Abstract

A home-based study explored how adding green visual stimuli, in the form of live potted plants and a jungle mural, influenced pet parrots’ behavior. Three parrots (one African grey and two cockatiels) were observed across 10 days using an A–B–A design (two-day baseline, six-day intervention, two-day return). Positive behavioral indicators (movement, preening, vocalizing, eating) and negative indicators (quiet wakefulness, resting, distress) were tracked. Across all subjects, the intervention phase showed clear increases in positive behaviors and reductions in negative behaviors. These findings suggest visual greenery can enhance welfare for companion parrots. Further research is needed to isolate causal factors and assess broader application.

Introduction: When Green Caught My Eye

It all started during a trip to Sayulita, Mexico. The first thing that struck me wasn’t the food or the sunshine, but the green. Palm trees, vines, dense forest climbing up hillsides. Everywhere I looked was alive with color. Of course, as a parrot behavior consultant, I also noticed the parrots (see Figures 1-3). Some were in cages that, by my usual standards, would have looked bare and uninviting. No toys. No elaborate setups. Just food, water, and a perch. And yet, many of these birds looked vibrant, healthy, and active. Their feathers shone. They sang, preened, and displayed behaviors I associated with good welfare.

That contrast gnawed at me. My own parrots back home in Canada had carefully curated cages: toys rotated regularly, perches of different textures, foraging opportunities. All the things a “good parrot home” should have (Luescher, 2006). But there was one obvious difference. My birds lived in a room filled with plastics, wood, and rope toys… and no natural greenery. Those Mexican parrots, even in small enclosures, were surrounded by lush living landscapes every single day.

I couldn’t stop wondering: Could greenery itself be part of what supported their behavior?

Figure 1. View from the Air BnB, Sayulita, Nayarit, Mexico.

Fig 2. Great Green Macaw in Sayulita, Nayarit, Mexico.

Fig 3: The Great Green Macaws enclosure in Sayulita, Nayarit, Mexico.

Asking the Question

When I returned home, I thought about my own birds: Quentin, my 25-year-old African grey, and two cockatiels, Monster and Skeeter, both 24. They had plenty of enrichment as is suggested by the experts (Rodríguez-López, 2016), but none of it looked like what their wild counterparts might see every day (Figure 4).

Around this same time, I attended the Seattle Parrot Expo and sat in on Dr. Rainer Nieman’s talk on “Bird Safe Plants” (Figure 5). His focus was practical: Which plants are safe to put in or around parrot spaces. But it gave me an idea: What if I could test whether just seeing greenery, without chewing on or interacting with it, had any effect on my parrots’ behavior?

Most enrichment studies in companion birds focus on toys, foraging, or training. Live plants are more often discussed in the context of aviaries, where parrots can climb and shred them. But what about visual enrichment? What about the act of simply being surrounded by green, leafy life? Could that be enough to spark more activity, more engagement, and maybe even better welfare?

I decided to try a small experiment. Nothing fancy, just a home-based test with my own flock (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Robin’s home setup, two parrot cages. One for Quentin, the African Grey (in photo), and one for the two cockatiels, Monster and Skeeter.

Figure 5. Plants for sale at the Seattle Parrot Expo 2023, after listening to Dr Nieman’s talk.

Methods: Time to Do Science

My hypothesis: Green plants in the areas where pet parrots are kept contribute to better overall behavioral health. My experiment ran for 10 days. I wanted it simple enough to do myself but structured enough to give me meaningful information (Hancocks (1980)). The experiment used A-B-A design, over a 10-day period, to evaluate the impact of having greenery on the behavioral health of pet parrots.

Process:

Duration: 10 days, with observations recorded daily between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. MST

Monitoring: Continuous recording was done via remote camera to minimize “observer effect” and ensure the parrots engaged in their normal day-to-day activities

Variables: Routine interactions, diet, and environment remained constant throughout the study to ensure that any behavioral shifts could be attributed to the introduction of the plants.

Experimental Design and Setting

The study employed a withdrawal (A–B–A) design with phases partitioned as follows:

• • Days 1-2: Baseline. Two days without greenery (A1) No changes. Just my birds in their usual space, with all the toys and perches they normally had.
  • Days 3-8: Greenery phase. Intervention: Six days with greenery (B). I added seven bird-safe plants (calamondin orange, banana tree, aloe, coffee tree, a palm, and two spider plants) plus a large jungle mural hung on the wall. The plants were arranged so the birds could see them clearly but not touch them.
  • Days 9-10: Return to baseline. Two days after removal of greenery (A2) I removed the plants and mural, returning the room to its original setup.

To track behavior, I set up a remote camera that ran from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. every day. Later, I reviewed the footage and tallied how the birds spent their time.

I focused on behaviors that could serve as indicators of welfare:

Positive indicators: Preening, moving (walking or flying, chewing, playing), and vocalizing (singing, chirping, whistling), as defined in Mellor, 2014.
Negative indicators: Inactivity (“just sitting and staring”), sleeping during the day, which we will call “resting,” and any distress behaviors such as screaming, pacing, wing flapping, feather destruction, nail chewing, or aggression.

Focusing on these specific positive and negative indicators tests whether environmental enrichment specifically reduces stereotypies, as has been proposed by Hosey (2005) & Swaisgood and Shepherdson (2006). It wasn’t high-tech science, but it gave me a clear picture of how my birds’ behavior shifted from one phase to another.

The Birds

Every study needs introductions. Here are my three participants:

Quentin – a 25-year-old African grey (Psittacus erithacus) with a big personality and strong opinions about how the world should run. He has a history of feather picking but also a knack for problem-solving. He knows many trained behaviors, and yet would often rather sit back and watch before engaging.

Monster – a 24-year-old cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus) who lives up to his name only in size of presence. He is a confident singer with a routine he doesn’t like disrupted. He’s sweet and loves interaction with people.

Skeeter – Monster’s cage mate, also a 24-year-old cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus), more laid back, often following Monster’s lead but quick to chime in with chatter when the mood strikes. He’s most likely to go adventuring!

I’ve lived with these birds for decades. I know their quirks and their usual patterns. That made it easier to spot when something was different.

Intervention

The intervention consisted of environmental enrichment through the introduction of live potted plants (calamondin, banana, aloe, coffee, palm, and spider plants) and a jungle-themed mural. These were selected as safe using available research and information (Hess & Axelson, n.d.). These elements were positioned within the birds’ visual field but remained out of physical reach to prevent ingestion or destruction. All other daily routines, including diet and social interaction, remained constant throughout the study.

Methodology and data collection

I used a systematic observation schedule to collect a thorough data set throughout every phase of the project. This study was conducted in line with established ethical guidelines for housing and managing psittacine birds. (Kalmar et al., 2010).

Observation Schedule and Recording: Data was collected daily from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. MST over the 10-day period. Observations were captured via a single remote camera equipped with an SD card, positioned to provide a full view of the primary bird room. A camera was selected after consulting Diana et al. (2021) and McGregor et al. (2022), who support the use of remote camera technology as a modern, valid way to monitor welfare without human interference. Monitoring was restricted to this specific environment, and each birds’ behavior was reviewed individually, so each bird had their own ‘time spent in room’ parameter.

Coding Procedure: A single primary observer (the author) coded the footage in its entirety. To ensure efficiency without compromising accuracy, video was reviewed at 4x and 10x speeds. If a specific behavior occurred at any point during a one-minute block, it was recorded as a tally for that interval. These tallies were then aggregated to determine the total “minutes of duration” for the following behavioral categories: distress, eating, inactivity, movement, preening, resting, and vocalizing.

To ensure the reliability of the coding system, a second independent coder (a colleague, Meagan Craig) reviewed a representative sample of the data. This sample consisted of one full day of video for each of the three subjects (30% of the total data). Using the same tally system, the secondary coder’s results were compared against the primary coder’s. The inter-observer agreement was found to be within 90%, indicating high consistency in behavioral categorization.

Behaviors were tallied in minutes per day, then converted to proportions of total observed minutes (percentage). I did not track time outside of this space; if the birds chose to leave, they were free to do so. As the birds chose to increase their time in the room, this allows us to more accurately evaluate any observed changes.

Figure 6. Picture of the mural prior to installation.

Figure 7. Picture of the room setup after installation. Note the variety of live plants added around the room as well as the mural.

Ethics Statement

Institutional ethics review was not sought because this submission reports noninvasive observation conducted in the author’s private home with the author as the caregiver of the parrots, and involved no procedures beyond routine care and normal household management.

Results

Behavioral data for all three subjects (Monster, Skeeter, and Quentin) showed a consistent shift following the introduction of greenery. To allow for better comparison across days where “time spent in room” varied, all raw minute tallies were converted to proportions of total observed time.

• • Monster and Skeeter (cockatiels): During the baseline (A1) phase, both birds spent a high proportion of time in “inactivity” and “rest.” Upon the introduction of the plants and mural (Phase B), “movement” and “preening” increased, with preening for Monster peaking at 36% of the daily budget. Inactivity levels dropped by nearly half during the intervention phase.
  • Quentin (African grey): Quentin showed the most dramatic response to the visual stimuli. His “vocalizing” and “movement” increased immediately upon the addition of the greenery. Interestingly, his “rest” and “inactivity” proportions reached their lowest levels during the middle of the intervention phase before trending back toward baseline during the withdrawal (A2) phase.

Looking at the data across all three birds, the trend was hard to miss. Each parrot reacted in their own way, Quentin with an immediate burst of energy and the cockatiels with a steadier increase in grooming and activity. The greenery phase” clearly shifted their daily priorities. It was fascinating to see that just by changing the scenery, I could effectively cut inactivity in half and encourage the kind of species-typical behaviors, like singing and preening, that we always strive for in a home environment. The fact that these levels dropped off so drastically once the plants were removed really drove home for me that the visual environment isn’t just a backdrop; it’s a functional part of their behavioral health.

Monster:

Figure 8. Positive indicators. Low on each end (A sections) and an increase in the B section show that positive indicators increase during the greenery phase.

Negative indicators

Figure 10. Monster positive vs negative indicators

Figure 10.1. Monster total bar graph

Skeeter:

Figure 11. Positive indicators

Figure 12. Negative indicators.

Positive vs Negative: Figure 13. Positive versus negative indicators.

Figure 13.1. Skeeter total bar graph.

Quentin:

Figure 14. Positive indicators

Figure 15. Negative indicators

Figure 16. Pos versus neg indicators

Figure 16.1 Total bar graph.

Discussion

The data across all three subjects revealed a consistent pattern: when the greenery was added, the birds became more active and engaged, and when it was taken away, they defaulted back to a state of quiet inactivity. When I looked at the typical activity levels for each phase, the patterns clearly supported the shift in behavior. These behavioral shifts were not just random daily fluctuations but were tied directly to the environmental changes.

During the initial two-day baseline (A1), I was struck by how much of the day the birds spent simply staring into space. As a consultant who prioritizes enrichment, seeing “inactivity” take up such a large portion of their time was a revelation. It highlighted a common issue in companion parrot homes: We provide toys and food, but the overall atmosphere can still be static and unstimulating.

The most surprising takeaway was that these shifts happened without any physical contact. The birds couldn’t chew the plants or climb the mural, yet their behavior changed as if they were in a new, functional space. They weren’t just looking at the plants; they were behaving differently because of them: singing more, moving more, and spending more time in the “green” room. This supports the idea that naturalistic environments provide a biological benefit that goes beyond just having something to shred.

While there was a slight “novelty spike” on the first day of the intervention, the positive indicators remained higher than the baseline for the entire six-day trial. This sustained engagement suggests that the greenery provided a lasting improvement to the environment rather than acting as a temporary distraction. However, to further validate these findings and maintain experimental transparency, future research could include a control condition using non-natural novel objects. This would allow for a clearer distinction between the birds’ reaction to newness and their specific biological response to the visual properties of greenery.

When the plants were removed for the final baseline (A2) phase, the shift back to “boredom” was almost immediate. Inactivity and rest nearly doubled compared to the treatment days. This reversal is perhaps the strongest evidence that the visual greenery was the active ingredient in their improved welfare. It reinforces the argument made by researchers like Fàbregas et al. (2011) and Wickins-Dražilová (2006) that naturalistic surroundings are not just an aesthetic choice, but a biological necessity for captive animals.

The reduction in “distress” and “inactivity” tallies during the intervention phase is important. Environmental complexity is well-documented as a tool for mitigating stress and stereotypic behaviors in captive animals. While the subjects in this study had low baseline distress, the further reduction suggests that a “green” atmosphere may provide a sense of security or stimulation that buffers against boredom.

While the results of this study are encouraging, there are several limitations to consider before drawing broader conclusions. As a small-scale, home-based project involving only three birds in a single household over 10 days, these findings represent a “snapshot” of behavioral change rather than definitive scientific proof.

One primary consideration is the “novelty factor,” as it is possible the sudden change in environment created a temporary spark of curiosity that might eventually level off over a longer period. Furthermore, human presence played a role, as caring for live plants required me to enter the room more frequently for watering and maintenance. Because parrots often find human interaction favorable, this increased presence may have influenced the behavioral shifts independently of the plants themselves.

There are also visual variables to account for, specifically that the intervention was multifaceted, consisting of both live plants and a colorful jungle mural. The mural introduced significant color and contrast that were independent of the biological greenery, making it difficult to isolate which visual element was the primary driver of the change. Future research should aim for a more precise definition of “greenery” and consider testing artificial silk plants to determine if the benefits are derived from the biological life of the plant, such as changes in air quality, or from the visual presence of the color green.

The use of continuous remote video monitoring allowed for a high-fidelity data set without the “observer effect” often present in home environments. As technology for monitoring animal welfare continues to evolve, home-based studies can provide valuable insights into the day-to-day lives of companion birds. Future research should aim to isolate whether the effect is driven by the organic nature of live plants (Hess & Axelson, n.d.) or if artificial greenery and murals provide equivalent benefits.

Ecology and sensory perception

The behavioral improvements observed may be deeply rooted in the specific ecological and sensory needs of psittacine birds. Unlike humans, parrots possess sophisticated tetrachromatic vision that allows them to perceive ultraviolet (UV) light and higher sensitivities to texture and three-dimensional movement. This suggests that while the jungle mural provided a broad view of color and contrast, the live plants likely offered a far more complex and biologically relevant stimulus. For a parrot, the biological green of a living plant likely provides a level of engagement that a two-dimensional print cannot replicate because of its unique UV reflectance and subtle movements.

Furthermore, an ecological approach to welfare must account for the full sensory needs of the bird. While the parrots observed in Mexico were immersed in natural environments, this study focused solely on visual stimuli. The absence of naturalistic audio or other elements of living in a jungle represents limitations in this study. Future research should explore the synergistic effects of combining visual greenery with naturalistic multisensory enrichment to better mimic the multifaceted environments these species evolved to inhabit.

This shift in focus addresses a growing debate within the behavior community. Standard parrot enrichment often focuses heavily on what a bird can touch or chew, such as toys (wood, cardboard, etc). However, as the industry begins to look more closely at the ecology of the birds we keep, it is becoming clear that we must also consider how environmental stimuli fill deeper behavioral needs. Moving beyond simple toys toward enrichment that aligns with evolutionary biology remains a critical and emerging frontier in companion parrot welfare.

Clinical applications

These findings suggest that caregivers should incorporate the visual environment into behavioral health plans rather than focusing solely on toys for enrichment. Professionals can recommend bird-safe live plants or high-quality silk alternatives to increase environmental complexity without requiring direct physical contact. If using live plants, it is essential for consultants to provide vetted resources for identifying nontoxic species to ensure subject safety.

In practice, consultants should guide clients in monitoring specific markers like vocalization frequency and movement patterns to allow discussions to determine if greenery is successfully promoting active engagement. This systematic approach ensures that visual enrichment serves as a functional therapeutic tool within the home.

The green shift

The shifts I saw in my birds aren’t just anecdotal; they align with a broader body of research showing that naturalistic environments are a foundational part of animal welfare. In our industry, parrot enrichment tends to focus heavily on what a bird can touch or eat, things like toys and foraging, but as Rodríguez-López (2016) suggests, we might be overlooking how much a bird is influenced by multifaceted environmental stimuli.

In this experiment, the increase in positive indicators (specifically in preening and movement) really brings to life what Mellor (2014) calls “environment-focused active engagement.” It wasn’t just that they were busy; they were engaged with their space in a healthy way. Similarly, seeing those distress behaviors drop off supports the work of Hosey (2005) and Swaisgood & Shepherdson (2006), who have noted that adding naturalistic complexity can actually help mitigate stress-related or stereotypic behaviors.

We’ve seen this work in zoo settings for years; studies show that access to plants, natural substrates, and even just a view of greenery can improve welfare across many different species (Fàbregas et al., 2011; Hancocks, 1980; Hosey, 2005; Mellor, 2014; Rodríguez-López, 2016). For parrots, who evolved in the lush greens of forests and grasslands, it makes perfect sense that a more naturalistic visual field would feel both stimulating and comforting. While most research has stuck to tactile, “hands-on” enrichment, this A-B-A study suggests that simply changing the view can be enough to encourage birds to engage more positively with their world. As Whitham and Wielebnowski (2013) push for new directions in welfare science, I believe this project shows that even a simple visual change can spark a measurable, meaningful shift in behavior.

Where do we go from here?

There are still many questions. Was it the plants, the mural, or both? Do fake plants have the same effect as live ones? Does it matter whether plants change air quality or humidity? Could greenery reduce stress hormones in measurable ways? I don’t have those answers yet. But I hope more caregivers and researchers will take up the challenge. Sometimes the simplest changes hold the biggest potential.

For me, the takeaway is simple. Green matters. My birds told me so with their behavior. Adding plants and a mural made their days more active, vocal, and engaged. When the green disappeared, so did much of that activity.

As parrot behavior consultants, we often focus on what a bird can do (training, foraging, chewing). This study suggests we must also consider what a bird sees. By integrating green elements into the home, we can offer our birds something that promotes engagement and enhances their overall quality of life.

As parrot caregivers, we can’t give our birds the jungle they deserve. But we can give them glimpses of green. Maybe that little change can help them feel more connected, more stimulated, and more alive.

If you try it, I’d love to hear what you see.

References:

Diana, A., Norton, T., Broom, D. M., Pelizzola, M., Brscic, M., & Scollo, A. (2021). A systematic review of the use of technology to monitor welfare in zoo animals: Is there space for improvement? Animals, 11(11), 3048. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113048

Fàbregas, M. C., Guillén-Salazar, F., & Garcés-Narro, C. (2011). Do naturalistic enclosures provide suitable environments for zoo animals? Zoo Biology, 30(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20404

Hancocks, D. (1980). Bringing nature into the zoo: Inexpensive solutions for zoo environments. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 1(3), 170–177.

Hess, L., & Axelson, R. (n.d.). Plants that are safe for birds. VCA Animal Hospitals. https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/plants-safe-for-birds

Hosey, G. (2005). How does the zoo environment affect the behaviour of captive primates? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 90(2), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.015

Kalmar, I. D., Janssens, G. P. J., & Moons, C. P. H. (2010). Guidelines and ethical considerations for housing and management of psittacine birds used in research. ILAR Journal, 51(4), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.51.4.409

Luescher, A. (Ed.). (2006). Manual of parrot behavior. Wiley-Blackwell.

McGregor, C., Ruzic, A., & Kanwal, S. (2022). Frameworks and platforms for monitoring animal health and wellness in human care and in the wild. In Digital health and animal welfare (pp. 65–84). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22805-6_4

Mellor, D. J. (2014). Positive animal welfare states and encouraging environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 62(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2014.926800

Rodríguez-López, R. (2016). Environmental enrichment for parrot species: Are we squawking up the wrong tree? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 180, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.04.016

Swaisgood, R. R., & Shepherdson, D. J. (2006). Environmental enrichment as a strategy for mitigating stereotypies in zoo animals: A literature review and meta-analysis. In G. Mason & J. Rushen (Eds.), Stereotypic animal behaviour (2nd ed., pp. 256–285). CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990040.0256

Whitham, J. C., & Wielebnowski, N. (2013). New directions for zoo animal welfare science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 147(3–4), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.02.004

Wickins-Dražilová, D. (2006). Zoo animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-4380-2