![\"\"](\"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/Band-rumped_Storm_Petrel_2016JUL23_ABD_1123.jpg\")
<\/a>The band-rumped storm petrel (Oceanodroma castro<\/i>), Hawai`i\u2019s smallest seabird, used to be present in large numbers on all islands, but with the arrival of humans, its population declined drastically. By the time the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Hawai`i population of these birds as endangered last fall, nesting sites had been confirmed only on Kaua`i and Lehua island, although vocalizations led researchers to suspect nesting burrows could also be found on Lana`i and the Big Island.<\/p>\n
After years of effort, Nicole Galase, the seabird project leader with the Natural Resources Office at the Army\u2019s Pohakuloa Training Area, and colleagues were finally able to confirm the presence of nesting burrows at around the 6,000-foot elevation of Mauna Loa, at PTA.<\/p>\n
\u201cEven though there have been sightings throughout the islands, and we had heard their calling, there was no discovery of a colony until this study,\u201d Galase said. \u201cThey\u2019re very elusive seabirds to study.\u201d<\/p>\n
Prior to the bird\u2019s being listed as endangered, Galase said, \u201cthe Army collected data for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We did acoustic monitoring, night vision surveys, dog searches, personnel searches, and visual monitoring.\u201d<\/p>\n
There are four criteria for determining the presence of a colony, she noted: circling flight patterns, ground calling, visual observation of a seabird landing, and activity observed in a burrow. In 2015, \u201call were confirmed,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Confirmation came after seven years of searching that began in 2008 as the Army was looking for the presence of the Hawaiian petrel, `ua`u (Pterodroma sandwichensis<\/i>). \u201cThere was not much evidence for the Hawaiian petrel,\u201d Galase said, \u201cbut we did discover calls from the band-rumped petrel.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThen we started to use night-vision surveys. There were 449 visual observations. We saw birds circling and saw a bird land. We saw a carcass where it landed next to a collaped lava tube. The next day we heard ground-calling in the area and suspected it was from chicks. We couldn\u2019t pinpoint it because the terrain is vast and lava tubes are intricate. So we needed to employ dog searches.\u201d<\/p>\n
The searchers employed Makalani, a Springer spaniel, to help out. \u201cMakalani found feathers and would point when he thought an area might have a petrel in it. We found seven potential areas of burrows and put up cameras.\u201d<\/p>\n
On September 19, one burrow was confirmed. Two days later, another hit.<\/p>\n
Makalani was brought back to explore the same area on September 29, but by then, there were no more birds in the burrow.<\/p>\n
This year, she was expecting birds to arrive in May and June. Sure enough, \u201cwe caught them arriving.\u201d And, she told Environment Hawai`i, <\/i>\u201cwe have continued to capture activity into July.\u201d<\/p>\n
In light of the evidence of predation, Galase was asked whether any predator control had been undertaken in the area of the burrows.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile the area is remote and rugged, we do some predator control for rats and mice \u2013 snap traps and Good Nature repeater traps,\u201d she replied in an email. \u201cThis is just around the areas where we have known or suspected burrows. The area is not fenced, so a full-scale trapping is not really ideal yet.\u201d<\/p>\n
For the present, she continued, \u201cwe\u2019ll do small grids of trapping to keep the numbers of predators down around the burrows, and after consultation with the [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service], we will determine what further steps should be taken.\u201d<\/p>\n
While the area where the burrows were found is within the boundary of PTA, band-rumped petrels have been seen flying south past the PTA border, into the adjoining state Mauna Loa Forest Reserve. \u201cCurrently, the state is starting to explore what activity is happening there,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe don\u2019t have an estimate of how many O. castro<\/i> are using the area,\u201d she noted, \u201cand because they are so cryptic, it will be interesting to try to figure that out.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
Progress in Search<\/b><\/p>\n
For Biocontrol of Albizia<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Albizia (Falcataria moluccana<\/i>) is the scourge of Hawai`i\u2019s forests and a threat to power lines and roofs across the islands. With no natural enemies here, it is larger and more robust here than in anywhere else on Earth, including its native range.<\/p>\n
That may be about to change. Kenneth Puliafico and Tracy Johnson, researchers with the U.S. Department of Agriculture\u2019s Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, have been searching for biocontrol agents. As Puliafico reported, they identified the source of the albizia introduced in Hawai`i in 1917, tracing it back to Java and Northern Borneo.<\/p>\n
As it turns out, those islands are way outside the species\u2019 native range.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat happened is, Joseph Rock must\u2019ve gone to Borneo and Java in 1917 and brought back seeds and plant samples from there,\u201d Puliafico said in a phone interview. (Rock, a self-taught botanist, was charged by the territorial government of Hawai`i with locating species of trees that could reforest denuded slopes and restore watershed functions.)<\/p>\n
Albizia has been grown in plantations on the Indonesian islands for the last 150 years or so, with the wood being used for light construction \u2013 \u201cdisposable boxes, pallets, everything from matches, chopsticks, and shoes,\u201d Puliafico said. At present, he added, it\u2019s \u201cused for plywood and a little bit of paper pulp.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe native range of our albizia is much further to the east, the other side of the famous Wallace Line. It\u2019s more associated with New Guinea island and some of the smaller islands off there,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Although it\u2019s still a major commercial tree in the western Indonesian islands, \u201cin its native range, it\u2019s nearly impossible to grow commercially because of natural predators. They can put in plantations, but after 10 years, the trees are just hammered by everything.\u201d<\/p>\n
In 2015 and 2016, Puliafico traveled to Indonesia and Papua New Guinea on the hunt for organisms that could halt albizia in its tracks. He was able to identify several candidate species, including a rust fungus that, Puliafico said, \u201cturns albizia into pretzels.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a disease, in the genus Uromycladium, that has been used by biocontrol practitioners in South Africa,\u201d he said. \u201cThey used a related species to control invasive acacia plants from Australia. Extensive testing has gone into that previously. We\u2019re looking at a related species that\u2019s supposed to be specific to our albizia.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOnce it got into plantation areas, it destroyed the crop of albizia,\u201d he said. His colleagues in Indonesia have begun testing the fungus for host specificity to see if the rust could affect the two Hawai`i species most closely related to albizia \u2013 koa and koaia.<\/p>\n
Other biocontrol candidates include a shoot-tip mining moth, which attacks young trees and slows their growth; a stem-mining weevil that feeds on the woody stems of older trees; leaf-feeding beetles; and a gall-forming mite that causes leaflets to curl up and no longer be able to photosynthesize.<\/p>\n
Future steps include identifying the potential biocontrol agents and ranking them by the degree of specialization, exploring their life history in their native range, and, finally, testing them for host specificity — how likely, or unlikely, are they to attack non-target species in Hawai`i.<\/p>\n
How soon might an albizia biocontrol agent be released in Hawai`i? Puliafico was asked.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf everything continues to go as well as it has now, we\u2019re looking at a three-year window\u201d for the first biocontrol agent to be completely tested, he replied, with additional time before obtaining all official permissions needed to release it into the environment. \u201cOf course, if the five species we choose turn out not to have host specificity or we lose funding, that could postpone things.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
Fishing Gear Continues<\/b><\/p>\n
To Harm False Killer Whales<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Robin Baird of Cascadia Research Collective, who literally wrote the book on whales and dolphins in the central Pacific region, summarized his ongoing research into interactions between false killer whales and fishing gear.<\/p>\n
False killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens<\/i>) in the region belong to one of three populations: open ocean (pelagic); Main Hawaiian Island (insular); and Northwestern Hawaiian Island. Of the three, the MHI is the only one that has been listed as endangered (in 2012), with a population estimated at about 175; Baird\u2019s earlier surveys of the MHI population were instrumental in the decision to list.<\/p>\n
Baird has continued to document harm to the animals in the insular population caused by interaction with fishing lines. Three of the individuals documented in 2016 showed new injuries, when compared with photos of the same individuals taken earlier. \u201cSo injuries are still occurring today,\u201d Baird said, despite the regulations on longline fishing vessels that were intended to end or minimize such harm.<\/p>\n
All the observed injuries to individuals whose population affiliation was known were seen among the insular population. The proportion of individuals with dorsal fin injuries in that group was 9.1 percent (16 of 175 individuals). In addition, two false killer whales whose population affiliation was not known were seen with dorsal fin injuries from interactions with fishing lines.<\/p>\n
Of the 11 individuals with line injuries where sex was known, ten were females. Baird speculated on reasons for this: \u201cFemales may depredate more due to their energy needs,\u201d he said, while \u201cmales may be more likely to break gear due to their larger size.\u201d<\/p>\n
One of the potential consequences of this disproportional harm to females, he said, is \u201cthe female bias in general will reduce the population\u2019s potential for recovery.\u201d<\/p>\n
Injuries are generally manifested in two areas: mouths and dorsal fins. When a false killer whale pulls against a line, the line can cut into its dorsal fin, leaving it disfigured. The lines also cut their mouths.<\/p>\n
Dorsal fin scarring has in the past been used to estimate the extent of fishing gear interaction among the MHI false killer whales. However, Baird said, \u201cMouthline injuries should be a much better indication of interaction rates than dorsal fin injuries.\u201d<\/p>\n
A hooked animal will almost always have mouthline injuries, but, Baird continued, \u201conly those that struggle a lot might end up with a secondary dorsal fin injury.\u201d<\/p>\n
In reviewing photographs of 73 animals where at least 50 percent of the mouthline was visible, Baird and his colleagues found 17 of them, or 23.3 percent, had injuries consistent with fisheries interactions. And the more visible the mouth, the greater the chance that the animal would show signs of an injury.<\/p>\n
\u201cOf animals with mouthline injuries, we could see an average (median) of 75 percent of the mouthline,\u201d Baird told Environment Hawai`i<\/i>. Photos of animals not showing mouthline injuries revealed on average just 53 percent of the mouthline.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo the 23.3 percent with mouthline injuries should be an underestimate of the proportion of the population that have survived hookings in the mouth,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The false killer whale surveys Baird has undertaken suggest the rate of interactions between the whales and fishing vessels is probably higher than what is indicated by reports from observers on longline vessels targeting tunas. Baird was asked what might account for this.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe (significantly) higher rate of dorsal fin injury in the Main Hawaiian Islands population of false killer whales, compared to that among the pelagic population, suggest that fishery interactions are occurring more often for MHI FKWs (from whatever fisheries) than for pelagic FKWs (interacting only with the longline fishery),\u201d he replied. \u201cIt is also possible that longline interactions are more likely to be fatal (and thus no injured animals to document) than are the interactions with lighter-weight gear used in many of the nearshore fisheries.\u201d<\/p>\n
Baird mentioned that the observed rate of interaction between fishing vessels and the pelagic false killer whales is higher than what the population is able to sustain (a level called potential biological removal), which suggests this is also the case with the Main Hawaiian Islands population. With observers assigned to only about 20 percent of the longline vessels at any given time, he continued, \u201cit wouldn\u2019t surprise me if captains of vessels with observers on board are changing their behavior in a way to minimize interactions with MHI FKWs (for example, fishing outside of the area where the pelagic and MHI populations overlap) or with false killer whales in general inside the exclusive economic zone.\u201d By fishing outside the EEZ, incidental takes of false killer whales don\u2019t count towards the trigger that would result in curbing longline fishing in a large swath of the ocean south of the Main Hawaiian Islands.<\/p>\n
Asked whether the non-regulated fisheries might be harming the false killer whales, Baird said that that is likely the case. \u201cGiven what we know about the movements of the Main Hawaiian Islands false killer whales from our tagging work (i.e., that they rarely go offshore far enough to interact with the longline fishery), I think the vast majority of fisheries-related injuries are from local fisheries, which could include short-line as well as trolling, ika shibi, and other fisheries. From our analysis of overlap between MHI FKWs and fisheries catch data, I think the majority of those interactions are happening with a small subset of fishermen who fish in the high-density areas (e.g., off Kohala, north of Maui, north of Moloka`i).\u201d<\/p>\n
In an email to Environment Hawai`i, <\/i>Baird outlined steps that could be taken to reduce the harm to false killer whales: \u201cAny long-term solution is going to require working with fishermen to figure out ways to reduce interactions, and when interactions do occur, to minimize the chances of injury. Switching to circle hooks, when possible, would be one potential way of minimizing injury. But we are at a stage right now where we need more information.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ultimately, he said, \u201celectronic video monitoring is needed in the longline fishery to really get at the issue of bycatch (and handling techniques for bycaught animals) when no observers are on board.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
Progress in Research<\/b><\/p>\n
Into Rapid `Ohi`a Death<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Across Hawai`i island, the fungi that are killing `ohi`a trees continue their spread. And as if to underscore the significance of this phenomenon, the first six presenters at the meeting reported on their recent research into the disease.<\/p>\n
First was Lisa Keith, the plant pathologist with the USDA\u2019s Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Agricultural Center in Hilo. Until a few years ago, the focus of Keith\u2019s work was on diseases of crops. As one of the few plant pathologists on the island, however, she was drafted into service when it became clear that a new disease was sweeping through `ohi`a stands in Puna.<\/p>\n
Keith and colleagues identified the fungus in late 2014 as Ceratocystis fimbriata,<\/i> a species that has a wide variety of strains, none of which had been known before now to affect trees in Hawai`i.<\/p>\n
Since then, she has determined that there are actually two different Ceratocystis <\/i>species at work, neither of which has been identified before. \u201cThe idea two years ago was to define the symptoms, how the tree responds to the fungus,\u201d she said. But then she and her co-workers found, \u201cit\u2019s not one pathogen. We\u2019re actually dealing with two, both Ceratocystis,<\/i>\u201d called for the time being Species A and Species B.<\/p>\n
The discovery came about as they were examining seedlings that had been infected in the lab with the fungus and trying to determine how fast it moved in the tree. \u201cWe started seeing significant differences with the degree of discoloration and the amount of spores produced,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cFrom there, we tried to see it in the field. In trees that died because of Ceratocystis fimbriata,<\/i> you come upon a dead canopy in either case, but discolorations differ. There\u2019s more diffuse coloration with type B, a type more typical of infestations elsewhere.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ceratocystis fimbriata <\/i>has existed in Hawai`i for close to 100 years, she noted. \u201cIt\u2019s broadly distributed around the world, and it does affect a lot of crops, including sycamore and eucalyptus.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe wanted to determine if this is something that\u2019s been here and is now attacking `ohi`a. But now we know these are actually two new species of Ceratocystis<\/i>. We were hoping to say right away where they\u2019re from, how they\u2019re getting here, but that\u2019s still a big question mark,\u201d she said. \u201c<\/i>Nothing that was here earlier caused ROD,\u201d or rapid `ohi`a death.<\/p>\n
Examining the phylogeny of the two fungi revealed that Species A \u201cis a Latin American clade,\u201d she said, with origins thought to be near the Caribbean, while Species B has origins in Asia.<\/p>\n
Although the outward effect of both species is the same \u2013 causing the death of the infected tree \u2013 internally, Keith said, they are markedly different. A new \u201clab in a suitcase\u201d \u2013 developed by Carter Atkinson of the U.S. Geological Survey in Volcano \u2013 has allowed crews with the Big Island Invasive Species Committee to determine exactly which species has infected a dead tree by removing a spoonful of sawdust from a drill hole instead of having to fell the tree to see whether patterns of discoloration match those caused by Species A or B. That, said Keith, \u201cwas a major advance.\u201d<\/p>\n
Blaine\u00a0 Luiz, who works with Keith at the USDA, has been looking closely into how Species A affects `ohi`a. This species, he said, is thought to be more virulent than Species B. To understand it better, he took three different samples of Species A and infected four different varieties of `ohi`a. Two of the varieties had high mortality, while the other two were not as severely affected.<\/p>\n
\u201cWith further testing, we can get a better understanding if resistance and tolerance exists in nature,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Marc Hughes, also at the USDA center in Hilo, has been trying to figure out how the fungus spreads. Unlike several other Ceratocystis<\/i> species, it doesn\u2019t spread through root-to-root contact. Instead suspicion is turning to insects as the means of transmission. The fungus gives off a \u201cvery fruity smell,\u201d he said, that is attractive to insects. But it will still take a lot of work \u201cto determine if vectors spread it tree to tree,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s also a chance that the disease is spread by frass, the dust and excrement of boring insects. In the lab, he said, \u201cfrass is able to kill seedlings\u201d if there is a wound in the tree.<\/p>\n
Human activity may also be responsible for spreading the fungus, through cutting of firewood, which releases sawdust that can be carried in the wind to another tree, or by using sawdust from infected trees as mulch.<\/p>\n
\u201cSawdust can serve as an inoculum,\u201d Hughes said. \u201cHowever, wounds are necessary for colonization.\u201d<\/p>\n
As the research continues in the lab, work in the field is ongoing as well to document the reach of the disease. Flint Hughes has been engaged in this study since before the pathogen was identified.<\/p>\n
In recent years, Hughes and his team have developed a network of 43 plots in the districts of South Hilo, Puna, and Ka`u, where the presence of the disease has been confirmed. In each 0.1-hectare plot, they measure every `ohi`a tree and track the progress of the disease in each plot over time.<\/p>\n
To date, the average annual loss to ROD is about 9 percent in each plot. \u201cWe\u2019re seeing much lower mortality rates where younger trees predominate,\u201d he said. \u201cThere\u2019s about 300 percent greater mortality in plots where trees are older and larger.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat seems to be saying there are big differences in how susceptible stands are when the disease is present. Maybe it\u2019s because smaller trees are less likely to be wounded, or maybe they have smaller mass and are less attractive to beetles. There\u2019s lots to be figured out down the line.\u201d<\/p>\n
The disease also affects regeneration of `ohi`a. Hughes: \u201cIn the majority of plots, we see no seedlings. We\u2019re not likely to see `ohi`a recruitment at this time. In 17 of the plots, we see some seedlings, \u2026[but] they are not abundant across any of the plots.\u201d<\/p>\n
In some stands, mortality of `ohi`a has exceeded 90 percent, he continued. \u201cIf we were to lose all `ohi`a in all plots measured, on average, what we would see is a decrease in about 80 percent of biomass.\u201d The size of forests would be reduced, and the proportion of alien to native species would increase to 50\/50, he added.<\/p>\n
— Patricia Tummons<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
For the better part of the last three decades, every summer on the Big Island, Stanford University professor Peter Vitousek has hosted a meeting of researchers, resource managers, students, and others who have an interest in understanding ecosystem elements and … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9816,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[423],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9815","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-august-2017"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9815","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9815"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9815\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/9816"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9815"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9815"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9815"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}