BIRDKEEPER.COM.AU | VOL 31 ISSUE 3 | JUN-JUL 2018 159
Rather than just selecting twigs, the
lovebirds fashioned the twigs to meet their
needs—a sign of intelligence. After selecting
a twig, A. nigrigenis would strip it of leaves
and stalks—quite a feat of manipulation
given that twigs were usually half as long
as the lovebird’s body, but occasionally up
to three times longer! The end was then
chewed until it was frayed, to aid in using
it for weaving. The female was the main
collector and nest architect, but the male
accompanied her and kept watch vigilantly
outside the nest cavity when the female
returned to their cavity to construct the nest.
This species is highly sedentary, and uses
the same sites for roosting and feeding,
and nest-site fi delity is likely. Warburton
and Perrin’s study found that 70% of eggs
hatched successfully. During the incubation
and early development period, the female—
sole incubating parent—spent 90.2% of
active hours on the nest.
Fledging occurred at 32–40 days, with
the parents feeding the young for another
two weeks. In an unusual act of sibling
compassion (for the bird world, where
sibling rivalry can lead to death), once fed
by an adult, a fl edgling occasionally fed
one of its siblings and, on one occasion, it
was observed that the second recipient fed
a third sibling.
Peach-faced Lovebird
Despite being so popular in aviculture, it
is only recently that the breeding biology
of the Peach-faced Lovebird A. roseicollis
has been carefully documented in the
wild. It is well known to nest in cliff-
faces, such as cracks in steep rock faces
on exfoliating sandstone or granite. The
inaccessibility of these nests provides
protection from predators, but also makes
it a challenge for ornithologists.
A. roseicollis has, however, been studied
in regard to nesting in colonies shared
with Sociable Weavers Philtairus socius.
Ndithia, Perrin and Walert (2007) studied
nesting of A. roseicollis at three localities—
Claratal, Hohewarte and Haris—in
Namibia, where this species is endemic.
A. roseicollis is a gregarious, sociable,
non-territorial species and readily
breeds colonially in communal nests
of weaver birds. In this study, nine
colonies, comprising 20 active nests, were
recorded. All were within communal
nests, composed of grass woven together
to produce a massive neatly woven
permanent structure created by Sociable
Weavers. At Claratal, nests were located
in weaver nests constructed in fi ve dead/
partially dead trees, one windmill, and
three telephone poles. At Hohewarte, the
eight nests were all constructed in artifi cial
nest boxes, and all three nests at Haris
were located on telephone poles.
All nests in trees failed due to predation
from snakes, so unexpectedly, all nests
on the ‘artifi cial’ human-made structures
had higher nesting success, likely due
to the higher height, greater diffi culty in
scaling such structures, and the presence
of humans in the vicinity, which deters
predators. This points to the potential of
anthropogenic habitats and structures to
support species that are adaptable and
fl exible enough to adopt them. In all nest
structures, as in captivity, the lovebirds
fashioned nests using materials obtained
from the bark of branches, branchlets,
twigs, sticks, leaves and thorns, mainly from
Acacia karroo and Acacia erioloba. No
grasses were collected. As seen in captivity,
the lovebirds cut the nesting materials
using their sharp bills to snip off branches
and then peel off the bark, and transported
it back to the nest by tucking it into their
rump and fl ank feathers. This material
was then fashioned into an elliptical nest
by inserting the materials around the side
of the cavity. It should be noted that nest
construction only entailed lining the inside
of the nesting chambers so that the internal
nest environment was suitable for the
lovebirds’ eggs and chicks within the pre-
made nest structure created by the Sociable
Weavers. The lovebirds played no part in
creating the larger outer structure.
Many breeding chambers of both
lovebirds and Social Weavers were located
within the large communal nest colony,
with some of the lovebird chambers
even being interconnected with each
other. Each breeding chamber had a
separate entry and escape exit. Egg-laying
and incubation within colonies were
highly synchronised with rainfall and
photoperiod, and thus food availability, at
all locations. Eggs were laid from February
to March, the peak of the rainy season
when grass seeds were most abundant.
Clutch size ranged from 3–8, but was four
on average.
Daily survival of chicks during
incubation and the nestling period was
very low, with an overall survival rate
from egg-laying to fl edging of only 0.14,
meaning on average only 1.64 successful
fl edgings per successful nest. If all egg and
chick losses are attributable to predation,
this corresponds to predation reducingpotential reproductive success by 73%.
Further studies are needed to determine
whether this low fl edging success (only
eight out of 20 nests succeeding, and only
1.64 chicks raised per nest) occurs across
all populations and whether the species
may warrant conservation attention. Given
A. roseicollis’ reliance on the huge grass-
thatched nests of Sociable Weavers, these
birds and their nesting structures will also
need to be conserved.WILD NESTING
Studies on lovebirds in the wild have
not been conducted long enough to
confi dently confi rm that they exhibit nest
site fi delity and re-use the same nests
year after year. However, there is some
evidence that this does occur, given
that nesting and roosting sites tend to
be in the same vicinity, and longer-term
observations of wild hybrid A. personatus
x A. fi scheri lovebirds in Kenya have noted
that the lovebirds permanently occupy the
same cavities throughout the year.
Although species display various
stages of nest-building, even for those
that construct nests, they are entirely
dependent on pre-existing cavities, and
thus are ‘obligate secondary hole-nesters’.
Many lovebirds use cavities in trees, and
this underscores the need to prevent
clearing of large, hollow-bearing trees in
the wild. Unfortunately, throughout much
of the world, these precious resources,
which may take centuries to develop, are
being destroyed, with a primary cause
being land-clearing for livestock grazing.
We all need to look at how we can change
our own habits and behaviours to mitigate
habit destruction and climate change.REFERENCES
Buckley, PA 1969, ‘Disruption of species
typical behavior patterns in F1 hybrid
Agapornis Parrots, Ethology, vol. 26, no.
6, pp. 737–743.
Dilger, WC 1962, ‘The behavior of
lovebirds’, Scientifi c American, vol. 206,
no. 1, pp. 88–99.
Eberhard, JR 1998, ‘Evolution of nest-
building behavior in Agapornis Parrots,
The Auk, pp. 455–464.
Ndithia, H, Perrin, MR & Waltert M
2007, ‘Breeding biology and nest site
characteristics of the Rosy-faced
Lovebird Agapornis roseicollis in
Namibia’, Ostrich-Journal of African
Ornithology, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 13–20.
Warburton, LS & Perrin MR, 2005, Nest-site
characteristics and breeding biology of
the Black-cheeked
Lovebird Agapornis
nigrigenis in Zambia,
Ostrich-Journal of
African Ornithology,
vol. 76, no. 3–4, pp.
162–174.| 1515151515151515155999999999
,,,,,,,Peach-faced Lovebirds Agapornis roseicollis
are sociable and gregarious breeders,
commonly utilising the nests of the Sociable
Weaver Philetairus socius in the wild
D VAN DEN ABEELET