3
Revista de Biología Tropical, ISSN: 2215-2075, Vol. 71: e53145, enero-diciembre 2023 (Publicado May. 30, 2023)
birds reintroduced into previously established
flocks (Brightsmith et al., 2005; Elliott, 2006;
Lima et al., 2014; Paranhos et al., 2007;
Plair et al., 2008).
The characteristics and state of conserva-
tion of the environment, as well as climatic
conditions, can also influence the fidelity of
reintroduced animals. Physical environmental
factors define microclimates occupied by birds
and these microclimates affect energy balance
and water consumption and influence behaviors
(Bakken et al., 1991; Petit et al., 1985; Ryder,
1977; Wolf & Walsberg, 1996). Moreover,
the combination of these factors may affect
how reintroduced birds search for supplemen-
tary feeding and may influence the fidelity
of animals to the area. Therefore, it is critical
to understand how environmental factors can
interfere with the search for supplementary
feeding in feeders when managing areas des-
tined for reintroduction. This information can
help managers decide the best way to imple-
ment, maintain, and monitor feeders (Ewen et
al., 2015).
Supplementary feeding is associated with
many positive effects in various bird reintro-
duction projects (Brightsmith et al., 2005;
Vilarta et al., 2021). However, further research
is needed on the broader impacts of food supply
and factors such as climate, pathogen disper-
sal, and predation (Robb et al., 2008). Thus,
this study aimed to evaluate the reintroduction
success of a group of Amazona aestiva and
whether abiotic factors (temperature, humidity,
and luminosity) interfere in the daily search
dynamics for food supplementation in feeders.
The hypothesis is that animals may seek more
food supplementation in more unfavorable abi-
otic conditions for more distant foraging, such
as low light, temperature, and high humidity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Animal: At the beginning of this study
(January 2015), the Wildlife Screening Center
(Centro de Triagem de Animais Silvestres –
CETAS, in Portuguese) in Vitória da Conquis-
ta, housed 59 Amazonas spp. These animals
came mainly from illegal trade confiscations.
This study was submitted to and approved by
the Animal Ethics Committee of the Multidisci-
plinary Institute of Health of the Universidade
Federal da Bahia, under number 034/2015.
All 59 animals were initially tested to
detect gastrointestinal parasites. For this test,
fecal samples were randomly collected from
the floor of the enclosures according to the
number of birds. Stool parasitological tests
were performed using the direct method, the
Willis method, and the spontaneous sedimen-
tation method (Matos & Matos, 1988). Once
the endoparasites were identified, all birds
were subjected to therapeutic interventions
with piperazine citrate tetrahydrate, diluted
in water, for three consecutive days (Miranda
et al., 2014). New fecal samples were col-
lected to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment
after 20 days.
Soon after completing the first dose of
antiparasitic treatment, flight capacity was
evaluated only for animals of the species Ama-
zona aestiva, the focus of this study. This evalu-
ation was carried out using the methodology
proposed by Pedroso (2013), in which the flight
capacity of each animal is related to a score
ranging from 1-4, from animals that did not
fly to those that flew with constant rhythm and
height. Only animals with a score of three or
four had the flight capacity required to continue
in the reintroduction project.
The animals selected in the flight capacity
test were transferred to a single enclosure 4.15
m in length, 3.70 m in width, and 4.00 m in
height outside the CETAS building, near denser
vegetation, used to prepare animals for reintro-
duction. After three days of acclimatization,
the test of socialization/aversion to humans
was performed. Animals that showed aversion
to the approach of an unknown human offering
food were subsequently selected. The animals
that accepted the food were removed from the
enclosure and returned to the initial enclosures
(Pedroso, 2013; Ramos et al., 2021).
From the selected group, feces were col-
lected again from the enclosure to evaluate the