background.… · web view2017. 11. 27. · we have been very successful at attracting money...

KFBRP WORKPLANFebruary 16, 2016

KAUA’I FOREST BIRD RECOVERY PROJECT

FY16 WORKPLAN

Dr. Lisa “Cali” CramptonKFBRP Coordinator14 February 2016

1


KFBRP FY16 (2016-2017) Work Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND 4INTRODUCTION 4KAUAI’S NATIVE FOREST BIRDS 4PUAIOHI (MYADESTES PALMERI) 5ÀKEKEÈ (LOXOPS CAERULEIROSTRIS) 5'AKIKIKI (OREOMYSTIS BAIRDI) 6FY15 SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS 7KFBRP FY16 OVERVIEW 8KFBRP STAFFING IN FY16 8KFBRP INFRASTRUCTURE (OFFICE, FIELD CAMPS) AND VEHICLES 8FUNDING FOR FY16 9PRIORITIES FOR FY16 9FY16 SCHEDULE 10DETAILS OF CURRENT KFBRP PROJECTS 12A.CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES 121. NEST SEARCHING TO INITIATE CAPTIVE POPULATIONS OF ÀKIKIKI AND ÀKEKEÈ* 122. NEST BOX INSTALLATION AND MONITORING FOR PUAIOHI 13B. INVESTIGATING THREATS TO FOREST BIRDS AND EFFICACY OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 141. EFFECT OF WEED REMOVAL ON FOREST BIRD NEST SURVIVAL AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR 143. HAWAII FOREST BIRD SURVEYS 17C. DEMOGRAPHICS, DISTRIBUTION, AND ABUNDANCE OF ÀKIKIKI AND ÀKEKEÈ

18D. PUAIOHI DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE, AND HABITAT USE: INFLUENCE OF TOPOGRAPHY, VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICS, AND FRUIT ABUNDANCE 19

DETAILS OF RECENT KFBRP PROJECTS 20A. PROJECTS INVESTIGATING THREATS TO FOREST BIRDS AND EFFICACY OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 201. EAST ALAKA’I FENCE MONITORING PROJECT (EAFP): EFFECT OF UNGULATE REMOVAL ON FOREST VEGETATION AND BIRD COMMUNITIES 202. NEST SURVIVAL OF FOREST BIRDS AND INFLUENCE OF RAT PREDATION 213. LARVAL (AND ADULT) MOSQUITO PREVALENCE IN NATURAL AND DISTURBED HABITATS

22B. DEMOGRAPHICS, DISTRIBUTION, AND ABUNDANCE OF ÀKIKIKI AND ÀKEKEÈ

24DISTRIBUTION, AND ABUNDANCE, AND HABITAT USE OF ÀKIKIKI AND ÀKEKEÈ AT LOCAL AND LANDSCAPE SCALES, WITH RESPECT TO VEGETATION STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION (BEHNKE MS) 24C. PUAIOHI DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE, AND HABITAT USE: INFLUENCE OF TOPOGRAPHY, VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICS, AND FRUIT ABUNDANCE 261. OCCUPANCY SURVEYS AND ABUNDANCE MODELING* 26

2


3. HABITAT USE BY PUAIOHI AT LOCAL (WITHIN-STREAM OR TERRITORY) SCALES DURING THE BREEDING SEASON 284. HABITAT USE BY ADULT PUAIOHI AT LOCAL (WITHIN-STREAM OR TERRITORY) SCALES AT THE END OF THE BREEDING SEASON (TELEMETRY) 295. JUVENILE SURVIVAL AND DISPERSAL (IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE BREEDING SEASON) 316. PUAIOHI DIETARY STUDY 327. NEST SURVIVAL AND NEST SITE SELECTION 338. MARK-RESIGHT STUDY OF PUAIOHI SURVIVAL 349. PUIAOHI POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS 35

OTHER POSSIBLE/FUTURE PROJECTS 35

OUTREACH, ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES 36

KFBRP PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 38

APPENDICES 41APPENDIX A. KFBRP VEGETATION PROTOCOL 41APPENDIX B. KFBRP PUAIOHI OCCUPANCY SURVEY PROTOCOL 47APPENDIX C. PU OS HABITAT SURVEY AND DATA SHEET 51APPENDIX D. MOSQUITO LARVAE SURVEY PROTOCOL 55

3


BACKGROUND

IntroductionThe mission of the Kaua'i Forest Bird Recovery Project (KFBRP) is to promote knowledge, appreciation, and conservation of Kaua'i's native forest birds, with a particular emphasis on three endangered species, the Puaiohi, ‘Akikiki, and ‘Akeke’e. The research and conservation activities we undertake to recover these species are guided by the Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds (USFWS 2006), Hawaii’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (HCWCS), 5-year Action Plans for each species that are designed to implement and update Recovery Plan actions, and a Structured Decision Making process convened in 2013 to prioritize actions for ‘Akikiki and ‘Akekee. In FY16, the Kaua’i Forest Bird Working Group will update the 5-year action plans for all three species.KFBRP is a State of Hawai'i Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) program facilitated by the Pacific Studies Cooperative Unit of the University of Hawai'i. It is funded and supported by numerous partners including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DOFAW, and several other organizations and individuals. Each year, the Kauai Forest Bird Recovery Project develops an annual workplan based on these documents to summarize accomplishments of the previous year and formulate a strategy for the current year given recent advances in knowledge and current funding and staffing levels. We also provide details of current and recent projects, suggest areas for future research and grant writing, and list KFBRP publications and grant applications. Below highlights for FY15 and 16; details follow in subsequent sections.

This work plan is intended for:

a) KFBRP staff as background on our organization and its activities, and for planning.b) KFBRP collaborators such as Zoological Society of San Diego, Koke’e Resource Conservation Program, TNC, & watershed partnerships to inform them of our activities.c) KFBRP advisors including DOFAW, USFWS, PCSU, and collaborating scientists to gain feedback.d) Supporters of KFBRP and organizations concerned with endangered birds and their recovery.

For more information about the Kauai Forest Bird Recovery Project, please visit our website at www.kauaiforestbirds.org; there you will find links to the above documents and organizations.

Kauai’s Native Forest BirdsThe songbirds that colonized Hawai'i millions of years ago found an isolated tropical paradise. Over time, they evolved into dozens of unique species perfectly adapted to these isolated tropical islands. At one point, 16 forest bird species occurred on Kaua'i. However, due to factors such as habitat loss and degradation, introduced predators and disease, and stochastic events such as hurricanes, several species went extinct. Now, only eight forest bird species remain, six of which (marked with *) live only on Kaua'i: 'Akeke'e*, 'Akikiki*, 'Anianiau*, 'Apapane, 'I'iwi, Kaua'i 'Amakihi*, Kaua'i 'Elepaio*, and Puaiohi*.

4

http://www.kauaiforestbirds.org/

http://kauaiforestbirds.org/mahalo/

http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/

http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/

http://manoa.hawaii.edu/hpicesu/pcsu.htm

http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/dofaw


Three of these species - 'Akeke'e, 'Akikiki, and Puaiohi – are listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act. KFBRP’s research and conservation activities are concentrated on these three species, although we opportunistically collect data on other forest birds as well.Our research focuses on determining population size and status of these three species, and in assessing the influence of food availability, habitat structure and composition, predation, and introduced disease on survival and reproductive success (and ultimately abundance). Conservation actions for these species include 1) strategic weed control by The Nature Conservancy and Koke‘e Resource Conservation Program, 2) construction of fences to protect the Alaka‘i Wilderness Preserve (two completed and one just initiated) and the Hono O Na Pali Natural Area Reserve (underway) from ungulates, 3) installation of a 150-trap grid of self-resetting rodent traps at Halepa’akai in 2015, and 4) initiation of a nest harvest and captive breeding program for ‘Akikiki and ‘Akeke’e in 2015. Two other actions have been undertaken to help recovery of Puaiohi: implementation of a captive propagation and release program by the Zoological Society of San Diego (ZSSD), and installation of ~70 nest boxes along streams in the Alaka’i. Between 1999 and 2012, 222 captive bred birds were released at three sites but no known new subpopulations have been permanently established. Puaiohi have nested in three nest boxes; at least one clutch fledged.

Puaiohi (Myadestes palmeri)The secretive Puaiohi, also known as the Small Kaua'i Thrush, is one of only two endemic species in the Thrush family that still exist in Hawai'i today. First recognized in 1891, the Puaiohi is found only on Kaua'i and it is not known to have historically inhabited other islands in the archipelago. This highly endangered species (population ~500 individuals) is set apart from other native forest birds on Kaua'i by its large size, melodious song, and peculiar nesting and foraging biology. Listed as Endangered in 1967, KFBRP has been studying this species since 2003.

Once inhabiting forests down to sea level, the Puaiohi has now retreated to a 20km² area of the Alaka'i Plateau. Puaiohi occupy small territories along deeply-incised, forested streambeds above approximately 1050 meters in elevation. These territories are used for breeding and for foraging. Stream habitat appears to be crucial to the species, which primarily nests in shallow crevices on steep cliff walls along streams. Primarily frugivorous (or fruit-eating), Puaiohi consume the fruits of native plants species such as 'ōlapa, lapalapa, 'ōhi'a hā, kanawao, ōhelo, pa'iniu, pūkiawe, kāwa'u and pilo, and some introduced plants such as thimbleberry. They also eat a variety of invertebrates, especially during the breeding season.

Puaiohi typically breed between March and August. This species often will re-nest when a nest fails and can fledge multiple broods in a season. Two eggs are typically laid in each nest, and are incubated by the female. Juvenile birds can be distinguished from adults, which are grey with a white eye ring, by speckling on the breast and abdomen, sometimes referred to as scalloping. Often scalloped plumage persists into the bird’s second year.

5

http://www.soundshawaiian.com/birds_kauai.html

http://www.soundshawaiian.com/birds_kauai.html


`Akeke`e (Loxops caeruleirostris)Fossil records suggest that this greenish-yellow honeycreeper with a black mask

has inhabited only the island of Kaua'i. This species has a specialized bill – with offset tips similar to those of mainland crossbill species - that allows it to pry open buds of 'Ōhi'a leaves and flowers to search for invertebrates. The species was federally listed as endangered in 2010 due to low numbers (3,111 ± 591 birds) and a declining population trend. KFBRP piloted long-term studies on habitat use and demography in 2011, as detailed in the draft Five-Year Recovery Plan for 'Akeke'e, to investigate causes of the

'Akeke'e population decline. Recent unpublished data suggest the decline is even more dramatic and the population is <1000 birds.

Although first described in the 1880's, there is a paucity of research on the ecology of 'Akeke'e, much of which is summarized in the Hawai'i Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 'Akeke'e Fact Sheet. Very few nests of the 'Akeke'e have been located and observed by biologists, possibly because 'Akeke'e nest high in the terminal branches of 'Ōhi'a trees. The breeding season generally begins in March, and we suspect that the last chicks fledge from their nests by mid-July based on the breeding biology of the 'Akeke'e's close relative, the Hawai'i 'Ākepa. It is also likely that 'Akeke'e can build multiple nests in a season since most honey-creeper species re-nest after failure of a nesting attempt. Several honeycreeper species will also raise multiple broods per season. In 2015, KFBRP found an ‘Akeke’e nest with three eggs.

'Akikiki (Oreomystis bairdi)The 'Akikiki, like the other endangered species on the island, is endemic to Kaua'i. Fossil records show that this species once inhabited forests down to sea level. First described in 1887, this small pale gray and white honeycreeper lacks the vibrant red and yellow colors worn by other extant honeycreepers on Kaua'i. Recent population estimates suggest that the population, already small at 3,924 ± 756 birds, is in decline and its range has contracted; these findings led to the federal listing of the species in 2010. Therefore, in 2011 KFBRP initiated long-term studies of 'Akikiki ecology and demography to assess causes of the species' decline and inform its recovery. Recent unpublished data suggest the decline is even more dramatic and the population numbers fewer than 500 birds.

Like the 'Akeke'e, the 'Akikiki has been the subject of only a few studies, many summarized in Hawai'i's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 'Akikiki Fact Sheet. Until 2015, the few 'Akikiki nests that have been found were all high in in the crowns of 'ōhi'a trees, but in 2015, one pair built two nests in two ōlapa trees. Nests are composed of moss, small pieces of bark, bits of lichen, and fine plant fibers. 'Akikiki reproductive behavior has been observed from January through July. This species at least occasionally rears more than one brood per year, but this behavior may be infrequent because of the long juvenile dependency period: like other Hawaiian creepers, juvenile 'Akikiki may stay with their parents for up to 18 months.

6

http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/dofaw/cwcs/files/NAAT%20final%20CWCS/Chapters/Terrestrial%20Fact%20Sheets/Forest%20Birds/akikiki%20NAAT%20final%20!.pdf

http://kauaiforestbirds.org/files/5113/1994/2814/AKEK-crossbill-web.jpg


'Akikiki are usually seen traveling and foraging in pairs or in family groups in forests of the Alaka'i area at elevations above 1,140 meters. They eat invertebrates, which they find by pecking and pulling at the bark of snags and tree trunks of species, such as 'ōhi'a and 'ōlapa. Once an 'Akikiki pair or family group is spotted, they can be watched for long periods of time as they move up and down along branches in the understory. Identifying them by sight is easier than identifying them by sound, as 'Akikiki sound much like 'Akeke'e, 'Anianiau, and Kaua'i 'Amakihi.

7

http://kauaiforestbirds.org/birds/kauai-amakihi/

http://kauaiforestbirds.org/birds/anianiau/

http://kauaiforestbirds.org/birds/akekee/

http://soundshawaiian.com/birds_kauai.html


FY15 SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTSField work: Initiated a nest harvest program (primarily at Halepa’akai) for ‘Akikiki and

‘Akeke’eo Found 29 active AKIK nests at HPK and 1 at MOH; found 3 active

AKEK nests at MOHo Ladder technique permitted us to harvest 11 AKIK nests at HPK and

two AKEK nests at MOHo 15 ‘Akikiki and 5 ‘Akeke’e chicks hatched at San Diego Zoo Global

facilities (some AKIK eggs failed to hatch)o 14 ‘Akikiki and 1 ‘Akeke’e chicks alive as of September 2015

Initiated a rat control project at Halepa’akai to protect nests using 150 GoodNature traps

o Trapping efforts prevented a seasonal increase in rat abundance in the treatment plot vs. the control plot

Completed third year post-weed removal nest monitoring and VCPs for Effect of weed removal on forest bird nest survival and foraging behavior at Mohihi

o Found 48 nests. No effect of weeding on nest survival detected, but nest abundance in the treatment plot increased between 2013 and 2014, indicating that birds are potentially responding positively to weed control.

o Expanded the weeded area. Conducted a telemetry study of fall movements of all three endangered

specieso Radiotagged 2 AKIK, 1 AKEK (first ever) and 3 juvenile PUAIo AKIK and AKEK were very hard to find and follow; often several days

between detections. Suggests either leaving study area or spending time deep in streams

o PUAI all moved upstream, where 1 removed transmitter and 1 died

Data analysis, reports, publications: Published a manuscript on ‘Akikiki and ‘Akekee nest ecology and survival in

Condor with former field assistant Ruby Hammond and Jeff Fostero AKIK and AKEK nest survival very high; nest predation, infertility and

poor nest attendance contribute to nest failures in these species A second Hammond manuscript, "Nesting success of native and introduced

forest birds on the island of Kauai", was accepted for publication in Journal of Avian Biology

o Nesting success was low for ‘Apapane (0.23 ± 0.10), but did not vary substantially among ‘Anianiau (0.56 ± 0.09), Kaua‘i ‘elepaio (0.63 ± 0.08), and Japanese white-eye (0.52 ± 0.11).

o Causes of 51 nest failures included nest predation (43%), empty after termination with no signs of nest predation (24%), and abandoned clutch or brood (4% each); the remainder of nests had unknown fates (18%) or were inaccessible (8%).

Published a manuscript on changes in mosquito prevalence with former intern Anouk Glad in Journal of Vector Ecology

o Culex. quinquefasciatus is well established on the Alakai Plateau, as mosquitoes were caught on all field trips, except in April at Halepa’akai, and larvae were found throughout the year.

8


A manuscript on correlations between weather and Puaiohi productivity with M.S. student Jean Fantle Lepcyk was accepted for publication in Wilson Journal of Ornithology

o Productivity low in years of high breeding season rain, and low pre-breeding season rain

Submitted manuscript on Puaiohi occupancy surveys with Eben Paxton, Kevin Brinck, Tom Savre, Julia Diegmann, and former KFBRP employees to Biological Conservation

o Estimated occupancy ranged from 0.12-0.81, and was best predicted by the number of cliffs near the survey station and the maximum vertical extent of cliffs at the station.

o Model predicts that there are 488 breeding Puaiohi (95% CL: 405-579) Submitted manuscript with former employee Lucas Behnke and co-author

Liba Pejchar on Occupancy and Habitat Use of Àkikiki and 'Akeke'e to Condor

o Occupancy for Àkikiki varied from around 2% at KWK to 55% at HPK o Àkekeè occupancy ranged approximately 3% at KWK to 53% at HPKo Occupancy of both species, but especially ‘Akikiki, was correlated with

large trees Submitted manuscript authored by Eben Paxton on Kauai Forest Bird

declines to several journals; still trying to find the “right home”o Shows precipitous declines of all native species except Kaua’i ‘elepaio

Other activitiesWe have been very successful at attracting money through and for outreach projects. We crowdfunded over $35, 000 with Birds, Not Rats, which had huge outreach spinoffs. The Rotary Club of Poipu gave us $500 to develop a children’s book, and the HTA Charity Walk gave us $5350 to print and distribute it. We also hosted a fundraiser at Storybook Theatre.

KFBRP FY16 OVERVIEWKFBRP Staffing in FY16In 2015, KFBRP experienced turnover of all field staff. Furthermore, due to budget cuts we are no longer to fill one position on a year-round basis. Current personnel has been with the project since the beginning of the 2015 field season; our Americorps is returning for a second year. Name Title FTE (when

present)Timing

Lisa “Cali” Crampton Project Coordinator 100% Year-roundJustin Hite Field Supervisor 100% Year-roundMaria Costantini Field Technician 100% Year-roundKayla Bonnette Americorps Intern 100% Sept-AugustKate Freeman Captive Prop. Field

Tech100% Dec-June

TBA x2 Captive Prop. Assistants

100% March-June

TBA x2TBAx2

Rat Control AssistantsCaptive Prop. Interns

100%100%

March-JuneMarch-June

KFBRP has an approved volunteer program with the Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit. Volunteers will be used during low staff periods, especially July through February.

9


KFBRP Infrastructure (office, field camps) and VehiclesOur office in Hanapepe can accommodate a maximum of 10 office workers during the field season when our field gear is deployed, and seven workers during the non-field season when we have to store more gear. We also store infrequently-used gear at a DOFAW storage container in Kekaha, about 15 minutes away. There is room to complete small construction projects. In 2015, we used a cabin in Kokee for seasonal staff, but it is less than ideal.Since 2011, KFBRP has operated three field camps in three study areas. From North to South, these are Kawaikoi (KWK), Mohihi (MOH), and Halepa’akai (HPK). Our work in 2016 will be concentrated at HPK. KWK and HPK have been used for many years, and have weather ports with cots and stoves, composting luas, and other amenities. MOH consists of a large “department-store” type tent with smaller cots, and has no lua. HPK and MOH have a fixed solar panel that charges a vehicle battery; all three camps have smaller portable solar panels and batteries that can power a small lamp or charge a GPS. A new boardwalk to the LZ at HPK was installed in fall 2014. The trail to HPK needs major work. KFBRP has four aging vehicles (youngest was made in 2002): a regular cab F-250 pickup, two Dodge Durangos (one can seat 7 people), and a Jeep Cherokee. Typically we drive and hike to sites, and only rely on helicopters for sling loads and telemetry flights. All have undergone significant repairs in FY12-15.

Funding for FY16In addition to our base operating budget from DOFAW and FWS, which has greatly shrunk, we were awarded three grants for FY16, which will strongly influence our research and conservation priorities.

1. Nest searching to initiate captive populations of 'Akikiki and 'Akeke'e ($135, 000 from PIFWO Discretionary Fund; funds JMH, MSC, two seasonals and two interns during breeding season, provides helicopter travel)

2. Rat control at Halepa’akai (two grants - both via American Bird Conservancy - to purchase and monitor Goodnature traps, and monitor Puaiohi nests with two seasonals)

Also, Dennis Lapointe from USGS has been awarded an SSP for some mosquito work; we have agreed to support his project logistically.We submitted an unsuccessful application to continue weed control at Mohihi to Disney Wildlife Fund. We will continue to look for sources of money for this and other SDM-recommended activities in FY16 (e.g. Vetlesen). We also submitted unsuccessful proposals to the Long Foundation to support eDNA monitoring for Puaiohi, to Mohammed Bin Zayed for population genetic work. However, we have managed to find other funding for the population genetic work. We are applying to SWG for LiDAR and to a special RFP for S6 funds to fund song meter work.

10


Priorities for FY16In FY16, given our funding sources and the results of the Structured Decision Making process, we will focus on captive propagation and rat control. We will try to monitor nest boxes and populations of our three focal species through banding and surveys as time and new sources of funding permit. Because we are finding so many nests, we plan on collecting data on nest site selection of ‘Akikiki and ‘Akeke’e by assessing vegetation plots around nest trees and random points. Thus our priorities for the year are

1. Nest searching for initiation of a captive breeding program for Àkikiki and Àkekeè (Spring 2016, primarily at HPK); we will resight and territory map these species t00

2. Control rats using GoodNatures in a 250-trap grid and around nest trees (Spring 2016 at HPK)

3. Nest site selection by ‘Akikiki (and ‘Akeke’e if sample sizes warrant)4. Small-scale demography work on Àkikiki and Àkekeè (banding and

resighting), in conjunction with Captive Propagation5. Support for a release of the remaining captive Puaiohi at HPK in March.

Time permitting, we will1. Set up a pilot supplemental feeding study for Àkikiki and Puaiohi

Recent projects we will have to put on the backburner unless we get further funding are

1. Monitor Puaiohi Occupancy at Mohihi *2. Re-install sensors to monitor Puaiohi nest boxes, and finish modifications

to improve microclimate3. Disease and Mosquito Monitoring and Determination of Larval Sources4. Puaiohi Habitat Use at Local Scales during the Breeding Season (nest

searching and territory mapping, coupled with more vegetation and fruit data)

5. Puaiohi Habitat Use at Local Scales after the Breeding Season (telemetry study)

6. Puaiohi Juvenile Survival and Dispersal (telemetry study-perhaps with automated system) *

*priority for grant writing

New projects we are considering finding funding for are1. A larger scale study of effect of rat control on nest and juvenile survival 2. A larger scale demography and movement study for ‘Akikiki and ‘Akeke’e,

with an explicit disease component and use of low elevation areas3. Habitat modeling for focal species using remotely-sensed data* (4. Population genetic structure of ‘Akikiki and ‘Akeke’e*5. Effectiveness of eDNA as a sampling method for Puaiohi and mosquitoes6. Effectiveness of acoustic monitoring for Kaua’i forest birds7. Experimental ways to control mosquitioes8. Distribution and diets of rats in time and space

We also plan to submit for publication or begin data analysis on several projects we have worked on these last few years:

1. A population viability analysis for Puaiohi (with Jean Fantle Lepcyk)2. Change in community composition among Kauai Forest Birds (with Kyle

Pias; data analysis completed)3. Seed dispersal by native and non-natives (with Liba Pejchar and Monika

Kaushik; data being analyzed)11


4. Effectiveness of nest cameras (in data analysis stage-may need some more work in FY16)

5. Nest survival and nest site selection by Puaiohi-in the data analysis stage with Dave Leonard

6. Home range of ‘Akikiki-in the data analysis stage with Lucas Behnke7. Relationships between forest birds and vegetation (VCP vs veg plot data)8. Nest site selection by ‘Akikiki

FY16 ScheduleA. Summer 2015 (July/August)

Staff available: LHC, MSC, JMH + 1 AmericorpsField activities:

1. Check GoodNature grid at HPK (done)2. Finish measuring nest veg at HPK (done)

Other activities: data entry and analysis, conferences, QA/QC on database, Puaiohi OS MS, staff vacation

B. Fall 2015 (Sept-Dec) Staff available: LHC, MSC, JMH + 1 Americorps

Field activities: 1. Banding at HPK, MOH and KWK

Other activities: GIS training for all staff, data entry and analysis (focus on nest survival, VCPs), hiring of seasonals, update safety and job hazard analysis materials, annual newsletter, paper writing (focus on nest ecology), report writing (Disney, PIFWO, S6), proposal writing (Longs, MBZ, SWG), gear inventory/repair/ordering, vehicle maintenance, website updates, server reorganization, staff vacation, outreach events, ladder safety course, update 5-yr action plans.

C. Winter 2016 (Jan-Feb) Staff available: LHC, MSC, JMH + 1 Americorps

Field activities: 1. Deploy new GoodNatures at HPK

Other activities: update orientation materials, continue data entry and analysis and paper writing/revising, proposal writing, finish gear inventory/repair/ordering, staff vacation, orient new staff

D. Breeding season 2016 (March-June) Staff available: All permanent staff + 1 Americorps + 1 captive propagation tech + 2 captive propagation assistants + 2 interns + 2 rat control assistants

Field activities:1. Nest searching and harvest for captive propagation program at HPK and

MOH (2 full time staff + 2 techs + 2 interns); will include some resighting, territory mapping

2. Rat control to protect nests, coupled with track tunnels and monitoring of PUAI and KAEL nests (2 techs)

3. Puaiohi release in late March; KFBRP will attempt to resight birds and monitor nesting attempts

12


TBD, if time and funding permit1. Banding at HPK and MOH to mark more birds and collect more blood

samples for disease and genetic work2. Puaiohi Occupancy Surveys (at least Mohihi) and vegetation monitoring3. Puaiohi Nest Box Monitoring at KWK and MOH (with volunteers) 4. Supplemental Feeding

Other activities: data entry , abstract submission, paper writing/revising, proposal writing, ongoing training of seasonal staff, outreach events

13


DETAILS OF CURRENT KFBRP PROJECTS

Since 2010, we have viewed our work as targeting three research areas: 1) Investigating Threats to Forest Birds and Efficacy of Management Actions; 2) Distribution, Habitat Use, and Demographics of Àkikiki and Àkekeè, and 3) Distribution, Habitat Use and Demographics of Puaiohi; as well as a couple of projects focusing on Conservation of Endangered Species. In the section of past work plans describing each of these areas, I have summarized the many current and recent work together. This year, however, many projects have been completed, and many are on hold due to lack of funding, and our Current Projects were “lost” when combined all of these other projects. Thus in this year’s work plan, I first present Current Projects, followed by Recent/On Hold projects, still organized into the above four areas. Because Akikiki and Akeke’e conservation efforts are a main focus this year, I present them first.For each project, I identify the objectives and status of the project, list FY16 tasks and deliverables (if any), provide some description of the project’s protocols and challenges, outline work needed beyond FY16 to complete the project, and suggest some ideas for related future research. Projects for which we have secured funding are indicated with a *.

A. Conservation and Management Actions for Endangered Species

1. Nest searching to initiate captive populations of Àkikiki and Àkekeè*Overall objectives:

1. Initiate captive populations of each of these species with as many eggs and chicks as possible, but not to exceed permit limits (10 nests per species)

Location: primarily HPK; potentially MOH and KWK if accessible nests foundCollaborators: DOFAW, FWS, San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research (SDZICR)Status: New projectFY16 tasks and deliverables:

1. Locate and monitor Àkikiki and Àkekeè nests

2. Collect eggs or chicks from as many Àkikiki and Àkekeè nests as possible

3. Transfer eggs and chick to SDZICR care, support SDZICR staff with logistics

Staffing needs: Two permanent staff and two technicians for entire breeding season; tree climber and SDZICR staff will travel to HPK when nests at a suitable stage.Details:

1. The SDM last winter determined that this activity is a high priority for these two species, given recent declines. The group decided that at this time, only eggs and chicks should be collected

14


2. We will find and monitor Akikiki and Akekee nests using standard techniques over ~100 ha at HPK. Data from previous studies will be used to refine search areas

3. Nest trees will be protected with rat traps4. Staff will determine age and likely accessibility of nests, and alert

partners and tree climbers if it appears it will be feasible to harvest the nest

5. Ideally eggs will be harvested at 6-10 days, and chicks at 4-7 days, but given weather and personnel and helicopter schedules, other ages may be collected

6. Inaccessible nests will be monitored as feasible to continue to add to our knowledge of these species

7. If parents are unbanded, we will attempt to band them to track within and among season productivity following nest harvest

Challenges: Capturing these birds, especially `Akeke`e, is difficult and time-consuming, so sample sizes will be low. Future work: We anticipate that this project will be funded on a larger scale in FY16.

2. Nest box installation and monitoring for PuaiohiOverall objectives:

1. Design rat-resistant nest boxes that appeal to Puaiohi; improve microclimate of nestboxes

2. Install nest boxes in stream reaches with low availability of suitable natural nest sites (cliffs)

3. Monitor nest box use and successLocation: KWK, MOH (some old ones at HPK)Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, Zoological Society of San Diego, American Bird Conservancy, Pioneer, Eric Vanderwerf, USDA (William Pitt), Makawehi Cave Preserve, and Pauline RobertsStatus: Design mostly complete; deployment and monitoring on-goingHistory, accomplishments and results:2001 - 2003: -Telfer (flower pot) box designed. 33 nest boxes installed around KWK and HPK.

-Used once by released Puaiohi, fledged young.-Not rodent-proof

2006-2007: -4 more designs conceived and built by Rich Switzer, Eric VanderWerf. Installed at KWK. -6” pipe used by a Shama.- USDA tested designs against rats in a cage trial. Only pipe design

with a steep overhang is somewhat rodent-resistant.2008: ~20 boxes of 6” pipe with overhang built, installed at HPK by Eric VanderWerf2009-2011: -Ongoing checks of existing nest boxes

-Wooden nest box on tree and flower pot on stick both used by Puaiohi (wild female, released and/or wild male). Both failed in chick stage, not due to predation.

15


2011-2012: -New “interest” prompted redesign of flower pot nest box and trials for rat resistance

-Two roof designs and three skirt/baffle designs deployed in various combinations over 30 nest boxes in KWK in spring 2012. -Evidence of prospecting (missing iButtons, “swirled” nest material)

in several boxes-Shama nest in one box failed in chick stage; not due to predation

2013: -Continued rat resistance trials-all three new designs seem resistant-Developed in-box PIR sensors attached to microcontrollers that log and time stamp all activations (warm bodies in or near boxes) and can also trigger a camera to fire-Erected 20 new boxes in 10 clusters with two roof and two skirt designs in and between active territories at MOH, and equipped with sensor systems-Monitored boxes at MOH and KWK at least weekly. Evidence of prospecting (missing nickels, “swirled” nest material) in several boxes. Few night time sensor triggers, but no evidence of rat incursion-iButtons indicated that MOH nestboxes hotter and drier than cavities-Shama nest in one PVC box on tree at KWK apparently fledged

2014: -Developed new insulated “superboxes” based on flower pot design; in trials in Kalaheo have very stable temperature and humidity

-Install two superboxes at MOH-Compare temperature and humidity to old nest boxes and cavities in wall: are intermediate, although superbox in shade very close to wall temperataure and humidity-Shama nests in insulated box (but not quite a superbox) in Kalaheo and fledges 4 chicks

Total boxes erected: 105; still standing ~100?FY16 tasks and deliverables:

1. Continue to explore improvements to design2. Retrofit nestboxes at MOH3. Install sensors (Feb 2016) to monitor MOH nests4. In collaboration with ZSSD, evaluate attractiveness of designs with

captive-bred birds (winter 2016), and observe fledging success in different designs

Staffing needs: 2 weeks for 2 KFBRP staff to tweak box placement; 2 weeks to tweak design. 1 week ZSSD time to deploy experimental boxes. Two weeks for 2 KFBRP staff to set up sensors in KWK and MOH. Many weeks viewing and analyzing photos and sensor data.Challenges: Very time consuming, especially to build and deploy. Getting Puaiohi to use boxes. Keeping chicks alive. Future work: Continue monitoring and redesigning boxes. Increase attractiveness of nest boxes to Puaiohi in field, e.g. using social attraction (playback

16


B. Investigating Threats to Forest Birds and Efficacy of Management Actions

This section contains traditionally contains four projects: effect of ungulate removal, effects of rats on nest survival, effects of weed removal, mosquito and disease surveys, and the HFBS. This year, we will work only on the weed control project, and potentially on the HFBS (which may help us understand the effect of ungulate removal). We will likely control rats, but will not have the resources to monitor the effectiveness of this measure.

1. Effect of weed removal on forest bird nest survival and foraging behaviorOverall objectives:Using a Before-After-Control-Treatment (BACT) experimental design,

1. Expand the area where invasive alien plants are eliminated to increase high quality habitat for endangered bird species, and promote populations of native birds and insects.

2. Compare abundance of endangered bird species in treatment (weeded) and control areas

3. Compare breeding behavior and success in treatment and control areas4. Compare bird diet and foraging behavior (e.g., time foraging) in

treatment and control areas5. Monitor success of weed removal

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, Garden Island Resource Conservation and Development, Koke’e Resource Conservation Program (KRCP), UC-Berkeley (Patrick O’Grady) and Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund Location: MOH (two 25-ha plots)Status: On hold: Pre-treatment and two years of post-treatment data collected; did not receive funding for fourth year of post-treatment data and further expansion of treated plot in FY16. Accomplishments and results:-Pre-treatment abundance of weeds surveyed in both plots by KRCP; Almost 40 000 weeds have been removed.-Pre-treatment and post-treatment bird abundance (with VCPs) and nest survival surveyed in both plots; pre-treatment Àkikiki and Àkekeè occupancy, and foraging behavior surveyed in both plots-Thirteen nests monitored in 2012, 14 nests monitored in 2013, and 31 nests monitored in 2014 across both plots; no year or plot differences found in nest survival, but treatment plot had fewer nests and lower productivity in both years, although number of nests increased from 2013 to 2014.-Fecal samples collected from ~21 birds in 2012. Insect components will be analyzed using genetic techniques to determine diet. -Searches of typical foraging substrates for Akikiki by Steve Montgomery yielded several species of Drosophila, and one millipede likely in the Oxidus genus

17


FY16 tasks and deliverables: 1. Bird data entry and analysis (July 2014)2. Final report to DCWF (September 2014)3. Expand area of weeded plot by 10ha (Feb 2016)4. Monitoring of post-treatment of bird abundance, nest survival (March-

June 2016) Staffing needs: One week of data entry by field assistant, one week of analysis and report writing by coordinator and field supervisor; one full-time seasonal field assistant to monitor bird metrics in March-June 2016Details:

1. The primary rationale for this work was to obtain funding for weeding. Nonetheless, it provides a first glimpse at bird responses to weeding and we hope to continue the study long-term and replicate in other areas. It also provided a spatial comparison, albeit small, to Ruby’s study, and gives us the opportunity to find nests for captive propagation in MOH

2. Nests will be found using birds’ behavioral clues and other standard methods and monitored every 3-4 days until terminated. Termination will be determined when either a nest successfully fledges > one chick or fails. When nests fail, cause of failure will be determined using a peeper camera for high nests or mirror pole.

3. Cameras may be deployed on some nests, i.e. those at suitable height4. Two rounds of VCPs will be conducted at already-established stations

200m apart to assess bird densities.5. Territory mapping and banding will be used to inform nest locations and

densityChallenges: Semi-permanent field camp lacks some amenities. Small plot sizes constrain sample sizes. Not enough funding or work for >1 field tech, but need two people at camp for safety reasons. Therefore either need to 1) be creative with nest check schedule (tie in to trips HPK), 2) think of other things to do at MOH (e.g., rats, OS, HFBS), 3) move study to HPK.Future work:

1. Consider different “response variables” gained through banding, e.g., measures of fitness such as fat scores/weight, or proportion of birds with breeding characteristics; or survival through mark/recapture

2. Attract more funding to increase amount of area to be weeded; couple with outplanting

3. Focus on newly-fenced areas such as Kawaikoi/Hono o Na Pali NAR where ungulate control will enhance efficacy of weed control and outplanting

4. Consider more direct observations of insects to document changes in response to weeding; couple with more mistnetting to document bird diet

2. Rat control to improve nest and juvenile survivalOverall objectives:

1. Control rats in a grid (or around nest trees) 2. Compare rat abundance in treatment and control areas before and after

trapping3. Ideally compare nest and juvenile survival in treatment (trapped) and

control areas

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, American Bird Conservancy, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

18


Location: HPK (1 Treatment Grid, 1 Control Grid; 2 Treatment Streams, 2 Control StreamsStatus: Ongoing Accomplishments and results:-Prevented rat abundance from increasing over breeding season in treatment plot (25% of tunnels tracked) compared to control plot (increased from 45-65%)-Monitored 34 nests: one Akeke’e nest on each plot and six Puaiohi nests on the control plot. Nest survival was similar on both plotsFY16 tasks and deliverables (March-June 2016):

1. Assess rat abundance before, during and after breeding season in control and treatment plots using track tunnels

2. Check traps bi-monthly3. Find find and monitor PUAI and KAEL nests to determine nest and/or

juvenile survival in each plot Staffing needs: occasional presence (2 people x 12 days) to deploy track tunnels and check traps; an extra technician to find and monitor nestsDetails:

1. The primary rationale for this work was to obtain funding for repeater (i.e. Goodnature) traps. At the scale currently funded, it will provide limited information on the effectiveness of these traps. Nonetheless, it has provided a first glimpse at bird responses to rat control and we hope to continue the study long-term and replicate in other areas.

2. Track tunnels will be set out at 100x100m spacing, for 3 nights in March and late June

3. 150 traps have been deployed at 50x100m spacing (grid), and 150 traps have been put at 100m spacing with a perimeter fence (streams), and will be checked bi-monthly. ~75% of the traps have counters. Cameras may be deployed on some traps.

4. Nests will be found using birds’ behavioral clues and other standard methods and monitored every 3-4 days until terminated. Termination will be determined when either a nest successfully fledges > one chick or fails. When nests fail, cause of failure will be determined using a peeper camera for high nests or mirror pole.

5. Cameras may be deployed on some nests, i.e. those at suitable heightChallenges: Small plot sizes and rarity of birds constrain sample sizes. Limited staffing for this projectFuture work:

1. Attract more funding to increase amount of area to be trapped; couple with outplanting

3. Hawaii Forest Bird SurveysOverall objectives:

1. Monitor trends in forest bird abundance and distribution, particularly Àkikiki, Àkekeè, ‘Anianiau, and Ìiwi

2. Assess impacts of new fences

19


3. Correlate forest bird abundance and distribution with habitat variables

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, and USGS-PIERCLocations: HFBS Transects, especially T1-6, 30-33Status: Ongoing. In 2013, we decided to try to survey T1-6 every year, in addition to the full surveys every 5 years. The next full survey is due in 2017. In 2014, instead, we surveyed some transects that haven’t been done in 15-20 yrsAccomplishments and results: -Full surveys conducted every 5 years since 1990s?.-Usually involve single counts at each station, but 2012 we counted some stations >1 time.-In 2010, 2011, and 2013, a subset of transects surveyed. In 2010 and 2011, these transects were T1-4 (as part of EAFP), and stations were often visited >1. In 2013, we surveyed T1-6, once per station-Preliminary analysis indicates stark declines and range contractions for all species except KAEL-In 2014, we surveyed T9 (poor), T10 (good), T33 (good), T27 and 28 (poor). No Aks detected.

FY16 tasks and deliverables – time permitting only! 1. None; will territory map while nest searching for ‘Akikiki and ‘Akeke’e.

Will do full count in 2017.Staffing needs: One permanent field staff for 12 days for one round of counting. More for repeat surveys. Details:

1. The HFBS were established to monitor trends in forest bird abundance and distribution, and have been conducted ~ every 5 years.

2. The bird survey protocol involves 8-minute Variable Circular Plot counts of all forest birds detected from each point on each transect. Birds are identified by species, and their distance from the observer estimated.

3. Typically each station is surveyed only once per year. Repeat counts at stations improve ability to estimate density.

4. Density of birds is estimated from the VCP data in Program DISTANCE, which can also account for effects such as observer

5. They have shown stark declines in several Kauai species over the last few years.

6. Therefore, KFBRP and DOFAW decided we should try to conduct surveys more often than the usual every 5 years. Given other demands on KFBRP time, and the current distribution of Àkikiki and Àkekeè, surveys on T1-6 will be most effective.

Challenges: Several transects are difficult to access. Several species are difficult to distinguish from each other. Most current KFBRP staff are less proficient in distinguishing these species than recently departed staff. Species are becoming so rare that occupancy surveys may be a better methodology

20


Future work: 1. Continue to survey as many transects as possible with repeat surveys

every year2. Consider doing vegetation plots at stations or at least measuring variables

identified by Behnke as predicting Àkikiki and Àkekeè distribution, and adding to density models

3. Consider using remotely sensed data to assess key habitat variables at HFBS stations and analyze correlations with forest bird density

4. Consider occupancy models.Presentations resulting from this workPias, KE, LH Crampton, E Paxton, R. Camp. 2014. Changes in Kauaʻi's Forest

Bird Community. Island Biology Conference, Honolulu, HI, July 2014.Paxton, E, R. Camp, M Gorresen, LH Crampton, DL Leonard, EA VanderWerf.

Rapid Declines in Kauai’s Forest Birds. Island Biology Conference, Honolulu, HI, July 2014.

C. Demographics, Distribution, and Abundance of Àkikiki and Àkekeè In past years, this topic has involved one very large project on distribution and abundance (Behnke MS), which is complete, and a smaller, ongoing project to look at demographic parameters and disease prevalence in marked birds. This year, we are examining dispersal and habitat use during the non-breeding season with telemetry, and using this funding to continue marking birds and collecting blood samples. We will resight birds while finding nests for captive propagation in spring 2016.Overall objectives:

1. Investigate juvenile and adult dispersal movements and home range2. Determine juvenile and adult survival3. Assess annual fecundity4. Assess disease prevalence and ability to recover from disease5. Use band resights to refine ability to age Àkikiki by plumage

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, USGS (Carter Atkinson and Eben Paxton), and NAU (Jeff Foster)Location: Primary location is HPK with supplemental observations from MOH and KWKStatus: Ongoing since 2007, with more effort since 2011. Accomplishments and results:-2 new 'Akikiki caught for a total of 14 banded since 2011, blood taken-4 new 'Akeke'e caught, the first since 2007, blood taken-Reviewed resight history of all 'Akeke'e and 'Akikiki caught since 2007 with respect to malarial status; in both species, individuals testing positive for malaria have been resighted several months laterFY16 tasks and deliverables:

1. Conduct intensive banding trips at HPK in September and November. Band elsewhere and at other times as possible. Apply radio transmitters

21


2. Track birds through November (life of transmitters) with helicopter and on the ground

3. Map movements and make recommendations for priority habitat for conservation (MBZ report requirements).

4. Resight individuals throughout the breeding season as possible and track nest success

5. Analyze blood samples to date with help of Jeff Foster and Carter Atkinson for signs of malaria

Staffing needs: Two 10-day trips of four people including staff and volunteers in September, then 4x 5 day trips in October with 3 staff, and into November if needed. Banding and resighting in spring as feasible with captive propagation program.Details:

1. This study is important to determine which sex and ages of these species have poorest survival so we can target management activities. It will also help us determine whether disease is a major factor for either species.

2. Use passive and target mistnetting to capture as many birds as possible3. Band, sex, age, weigh, describe plumage, bleed and collect fecal samples4. Transmitter as feasible to follow juvenile and adult dispersal and

determine home range (e.g. with time delay transmitters)5. Resight individuals throughout the season and hopefully beyond6. Analyze blood samples for signs of malarial infection and parasite

development7. Use survival models e.g. Program Mark to estimate survival (by age and

sex if possible)Challenges: Capturing these birds, especially `Akeke`e, is difficult and time-consuming, so sample sizes will be low. It is unclear what effort we can put into this project after FY16.Future work: Much bigger and longer effort to band and resight these birds is needed

D. Puaiohi Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use: Influence of Topography, Vegetation Characteristics, and Fruit Abundance

This section traditionally contains a mix of projects initiated by Lisa “Cali” Crampton and Pauline Roberts (projects 6-9) that are in the data analysis and writing stages or are on hold for lack of funding and will be discussed in the Recent Projects section. In FY16, likely the only activities under this heading will be 1) conducting OS surveys on Mohihi to monitor the Puaiohi population, 2) collecting some data on Puaiohi dispersal and habitat use as part of the above telemetry project, and 3) possibly collecting some vegetation data to improve occupancy models.

DETAILS OF RECENT KFBRP PROJECTS

In each of the sections below, I summarize projects that are either completed or on-hold, pending funding. I identify the objectives and status of the project,

22


provide some description of the project’s protocols and challenges, outline work needed to complete the project, and suggest some ideas for related future research.

A. Projects Investigating Threats to Forest Birds and Efficacy of Management Actions

1. East Alaka’i Fence Monitoring Project (EAFP): Effect of ungulate removal on forest vegetation and bird communitiesOverall objectives:Using a Before-After-Control-Treatment (BACT) experimental design,

1. Determine if and how ungulate removal affects vegetation structure and composition

2. Determine if and how ungulate removal affects forest bird abundance and richness

3. Examine relationships between vegetation structure and composition and forest bird abundance and richness, pre- and post-ungulate removal

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, and TNCLocation: East Alaka’i Fence Area. Field crew stays at TNC weather port, HPK weather port or campsStatus: Hiatus. All pre-removal data collection has been finished. Further work TBD/on hold because 1) the area needs time to recover before bird responses will become detectable and 2) a new fence will go in around HPK in 2014, turning the “control” area into a treatment area. We should discuss to what extent new “control” areas should be surveyed, and whether that goal can be accomplished by surveying existing HFBS routes. Accomplishments and results:-Pre-removal forest bird richness and abundance surveyed with VCPs on 9 transects crossing the incipient fence line in springs of 2010 and 2011-Pre-removal vegetation structure and composition, ungulate sign and mosquito prevalence surveyed at all stations on above transects in 2010-12-Preliminary analysis of above data presented at TWS in Nov 2011. Shows higher forest bird abundance outside fence; no other differences or relationships-Fence completed in Fall 2011; ungulate removal is almost done (<5 animals left)Details:

1. The bird survey protocol is that used for HFBS.2. Vegetation structure and composition, and invasive sign, was measured in

100m2 plots around each transect station (see Appendix for protocol).3. Density of birds is estimated from the VCP data in Program DISTANCE,

which can also account for effects such as observer and seasonal differences, and model the influence of habitat covariates

Future research:

23


1. Use vegetation data from this and Behnke M.S. project to ground truth high resolution imagery commissioned by TNC (medium priority)

2. Develop predictive map of high-quality habitat for forest birds (medium priority)

3. Post-removal surveys of birds and vegetation, ~5 and 10 years post-removal. Each survey will take a two person team ~2 months for birds and 2-3 months for vegetation. With new fences, the control area will become a treatment area, with a time lag. Need to find new control area.

4. Consider building on this work by comparing mosquito and disease prevalence to unfenced areas (see below); adding rat control

Staffing needs: At least one month of staff time would be needed to ground truth and model data. New pre-removal surveys would require 20-30 days two people’s time in the spring, just for birds. More for vegetation.Challenges: Remote, time-consuming, ever-moving treatment and control areasPresentations resulting from this work:Heindl, B.A., L.H. Crampton, L.A. Behnke. 2011. Forest Bird Populations In

Relation to Forest Vegetation and Structure on the Alaka‘i Plateau: Baseline Abundance and Richness Pre-installation of the Alaka'i Protective Fence. Oral Presentation. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference.

Solomon, L.E., B.A. Heindl, L.H. Crampton, L.A. Behnke. 2011. Forest Bird Population and Vegetation Structure: Baseline Assessment Prior to Installation of the Alaka'i Protective Fence. Oral Presentation. The Wildlife Society Conference, Waikoloa, HI.

2. Nest survival of forest birds and influence of rat predation

Descriptive study by R. Hammond 2012-13Overall objectives:

1. Obtain nest survival probability of Àkikiki, Àkekeè, and other forest birds in a largely intact Hawaiian rainforest habitat.

2. Investigate nest predation rates by rodents and determine how nest characteristics, especially nest height, influence this rate.

3. Compare nest survival of native and non-native species to gain insight into predator-resistance strategies

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, and NAU (Jeff Foster) Location: HPK (~100ha study plot) Status: Completed. Accomplishments and results: -Approx. 180 nests monitored over 2 years, including nine Àkikiki and six Àkekeè nests in 2012 and seven Àkikiki and two Àkekeè nests in 2013. -For all birds, raw nest success was >50%, with at least 45% failures attributed to rodent predation, and many others likely to be the result of predation.-Àkikiki and Àkekeè nest survival was 60% in 2012 and 100% in 2013. Some if not all 2011 Àkikiki nest failures were caused by predation. No Àkekeè

24


nests failed due to predation-both 2011 failures involved strange female behavior and or infertility.-Nest vegetation plots surveyed around each active nest. -Artificial nests with quail and plastic eggs, erected at five different heights (2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 m) in each of seven different plots. At four plots, four additional nests with and without honeycreeper scent were erected at 2m in height. Only a few instances of predation observed.-Nest cameras captured two predation events by rodentsDetails:

1. This study is the most comprehensive of its kind to date on Kauai, and has provided essential information on Àkikiki and Àkekeè demography for use in models and planning

2. Nests were located and monitored using standard techniques. Attribution of causes of failure was conservative

3. Analysis of nest survival was conducted in Program MARK with variables such as date, nest height, species as covariates

Future work:1. Continue to monitor nest survival of target species to get a better handle

on annual variation in productivity and causes of failure2. Compare nest survival in HPK to more disturbed areas of the Alaka’i, e.g.,

Kawaikoi, Mohihi3. Compare nest survival in diseased and healthy birds. Add foraging time

budgets. Ideal species are KAEL, followed by KAAM, or ANIA to have good sample sizes.

4. Evaluate the effects of rat control on nest survival (see above)Presentations and publications resulting from this work:Hammond, RL, LH Crampton, LH, and JT Foster. 2016. Nesting success of

native and introduced forest birds on the island of Kauai. Journal of Avian Biology 47: 252-262.

Hammond, RL, LH Crampton, LH, and JT Foster. 2015. Breeding biology of two endangered forest birds on the island of Kaua'i. Condor 117: 31-40.

Hammond, RL, JT Foster, and LH Crampton. 2012 Effects of Rodent Predation on Nesting Success of Forest Birds on Kaua'i. Poster Presentation. North American Ornithological Conference, Vancouver BC.

Hammond, RL 2014, Effects of Rodent Predation on Nesting Success of Forest Birds on Kaua'i. M.S. Thesis, Northern Arizona University.

3. Larval (and adult) mosquito prevalence in natural and disturbed habitatsOverall objectives:

1. Determine larval mosquito distribution and habitat use, in particular comparing streams to disturbed areas such as pig wallow or human trails

2. Investigate adult mosquito presence, relative abundance and malarial infection rate

3. Evaluate trends in adult and larval distribution and abundance by comparing to data from 1990s

4. Monitor daily ambient temperatures within Alaka’i drainages.

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, and USGS-PIERC (Dennis LaPointe)Locations: KWK, MOH, and HPK (stream and cross country transects)

25

http://kauaiforestbirds.org/index.php/download_file/view/856/121/





Status: Hiatus. Accomplishments and results: -Larval prevalence sampled at HPK, MOH, and KWK along 1-km stream-side transects in Aug-Sep 2011. One cross-country transect conducted near HPK. -Slightly higher prevalence at KWK than other sites; KWK slightly higher than in 1990s-Larval presence also recorded opportunistically while hiking to study areas and during vegetation surveys. Large numbers of larvae observed in one pig wallow in April 2011 and one tire rut in May 2012.-In 2014, larval and adult surveys done from Oct-April at KWK and HPK-Adult mosquitoes were caught on all field trips, except in April at HPK, and larvae were found in all seasons.-More adult mosquitoes were caught at KWK than HPK; more larvae were found at HPKDetails:

1. Identifying sources of mosquitoes is critical to controlling them and malaria transmission. Mosquitoes may be completing their life cycle in the Alakai at some or all times of the year. And/or their populations may be bolstered by upslope movements of mosquitoes. And/or birds may disperse to lowlands where they contract disease

2. To quantify available larval mosquito habitat on terrestrial plots, all standing surface water – pig wallows, ground pools, tree cavities, tree fern cavities, rock holes, stagnant stream pools and stream margins – will be sampled for larval mosquitoes on a 1-km long belt transect and a 1-km reach of the dominant stream at each site. Ideally these transects will be sampled twice per year. Large pools are sampled by dipping 10 times with a dipper; small pools are sampled by removing the water with a turkey baster.

3. USGS biologists will assist and train KFBRP staff with sampling of adult mosquitoes with gravid traps using an aged, alfalfa infusion as the oviposition bait. Depending on site accessibility, 3 – 6 traps will be operated twice per year for a minimum of 20 trap-nights. Traps will be visited every 1 – 3 days and adult mosquitoes will be identified, enumerated and, when feasible, transported alive back to the USGS avian disease laboratory where they will be examined microscopically for evidence of avian malarial oocysts and sporozoites.

4. Daily ambient temperatures will be recorded at each drainage using an Onset® temperature data logger used for extended field recordings. Data will be down loaded during each field visit and can be collected for multiple years.

Future work: 1. Sample prevalence of larvae at each site along stream and cross-country

transects, especially at Kokee

26


2. Capture, count and identify adult mosquitoes at each site, and when feasible, examine for evidence of avian malarial oocysts and sporozoites* and Wolbachia

3. Collect both adult and larval mosquitoes at high and low elevations to determine movement patterns with stable isotopes

4. Record daily ambient temperatures will be recorded at each drainage with data loggers

5. Examine effect of ungulate removal (coupled with habitat restoration?) on larval presence, e.g. by sampling within EAFP or HNP NAR

6. Couple with work on malarial and trypanosome prevalence in native birds (by procuring and analyzing blood samples); currently have a backlog of samples, so need to find money to analyze them and collect more samples

7. Determine necessity and feasibility of other types of mosquito abatement in the Alaka’i

Staffing needs: One field assistant to periodically sample throughout the yearChallenges: Staff over-committed. Specialized equipment and training needed. Difficult to find temporary staff to work such short periods. Publications resulting from this work:Atkinson, CT, RB Utzurrum, DA LaPointe, RJ Camp, LH Crampton, JT Foster,

and TW Giambelluca (2014). Changing Climate and the Altitudinal Range of Avian Malaria in the Hawaiian Islands - an Ongoing Conservation Crisis on the Island of Kaua‘i. Global Change Biology doi: 10.1111/gcb.12535.

Glad, A. 2014. Local Prevalence and Transmission of Avian Malaria in the Alakai Plateau. Elepaio 74(3):1-3.

B. Demographics, Distribution, and Abundance of Àkikiki and Àkekeè

Here I summarize one very large project on distribution and abundance, which has just been completed. One paper has been drafted from this work, but the home range analysis has not been written up. We would like to find funding for a much larger demographic study.

Distribution, and Abundance, and Habitat Use of Àkikiki and Àkekeè at Local and Landscape Scales, with respect to Vegetation Structure and Composition (Behnke MS)Overall objectives:

1. Estimate probability of occupancy and density of Àkikiki and Àkekeè within study plots

2. Estimate territory and home range size of Àkikiki and Àkekeè3. Assess the relative influence of vegetation composition and structure on

Àkikiki and Àkekeè occupancy probability and density within and among study plots

4. Assess the relative influence of vegetation composition and structure on territory and home range location by Àkikiki and Àkekeè within study plots

27


5. Assess the relative influence of vegetation composition and structure in determining territory and home range size

6. Describe and quantify foraging behavior of Àkikiki and Àkekeè , especially with regard to foraging substrate

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, KUPU Americorps, TNC, and Colorado State University (Liba Pejchar)Location: Primary location is HPK (two study plots), with supplemental observations from MOH (1 plot) and KWK (2 plots; plots are 80-100 ha each)Status: Completed.Accomplishments and results: -Two years’ of territory mapping were conducted at each site. For Àkikiki, one pair was found at KWK in 2011, but no birds were detected until the end of the breeding season in 2012; four and two pairs were found in MOH in 2011 and 2012, respectively; and 12-21 and ~15 pairs were found at HPK in 2011 and 2012 respectively. In each year, approximately 15 Àkekeè pairs were found at HPK, five pairs were found at MOH, and two pairs were found at KWK.-Four radiotagged Àkikiki at HPK were tracked for ~10-12 days each at the beginning of the 2012 breeding season. Home ranges ranged from 5-25 ha.-Approximately 35 foraging observations were made of Àkikiki at HPK in 2012.- Occupancy for Àkikiki varied from around 2% at KWK to 55% at HPK, and within HPK was predicted by canopy height and density- Àkekeè occupancy ranged approximately 3% at KWK to 53% at HPK, and within HPK was predicted by canopy height and DBH-Invasive plants were dominant in the western portion of the plateau, where there was a corresponding decline in native plant cover. -Sign of feral ungulates was higher in more eastern native-dominated plots.-In 2012, VCPs were performed two times at stations > 200m apart to determine density. These data have not been analyzed.

Details: 1. This study is the first to so thoroughly document distribution and

abundance, examine habitat relationships, and investigate potential causes of the decline of these two endangered species.

2. Vegetation was surveyed using the same protocol as for the EAFP (see attached)

3. Occupancy data was analyzed in Program PRESENCE to estimate occupancy probability as function of vegetation characteristics and compare occupancy probability among sites, while accounting for detection probability.

4. Vegetation data was compared among sites using MANOVA.5. VCP data will be analyzed in Program DISTANCE to estimate density as

function of vegetation characteristics and compare density among sites and species, while accounting for detection probability.

6. Foraging data will be consolidated into basic descriptive information such as age, sex, territory ID, tree species and height, and foraging substrate and height, in order to determine primary microhabitat use and for comparison to forest vegetation characteristics at two scales, within each site and between each study area.

28


7. Territory size was analyzed using fixed kernel density of observations within the Spatial Analyst extension of ArcGIS. Total territory size will be computed using the 95% utilization kernel and core territory size will be computed using the 50% utilization kernel. Territories used for analysis will contain a minimum 5 unique initial observation points per territory, and all points taken while following those individuals will be included in analysis.

8. For radio-transmittered birds, a minimum of 50 points per individual was used to calculate kernel density estimates (Seaman et al. 1999). Will compare kernel density estimates and minimum convex polygons based on un-tagged individuals.

9. Territory and home range size will be analyzed as a function of vegetation characteristics and study plot in a Mixed Models design in SAS.

Future research: 1. Use these data to advise DOFAW, FWS, ZSSD and other partners re:

further research needs for these two species, and suitable management strategies, including a discussion of captive breeding

2. Use vegetation data to ground truth TNC’s aerial imagery and begin to integrate with results of above analyses to develop predictive maps for ‘Akikiki, ‘Akeke’e, and other forest bird species

3. To better understand diet and foraging, we should conduct a diet analysis of these two species, and sample invertebrate prey availability. We should also look at foraging time budgets.

4. Examine influence of other potential factors, such as disease prevalence, predator density, or changes in food availability, on survival and abundance of these two species. Ideally this work should be done in an experimental framework over a long time period (e.g., comparing fenced to unfenced areas, predator-control plots to untreated plots, food supplementation in some territories).

Staffing needs: Crampton will be involved in revisions of the first chapter in fall 2014. Production of a MS on the home range or VCP data will take several months’ time by one KFBRP staff. Topics 3-4 are major undertakings requiring at least 2 full field season by 2-4 technicians.Pulbications and presentations resulting from this work:Behnke, LAH, L Pejchar, and LH Crampton. 2016. Occupancy and habitat use of

the endangered Akikiki and Akekee on Kauai Island, Hawaii. Condor 18:148-158.

Behnke, LA, L Pejchar, and LH Crampton. 2012. Characterizing Space Use and Estimating Home Range Sizes of 'Akikiki, an Elusive Endangered Honeycreeper. Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu HI.

Behnke, L.A., L. Pejchar, L.H. Crampton. 2011. Influence of Vegetation Community, Food Abundance, and Predation on Kaua'i's Endangered Honeycreepers: Research Study Design and Initial Results. Poster Presentation. Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu, HI.

Behnke, L.A., L. Pejchar, L.H. Crampton. 2011. Kauai's Endangered Honeycreepers- Home Range Estimation and Habitat Use. Poster Presentation. The Wildlife Society Conference, Waikoloa, HI.

C. Puaiohi Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use: Influence of Topography, Vegetation Characteristics, and Fruit Abundance

29








This section contains a mix of projects initiated by Lisa “Cali” Crampton and Pauline Roberts that are either in the data analysis and writing stage or are on hold.

1. Occupancy surveys and abundance modeling*Overall objectives:

1. Determine predictors of occupancy probability for Puaiohi, accounting for detection probability

2. Combine occupancy models, territory maps, pairing success, and habitat information in models of Puaiohi density, distribution and population size

3. Resight release and wild birds

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, USGS (Eben Paxton), Julia Diegmann, Tom Savre, and UH-Hilo HCSU (Kevin Brink)Location: 12 randomly selected upper and middle reaches of streams throughout the Alaka’i were surveyed. Some accessed from field camps; others via remote campsStatus: Completed (99%). Unless we collect some veg. data.Accomplishments and results:-Protocol involving both “unaided” counts and playback developed and refined in 2011-Four low-density, two mid-density, and six high-density streams across the Plateau have been surveyed; one high-density stream (Mohihi) surveyed in 2011, 2012, 2013. -Puaiohi detected on all but two streams-Habitat (stream profile, cliff locations, and canopy cover) data collected for all streams at each station; GIS data extracted for stream reaches.-Analyzed occupancy as a function of habitat variables; extrapolated occupancy to unsurveyed streams using GIS covariates; combined with data on pairing and territory density to generate population estimate.Details:

1. A Puaiohi population estimate has been elusive due to habitat use and cryptic behavior. Distance sampling not feasible given linear nature of habitat. Occupancy surveys combined with space and habitat use information are the most promising approach.

2. The occupancy protocol calls for five 18-minute visits to each of 20 stations/survey route. Stations are 150m apart (see attached protocol).

3. Habitat data includes locations of all cliff walls and side streams on survey route and side streams; stream profile (e.g. height, width, slope) and canopy cover. Fruit data on a subset of streams.

4. Occupancy predicted by height and number of cliff walls, but we cannot extract these data from GIS. Used elevation and sinuosity to extrapolate occupancy to other streams, ultimately estimating occupancy for more than 2/3 of streams and most continuous reaches.

5. Assuming that territory density differs on high and low occupancy streams, and that there are 1.9 birds per territory, the Puaiohi population

30


of the streams in the model, which is likely most of the breeding population, is 487 birds.

6. Elevation appears to constrain range even though Puaiohi appear relatively resistant to malaria.

7. Model currently relies on geomorphology and no vegetation features that might affect Puaiohi

Future work: 1. Repeat surveys on Mohihi and other streams as necessary as a monitoring

tool for Puaiohi trends 2. Continue to test new song meter’s ability to detect and distinguish

Puaiohi (and other native species)3. Collect data on vegetation composition and fruit presence4. Obtain better resolution GIS data that allow us to directly model field-

predicted variables, and that are dynamic, to allow us to predict trends over time.

5. Ground truth some of predicted streams6. Model effects of (lack of) management actions (e.g. forest restoration,

nest box adoption) on occupancy. Even better, perform management in some streams and survey occupancy response

Staffing needs: One round of occupancy surveys on each stream takes two people two days; to model occupancy, need five visits to each stream or 10 days plus commuting. Fruit data would likely take two days plus commuting on each stream. Ground truthing unsurveyed streams would take 2-10 days depending on whether measured habitat or occupancy.Challenges: Likely the only suitable GIS data will be LIDAR, which is expensivePresentations resulting from this work:Crampton, LH, KW Brink, E Paxton, BAH Heindl, E Vanderwerf, DL Leonard, JS

Diegmann, C Atkinson. Occupancy and Survival of the Critically Endangered, Highly Cryptic, Single Island Endemic, the Puaiohi. Island Biology Conference and HCC, Honolulu HI. July 2014

Crampton, LH, K Brink, RJ Camp, M Gorresen, and B Heindl. 2012. Occupancy surverys for a critically endangered, highly cryptic, single island endemic, the Puaiohi. North American Ornithological Conference, Vancouver BC.

Crampton, L.H., P.K. Roberts, L.A. Behnke. 2010. Starting Small: Population Size and Distribution of an Endangered Kaua'i Endemic, the Puaiohi. Oral Presentation. The Wildlife Society Conference, Snowbird, UT.

3. Habitat use by Puaiohi at local (within-stream or territory) scales during the breeding seasonOverall objectives:

1. Determine location and size of Puaiohi territories (and inter-annual variability) during the breeding season

2. Assess relative importance of topography, vegetation characteristics, and fruit abundance in determining habitat use during the breeding season

3. Compare territories (size, habitat characteristics) from low density and high density streams

4. Use this information in models of Puaiohi distribution and population size5. Use this information to inform management activities for Puaiohi,

including forest restoration, food supplementation, and future release locations

31







Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, Liba Pejchar (CSU) and Pauline RobertsLocation: HPK, MOH, and KWK Status: Hiatus? Small study could be complete; otherwise, ongoing since 2007 with at least one more field season needed; the 2012 working group felt this work was lower priority. Accomplishments and results:-Breeding season territories mapped at HPK well in 2009-10, more haphazardly in 2007-08 and 2011. Breeding season territories “sketched out” at KWK and MOH in 2011-12. May repeat KWK and MOH in 2013. All mapping up-to-date in ArcGIS except 2007-08 and 2012.-Cliff wall locations identified at all streams; at HPK and KWK have very good idea which ones used for nesting in 2007-2010 and 2009-2012, respectively. 143 cliff walls measured at HPK only.-In 2010-11 at HPK, 18 vegetation and fruit plots surveyed in territories (using 2009 boundaries) and 17 vegetation and fruit plots surveyed outside territories. Fruit plots surveyed in June/July 2010; vegetation plots surveyed in Jan 2011. No explicit vegetation or fruit data for KWK or MOH, but may be able to use Behnke vegetation data.-Preliminary analysis of characteristics of walls, vegetation and fruit in and out of territories at HPK presented at HCC and TWS. Most territories contain walls; walls in territories are larger; used walls are larger; territories contain more pukeawe, kanawao and moss.Details:

1. This study will be combined with occupancy surveys to model Puaiohi abundance, and will inform management (e.g. habitat restoration, translocation), but to date, data collection for it has been haphazard and has been fit around other studies to its detriment.

2. We will attempt to compare fruit data collect this season with previous data

3. We also need to determine to what extent we could use vegetation data collected for Behnke M.S. (do any plots fall within territories (many will fall outside)?)

4. We plan to encompass diet information (see below) to determine which fruits are consumed, and compare to their abundance to see if they are preferred.

Future research ideas:1. Add radiotelemetry to improve territory and home range estimates,

especially off-stream areas2. Quantify role of invertebrate food3. Determine causes of interannual variability in territories, territory swaps

Staffing needs: To do this study properly need 2-4 people for a full season mapping territories and quantifying fruit.Challenges: Puaiohi work has moved away from HPK so territories no longer well-known. Timing of fruit data collection. Territory mapping, banding, vegetation and fruit plots time consuming. Need to determine if should just write up what we have now.Presentations resulting from this work:

32


Solomon, LE, LH Crampton, RL Hammond, and PK Roberts. 2012. Territory selection by Puaiohi: Influence on food abundance, nest sites, and forest composition and structures. Poster Presentation. North American Ornithological Conference, Vancouver BC.

Crampton, L.H., P.K. Roberts, L.E. Solomon, R.L. Hammond, L.A. Behnke, B.A. Heindl. 2011. Habitat Selection by endangered Puaiohi: Influence of food abundance, nest sites, and forest composition and structure. Oral Presentation. The Wildlife Society Conference, Waikoloa, HI.

Solomon, L.E., L.H. Crampton, L.A. Behnke, B.A. Heindl. 2011. Territory Selection by Puaiohi: Influence of Food Abundance and Forest Composition. Poster Presentation. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference.

4. Habitat use by adult Puaiohi at local (within-stream or territory) scales at the end of the breeding season (telemetry)Overall objectives:

1. Determine if Puaiohi are territorial at the end of/after the breeding season; if so, determine territory location and size

2. Determine if Puaiohi continue to stay close to streams

3. Assess relative importance of topography, vegetation characteristics, and fruit abundance in determining habitat use at end of breeding season

4. Use this information to inform management activities for Puaiohi, including forest restoration, food supplementation, and future release locations

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, MBZLocation: HPK, MOH, and KWK (no telemetry yet at latter)Status: On a small scale will be addressed in MBZ study. Started in 2011, no work done in 2013, 2014; needs at least one more field season - two if continue to tag birds at current rate - but would be easier to do one big season.Accomplishments and results:-2011: One female tracked occasionally through August at MOH, and one through November at HPK; both stayed very near their 2011 nests and were resighted there in 2012. Female tagged at KWK disappeared after nest failed.-2012: One male tagged in early June at MOH, followed through mid-July, when found over ridge in next drainage.-Cliff wall locations identified at all streams; measured at HPK only.-Vegetation data collected as part of Behnke study; TBD how overlaps with use patterns.Details:

1. This study is important to inform management (e.g. habitat restoration, translocation), but to date, data collection for it has been haphazard and has been fit around other studies to its detriment.

2. It can take several hours to capture one Puaiohi, even during the breeding season when can use playback and target nests. It might be harder outside breeding season, although knowing bird’s location from transmitter might help.

33










3. Once a bird is outfitted with transmitter, we track it once or twice a week for lifespan of transmitter, getting several locations per day (recorded with GPS). We attempt to resight the bird each time.

4. To do the study properly, we need to recapture birds to follow them for longer or get different tags (delayed-start? Longer lasting?). We need to follow them more often. We would probably need to hire additional (seasonal?) staff to avoid field fatigue and allow for data entry tasks etc. Alternatively, as we wrap up other projects (e.g. Occupancy surveys) could potentially re-work field effort to devote more time to this and above study.

5. We need to determine to what extent we could use vegetation data collected for Behnke M.S. (do any plots fall within territories (many will fall outside)?). Otherwise, should we randomly allocate plots within territories or at detection locations?

Further work needed to complete study: 1. Map detections of each bird in ArcGIS. Overlay cliff locations and

vegetation plots2. Determine what further vegetation and topography data required 3. Capture, tag, and track at least three adults at MOH and/or KWK 4. More birds tagged and followed for longer and more closely. Vegetation

surveys? 5. Analysis and publication writing

Staffing needs: Two days data entry and analysis by one field assistant. At least one week total of mistnetting by two people. Six weeks or more of radiotelemetry as often as possible by two peopleFuture research ideas:

1. Quantify role of invertebrate food2. Determine causes of interannual variability in territories, territory swaps

Challenges: Catching Puaiohi difficult. Telemetry occurs at end of long season when short staffed and trying to prepare for conferences, so get fewer locations than ideal. Reliable radiotags last only 40 days, so don’t really get much post-season data.

5. Juvenile survival and dispersal (immediately after the breeding season)Overall objectives:

1. Document juvenile survival and dispersal for several weeks post-fledging

Collaborators: DOFAW, MBZ and FWSLocation: HPK and MOH (to date; could be expanded)Status: On a small scale will be addressed in MBZ study. Started in 2011, no data collected in 2013, 2014; needs at least one more field season - two if continue to tag birds at current rate – but would be easier to do one big season.Accomplishments and results:-2011: Four HY tagged: followed one at HPK for 40 days which moved ~900m before lost signal-2012: Two HY tagged at MOH: followed 40 days before transmitters died. Moved ~150m max.

34


Details: 1. This study is important to fill out demographic work on Puaiohi

(determine most limiting life stages, and for PVA), especially given recent results showing poor juvenile survival. However, to date, data collection for it has been haphazard and has been fit around other studies to its detriment.

2. Tagging HY is going more smoothly with practice, and is not in itself time consuming, but finding accessible nests is.

3. Once a bird is outfitted with transmitter, we track it once or twice a week for lifespan of transmitter, getting several locations per day (recorded with GPS). We attempt to resight the bird each time, or otherwise document survival by movement, or parental or auditory cues.

4. To do this study properly, we need to recapture birds to follow them for longer or get different tags (Longer lasting? Mortality sensor?), and follow up with helicopter telemetry. We need to follow them more often. We would probably need to hire additional (seasonal?) staff to avoid field fatigue and allow for data entry tasks etc. Alternatively, as we wrap up other projects (e.g. Occupancy surveys) could potentially re-work field effort to devote more time to this and above study.

Further work to complete study: 1. Map detections of each bird in ArcGIS. 2. Capture, tag, and track at least three HY at MOH and/or KWK3. More birds tagged and followed for longer and more closely. Vegetation

surveys? 4. Analysis and publication writing5. This study combined with above study would make good graduate project

Staffing needs: Occasional nest searching and monitoring by two people to find suitable nests for tagging; can be worked around other studies. Six weeks+ of radiotelemetry as often as possible by two people.Future research ideas:

1. Tie survival and dispersal to diet, habitat use, parental attention/quality, malarial status, territory density, pre-fledging weight….

2. Look at juvenile survival and dispersal in control vs. treatment (e.g., rat control, weeded, fenced) plots

Challenges: Finding accessible nests, lack of field staff to devote to telemetry, short life span of transmitters, staff has field fatigue at end of long breeding season

6. Puaiohi dietary studyOverall objectives:

1. Determine diet of wild Puaiohi and released Puaiohi from fecal samples, compare to habitat use and diet in captivity

2. Improve understanding of frugivore/plant mutualism and ecosystem services, by comparing native and non-native frugivores’ consumption/dispersal of native and non-native plants.

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, CSU (Liba Pejchar), USGS-PIERC (Bob Peck), UC-Berkeley (Patrick O’Grady), and Pauline RobertsLocation: HPK and KWKStatus: Analysis. Being completed by MKK and Liba Pejchar

35


Accomplishments and results:-24 fecal samples collected in Oct-Nov 2008 mostly from released Puaiohi in KWK. 25 fecal samples from wild Puaiohi ongoing during breeding seasons since 2006 (but slow since 2009) - mostly at HPK, some at MOH and KWK-Fruit availability in July characterized at HPK in 2010-Fruit seed library 100% complete-Analysis of insect components of feces completed for wild Puaiohi collected up through 2008-Most seeds in fecal samples from captive-bred Puaiohi and wild Puaiohi through 2010 identified-In 2016, MKK estimated breeding season fruit abundance in plots, collected and analyzed fecal samples from JAWE and PUAI, collected and analyzed seed rain at KWK and MOH, analyzed rat gut samplesDetails:

1. This study will contribute to our understanding of diet habitat use by Puaiohi, and can be used to inform management activities such as restoration, translocation, and supplemental feeding. For example, it will answer the questions: What are the most important fruiting plants for Puaiohi (spring-fall)? Are seeds from these plant species selected disproportionally to their availability in the wild?2. With identification of seeds and insect/invert parts in existing fecal samples largely complete, we need to move forward with the analysis and write up of this study with collaborators.3. One potential issue is comparing release and wild Puaiohi; not only do they have different “histories”, they also occur in sites with quite different vegetation. To truly do this comparison, we may need to get more wild samples from KWK4. Can Behnke vegetation plots be used for comparison of release diet to fruit plant abundance at KWK?

Further work to complete study: 1. Analysis and publication writing (fall-winter 2014); will take several

months’ MKK timeFuture research:

1. To truly understand role of Puaiohi in ecosystem services, need to determine seed fate if ingested by Puaiohi (passage through gut, deposition microhabitat etc. etc.) vs. other trajectories (no disperser, other disperser)

2. Examine role of rats (and other birds?) as competitors for fruits and invertebrates preferred by Puaiohi

Challenges: Difficulty getting fecal samples; lack of money to analyze insect bits

7. Nest survival and nest site selectionOverall objectives:

1. Determine predictors (habitat, individual) of nest survival2. Examine nest-site choice and to compare to Snetsinger study 3. Use nest site selection and survival results to determine if safe/suitable

nest sites are limiting4. Use photos and data to evaluate new release sites for nest site

availability. Maui?

36


Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, David Leonard, and Pauline RobertsLocation: HPK (with additional nests for descriptive work at KWK and MOH)Status: Analysis. Data collection complete; data analysis under wayAccomplishments and results:-Nests monitored in 2007-2010. 2007: 31 active nests, 2008: 21 active nests, 2009: 14 active nests, 2010: 9 active nests-Used and unused walls described (e.g., height, slope, vegetation cover) in 2009-2012. IButtons placed in used and unused cavities in 2011-2012 to monitor temperature and humidity.-Preliminary analysis of nest site selection presented at HCC and TWS in 2011, but found many issues with data proofing in 2013, so the analysis presented in these posters may not be accurate-Preliminary analysis of daily nest survival in 2007-2009 was 0.99 + 0.29 (N=114 nests). Nest predation was low. I believe PKR’s analysis suggested habitat predictors not important.-Introduction and Methods of nest site paper sketched out.- Put iButtons in 2 previously-nested-in cavities, 4 unused cavities; have similar temp and humidity. More currently deployed-Deployed 3-4 traps near each of three active Puaiohi nests; two fledged, one probably fledged. One grid caught five rats, one grid caught one rat.-Deployed Reconyx camera on three Puaiohi nests, got pictures of feeding and fledging eventsDetails:

1. This study will contribute to our understanding of Puaiohi demography and habitat use, and can be used to inform management activities such as nest boxes, and translocation.2. Nest survival analysis will be conducted in Program MARK, with nest cavity and wall characteristics as predictors. May also try a smaller analysis of known parent nests to look at individual effects. Need to figure out how to accommodate “repeated measures” (same cavity or wall used, same parents).3. Nest site selection analysis will be conducted in AIC framework in SAS (Proc Logistic for used vs. unused; Proc Mixed for repeat use). Need to figure out how to accommodate “repeated measures” (e.g., same territory).4. Can compare data to Snetsinger work

Further work to complete study:1. Finish analysis of nest survival (Fall 2013)2. Finish analysis of nest site selection (Fall 2013), including iButton data3. Write and submit 1-2 papers; need to decide if should combine (by end

May 2014)4. Use results to inform PVA and management projects (e.g., nest boxes,

translocation)5. Continue to trap rats near Puaiohi nests, potentially in an experimental

fashion.Staffing needs: 1 month each topic of LHC time to analyze, do literature review and write

37


Future research:1. Examine effect of (different kinds of) rat control at territory or plot scale

on nest survival 2. Compare nest survival in fenced/unfenced plots3. Compare nest survival of diseased and healthy birds4. Examine effect of food provisioning by parents on nest survival; include

food supplementation experiment5. Attempt to increase nest site availability by making cavities in suitable

wallsPublications resulting from this work:Fantle-Lepcyk, J. A. Taylor, D. Duffy, LH Crampton, and S. Conant. In press.

Weather influences on nest success of the endangered Puaiohi (Myadestes palmeri). Wilson Journal of Ornithology.

8. Mark-resight study of Puaiohi survivalOverall objectives:

1. Obtain adult and juvenile survival estimates for captive bred and wild birds

2. Identify most sensitive life stages3. Determine likely contribution of captive bred birds to wild population

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, Eric Vanderwerf, David Leonard, Julia Diegmann, Carter Atkinson, and Pauline Roberts (PKR)Location: HPKStatus: Completed. Accepted for publication in CondorAccomplishments and results:-Adults and juveniles intensively banded and resighted in 2007-2010; less effort in 2011; blood samples analyzed by Carter Atkinson- Survival of wild adult males (0.72±0.09) higher than survival of wild adult females (0.47±0.12), suggesting predation on females at the nest, probably by non-native rats, is a threat. -Survival of wild juveniles even lower (0.23±0.06), indicating recruitment may limit population growth. -Among captive-bred birds, survival was higher in birds released when <1 year old (0.54±0.47) than in older birds (0.05±0.06), however only 8 of 124 (7%) captive birds ever resighted-Chronic malaria infection does not decrease survival Details:

1. This study is the centerpiece of Puaiohi work completed during PKR’s tenure, and is critical to our attempts to understand and manage Puaiohi.

2. Unfortunately, Puaiohi are difficult to capture and resight, so confidence intervals on these survival estimates are larger than ideal, making trends difficult to detect. This is especially true of captive bred birds.

Further research:1. Ideally this work should be continued at HPK and/or restarted at MOH2. To understand effects of habitat change etc., should also look at these

parameters at KWK3. Investigate effect of management activities (e.g., rat control) on adult

survival38


4. Conduct juvenile survival study abovePublications resulting from this work:Vanderwerf, EA, LH Crampton, PK Roberts, JS Diegmann, and DL Leonard. 2014.

Survival estimates of wild and captive-released Puaiohi, an endangered Hawaiian thrush. Condor 116: 609–618.

9. Puiaohi population viability analysisOverall objectives:

1. Parameterize and run population models2. Identify key threats, most sensitive life stages3. Improve understanding of all aspects of Puaiohi ecology

Collaborators: DOFAW, FWS, Jean Fantle Lepcyk (JFL), Sheila Conant (both UH Manoa), and Pauline Roberts (PKR)Location: HPKStatus: Analysis. JFL has been waiting for survival estimates to parameterize modelsAccomplishments and results:-Initial parameterization of PVA has been started using data from survival and nest ecology studies and literature (e.g. Snetsinger)FY16 tasks and deliverables:

1. Modeling and analysis and draft manuscripts by JFL (by June 2016)

Staffing need: Occasional consultation and support to JFL by LHC.

OTHER POSSIBLE/FUTURE PROJECTS

Throughout this document, under each section’s “Future research” heading, we have alluded to several studies we think should be undertaken in the near future, as funding opportunities arise and staff time permits. Many of these ideas could be combined in a factorial design (e.g. rat control in a fenced area). Briefly, these are:

Larger study of disease prevalence (perhaps comparing fenced and unfenced areas)

Expanded work on Àkikiki and Àkekeè demography (esp. survival rates)

Expanded study of effect of rat control on nest, juvenile, and adult survival (or foraging rates) at territory or plot scale

Effect of weeding and ungulate control (in fenced areas vs. unfenced areas) on nest, juvenile, and adult survival and foraging rates

Food supplementation study Expand/finish habitat use and dispersal (telemetry) studies

Additionally, KFBRP and partners may wish to undertake/seek funding for: Work on ‘I’iwi if listed. Surveying lower elevation sites for forest birds, in person, and with

song meter; potentially banding and bleeding at lower elevations Breeding birds that are resistant to malaria and other diseases

39


Introduction of Puaiohi to Maui

OUTREACH, ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES

Small projects:Alaka’i weed control with Kokeè Resource Conservation Program (KRCP)

Data management tasks: Completed transition of all data to server (fall 2011) Use vegetation data to groundtruth aerial imagery collected by TNC

(spring 2013) Continue development of Access/PostGres/PostGIS database for new data

types (summer-fall 2013) Finish transition of GIS data to Geodatabase (fall 2013) Analyze output from Upper Limahuli song meters (spring 2014)

Grants applied for:Nov. 2008 State Wildlife Grants discretionary funds.Rejected

Àkikiki/Àkekeè natural history and rodent control.Jan. 2009 Disney Grant.Rejected

Radio-tracking?Apr. 2009 Wildlife Conservation Society WAOFRejected

Nest boxes and funding for Puaiohi releaseApr. 2009 USFWS PIFWORejected

Search for released captive-bred Puaiohi2010 USFWS PIFWO

AwardedAkikiki/Akekeè natural history

Apr. 2011 Disney Wildlife Conservation FundAwarded

Effect of weed control on native birdsAug. 2011 USFWS PIFWO

Puaiohi nest boxes RejectedAkikiki/Akeke’e demography

RejectedJan. 2012 American Bird ConservancyAwarded

Puaiohi nest boxesJan 2012 Starbucks Community FoundationAwarded

Puaiohi nest boxesApr. 2012 Disney Wildlife Conservation FundAwarded

Effect of weed control on native birds

40


Apr. 2012 Wildlife Conservation SocietyRejected

Effect of weed control on native birdsAugust 2012 Longs FoundationRejected

Rat control to protect Akikiki and Akekee nestsJanuary 2013 Pioneer Community GrantAwarded

Puaiohi nest boxesFebruary 2013 USFWS PIFWO

Rat control to protect Akikiki and Akekee nestsRejected

Captive PropagationRejectedMarch 2013 USFWS State of the BirdsRejected

Rat control to protect Akikiki and Akekee nestsJune 2013 USFWS SSP TBD

Akikiki/Akeke’e demography

In FY16, plan to apply for SWG grant, A and B Foundation grant (both for rodent control), Long Foundation Grant (telemetry tower), PICCI, and others TBD with working groupOutreach:

Present ~2 lectures per year (e.g., NTBG, FWS, Kauai Conservation Alliance)

Worked with many school groups and camps in 2014 Brochure developed (fall 2008) and refined (fall 2011) Logo developed (fall 2010); used on t-shirts, mugs, website, letterhead,

banner Website developed (fall 2010) and redone (fall 2011); has regular updates Facebook presence developed and maintained (spring 2011) Attend 3-4 outreach events annually (e.g., Banana Poka Round-up, Arbor

Day, Earth Day, Orchids and Art); have developed several educational tools, such as a diorama, coloring book, conservation cause and effect game

Subject of several local and national newspaper and magazine articles (see our website)

Fundraiser at local restaurant (Jan 2012); have approached other restaurants

Fundraiser at Storybook Theatre (Sept 2014) Considering organizing a “fun run” fundraiser for fall or winter FY16

Professional Meetings:2006: HCC, Kauai Conservation Conference2007: HCC2008: Wildlife Reintroduction Conference, Kauai Conservation

Conference, HCC, AOU2009: HCC

41


2010: HCC, The Wildlife Society2011: HCC, The Wildlife Society2012: HCC, North American Ornithological Conference2013: HCC, The Wildlife Society2014: HCC, Island Biology

Other: 2011-2014: Founding member and secretary, now chair, of the Kauai

Conservation Alliance2013: Collaborative Leadership Workshop with Donna Ching

KFBRP PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

In FY16, KFBRP will help revise the BNA accounts for all three endangered species. We will also present papers at two conferences, submit 1-2 papers on nest survival and nest site selection (perhaps encompassing territory selection), 1 small paper on fall movements (telemetry study), and 1 small paper on crowdfunding. Publications

Fantle-Lepcyk, J. A. Taylor, D. Duffy, LH Crampton, and S. Conant. In press. Weather influences on nest success of the endangered Puaiohi (Myadestes

palmeri). Wilson Journal of Ornithology.Behnke, LAH, L Pejchar, and LH Crampton. 2016. Occupancy and habitat use of

the endangered Akikiki and Akekee on Kauai Island, Hawaii. Condor 18:148-158.

Hammond, RL, LH Crampton, LH, and JT Foster. 2016. Nesting success of native and introduced forest birds on the island of Kauai. Journal of Avian Biology 47: 252-262.

Glad, A, and LH Crampton. 2015. Local prevalence and transmission of avian malaria in the Alakai Plateau of Kauai, Hawaii, U.S.A. Journal of Vector Ecology 40:221-229.

Hammond, RL, LH Crampton, LH, and JT Foster. 2015. Breeding biology of two endangered forest birds on the island of Kaua'i. Condor 117: 31-40.

Atkinson, CT, RB Utzurrum, DA LaPointe, RJ Camp, LH Crampton, JT Foster, and TW Giambelluca 2014. Changing Climate and the Altitudinal Range of Avian Malaria in the Hawaiian Islands - an Ongoing Conservation Crisis on the Island of Kaua‘i. Global Change Biology 20: 2426–2436.

Vanderwerf, EA, LH Crampton, PK Roberts, JS Diegmann, and DL Leonard. 2014. Survival estimates of wild and captive-released Puaiohi, an endangered Hawaiian thrush. Condor 116: 609–618.

VanderWerf, E.A., P.K. Roberts. 2008. Foraging and Nesting of the 'Akikiki or Kaua'i Creeper ( Oreomystis bairdi ) . The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120: 195-199.

Manuscripts in reviewCrampton, LH, KW. Brinck, KE Pias, BAP Heindl, T Savre, JS Diegmann, and EH

Paxton. Linking occupancy surveys with habitat characteristics to estimate abundance and distribution of an endangered cryptic bird. Submitted to Biological Conservation.

42




Paxton, E, R. Camp, M Gorresen, LH Crampton, DL Leonard, EA VanderWerf. Rapid Declines in Kauai’s Forest Birds. Submitted to Science Advances.

Book chaptersSwitzer, R. A. Lieberman, J. Nelson and L.H. Crampton. 2013.

Augmentation of the Puaiohi population through captive propagation and release on the Alakai Plateau, Kauai, Hawaii, USA. Reintroduction Specialist Group Book, IUCN.

Technical reportsPaxton, E.H., J. Burgett, E. McDonald-Fadden, E. Bean, C.T. Atkinson, D. Ball, C. Cole, L.H. Crampton, J. Kraus, D.A. LaPointe, L. Mehrhoff, M.D. Samuel, D.C. Brewer, S.J. Converse, and S. Morey. 2012. Keeping Hawai’i’s Forest Birds One Step Ahead of Avian Diseases in a Warming World: a focus on Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. A case study from the Structured Decision Making Workshop, Volcano HI. National Conservation Training Center. Sheperdstown, WV.

PresentationsCrampton, LH, KW Brink, E Paxton, BAH Heindl, E Vanderwerf, DL

Leonard, JS Diegmann, C Atkinson. Occupancy and Survival of the Critically Endangered, Highly Cryptic, Single Island Endemic, the Puaiohi. Island Biology Conference, Honolulu HI. July 2014

Crampton, LH, KW Brink, RJ Camp, M Gorresen, E Paxton, BAH Heindl. Occupancy and Survival of the Critically Endangered, Highly Cryptic, Single Island Endemic, the Puaiohi. Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu HI. July 2014.

Pias, KE, LH Crampton, E Paxton, R. Camp. 2014. Changes in Kauaʻi's Forest Bird Community. Island Biology Conference, Honolulu, HI, July 2014.

Paxton, E, R. Camp, M Gorresen, LH Crampton, DL Leonard, EA VanderWerf. Rapid Declines in Kauai’s Forest Birds. Island Biology Conference, Honolulu, HI, July 2014.

Crampton, LH, EA Vanderwerf, JS Diegmann, PK Roberts, DL Leonard. Survival estimates of wild & captive-released Puaiohi, an endangered Hawaiian thrush. Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu HI. July 2013.

Hammond, RL, J Foster, and LH Crampton. Solving the mystery of empty forest bird nests. Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu HI. July 2013.

Elzinga, AH, BA Heindl, and LH Crampton. Developing dependable monitoring strategies for nest boxes to aid in the recovery of an endangered endemic species. Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu HI. July 2013 (Poster).

Ozaki, N. CR Alevizos, LH Crampton, K Cassel, K Pias, and S Montgomery. Restoring Hawaiian Endangered Bird Habitat: Investigating the effect of invasive plant removal on native forest birds

43

http://nctc.fws.gov/CSP/Resources/Decision_Analysis/feb_2011/2011%20SDM%20workshop%20Hawaii%20forest%20birds%20under%20climate%20change.pdf




on Kaua‛i. Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu HI. July 2013 (Poster).

Crampton, LH, K Brink, RJ Camp, M Gorresen, and B Heindl. 2012. Occupancy surverys for a critically endangered, highly cryptic, single island endemic, the Puaiohi. North American Ornithological Conference, Vancouver BC.

Heindl, B, LH Crampton, LA Behnke, and E Vanderwerf. 2012. Nest site limitation in the Puaiohi or Small Kaua'i Thrush (Myadestes palmeri): using nest boxes to expand the global range of an endangered species. North American Ornithological Conference, Vancouver BC.

Hammond, RL, JT Foster, and LH Crampton. 2012 Effects of Rodent Predation on Nesting Success of Forest Birds on Kaua'i. Poster Presentation. North American Ornithological Conference, Vancouver BC.

Solomon, LE, LH Crampton, RL Hammond, and PK Roberts. 2012. Territory selection by Puaiohi: Influence on food abundance, nest sites, and forest composition and structures. Poster Presentation. North American Ornithological Conference, Vancouver BC.

Behnke, LA, L Pejchar, and LH Crampton. 2012. Characterizing Space Use and Estimating Home Range Sizes of 'Akikiki, an Elusive Endangered Honeycreeper. Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu HI.

Behnke, L.A., L. Pejchar, L.H. Crampton. 2011. Kauai's Endangered Honeycreepers- Home Range Estimation and Habitat Use. Poster Presentation. The Wildlife Society Conference, Waikoloa, HI.

Behnke, L.A., L. Pejchar, L.H. Crampton. 2011. Influence of Vegetation Community, Food Abundance, and Predation on Kaua'i's Endangered Honeycreepers: Research Study Design and Initial Results. Poster Presentation. Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu, HI.

Crampton, L.H., P.K. Roberts, L.E. Solomon, R.L. Hammond, L.A. Behnke, B.A. Heindl. 2011. Habitat Selection by endangered Puaiohi: Influence of food abundance, nest sites, and forest composition and structure. Oral Presentation. The Wildlife Society Conference, Waikoloa, HI.

Hammond, R.L., L.H. Crampton, P.K. Roberts. 2011. A Geographical Evaluation of Nesting Substrate for the Puaiohi, Myadestes palmeri. Oral presentation. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference.

Heindl, B.A., L.H. Crampton, L.A. Behnke. 2011. Forest Bird Populations In Relation to Forest Vegetation and Structure on the Alaka‘i Plateau: Baseline Abundance and Richness Pre-installation of the Alaka'i Protective Fence. Oral Presentation. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference.

Paxton, E., C. T. Atkinson, D. Ball, J. Burgett, C. Cole, L. H. Crampton, J. Kraus, D. A. LaPointe, L. Mehrhoff, M. D. Samuel. 2011. Keeping Hawaii's Forest Birds One Step Ahead of Diseases in a Warming World. Oral Presentation. The Wildlife Society, Waikoloa, HI.

Reynolds, M.H., J. S. Hatfield, J. Klavitter, L.P. Laniawe, L. H. Crampton. 2011. Influence of Space Use on Fitness and the Reintroduction Success of the Laysan Teal. Oral Presentation. The Wildlife Society, Waikoloa, HI.

Solomon, L.E., L.H. Crampton, L.A. Behnke, B.A. Heindl. 2011. Territory Selection by Puaiohi: Influence of Food Abundance and Forest Composition. Poster Presentation. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference.

Solomon, L.E., B.A. Heindl, L.H. Crampton, L.A. Behnke. 2011. Forest Bird Population and Vegetation Structure: Baseline Assessment Prior to Installation of the Alaka'i Protective Fence. Oral Presentation. The Wildlife Society Conference, Waikoloa, HI.

Crampton, L.H., P.K. Roberts, L.A. Behnke. 2010. Starting Small: Population Size and Distribution of an Endangered Kaua'i Endemic, the Puaiohi. Oral Presentation. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference.

44


































Crampton, L.H., P.K. Roberts, L.A. Behnke. 2010. Starting Small: Population Size and Distribution of an Endangered Kaua'i Endemic, the Puaiohi. Oral Presentation. The Wildlife Society Conference, Snowbird, UT.

Roberts, P.K. 2010. Starting Small: Population Size and Distribution of the Puaiohi, an Endangered Kaua'i Endemic. Oral Presentation. American Ornithologists' Union Conference, San Diego, CA.

Atkinson, C.T., R.C. Utzurrum, L.A. Behnke, J.D. Russell. 2009. Changes in Prevalence of Avian Malaria on the Alaka'i Plateau - and Early Signal for Global Climate Change in Hawai'i. Presentation. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference.

Behnke, L.A., J.D. Russell, J.L. Anderson. P.K. Roberts. 2008. Nesting Behavior of the 'Akikiki or Kaua'i Creeper. Poster Presentation. American Ornithologists' Union Conference, Portland, OR.

Roberts, P.K., A. Lieberman, D.L. Leonard. 2008. Measuring Success: Lessons learned from the Puaiohi. Poster Presentation. American Ornithologists' Union Conference, Portland, OR.

Roberts, P.K., A. Lieberman, D.L. Leonard. 2008. Measuring Success: Lessons learned from the Puaiohi. Poster Presentation. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference.

Russell, J.D., J.L. Anderson, L.A. Behnke, P.K. Roberts. 2008. Nesting Behavior of the 'Akikiki or Kaua'i Creeper. Poster Presentation. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference.

Roberts, P.K., T. Savre. 2006. What are we doing to save the Puaiohi?. Poster Presentation. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference.

45











APPENDICES

Appendix A. KFBRP Vegetation protocol

Equipment Needed:Veg data sheets (printed on rite in the rain paper)Clipboard with veg codesPencilsProject CameraGPS UnitDBH tape (multiple if necessary)ClinometerDensiometerSet of 4 veg poles (and connectors)Set of 4 veg lines or ropesPlant ID books, if necessary

Plot setup:The veg plot is a 5.643-m radius circular plot. This matches with the plot

size used by TNC in Hawaii. Using a small circular plot minimizes the amount of walking that researchers will do on the plot, which is advisable in the Alaka’i. Use of transect sampling was considered, but rejected because of the very challenging terrain, which makes walking difficult, and walking in a straight line is often impossible due to dropoffs, steep slopes, thick scrubby vegetation and myriad fallen trees.

A. Choose a plot center. Plot centers placed at every forest bird survey station, using the tree

marked as the station point for the plot center. If the plot would be affected by human impacts (e.g. a trail), then relocate the plot far enough to avoid the impacted area by choosing a cardinal direction and moving the center point at least 6 m in that direction.

B. Lay out the 4 measured strings in the cardinal directions. End points are marked on the strings with colored tape. Additional

flagging can be used to indicate the endpoints.

Read the plot like a clock: Quadrant 1 is the NE quadrant, etc. Pt 1 is North, Pt 2 is E, etc.

46

S

W E

N


Trees are defined as plants with DBH ≥ 10 cm, including tree ferns. Include snags in this definition (except for focal trees), but list the species name as SNAG.

DBH is diameter at breast height, officially 4.5 feet, which is actually collarbone height on Pauline. Test it on yourself. Regardless of the weird merges and splits above and below the DBH, just measure what there is at DBH. So for trees with multiple trunks, measure each stem individually at DBH and count it as a separate tree. And for ōhi’a that actually merge above DBH, measure it at DBH. If the tree is horizontal or very diagonal, be sure to measure the minimum diameter, so the tape may not be horizontal. If you cannot wrap the DBH tape around the tree, then hold up the regular measuring side to the tree and do your best.

Shrubs are defined as plants > 1 m tall that aren’t trees, and that top out below the bottom of the canopy.

Ground cover is defined as any plant ≤ 1 m tall.

Species names are abbreviated as the first 3 letters of the genus followed by the first three letters of the species. So Cheirodendron fauriei is abbreviated as CHEFAU. Ōhi’a (Metrosideros polymorpha) is so common that we decided to make an even shorter abbreviation, MP, for this species only. FERN and MOSS are pooled together and just have 4-letter abbreviations, except the most important species. These ones are Amau (Sadleria cyatheoides, SADCYA) and Hapuu (Cyathea cooperi, CYACOO) tree ferns. Other ferns can be listed by species if the species is known by the observer. See the Plant Species list for names and abbreviations of most forest plants.

Header Section1. Initials

Initials of personnel collecting data at this plot.2. Date

Be sure to note the month with a WORD. Preferred format is 9Dec10 or 9Dec2010.

3. T startNote the start time. This will help keep track of the speed of progress, and may help fix errors noticed within a few days.

4. FBS transectThe Forest Bird Survey transect number where the plot is located. If none, leave empty.

5. FBS stationThe number of the station on the transect. If none, leave empty.

6. Waypoint nameIf plot is located somewhere other than a Forest Bird Survey station, take a waypoint on the GPS and note the waypoint name here. A useful naming convention could be VEG001LHC, so that all veg points can be quickly found, and then sorted by observer’s initials.

47


7. Alt loc descAlternate location description. If the point is not at a forest bird survey station, describe the location generally: what area of the Alaka’i, is it a stream, tall forest, bog, etc. Whatever fits in the space.

8. Tree tag labelFor plots in alternate locations, place a tree tag at the plot center when possible, and record its label here.

9. Slope %Using the clinometer, record the % slope of the area inside the veg plot. After recording your estimate from the clinometer, rate the amount of variability of the slope for the entire plot by circling High, Med, or Low.

10. AspectRecord the aspect in degrees, using the compass. Aspect is the main downhill direction of the plot. If the plot surface were a plate, aspect is the direction that the plate would fall. After recording your estimated direction for aspect, rate the amount of variability of the aspect for the entire plot by circling High, Med, or Low.

11. UTM E Record the easting for the plot center in UTMs.

12. UTM N Record the northing for the plot center in UTMs.

13. Site Notes Record any other useful information about the plot here.

Focal TreesThere are up to four focal trees in the plot. In each quadrant, choose the closest tree inside the plot that is ≥10 cm DBH. Some quadrants will not have a focal tree. The focal tree cannot be a snag (standing dead tree).1. Sp

What species is the tree (see species abbreviations). 2. DBH

Diameter at 4.5 ft above the ground. If tree is on a hill, measure it from the uphill side.

3. Canopy LCanopy Length. For the focal tree, what is the maximum horizontal dimension of the canopy? Give in meters, to the nearest 0.5 m. Be sure to record whole numbers with a decimal point. Ex: 1.0

4. Canopy WCanopy Width. Give the maximum horizontal dimension of the focal tree’s canopy that is perpendicular to the Canopy Length. These two measurements will define an ellipse that describes the area of the canopy.

5. Gap minFrom the focal tree’s canopy edge to neighboring trees in all directions, what is the shortest distance (to the nearest 0.5 m) to a neighboring tree’s canopy edge? Often this value will be 0 m.

48


6. Gap maxFrom the focal tree’s canopy edge to neighboring trees in all directions, what is the longest distance (to the nearest 0.5 m) to a neighboring tree’s canopy edge? If the focal tree is completely surrounded, this will be 0 m. It will rarely be > 3m. Do not record infinity for this value.

All TreesBe sure to include the focal trees here, don’t leave them out!1. Species

List the tree species. MP or METPOL for ōhi’a, SNAG for snag. Give species names for tree ferns if present (don’t list as just FERN).

2. DBHDiameter at breast height.

3. MossWhat % of the trunk surface is covered with shaggy moss in the 1 m along the trunk above where you made the DBH measurement. Don’t count flat lichens and very flat moss, except as a couple of %. Here we are trying to capture bird foraging habitat.

4. Frt/flrIs the tree fruiting or flowering? Yes or No (Y or N). Don’t spend a lot of time trying to exhaustively look, just see if there’s anything obvious.

NSEW PointsAt the four points in the cardinal directions at the edges of the plot (marked on the strings), take these measurements.

1. DensiometerFacing away from the plot center, hold the densiometer at elbow height. Level it and ensure that your head is not visible. If a large tree trunk is visible in the densiometer, move away until it is out of view. Now, looking at the densiometer, imagine 4 points equidistant inside each etched square. There are 24 squares, and 96 of these points. Count how many of these points are covered by canopy. Or, count how many are NOT and subtract from 96. Instructions are printed in the lid of the densiometer.

2. Canopy Pt Ht.Give the height of the canopy directly above the point, to the nearest 0.5 m. If there is just empty sky, give the value for the nearest point. Use the PVC pole at least once per plot to improve your accuracy. Use the rangefinder and clinometer if necessary. If you do, be sure to record all the pieces of data needed to reconstruct the right-angle triangles.

3. Subcanopy Present/AbsentSubcanopy is defined as anything >2m tall but below the lowest height of the “true canopy”.

4. DiagramsIf you use the rangefinder and clinometer to get canopy height, record the necessary info here.

49


Ground CoverLay the 1x1 m square (two veg poles connected to each other) on the ground at each of the cardinal points. Align the square’s edge with the string between 4.64 and 5.64 m away from the center, and put the body of the square in the appropriate quadrant (see diagram). If a large tree trunk would fall inside the square, then move the square away, but try not to otherwise be choosy about sites. 1. Total % cover

Give the total % cover of green plants in the square.A. Native % coverB. Alien % cover

2. Bare Dirt %Give % of the square that is mineral soil. Don’t include leaf litter. Most bare dirt in the Alaka`i is either pig damage or landslip.

3. Grassy %What percent is grasses and sedges (except uki). This category is pooled because is structurally different for birds than other herbaceous plants, yet most personnel have limited knowledge of the species.

4. # Tree seedlingsHow many tree seedlings in the square? This includes only species that regularly are part of the canopy, and only individuals that are < 1 m tall. So, don’t count shrub seedlings, or seedlings not likely to grow up and be a tree < 10 cm DBH. Species likely to be in the canopy and should be counted include: Ōhi’a, Ōlapa, Lapalapa, Alani. Species like Ōhelo will probably not be a part of the canopy, and should not be counted in this category.

5. Litter etc.%This is the ‘everything else’ category, and includes leaf litter, fine litter and woody debris. Calculate this percentage by subtracting all earlier categories from 100%. Dead or brown uluhe fits into this leaf litter category.

6. Total Ground Cover should equal 100 %. Values for total ground cover, bare dirt, grassy and litter should equal 100 for each quadrant. Within the subcategory of ground cover, native and alien percent covers should also equal 100.

ShrubsA shrub is defined as ANY plant > 1 m tall whose leaves are NOT part of the canopy. Look at the canopy to decide what the bottom of the canopy is, and then think of the plants below that as the shrubs and ground cover. This height will differ for every veg plot. 1. Total % cover

What % of the entire quadrant is covered by shrubs? Picture the plot from overhead (try to imagine you are a bird flying over) and estimate the % coverage that way.

A. Native % coverThe % native and alien cover should equal 100. So if there are both native and alien shrubs, you should count the veg type that is above the other (the one that a bird flying over would see).

50


B. Alien % cover

Vertical Vegetation VolumeA piece of PVC pipe that is a little longer than 2-meters (so that the pole can be stuck into the ground and be visible for only two-meters above the ground) should be marked at 20, 10-cm intervals and placed at the center of the circular plot. There should also be a demarcation separating the 1st one meter interval (0-1 meters) and the 2nd one-meter interval (1-2 meters). From the endpoint of each cardinal direction, the observer should estimate this percentage by counting the number of 10 cm sections that are visually blocked by vegetation for each of the one meter sections. There should be a total of 8 estimates of percent Vertical Vegetation Volume: One from each of the four cardinal directions at the 0-1 meter interval and one from each of the four cardinal directions at the 1-2 meter interval. If you are standing at one of the cardinal points and your view of the PVC pipe is blocked by a tree or snag, move your head or move to the nearest point so that your view is not blocked. The idea is to get a representation of the vegetation structure of the plot, and a tree or snag isn’t really what we’re looking for. The value you record in this box should be the percent of the pole that is blocked by vegetation (if you CAN see the pole, record 0!)

Alien PlantsRecord the following information for 1) all alien plants inside the plot, and 2) all Priority species encountered outside the veg plot (generally while traveling between plots).Priority species encountered SE of the Koaie Stream should be reported to Katie Cassel’s ground and/or TNC. If in doubt, please ask – this is a great way to stop invasives!

1.SpeciesGive species abbreviation or name.

2.In Plot?Is this species present in the veg plot, or observed elsewhere?

3. m2

Record the area, in m2 is covered by this plant or patch of plants?4. Frt/flr

Was it fruiting or flowering? Yes or No (Y or N).5. Notes

If the plant was encountered outside the plot, give the UTM’s and waypoint name. Include any other notes of interest.

Mammal SignInclude pigs, goats, deer. If rat sign is incredibly obvious, include that as well.1. Species

Pig, goat, rat sp., deer.2. In plot?

Is this encounter inside or outside the veg plot?

51


3. m2

Record the amount of area, in m2 covered by this evidence.4. Sign age

Estimate the age of the sign. This can be very difficult. If possible, use the following categories:<48 hrs, 1-3 mo, >3 mo, If not feasible, just categorize by Fresh or Old.

5. Sign typeRecord whether the sign is trail, scat, digging, wallow, trampling, rubbing, browsing, nest, shelter, etc.

6. Notes If recorded outside the plot, give the utm’s and waypoint name. Include any other notes of interest.

Shrub and Ground cover speciesFor all shrub and ground cover plants (using the shrub and ground cover definitions given above), check all species present for the whole plot. For the most common shrub and ground cover species in each quadrant (as measured by area covered), mark with an asterisk ( * ).For species not on the list, add them to the bottom of the table.If you have a common ground cover species (Astelia or Uki uki) that is growing on a horizontal tree or branch that happens to be higher than 1 m, this still counts as ground cover. So, the plant itself is < 1m tall, but it is growing at a height > 1 m because it’s on a tree or branch, it counts as ground cover!

Topography PositionCircle the word that best describes the location of the plot. Options are:Level, lower-slope, mid-slope, upper slope, escarpment/face, ledge, crest, depression, and draw.

PicturesThree pictures should be taken of the vegetation at each plot. A picture of the canopy should be taken at the endpoints (extremity) of the North and South lines of the plot. The third picture should be taken horizontally across the plot from the North endpoint of the plot. Picture ID should be recorded in field notebook so that pictures can be matched up with their corresponding location once downloaded onto the server at the office. Use the “Pictures” box on the data sheet to check that all pictures have been taken.

Site NotesWhile surveying and measuring trees, try to also look for any rat nests that might be present in the plot.Look around the plot and record if there is any standing water present, and if there is, look to see if there are any mosquito larvae in the water. Also, record if any focal species (Puaiohi, Akikiki, Akeke’e) were detected in the plot during the survey.

52


Appendix B. KFBRP Puaiohi occupancy survey protocol

Equipment Needed for Each Surveyor notebook and pencil MP3 player with playback tracks (and backup) Speaker (and backup) Speaker cord (and backup) Binoculars GPS unit Compass Decibel meter (one per crew) Flagging tape (to use during set-up) Range finder (to use during set-up)

Occupancy Surveys are Presence/Absence surveys conducted to gain a better understanding of Puaiohi occupancy and distribution. These surveys are composed of two separate parts: the point count survey and the playback survey. Playback surveys are conducted last, as they may influence Puaiohi behavior. Surveys are normally conducted with two people for safety reasons, and measures such as recording all species are taken so that the other person does not influence your detections. Each stream is surveyed five times (ideally; min four times) during the season. Double counting by two independent observers is allowed. Thus normally three trips to a stream will be required each season (the first one is for training, where only the experienced counter’s data is used in analysis). Different teams should visit each stream to minimize observer bias. Upper Mohihi stream will be surveyed each year to account for temporal bias. The other stream segments will be randomly selected from low and high Pu-density strata each year.

Station Set Up:1. Survey routes have been chosen randomly from a set of known access

points.2. Depending on the stream length the first survey station will be a

randomized distance from the access point.3. Stations are 150m apart along the stream (not as the Puaiohi flies).4. There are 20 stations in a given survey route.5. Using two people spaced out as far as possible along the stream (e.g.,

until it bends) and measure that distance with the range finder. Record that distance. Leap frog down the stream and repeat until you have measured 150m.

6. Flag the station with the appropriate point name. For example, on Kauaikinana stream (abbreviated KKN); label the points OS-KKN-01 through OS-KKN-20. Make sure to place the flag in streamside vegetation. Repeat until you reach the 20th station.

Point Count Surveys:1. After arriving at a survey station, wait about a minute to let the birds’

behavior return to normal.53


2. During this time, record weather observations in your notebook. Measurements include cloud cover, rain, wind, gust and ōhi’a phenology. The codes are listed inside the Forest Bird Survey transect books, but are as follows:Cloud cover: estimate to the nearest 10%Rain: 0 – no rain; 1 – mist/fog; 2 – light drizzle; 3 – light rain; 4 – heavy rain/difficult to hear birds(Stop count if rain persists above a 3).Wind: 0 - calm/smoke rises vertically <1mph; 1 – smoke drifts; 1-3 mph; 2 – leaves rustle 4-7 mph; 3 – leaves and small twigs in constant motion 8-12 mph; 4 –small branches moving 13-18 mph; 5 – trees begin to sway >19 mph.Gust: Same values as wind, record maximum value as the gust value.Stream noise: 0 – quiet, no stream noise; 1 – some noise, but very light or at a distance/trickle; 2 – light babbling; 3 – heavy babbling/toilet flushing (try hard can still hear birds); 4 – loud/falls near (can’t hear much). Also record level using decibel meter making sure to record what kind of decibel meter and what the base setting on it is in your notebook.Ōhi’a phenology: Record % of ōhi’a bloom to nearest 10% for the closest trees. Record only a single digit for each tree. 0 – 0%; 0.1 - <1%; 1 – 1-10%; 2 – 11-20%; 3- 21-30%; 4 – 31-40%; 5 – 41-50%.

3. Write down the date and start time in your notebook. Our point count surveys are 8 minutes, separated into two 4-minute periods. For each bird detected, only record the initial detection. For example, if you hear an Elepaio 12 meters away during the first 4-minute period, and detect the same bird again in the second period at 6 meters, only record the detection at 12 meters.

4. Detection codes are:1 – Heard during survey2 – Seen first during survey (can be heard later)4 – Heard first and then seen later during survey8 – Heard, NOT during survey period (Before or after 8 minute period)9 – Seen, NOT during survey period (Before or after 8 minute period)

5. After the first 4-minute period, draw a thick line around your bird detections, to easily differentiate between the detections heard in the first and second periods.

6. Record every bird species seen or heard during the period. Although these surveys are conducted primarily for Puaiohi, we are recording everything so that our surveys do not influence the other person’s detection rate.

7. If you detect one of the endangered species (PUAI, AKIK, AKEK), take a waypoint for it once the survey is completed and write down any observations you have from the detection.

Playback Surveys:1. We conduct playback surveys along with point counts because Puaiohi are

a very secretive species, and sometimes very hard to detect. Playbacks may increase detection, so we use both survey methods to get a more accurate population estimate and distribution.

2. Playback surveys are just over 8 minutes long. They are divided into 3 separate periods, each with a 30-second playback portion and a listening

54


portion. The first two listening periods are 1-minute in length, and the last is 5-minutes long. So, the playback survey goes: Period 1: 30-second playback, 1-minute listen Period 2: 30-second playback, 1-minute listen Period 3: 30-second playback, 5-minute listen

3. The playback tracks have the Puaiohi portion (calls or song, or a combination of the two) and the listening period built in already. There is no need to pause the mp3 player between periods, or keep track of how long you’ve been listening. Just stop the mp3 player after the 3rd playback period and keep track of the 5-minute listening period. If you detect Puaiohi during the playback survey, record during which period (1, 2 or 3) the bird was detected in. Also record the distance and detection type for the individual bird.

4. For each Puaiohi detected, also record a compass bearing after the survey is complete, to avoid influencing the other person’s detections. You may need to keep track of where you hear or see birds in your notebook so you can easily record the compass bearing after the survey ends.

5. At the end of the survey, for each individual Puaiohi detected, also take a GPS point for the bird. Throw the point in the GPS if necessary, using distance and the compass bearing recorded for that bird. Each individual should have only one GPS point, so either you or your partner record a GPS point, but not both of you.

55


Appendix C. PU OS habitat survey and data sheet

Goal: to measure or estimate habitat characteristics that may influence Puaiohi occupancy within and among streams, with the ultimate goal of predicting occupancy range-wide

Equipment needed: Notebook and pencil Datasheet GPS unit Compass Range finder Clinometer Measuring tape (5m DBH Tape is usually sufficient) Ping Pong Ball

Parameters to be recorded at each OS station: Bank Height and Slope Bankfull width % Canopy cover Direction of Flow Majority Stream Substrate

Optional (dependent on stream): Presence/absence of Olapa, Lapalapa, Kanawao in 20 m radius Velocity as slow, moderate, or fast?

Parameters to be recorded along survey route: Location of all cliffs Location and size (entrance opening) of all side streams Location and size of all side drainages Meander pattern/sinuosity (from GPS track) Stream order (post hoc)

Definitions/instructions: All measurements except substrate, bank-full width, fruiting P/A and Velocity are take by 2 seperate observers and from there measurments are averaged.

Slope and Bank Height: Determined post hoc by using measurements taken from the center of the stream when possible. If there is an Island take measurements from the center of the island and document in notes section.

- Distance Top and Bot:Using a rangefinder when possible, record distance from eye-height to slope bottom and slope top directly stream left and stream right from the flag from the center of the stream. Slope bottom should be the base of the cliff/ slope which is directly associated to the most distinguished/nearby ridgline. Slope top if not obvious is the most clearly distinguished ridge line directly at the point.

56


- Clino Top and Bot: Using a clinometer, record slope to the same points used for Ditance Top and Bot. Always read the left side of the clinometer.

- If vegetation obscures the top of the bank, the vegetation type should be noted.

- If there is a small bank ’shoulder ’ of <3 m depth, backed by a much taller bank, then measure the height of the higher bank.

Bankfull width: the point at which the flow just begins to enter the active floodplain ; width of stream at channel forming flow stage. The bankfull width is a measure of how wide the stream is when it is carrying the channel-forming flows. These are the flows that occur on an annual or semi-annual basis and maintain the channel shape.

- Use a measuring tape (DBH tape is sufficient) - If there is an island record the bank full width of both channels and

the width of the island. Canopy Cover: Using a spherical densiometer, standing in the center of

the stream facing downstream hold the densiometer at elbow height. Level it and ensure that your head is not visible. If a large tree trunk is visible in the densiometer, move away until it is out of view. Now, looking at the densiometer, there are 24 squares in the mirror. Imagine 4 uniformly spaced dots in each square of the grid, as illustrated (see figure, below) so that there are 96 imaginary dots on the densitometer. Count either the number of dots covered by vegetation OR the number not covered by vegetation. When percent canopy cover is high, it is easier to count dots not covered and subtract the total from 96. When canopy cover is low, it is quicker to count covered dots and record that number. Always record number of dots covered, not number uncovered. Record the number of dots covered on the data sheet, and this value will be converted to percent canopy cover (#dots covered/96*100).

57


FIGURE: DIAGRAM OF DENSIOMETER SURFACE

Direction of Flow/Aspect: Using a compass, record the directional bearing of flow at the center point of the stream.

Majority Substrate: Using the table below, record the majority substrate size within 2m up and 2m downstream of the point.

Class Code Size Description

Bedrock

BR >4000 mm Bigger than car

Boulder

BL >250-4000mm Basketball to car

Cobble CB >64-250mm Tennis ball to Basketball

Course Gravel

CG >16-64mm Marble to Tennis ball

Fine Gravel

FG >2-16mm Ladybug to marble

Sand SA >0.06-2mm Gritty between fingers

Silt ST <0.06mm Smooth , not gritty (silt/muck)Clay CL >4000 mm Slick/ hard clay or hard- pan clay

bottomLeaves LD Regardless of

sizeLeaf packs

Wood WO Regardless of size

Root wads, Snags, Logs, Sticks

58


Presence/ Absence of key fruiting species: Record P/A for Olapa (Cheirodendron trigynum), Lapalapa (Cheirodendron platyphyllum) and Kanawao (Broussaisia arguta) within 20m of the point. Also record P/A of fruit on those individuals.

Velocity: In the 2m upstream and downstream record the time it takes a ping pong ball to travel the longest stretch of stream possible (m). If measurement not possible due to intermittence or low velocity document in notes.

59

Potential nest cliff wall: Any wall with vertical extent that has an area in which cover is less than 1/2m in length. This includes bare walls and even small walls but kicks out vertical walls that are all uluhe.

Side stream: Has the same substrate as the main stream where they meet/ comes in at the same height as the main stream.

Side Drainage: Has different substrate as mainstream where they meet. Often drainage entry ways are unclear or really muddy seepages.

Data sheet:

Station ___________Observers_________/_______Date________Time start____ Time end______

L R

Obs1 Obs2 Obs1 Obs2

Clino Top

Clino Bot

Dist Top

Dist Bot

Densiometer (out of 96)Direction of Flow (degrees)

Bankfull Width

Majority Substrate: Bedrock,boulders,cobble,gravel,sand,silt,clay,leaves,woodVelocity (m/sec)

Site notes:

Profile Sketch:


Appendix D. Mosquito larvae survey protocolProtocol is based on USGS Standard Operating Procedure for Dip Surveys, Culex SOP7

Equipment Needed:Dip cups5 or 10-m length rope or hip chainGPS (with altimeter)Mosquito sampling data sheets

Turkey basterWeather: can sample in any weather except deluge or when the streams are VERY full.Scope: This SOP concerns the intense sampling of streams, drainages and open water bogs. The purpose of a dip survey is to attempt adequate sampling effort for detection of mosquito larvae where the aquatic habitat is extensive. They are usually 1 kilometer in length but may vary.Procedure:

1. A minimum team for a narrow stream survey would be two individuals. On large streams a four-member team may work best.

2. Stream transects are assigned three letter codes based on the stream name (i.e. MOH = Mohihi, HPK = Halepa’akai, KWK = Kawaikoi).

3. The lead person will use the length of rope or hip chain the distance and dip survey while they walk the stream, making sure not to disturb any potential mosquito habitat or survey locations. The second person will record data, including the type and number of aquatic habitats per 10 meter section and the GPS coordinates for the origin and end of each transect.

4. To dip, gently angle the cup into the water so as to draw surface water into the cup. Do not plunge the dipper in deep. Do not cast a shadow on or disrupt water surface while dipping. Take most dips from the edge of the habitat and among submerged vegetation. Completely fill dip cup with water unless the water source is too shallow; then fill as full as possible and/or use turkey baster to get remaining water. Areas to be surveyed can be along the stream, including any possible habitat up to the high water mark.

5. Data sheets include: location, observer, date, coordinates, section number, number of dips, number of dips with Culex and a notes section. Location - the 3 letter code for the stream name. Observer – initials of both people surveying. Coordinates – Record the UTMs of your starting point along the stream. Also write down coordinates of your stopping point if you need to return at a later date.

61


Section number – The number of the 10-meter section surveyed (i.e. 1, 2, 3).

Number of dips – Keep a tally of the total dips made for each 10-meter section.

Number of dips with Culex – Keep a tally of the dips per 10-meter section that contained larvae. Notes – Record the type of aquatic habitat sampled for each section. (Stream margin, rock pool, stagnant pool, etc.).

6. A minimum of ten dips per 10 meter section should be made, while attempting to sample each distinct rock hole or ground pool. If the habitat is limited in a section then make up the number of dips in the next section.

7. For each dip observe the presence or absence of mosquito larvae.8. Collect a few representative specimens along the transect. Preserve

these in ethanol and label with date and location as recorded in log.

62

background.… · web view2017. 11. 27. · we have been very successful at attracting money...

Documents