While I am not aware of recent reports of capture from other areas of Madagascar there are some references that indicate that this practice was widespread affecting populations throughout the island 20-30 years ago and it is certainly plausible that the situation remains similar.
Dowsett (2000) referred to the practice of capture and killing C. vasa as “common on the island where they are readily eaten” referring to the island of Madagascar. They further note that there is “significant demand for these birds in Madagascar, either for food (all three species) or as cage birds. In areas where Coracopsis are common (such as Morondava), they are regularly sold in markets for food. In addition, many Coracopsis are eaten directly by farmers who capture them in their fields…. There is no doubt that the numbers involved are far greater than those of birds exported abroad.”
Although likely not impacting wild populations to the same extent as capture for food, the keeping of Coracopsis species as pets should also be considered as a threat further compounding capture for food and forest loss. Studies of keeping of Coracopsis parrots as pets indicate this practice is widespread in Madagascar. One estimate suggested that there were 38,000 parrots (including Agapornis canes) kept as pets in Madagascar in 2015-16 (Reuter et al 2019) and surveys indicate that this practice is geographically widespread across multiple regions (Reuter et al 2017). Significantly two sellers of parrots reported that they stopped selling parrots because they were becoming difficult to find in the wild (Rodriguez et al 2020).
It is important to note that people capturing Coracopsis parrots for food do not distinguish between C. nigra and C. vasa (Dowsett, 2000) and that both species are ecologically similar and likely affected to a similar degree by the loss of habitat. If it is inferred that unsustainable capture and habitat loss are driving declines across the range of C. nigra then it would seem reasonable to make a similar inference for C. vasa, unless there are well justified reasons for considering the extent and impact of these threats to differ.
Dowsett RJ. 2000. Le statut des Perroquets vasa et noir Coracopsis
vasa et C. nigra et de l’inséparable à tête grise Agapornis canus
à Madagascar. Cambridge: IUCN Species Survival Commission.
Fauré, J.-C. 1996. Traditional use of the forest. 33-40 in Ganzhorn, JU & Sorg, J.-P. (eds) Ecology and economy of a tropical dry forest in Madagascar. Primate Rep. (spec. issue) 46:1-382.
Rodriguez et al 2020. Motivations of pet parrot ownership and captive
conditions of the pets in Madagascar Madagascar Conservation & Development. 15(1): 13-18
Reuter, K.E., Clarke, T.A., LaFleur, M., Rodriguez, L., Hanitriniaina, S. and Schaefer, M.S., 2017. Trade of parrots in urban areas of Madagascar. Madagascar Conservation & Development, 12(1).
Reuter KE, Rodriguez L, Hanitriniaina S, Schaefer MS. Ownership of parrots in Madagascar: extent and conservation implications. Oryx. 2019;53(3):582-588. doi:10.1017/S003060531700093X
While I am not aware of recent reports of capture from other areas of Madagascar there are some references that indicate that this practice was widespread affecting populations throughout the island 20-30 years ago and it is certainly plausible that the situation remains similar.
Dowsett (2000) referred to the practice of capture and killing C. vasa as “common on the island where they are readily eaten” referring to the island of Madagascar. They further note that there is “significant demand for these birds in Madagascar, either for food (all three species) or as cage birds. In areas where Coracopsis are common (such as Morondava), they are regularly sold in markets for food. In addition, many Coracopsis are eaten directly by farmers who capture them in their fields…. There is no doubt that the numbers involved are far greater than those of birds exported abroad.”
Although likely not impacting wild populations to the same extent as capture for food, the keeping of Coracopsis species as pets should also be considered as a threat further compounding capture for food and forest loss. Studies of keeping of Coracopsis parrots as pets indicate this practice is widespread in Madagascar. One estimate suggested that there were 38,000 parrots (including Agapornis canes) kept as pets in Madagascar in 2015-16 (Reuter et al 2019) and surveys indicate that this practice is geographically widespread across multiple regions (Reuter et al 2017). Significantly two sellers of parrots reported that they stopped selling parrots because they were becoming difficult to find in the wild (Rodriguez et al 2020).
It is important to note that people capturing Coracopsis parrots for food do not distinguish between C. nigra and C. vasa (Dowsett, 2000) and that both species are ecologically similar and likely affected to a similar degree by the loss of habitat. If it is inferred that unsustainable capture and habitat loss are driving declines across the range of C. nigra then it would seem reasonable to make a similar inference for C. vasa, unless there are well justified reasons for considering the extent and impact of these threats to differ.
Dowsett RJ. 2000. Le statut des Perroquets vasa et noir Coracopsis
vasa et C. nigra et de l’inséparable à tête grise Agapornis canus
à Madagascar. Cambridge: IUCN Species Survival Commission.
Fauré, J.-C. 1996. Traditional use of the forest. 33-40 in Ganzhorn, JU & Sorg, J.-P. (eds) Ecology and economy of a tropical dry forest in Madagascar. Primate Rep. (spec. issue) 46:1-382.
Rodriguez et al 2020. Motivations of pet parrot ownership and captive
conditions of the pets in Madagascar Madagascar Conservation & Development. 15(1): 13-18
Reuter, K.E., Clarke, T.A., LaFleur, M., Rodriguez, L., Hanitriniaina, S. and Schaefer, M.S., 2017. Trade of parrots in urban areas of Madagascar. Madagascar Conservation & Development, 12(1).
Reuter KE, Rodriguez L, Hanitriniaina S, Schaefer MS. Ownership of parrots in Madagascar: extent and conservation implications. Oryx. 2019;53(3):582-588. doi:10.1017/S003060531700093X