial diseases, 

such as erysipelas, pasteurellosis, and avian psittacosis or 

parrot fever. Chlamydiaceae agents (Chlamydia avium) 

were found in a wild RRPA in France, suggesting sanitary 

risk to people from invasive parrots. 

Damage Identification

RRPA are an agricultural pest with a generalist diet and 

feeding behaviors that increase the severity of crop 

damage (Figure 2). RRPA damage corn by feeding on the 

anthers and pollen of the inflorescence, the tender cob 

stage, and the milky cob stage up until maturity. RRPA 

perch on sunflower heads and access the seeds that are 

hulled prior to consumption. Damage to tree fruits is 

greater on the top branches compared to the side and 

bottom branches. RRPA attack stored grains and eat 

unripe fruit, extending the damage period. RRPA often 

discard partially-eaten food. Crop damage varies with some 

fields experiencing more damage due to the timing of crop 

maturity or location (e.g., field or orchard edges have 

greater damage than interior). RRPA strip roosting trees 

(e.g., royal palms in Kauai) of their leaves. A long-term 

management plan that involves sustained lethal control is 

necessary to reduce invasive RRPA populations and their 

damage. In the meantime, the following damage 

management methods may provide short-term relief from 

RRPA damage.

Management Methods

No single management method can prevent RRPA conflicts 

all of the time or in all settings. Methods should be 

integrated so that one enhances the effect of another. For 

example, frightening devices often are more effective when 

used in conjunction with habitat modification (e.g., removal 

of loafing habitat) to make a site less attractive. 

Habitat Modification

When possible, plants or structures (e.g., tree rows; 

Appendix 1) that are used regularly as RRPA loafing/resting 

sites near crop fields should be removed. In Hawaii, 

clearing invasive albizia trees may eliminate potential 

roosting and nesting habitat, given the number of potential 

nesting cavities available in mature stands. Trimming roost 

trees (e.g., royal palms in Hawaii) may reduce the number 

of birds roosting in a tree, but is not advised by arborists 

since excessive trimming weakens the tree and is 

unattractive. Using alternative landscaping and 

incorporating native plants (e.g., short loulu palm species 

in Kauai) reduces habitat suitability in urban and suburban 

areas. 

Although not feasible for all crops (i.e., orchards), changing 

the location and size of crop fields may lessen RRPA 

damage. For instance, smaller plots provide better access 

for deploying control tools. Using larger plots or reducing 

the amount of space between plots may limit preferred 

foraging areas, where RRPA have space to maneuver and 

be vigilant to threats. Small, diversified farms may be at a 

greater risk of RRPA damage because the birds can fulfill 

all of their nutritional needs in one location given different 

crops are ripening throughout the year. Farmers should 

synchronize planting to eliminate early and late-maturing 

crops in the same locality. In cereal crops, such as 

sunflower, the harvest date can be advanced two weeks by 

using a herbicide to desiccate the crop without 

compromising yield or oil content. In fruit crops, harvest 

dates can be advanced to reduce losses in hard-hit areas 

or once RRPA sign is evident. 

Decoy crops (i.e., lure crops) may help reduce RRPA 

depredation on high-value crops. Fields closest to 

nighttime roosts and daytime loafing areas are best suited 

for decoy crops. Decoy crops can also be positioned near 

the fields needing protection. Birds feeding in decoy crops 

should not be harassed. Fields of sorghum, pearl millet, or 

hempseed are potential decoy crops that may entice RRPA 

away from high-value commodity crops. RRPA 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 3
preference for ground nut kernels (i.e., peanuts) over 

cereal grains has been shown in lab settings, thus ground 

nut kernels may be a potential decoy crop. The use of 

decoy crops is more cost-effective and feasible where 

tillable land is available. Additional alternative food can be 

provided by delaying the disking of harvested grain fields to 

allow access to waste seed or delaying the destruction of 

unharvestable fruits or plants. 

Anti-perching tools (e.g., sharp spikes, wire barriers, an 

unstable system of coils, electrified cables, and gels or 

pastes) create an uncomfortable surface and can be used 

at roosting sites to discourage RRPA perching (Appendix 1). 

These devices have been effective for discouraging birds 

perching on human-made structures, but use on trees is 

not practical given installation logistics and potential 

damage to trees. Furthermore, the use of water spray 

devices can cause birds to reflexively withdraw due to 

direct water pressure or wet feathers. For example, just 

prior to roosting, a motion-detection sprinkler can be 

activated to startle birds with a stream of water or a mist 

system may deter birds as they try to avoid wet feathers. 

Exclusion

Exclusion involves physically blocking a bird’s access to a 

site and is an important part of RRPA damage 

management. Exclusion via netting can be used to protect 

crops and roosting trees, although the practice is often 

labor-intensive and expensive (Figure 3; Appendix 1). 

RRPA damage to corn is reduced when bags are placed 

over the ears post-fertilization, and is a practice that could 

be tried on other sensitive crops (Figure 3; Appendix 1). 

Any reduction in damage by RRPA from the use of bags is 

likely due to 1) cobs escaping detection, 2) difficulty of 

tearing through bags, 3) RRPA unable to preferentially 

select the best cobs, or 4) the availability of alternative 

food nearby. Bagging of corn ears is moderately laborintensive and cannot be done on a large scale, although six 

people can cover about 120 ears per hour. The practice 

may increase insects and mold as shown in cloth-covered 

sorghum, but it depends on the environment and timing of 

management. 

Page 4 WDM Technical Series─Rose-Ringed Parakeets

Figure 3. Rose-ringed parakeet damage can be reduced by completely covering a) fruit trees and b) row crops, or at a smaller scale 

the individual fruiting bodies, examples including c) paper bags over fertilized corn or metal mesh/plastic containers over d) 

mangoes and e-f) lychees.
Wire or monofilament wire grids can be used to prevent 

RRPA access to crops and other resources. However, 

because they are maneuverable fliers and able climbers, 

RRPA might not be excluded by partial overhead wires 

which are often effective for larger species that require 

long, uninterrupted landing and takeoff space. The wire 

pattern and spacing must be close enough to deter birds 

from passing through, but wide enough to limit installation 

and material costs. 

Although not tested on RRPA, a “sonic net” is a speakerbased, sound technology that produces directional and 

contained sound. At 2-10 kHz at 80 dB SPL, the sound 

masks or blocks communication among birds (Appendix 1). 

When birds cannot communicate or hear predators their 

perception of predation risk increases. This may result in 

reduced foraging or abandonment of foraging grounds. As 

with most deterrent devices, the effectiveness of the sonic 

nets is enhanced with real predatory threats, as well as 

alternative food resources. The sonic net can be used in 

more rural environments due to directional speakers, but is 

not feasible at urban roost sites since the noise can be 

heard by people and RRPA freely use noisy urban areas.

Frightening Devices

Frightening devices modify bird behavior and discourage 

birds from feeding, roosting, or gathering. Novel sounds 

and visual stimuli may cause avoidance responses in birds 

and offer temporary protection from damage for a few days 

or weeks (Appendix 2). Deterring RRPA with frightening 

devices requires constantly switching, combining, and 

moving the stimuli to create a novel environment. For best 

results, use frightening devices before feeding or roosting 

sites become established. Randomly present a 

combination of sounds and visuals and reinforce them with 

a negative stimulus (e.g., shooting). Globally, numerous 

devices have been used on RRPA or closely-related species 

with varying degrees of effectiveness. 

Frightening devices include reflecting ribbons, mirrors, 

lasers, streamers, flagging, gas exploders, “hawk eyes”, 

distress calls, dead parrot effigies, predator effigies, 

bioacoustics calls (e.g., barking dogs, raptor calls, and 

human noise), and reflective plates or plastic bags 

attached to plants. Most of these deterrent devices have 

not been adequately tested on RRPA. Efficacy will likely 

vary with device, landscape, and flock characteristics

When used properly, lasers can be a safe and silent 

treatment to temporarily disperse birds. The closely-related 

monk parakeet is sensitive to red lasers (50 mm aperture, 

650 nm, 50mW [class3 IIIb]). Handheld lasers are 

currently used by property owners in Kauai to deter RRPA 

from roosting trees and automated models are available to 

spatially and temporally confine laser beams and reduce 

labor. 

Flocking birds are susceptible to bird alarm and distress 

calls, but habituation often occurs in the absence of actual 

threats to the flock. Furthermore, distress calls may attract 

other RRPA, resulting in the opposite of the desired effect, 

but may provide opportunity for lethal removal. 

Birds quickly habituate to stationary, plastic replicas of 

predators, whereas the presence of actual predators 

capitalizes on natural predator-prey systems. Erecting nest 

boxes and perch spaces for owls and raptors has been 

used to protect fruit farms from other species of pest birds. 

This technique is best used where native raptor species 

are common. Trained falcons (falconry) has been used with 

other pest species, but its high cost and short-term 

effectiveness are major limitations. 

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are a dynamic hazing 

device that overcomes mobility limitations of stationary 

devices. Recent UAS technology allows easy-to-operate 

platforms and the potential for autonomous flight removes 

the need for a human operator, pending FAA regulations. 

Adherence to current U.S. Federal Aviation Administration 

regulations for private and commercial use of UAS and 

adherence to the Airborne Hunting Act is required. The 

efficacy of UAS as hazing tools depends on species-specific 

responses to UAS, which have not been evaluated in RRPA.

Fertility Control

Fertility control or reproductive inhibition is often 

mentioned as a management option when culling of 

charismatic animals is not viewed favorably by the public 

(Appendix 3). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 5
Page 6 WDM Technical Series─Rose-Ringed Parakeets

Although fertility control appears promising in the lab, a 

suitable formulation and species-specific application 

methods are needed for field use. Furthermore, even if 

managers were to successfully establish RRPA-specific bait 

stations that limit access by non-target species, they would 

still need to condition wild RRPA to feed at the stations. 

The design and distribution of such bait stations may work 

for small populations of urban RRPA, but remain 

questionable in rural settings with abundant alternative 

food sources. No fertility control methods are currently 

registered for use with RRPA. Adding RRPA to labels for 

Ornitrol® (DiazaCon) and OvoControl® (Nicarbazin) would 

require additional efficacy studies. 

Because RRPA nests are difficult to access, egg 

destruction and nest removal are not practical 

management actions. 

Toxicants and Repellents

Starlicide®, also known as DRC-1339, is an avicide 

registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) for the control of several species of pest birds, but 

not parakeets. 

Methyl anthranilate and anthraquinone are currently 

registered by the EPA as avian repellents (Appendix 4). 

Methyl anthranilate (MA) acts as an irritant to birds and is 

registered for foliar application with label specifications for 

a variety of pest birds and habitats. Although there are few 

field efficacy tests, MA has been applied to foliar cereal 

grains, stone fruits, pome fruit, berries, small fruit, and turf. 

Anthraquinone (AQ) causes nausea in birds feeding on 

treated food, leading to a learned avoidance in a variety of 

species. AQ is a restricted-use pesticide applied as a seed 

coating prior to planting and is registered as a Section 24

(c) Special Local Need (SLN) Registration in numerous 

states. The potential use of AQ for RRPA damage 

management is limited, given damage to planted seeds or 

seedlings has not been reported and repellency tests have 

not been conducted on parakeets. An EPA registration for a 

foliar application of AQ near harvest is not available nor 

suitable due to food tolerance restrictions and limited field 

application strategies for most crops. Natural plant 

derivatives, such as mint, caffeine, and cinnamon, do not 

require registration. However, few commercial products 

made from these derivatives exist due to varying 

effectiveness and a lack of economic incentives. 

Trapping

In their native range in Pakistan, RRPA have been 

successfully trapped using a modified Australian crow trap 

(i.e., PAROTRAP) in agricultural fields (Figure 4, Appendix 

3). For invasive RRPA, a modified Yunick platform trap was 

effective in urban areas of Spain, but trapping has not 

been successful or cost-effective in many areas where 

RRPA have invaded (e.g., Seychelles and Kauai). Remotely 

triggered, spring-loaded traps can be used if regular 

feeding stations are established. Feeding stations that 

exclude non-target birds have been tested for closelyrelated monk parakeets and could be adapted as traps. 

Trapping efficacy could be improved if traps are placed 

over preferred foods (e.g., corn at the milky stage or 

peanuts) or used when natural forage is limited. Longhandled hand nets have been used to remove RRPA 

roosting on the underside of low-hanging branches or palm 

fronds (Figure 4). 

The American Veterinarian Medical Association (AVMA) 

approves euthanasia of birds using CO2 gas or cervical 

dislocation by well-trained personnel. Translocation, or the 

Figure 4. Rose-ringed parakeets can be captured at foraging sites using a) a 

modified Australian crow-trap baited with food that is more enticing than 

alternative forage available on the landscape and at roosting sites using b) 

long-handled nets run along the underside of low-hanging branches or palm 

fronds.
movement of RRPA, is not practical, and many states 

prohibit the possession, transport, sale, or release of 

invasive species.

Shooting

RRPA often use human-populated areas to roost, nest, and 

feed, restricting the use of firearms for population 

reduction or hazing (Table 3). Shotguns can remove birds 

flying at far distances, such as on flight lines, whereas 

more precise and discrete firearms, including air rifles, can 

target birds perched at roosts, or loafing and feeding 

areas. An air rifle may be useful to target birds foraging in 

the canopy at fruit farms while avoiding damage to the 

tree. Shotguns may be used in row-crop settings or when 

flocks first approach protected areas. Removing sentinel 

birds may be effective at deterring fellow flock mates. The 

only recorded eradication of an invasive RRPA population 

(i.e., Seychelles) relied heavily on shooting. 

A well-funded, coordinated, sustained, and science-guided 

campaign is needed to achieve invasive RRPA population 

reduction in an effective, efficient, and humane manner. 

Follow local and state regulations for firearm use and 

carcass disposal. A bounty program is not recommended 

due to the possible proliferation of breeding programs or 

the intentional release of RRPA to capitalize on financial 

incentives.

Disposal

Check local and state regulations regarding carcass 

disposal. 

Economics

Current studies on RRPA economic impacts to agriculture, 

property, and tourism are needed for a full evaluation of 

the benefits of management interventions. In 1981, RRPA 

damage was estimated at US$ 1.95 million to ripening 

oilseed sunflower in Pakistan, a number likely greater in 

today’s economy. In 1984, economic analyses estimated 

RRPA damage to citrus crops in Pakistan at US$ 660,514. 

In 1975, the state of California estimated a potential loss 

of US$ 735,000 per year from a hypothetical population of 

RRPA damaging only 0.1 percent of the foods they are 

known to eat. Calculations for Hawaii in 1982 estimated 

crop losses at US$ 50,000, not including grains. RRPA 

damages to vineyards in the United Kingdom were 

estimated to reduce wine production from 3,000 to 5,000 

bottles per year. No economic impact studies on RRPA 

damage to personal property or tourism exist.

Species Overview

Identification

The rose-ringed parakeet (RRPA), also known as the ringnecked parakeet, has two subspecies (P. krameri borealis

and P. krameri manillensis) native to the Indian 

subcontinent and two subspecies (P. krameri krameri and 

P. krameri parvirostris) native to central sub-Saharan 

Africa. The subspecies from India are thought to dominate 

the invasive populations.

Physical Description

The RRPA is a medium to large parakeet (weight=110 to 

182 g; length=38 to 42 cm). It has a 40 cm wing span and 

a long tail (up to 25 cm) that is approximately the same 

length as its body. RRPA have a red bill and bright green 

plumage with some blue-green and yellow coloration on 

the wings (Figure 1). Mature males have a dark pink or 

reddish to black neck-ring, a black lower mandible, and 

longer tails than females. Juvenile males do not have the 

diagnostic neck-ring and cannot be easily distinguished 

from females. RRPA reach maturity at about 1.5 years and 

acquire their mature plumage at 2.0 to 2.5 years. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 7
Range

RRPA are one of the most successful invasive bird species 

with sightings in over 76 countries and introduced 

populations in more than 35 countries. Introductions range 

from tropical to temperate locations with populations 

established in Africa, Australia, Asia, Europe, the Middle 

East, and Central and South America. Sightings and 

introduced populations in the United States are located in 

Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Texas, and 

Virginia. In the Hawaiian Islands, RRPA have been reported 

on Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Oahu.

Voice and Sounds

RRPA are often detected by their loud, gregarious calls 

including a noisy, loud, screechy, descending kee-ak, keeak, kee-ak. When birds are gathered in large groups, in 

flight, or at roost sites, their combined calls can be quite 

loud.

Reproduction

RRPA are cavity nesters and breeding pairs can be single 

or loosely grouped, sometimes in the same tree. Preferred 

nesting trees have large diameters (> 50 cm) with 

abundant shrub understory. RRPA typically modify existing 

holes/nest cavity openings, which average 8 to 10 cm in 

diameter. 

RRPA bite off pieces of bark around cavities, which may be 

a sign of an active nest. On Kauai, the outside of cavities 

are often stained orange, either from the iron-rich soil or 

resins in the wood. In urban settings, RRPA will use cavities 

in human structures and nest boxes when natural cavities 

are limited. Thus, nest box traps may be useful for 

population control in these areas. 

RRPA often use the same nesting cavity year after year. 

Courtship and pair formation generally starts in early 

December to January in the Northern Hemisphere, and 

nest selection occurs January to February. The median 

clutch size is four eggs; however, only two eggs are 

generally fertile. Two fledglings per nest are common. 

RRPA will renest after failure and rear one brood a year, 

although second clutches have been documented in their 

native range. Nest failure is low, and causes include 

incomplete development, infertility, predation, weather, 

and starvation. The female leaves the nest during 

incubation (22 to 24 days) to feed herself in the morning 

and evening and rarely leaves the nest during the first 8 to 

10 days of brooding. Male RRPA feed females during 

incubation and brooding and may perch near the cavity to 

guard the nest. Females feed nestlings by regurgitation 

with offspring leaving the nest at 6 to 7 weeks. Fledglings 

rely on parental assistance (especially the male) for two 

weeks to learn food selection, after which juveniles 

separate from adults and flock together.

Mortality

Survival rates for invasive RRPA are lacking for most of 

their range, but in Spain annual survival rates were found 

to be 83% for adults and 57% for first-year juveniles. RRPA 

live for an average of 20 years in captivity. Although the 

estimated survival rate of invasive RRPA is unknown, the 

lack of predators likely increases survival, especially on the 

Hawaiian Islands. RRPA are aggressive toward predators, 

further limiting the ability of predators to control RRPA 

populations. The median low temperature of an area may 

limit RRPA establishment, but the species has successfully 

invaded temperate regions. 

Population Status

RRPA have shown exponential growth on the Hawaiian 

Islands since the early 2000s. As of 2018, approximately 

6,800 and 4,650 birds are located on Kauai and Oahu, 

respectively. The number of parakeets initially remains low 

for a period of time following invasion. Numbers and 

dispersal increase with access to abundant food and 

nesting resources. The largest RRPA population on the U.S. 

mainland totals 1,394 birds in Kern County, California. 

Current estimates for other U.S. mainland populations are 

unknown, but sightings are routinely reported through 

citizen science programs, such as eBird and Christmas Bird 

Count. 

Page 8 WDM Technical Series─Rose-Ringed Parakeets
Habitat

In their native range, RRPA are found in woodlands, urban 

parks, and cultivated areas surrounded by trees up to 

2,000 m above sea level. RRPA favor areas with increased 

human activity over natural areas. RRPA rely on the 

availability of cavity-providing trees or human structures. 

RRPA are capable of flying long distances (e.g., 24 km in 

Germany) from their nocturnal roost to foraging sites. 

Behavior

RRPA are highly social and forage, roost, and nest in flocks. 

Foraging flocks range from a few to hundreds of birds, with 

larger flocks forming when harassment is limited. 

Aggregations in nighttime roosts peak from October to 

January, with lowest levels from May to July during 

breeding. Communal roosting areas include night roosts, 

day roosts, nesting cavities, and foraging trees in some 

regions, while in other areas roosting sites are separate 

from nesting and foraging sites. Evening roosts are often 

located in urban and suburban areas with tall trees (e.g., 

royal palms in Hawaii). RRPA leave roosts up to 30 minutes 

before sunrise and return between 60 minutes before 

sunset to 20 minutes after sunset. The birds are most 

active in the morning and evening. 

Food Habits

RRPA diet includes dry and fleshy fruits and seeds, as well 

as nectar, vegetables, and flower buds. RRPA are major 

pests of agricultural crops worldwide. RRPA have been 

documented damaging crops, such as corn, sunflower, 

safflower, sorghum, millet, rice, sesame, wheat, barley, 

soybeans, mustard, cole crops, lentils, and oil palm. RRPA 

are pests of fruits and nuts, including almonds, dates, 

mangos, pomegranates, grapes, mulberries, guava, 

peaches, apples, citrus, lychees, longan, rambutan, 

papayas, passion fruit, sugarcane, and coffee. RRPA diets 

were shown to be 45% cereals, 38% fruits, and 16% 

oilseeds in their native range. On Kauai, diets were shown 

to be 31% corn, 30% yellow guava, 28% sunflower, and 

11% other items, varying with roost location and food 

availability. 

Legal Status

RPPA are non-native to the United States and are not 

protected by the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 

RRPA are not listed as an injurious species under the U.S. 

Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42), but are listed as injurious by the 

State of Hawaii (Department of Land and Natural 

Resources [DLNR], 

http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dofaw/files/2013/09/Chap124a.p

df). This designation prohibits the release, transport, or 

export of RRPA with importation restricted by the Hawaii 

State Department of Agriculture 

(http://hdoa.hawaii.gov/pi/pq/import-program/). All wild 

birds including introduced species are protected under 

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS183D and HAR124), thus a 

nuisance wildlife control permit is necessary to take RRPA 

in the Hawaiian Islands. All state and local regulations for 

firearm discharge must be followed. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 9
Page 10 WDM Technical Series─Rose-Ringed Parakeets

Acknowledgements

Figure 1. Photo by Frank Adriaensen

Figure 2. Photos by a) Rajat Bhattacharjya, b) USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, c) Lonely Traveler (http://icbird.blogspot.com), 

 d) Arindam Aditya, e) Thomas Brown, f) Alina Sofia, and g) anonymous

Figure 3. Photos by a) Marty McCarthy, b) Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, c) USDA-APHIS-Wildlife 

 Services, d-f) Nancy Tibble 

Figure 4. Photos by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

We thank Michael Avery, Eric Tillman, and Stephen Pruett-Jones for providing critical reviews of this manuscript. 

Disclaimer

Wildlife can threaten the health and safety of you and 

others in the area. Use of damage prevention and control 

methods also may pose risks to humans, pets, livestock, 

other non-target animals, and the environment. Be aware 

of the risks and take steps to reduce or eliminate those 

risks. 

Some methods mentioned in this document may not be 

legal, permitted, or appropriate in your area. Read and 

follow all pesticide label recommendations and local 

requirements. Check with personnel from your state 

wildlife agency and local officials to determine if methods 

are acceptable and allowed. 

Mention of any products, trademarks, or brand names 

does not constitute endorsement, nor does omission 

constitute criticism. 

Keywords

California, Florida, Hawaiian Islands, Introduced birds, 

Lasers, Netting, Parrots, Psittacula krameri, Roosting, 

Shooting, Tropical fruit

Citation

Klug, P.E., Bukoski, W.P., Shiels, A.B., Kluever, B.M. and 

S.R. Siers. 2019. Rose-Ringed Parakeets. Wildlife Damage 

Management Technical Series. USDA, APHIS, WS National 

Wildlife Research Center. Fort Collins, Colorado. 16p.

Glossary

Cavity Nester: A bird that builds nests, lay eggs and raises 

young inside sheltered chambers or cavities. Primary cavity 

nesters excavate their own holes or burrows. Secondary 

cavity nesters take advantage of natural or abandoned 

cavities. 

Effigy: A likeness of a animal. An effigy can be an actual 

animal carcass, a carcass that has been taxidermically 

prepared, or an artificial likeness. 

Integrated pest management: An ecosystem-based 

strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or 

their damage through a combination of non-lethal and 

lethal techniques.

Roost: Location where birds rest or sleep either during the 

day or at night. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 11

Resources

Aagaard, K. and J. Lockwood. 2014. Exotic birds show lags in population growth. Diversity and Distributions 20:547-554.

Avery, M.L. and A.B. Shiels. 2018. Monk and Rose-ringed Parakeets, In Ecology and Management of Terrestrial Vertebrate 

Invasive Species in the United States. eds W. Pitt, J. Beasley, G. Witmer, pp. 333–357. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 

New York.

Bunbury, N., Haverson, P., Page, N., Agricole, J., Angell, G., Banville, P., Constance, A., Friedlander, J., Leite, L., Mahoune, T., 

Melton-Durup, E., Moumou, J., Raines, K., van de Crommenacker, J. and F. Fleischer-Dogley. 2019. Five eradications, three 

species, three islands: overview, insights and recommendations from invasive bird eradications in the Seychelles, In Island 

Invasives: Scaling up to meet the challenge. eds C. Veitch, M. Clout, A. Martin, J. Russell, C. West, pp.282-288. Occasional 

Paper SSC no. 62. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Butler, C.J. and A. Gosler. 2004. Sexing and ageing Rose‐ringed Parakeets Psittacula krameri in Britain. Ringing & Migration 

22:7-12.

CABI, 2018. Psittacula krameri (Rose-ringed Parakeet) [original text by D. Strubbe, University of Antwerp, Evolutionary 

Ecology Group,, Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium]. In: Invasive Species 

Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. www.cabi.org/isc.

Koopman, M.E. and W.C. Pitt. 2007. Crop diversification leads to diverse bird problems in Hawaiian agriculture. HumanWildlife Conflicts 1:235-243.

Klug, P.E., Bukoski, W.P., Shiels, A.B., Kluever, B.M. and S.R. Siers. 2018. Critical review of candidate tools for invasive 

Rose-ringed Parakeet (Psittacula krameri) control in the Hawaiian Islands. Unpublished Final Report QA#2836. USDAAPHIS-WS National Wildlife Research Center. Hilo, HI. 58 pp.

Lambert, M.S., Massei, G., Yoder, C.A. and D.P. Cowan. 2010. An evaluation of Diazacon as a potential contraceptive in nonnative rose-ringed parakeets. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:573-581.

Linz, G.M., Homan, J., Werner, S.J., Hagy, H.M. and W.J. Bleier. 2011. Assessment of bird-management strategies to protect 

sunflowers. Bioscience 61:960-970.

Luna, Á., Franz, D., Strubbe, D., Shwartz, A., Braun, M.P., Hernández-Brito, D., Malihi, Y., Kaplan, A., Mori, E. and M. 

Menchetti. 2017. Reproductive timing as a constraint on invasion success in the Ring-necked Parakeet (Psittacula krameri). 

Biological Invasions 19:2247-2259.

Mukherjee, A., Borad C.K. and B.M. Parasharya. 2000. Damage of Rose-ringed Parakeet, Psittacula krameri Bordeat, to 

safflower, Carthamus tinctorius L. Pavo 38:15-18. 

Orchan, Y., Chiron, F. and S. Kark. 2013. The complex interaction network among multiple invasive bird species in a cavitynesting community. Biological Invasions 15:429-445. 

Pârâu, L.G., Strubbe, D., Mori, E., Menchetti, M., Ancillotto, L., Kleunen, A.V., White, R.L., Luna, Á., Hernández-Brito, 

D. and M.L. Louarn. 2016. Rose-ringed Parakeet Psittacula krameri populations and numbers in Europe: a 

complete overview. Open Ornithology Journal 9:1-13.
Page 12 WDM Technical Series─Rose-Ringed Parakeets

Sa, R.C., Cunningham, A.A., Dagleish, M.P., Wheelhouse, N., Pocknell, A., Borel, N., Peck, H.L. and B. Lawson. 

2014. Psittacine beak and feather disease in a free-living Ring-necked Parakeet (Psittacula krameri) in Great 

Britain. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60:395-398.

Senar, J.C., Arroyo, L., Ortega-Segalerva, L., Carillo, J.G., Thomas, X., Montlavo, T., and A. Sans-Aguilar. 2019. Estimating 

age-dependent survival when juveniles resemble females: Invasive Ring-necked Parakeets as an example. Ecology and 

Evolution 9:891-898.

Shiels, A.B., Bukoski, W.P. and S.R. Siers. 2018. Diets of Kauai’s invasive Rose-ringed Parakeet (Psittacula krameri): 

evidence of seed predation and dispersal in a human-altered landscape. Biological Invasions 20:1449-1457.

Shiels, A.B. and N.P. Kalodimos. 2019. Biology and impacts of Pacific Island invasive species. 15. Psittacula krameri, the 

rose-ringed parakeet (Psittaciformes: Psittacidae). Pacific Science 73:421-450.

Strubbe, D. and E. Matthysen. 2007. Invasive Ring‐necked Parakeets Psittacula krameri in Belgium: habitat selection and 

impact on native birds. Ecography 30:578-588.

Strubbe, D. and E. Matthysen. 2009. Experimental evidence for nest-site competition between invasive Ring-necked 

Parakeets (Psittacula krameri) and native nuthatches (Sitta europaea). Biological Conservation 142:1588-1594.

Subramanya, S. 1994. Non-random foraging in certain bird pests of field crops. Journal of Biosciences 19:369-380.

Uehling, J.J., Tallant, J. and S. Pruett-Jones. 2019. Status of naturalized parrots in the United States. Journal of Ornithology

160:970-921. 
Appendix 1

Page 13

Camouflage and Exclusion Devices for Rose-Ringed Parakeets

Devices are mainly designed to prevent and control rose-ringed parakeet damage at foraging and roosting sites. 
Appendix 2

Page 14

Frightening Devices for Rose-Ringed Parakeets

Devices are mainly designed to elicit a startle response to temporarily move birds and most are not considered long-term solutions. 
Appendix 3

Page 15

Lethal Control for Rose-Ringed Parakeets

Lethal control for prevention and control rose-ringed parakeet damage at foraging and roosting sites. 
Appendix 4

Page 16

Bird Toxicants and Repellents for Rose-Ringed Parakeets

Avian toxicants and repellents for prevention and control of rose-ringed parakeet damage at foraging and roosting sites.