NATIVE BIRDS

In many areas of the world, birds are!he indicators of ecosystem

health and the rallymgpomt forpubltc supporl and consevvatron
efforts.

Charles P. Stone
Birds most commol11y seen in modern-day Hawai'i are alien (or introduced) species such as common mynas (Acridotlzeres trisfis), doves (Streptopelia
chinemis, Geopelia striata), and house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Unlike
native birds, alien species did not arrive in Hawai'i on their own, are not
uniaue to the Islands. and are usuallv found in manv other parts of the world.
hative birds do not often cross I;ath, \ w h peq;lc for &era1 reatons.
humanc in Hau.ai4irnosrl! liw in 2nd iistt kmcr cd~~ations,
much modified by Polynerian and continental hummc. As :I rule..,nxtive hird5 cannot
meet feedine. breedine. and other reauirements in cities and aericultural
fields. ~ a n y ~ e c iJensa t i v c hird, :& nNlu ~.oniinr.dto rem& areas such as
the Northwestern Hawaiian Island5 or hi'lh-elcvatit~l~
iorests, to uhich they
have adapted over long periods of evolutionarv time.
A &reason
fsi our 1;lcl; o i ~ m t ~~c ~t "n:ltive
r h birds is that many are
difficult to see. Unlike much '111nlini:'on rh~.0 . S . hlninland, for example, a
Derson cannot often focus binocularsor spotting scoue out of a car window or
?allow an easy trail very far and hope to see a vxr~ettof species. Forest birds,
especially, are often small and green :ml trqucntl! found high in trees in
forests that are hard to comforiably visit. One bird book (Prdtt et al. 1987)
even goes so far as to list "little green birds" in Hawai'i by island and abundance categories to help people sort out some of the species!
But the most important reason that native species are not often seen is
that most of them are no loneer nresent. At leait 50% of the native birds
8,nrc found in 1lawai.i are e x h i . About 41%of t h e e species are rare
enouch 10 have heen clasified as Endangered or Threatened by the U.S.
F I , and
~ Wildlife Sewicc. This horrendous reduction in the world's biolog'cal
and cultural heritage is partly the result of reduced forest cover caused hy
clclring for arriculture and human settlements at lower elevations. Flouevcr,
there are m a 6 other reasons for the loss. Polynesian and continental humans
introduced predators such as rats, cats, and mongooses (Raitur exulans,
R. rattus, Felis catus, and Herpews auropunctahis). Polynesian humans
probably hunted flightless species to low numbers or extinction. Continental
humans brought in hoofed mammals (ungulates) such as pigs, cattle, goats,
and sheep (Sus scrofa, Bos taurus, Capra liircrfs, Ovis aries), which destroyed,
reduced, or degraded native bird habitat. D~seasessuch as avian malaria
and avian pox were accidentally introduced and transmitted by introduced
mosquitoes. Alien insect predators reduced numbers of native inseas used

m,

by hirds for food and also reduced insects which pollinated plants used by
native hirds. Plants introduced by humans began to compete with and replace
natlve ife$ch uf pants. Even introduced species of hirdc, many quite attract,
with native birds and served as reservoirs
twe in t leu own r ~ ~ hcompe!ed
a result of these
for diseascs to whlch natlve blrds had not ada~tcd.A%
limiting factors, working alone or in concert. inanv,Hawaiian hirdc todav
arc resiricted to places liast disturbed by humans and their inlrodu~tio&-~
and thev Xre often found in very small numhers cven there.

STATUS OF NATIVE BIRD GROUPS

Limiting factors introduced by humans have reduced many kinds of
Hawaiian hlrds to the point of extreme rarity or extinction (Table 1). Groups
with eat mobility, such as seabirds (petrels, albatrosses, terns, and so
least affected at first dance. but manv of these snecies once
forth ..seem
.
nested over lar er areas and are n h rcduccd to hreccl:~l:: ,rn'll;,i,&'i';ieeward islands, o k h o r e itlev, or inacccsdde cliff;. The L.nll:~nreredilawaiian
~ e t r eor
l 'ua'u (Pter&ma ~ h a e .o.~.. v rsandwiclzensir)
ia
now brekds onlv in a
h ~ a lpart
l
of its former range, largely on hii.h-zlevstic;r :lope> i n l l a l k k a l i
Nat~onalPark. Even there, p c l r r l i n nesting n~lonir.iare whjcct to predation bv mongooses and calf (tee S t n w Non-S:~rivcI ar;d \'er~ehrate;. this
volume).
Many species of ibises (Plataleidae), waterfowl, and rails (Rallidae)
were formerly native to Hawai'i. The fact that flightless species were largely
extinct before the arrival of continental man suggests that these readily
available rotein sources were hunted by Polynesians for food. We know that
flightless Birds were formerly found on man of the Hawaiian Islands because
fossils have been unearthed by researchers rom the Smithsonian Institution in
Washington, D.C., and by workers from the B.P. Bishop Museum in Honolulu
(Olson and James 1982a. 1982b). Surviving waterfowl include the Hawaiian
goose or nene (Nesochen sandvicenrir), the Hawaiian duck or koloa maoli
(Anas wyvilliana), and the Laysan duck (A. laysanensis); extant (existing)
rails include the Hawaiian moorhen or 'alae 'ula (Gallinula cltloropus
sandvicensis) and the Hawaiian coot or 'alaeke'oke'o) (Fulica americana
alai). All these birds are classified as Federally Endangered. In addition
to hunting, the draining and filling of wetlands in Hawai'i, the disturbance of
waterbirds by humans, and the introduction of predators such as mongooses
and rats certainlv reduced bird numbers in the Dast and are still im~ortant.
The ~ n d a n ~ e r eHawaiian
ci
stilt or ae'o ( ~ i m a n ? o ~ritexicanus
w
knidseni) is
affected by similar limiting factors.
Raptorial birds (hawks and owls), like seabirds, are quite mobile, but
many vanished prior to the arrival of continental man. Reduction in flightless
birds to Drev uDon (in the near-absence of mammals), predation bv Polvnesian
humans;and f6restreduction at lower elevations may have contritiuted-to
their decline. However, some species may have evo!ved in areas of open
habitat, which simply became forested and less hosp~tablefor these species
as the Islands aged. Toda , the Hawaiian hawk or 70 (Buteosolitu'w) is an
Endangered species large y because of habitat disturbance, hunting, and a low
reproductive potential. Fortunately, it has adapted well to disturbed habitat
and alien food sources.
~

able I. status of native birds breeding in the Hawaiian Islands.'

Species
Group
"Seabirdsm##
Hemns

Knom

Specics
Left

22 t
1

22
1

11
3

3
I
2
1
1
1

Ibises
Waterfowl
Hawks
Rails
Stilts
Owls
Crows
Hnneyeatcrs
Old World
Flvcatchers
old world
Warblers
Hawaiian
Thrushes
Honeycrccpcrs
Totals

117t

11

Endangered or
Threatened
Species
2
0
3
1
2
1

1
4
3
6

2?

0
1
2?

6
45

3
20

2
9

...................-.
................

Species with Individuals

>50 <5W** <50#

..-.-...............-.
591
24?

* ~ o d i k from
d Scott el 01.. 1988.
are kmetimes smaller. Po~ulationsurvival is often much more at risk than
.m~ulation
.
species survival
X~pDroximate
minimum necessary for Iikcly 100-year survival of a population More than one
population per species somctimcs cxists (for example, on different islands), so numbers
per population arc sometimes smaller. Poprrlatinn survival is often much mare at risk than
#$pcci~s survival.
Albatrosses, shewaters, tropic birds, frigatebirds, petrels, tcrns.
T h e dramatic loss of forest birds (the rest of the roups i n Table I), in
b o t h kinds a n d total numbers. is thoueht t o have resu ted from a c o m ~ l e x
of limiting factor\. Aniong these a r e 8estruction, fragmentation, and'degradation of hircl hahitht: ~ n t r o d t ~ c t i ooi
n predators and hoofed acimalc; lorr
of invertebrates and ulants needed foifood: and avian diseases. Less mobile
species may have hcL'n more w l n e r ~ b l e t "disasters than birds that could move
~
islands (see Freed et a/. 1987 for a similar raa m o n g hahiklt patclie\ ; I I even
tionale on spccinli~m). I)i\prop~>rrionatelvmore species of finch-billed honeycreepers, ior examplc. hec:,rnr. e ~ t i t i c tin proportion to honevcreepers that fed
o n fruits and nectar. Fruit- :d
11e:tar-ieeders msv have had t o travel farther
d
11i:in w e d eater3; thus, they may,have been
in search ( F a wri:ihlr. f ~ wppl!
more prcdlspowd o r p r w l ; ~ p t e dtor solonilatlnn of new areas, maintenance

of genetic variation, population interchange, and survival at low population

levels.
CONSERVATION OF NATIVE HAWAIIAN BIRDS T O D A Y

Ecos s t e m Approaches

d e survival of native birds in Hawai'i depends upon survival of their

habitat. The least costly and surest way to preserve btrds is to keep wetlands
and forests from further reduction in quality and quantity. This, and the conservation of offshore waters also important for some species, usually requires
legal protection of large enough areas to support birds, plus some management to remove or reduce limtting factors. It is preferable to focus on lands
(and,waters) that have been little disturbed by humans, which are as large as
poss~ble,and which are rich in numbers of native bird species. Areas such as
the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge on the island of Hawai'i, Waikamoi Preserve and Haleakala National Park on Maui, the Alaka'i Swamp
Natural Area Reserve on Kaua'i, and the Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuee are eood examdes. We still have areas in the Islands
that could benefit from legzl protecti&, hut we have even more that are
legallyprotected but badly in need o i m n a g e m e a to reduce limiting factors
for native hirds. Aeain.
- . it cannot he cmohzsized enough 11131thc securlne
and nlanaglng of entire ecos?stems is hist. hecause nukerous specics beiefit
(bird%,plants, invertebrates, and so fonh); hecause prt~cesxssu~,hac succession. nutrient evclinz. and evolution can remain as natural as Dossible:
bec~usespecie;depcnd on hab~tatfor their life proccses and'evolutih;
and hecauhe other approaches (for example, single species emphases) are far
more costly in the long run and are less siuccessful.
'

Single-Species Approaches
Unfortunatelv. we are alreadv at the staee in Hawai'i where a number of
s ecies of hirds muct receive costiy individd attention. At one extreme.
tRis can he encouraging and arouce puhlic awareness, concern. and imding.
The urocram at Hnlcakala National Park to reduce r~redationon hrccdinr
'ua'u'or Hawaiian dark-mrn~edoetrels is an examoie of an effective sinel&
s ecies approach. .4 progra;nc df trapping predatdrs, r,educing garbage land
s elter attractive to rats, cats, and mongo(~ses,and lett~ngthe public know
about thc prohlem through educatinnarsigns. talks, and iews ieleases has
been very effective. Petrel reproductive success increased from 39Ok in 1079
to XU% in 1984 as a result of this active management program.
An example of a less satisfactory, and often misundeYstood, sin le species
approach is the program to "restore" the nene. State and National ark
Service management programs have emphasized the production of birds in
captivity for release into the wild. This has been well publicized and
supported by the public, and the program is not too expensive, considering the
f a n that a charismatic and uniaue State Bird is involved. However, desptte a
comparatively great amount of'attention paid to a single species in Hawai'i for
a long time, nene do not usually produce enough young in the wild, to sustain
populations. The released birds gradually grow old and die, and b ~ r d must
s
be continually released from captive breeding programs to keep "wild populations from declining Predation, nutrition, genetics, aberrant behavior, and
disease are all possTble limiting factors. However, the overriding problem,

F-

as with many forest birds, is probably that nene are now confined to a small
and substandard portion of their former habitat.

Captive Propagation

Raising birds in captivity is also a single-species approach, but hirds are

out of their natural setting or habitat, or ex situ, often with no immediate
prospects of successfully reintroducing them into the wild. (The a s i t u
approach is discussed in more detail by Giffin, this volume.) When a few of
the last individuals of a species are removed from declining wild populations,
the situation is usually desperate. The challenge of breeding wild birds in
captivity requires development of techniques to allow normal feeding, breeding, and other behaviors for each species. Space needs must be determined,
diseases readily transmitted by birds in close quarters must be prevented,
and human handlers must be careful to keen voune and old hirds from reacting shnormdy ron:lrd thcnr. lithe p r # ~ ~ r ;;c:tchr
>m
a \r:tgc aherr. h r d \ C:III
he r c l ~ u c d:,nd the rem;unlnr Itahitst i, .uitkhle iur repopoldlion, relr.a.c
techoiaues. locations. numbek and genetics of releases must be carefullv
con.;id;red. R e l e a d h i d , muv hc'monitored to Jetcrniine tltcr ~ n . n ~ ; i t e n t ~ .
hrccding bttenipt$ and s.lcce\\, ;ind the bur\ival ,?i\nwig. Oh\io~t\ly.captiw
propagation and release programs are costly. long iermrand difficult.
Failures are common. The public probably supports these proyams partly
because the situation is critical. When a species is in danger o extinction,
people become concerned, but often not before. "Preventing extinction" is a
more definite, worthwhile, and exciting concept to many than "protecting
ecosystems" or reserving biological diversity."
In Hawai'i, such specles as thepo'ouli (discovered in 1973),the large
Kaua'i thmsh.. the 'o'u.. and the Hawaiian crow or 'alala (Melam~roson
'
~ I U I ~ Y A ~.\fwdt~.sr?%
I I ~ ~ I . ~ I ~ I . / P ~ t~' d~ rI i~r I~ Im.~~~ ~
,I U I WCon,u\
I .
Iru:4 u11,m;~1
w1.I pruhahly not be \ a \ d \r i t l i i : ~ .cilpti\e
~
rearing pri.grsrn,. :!nd \omc. , t i
t l i r . ~ , will proh;,hl! nut \urccr.J. It i. Ilkel! too l x e for the u ; ~ ( l l h ~
I~ruc~curr~~),
the Jfoloka'i creeper or kakr114u/r;f, (fJurorc,<,niy:u ]7u1nniw 1,
2nd the o1~11u.o
\.\lw,it~~rt
.> / u w ~ c n c ; ~
of) >lolok;t'~(Scott ~ ~ r u lIW8j.
.,

\~

THE FUTURE
hluclr uheful inform:ttion iron1 the Hauai'i I;orc\t IlirJ Sun.ey. conduitcd
i ni:,in I h n d ~irom 1970
hy rhc 1,s.t't\h 2nd WilJlii? Servicr, t ~ nrnwr ~ rrhc
to I'JX3, is :~vsil.~hle.D:II:I on i o r ~ bird
~ t di>trihution :md ahund;tnce :it IIIAI
point in ! m e Iiwe ;illtnrctl 11sI.) makc inl'err.ncc\ : I ~ ~ I Ih;,hit.lt
I
prc:c.rc.ltx.
~
m J eiiects of dise;~\c\.~rtjuldrc!Ji~turh;in:r., srlJ irlritl~de. l I i o u r h r . ~ c3bo~1l
competition among alien and native birds have been generatid. However, we
know very little about limiting factors in different areas over long periods.
Dramatic and rapid fluctuations in bird populations are known to occur even
for Mainland birds, but in Hawai'i, where populations of many bird species
are smaller, less mobile, and more vulnerable to outside disturbances, there
have been alarming downward trends in recent years for such species as the
'alala, 'o'u, and even the 'i'iwi (Vestiaria coccinea), in some areas. We
simply must understand more about limiting factors and try to reduce or
eliminate them while there are still birds. We also need to consider ca~tive
prop3gation at a isr earlier mcl l e dc,rp~.r:ite>ts,geior ntmt specicb. he
new State facility at the formcr pri,on 21 OlinJa on \Isui is d n ]mport;snt rtcp

in ]hi\ d~rcctim.\Ye c;~nd81A heucr joh uitli a~ptivepropaganon i1u.c hate

enough h i d , to nnintsin genetic variahilitv and to a\,oid ucr~letinru ~ l d
nnnuiations
seriouslv.
r-.
In all approach& to native bird conservation in Hawai'i, some difficult
choices will have to be made. Preserving natural areas rather than develnninp. them for enerw nroduction or hotels is but one
-- - of
.- thew
--.
.
.decision
- - .--..-$ink For examplelhhce most remaining habitat for forest birds is above
the mosquito/hird malaria zone (4,900 ft or 1,500 m) on the islands of Maui
and Hawai'i. d o we nut most of our conservation efforts there? Prohahlv the

otKer areas not rich in birds are ecolo~icallvvaluabletoo because of native

pl:m or in\ertehrate diver$!. and thiv nu! even w r w s, sites for native
bird reintroduction i n the iuture.) Clioiies about enipli:~sesplnc~don land
acqui>~tion,
rntinsgcment, rc\e;~rcli.mon:tnring of poj~datiuns,and conservation education must u l ~ ohe i a c d l'hcre arc not enough fund, and personnsl
to dc1 it d l . \\'hat enlph;14.: dl1 u e giw a p l i \ c p r o p s ~ d o ni n hird cnn\enation programs, as compared with management of iatiiral areas? Which
spec~esdo we choose to propagate--the ones that are most likely to become
extinct in less than 100 years (less than 50 individuals), or those that are now
declining but which still have more than one population and considerable
genetic variability? Or do we write off all birds with less than a certain
minimum viable population (MVP) size?
If Hawai'i's citizens and decision-makers are not informed about choices
to be made, the choices will be made by default. Not to decide is to decide.
In many areas of the world, birds are the indicators of ecosystem health and
the rallying point for public support and conservation efforts. In Hawai'i we
need much more information about the birds that remain. But we also desper+!
nced 10 secure snJ m:m;~gccco\vstelnr whish :ire large '.nough snJ
und~,~urhcd
enuu~li1 0 \upport healthv popul:~tinni1f our n m \ e hird~.
~

~~

Important References

Hawaiian passerine birds. Trends in Ecology ond Evol&,t 2(7)196-203.

Giffin, I.G. [this volume] Captive propagation of birds.
Gilpin, M.E., and M.E. Soul&. 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of spccies
eainction. Pp. 19-34 IN M.E. Soul6 (ed.), Co,rsenvtio,r Biology: nte Scie,rce of
Scarcig and Di~crsiQ.Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sundcrland, Massachusetts.
Kear, I., and A.J. Berger. 1980. 77re Hawaiian Goose: An Erperimenl in Conscrvalion.
Buteo Books, Vermillian, South Dakota.
Kepter,C.B.,T. Borr, C.B. Cooper,D. Dunatchik, I. Medeiros, J.M. Scott, M.Ueoka, and W.
Wong. 1984. Maui-Moiokni Pores1 Bird Recovery Plorr. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senice,
Portland, Oregon.
Mountainspring, S., and J.M. Scott. 1985. Interspecific competition among Hawdiian forest
birds. Ecological Monogmphs 55219-239.
Munro, G.C. 1944. Birds of Hawaii. Tongg Publ. Ca., Honolulu.
O'Cannor, M. 1986. A Tenclzer's Guide to Endangered Birds of Hawai'i. Hawaii Dept. Land
and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Honolulu.

Nalive BirdFIStone

102

Olson, S.L., and H.F. James. 1982a. Pmdror,nu of the Fossil Avifmno of rite Huwaiian
Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology %5. Washington, D.C.
SL..and H.F. James. 1982b. Fossil hirds from the Hawaiian Islands: evidence for
Olson.
- -~
wholesale extindon by man before western contact. Science 217(4560):633-635.
Pratt, H.D., P.L. Bruner, and D.F.Berrett. 1987. A Field Guide m the Birds of Hawaii ond
the Trwical P~cific.Princeton Univ Press. Princeton, New Jersey.
o~y
Ralph. CJ. '1982 ids of the forest. ~ a r u m l ~ i s t 91(2):41-45.
Scott, J.M.,
C.B. Kcpler, and J.L. Sincock. 1985. Distribution and abundance of Hawai'i's
endemic land birds: conservation and management strategies. Pp. 75-104 IN C.P. Stone
and J.M. Scott (eds), Hawai'ik TemstidEcosysIerns: Prese~vationvrtd Ma~tagelnent.
Univ. Hawaii Prcss for Univ. Hawaii Cooperative National Park Resources Studics Unit,
Honolulu.
Scott. I.M.. C.B. Kcoler. C. van R i m 111. and S.I. Fefer. 19%. Consewation of Hawaii's

. .

Studies in Avian Biology 9. Cooper Ornitholagical Society, Berkeley, California.

Scott, J.M.. J.K.Baker. A.J. Baker, E. Kosaka, L. Landgraf, C.J. Ralph, D. Woodside, R.
Bachman. and T. Burr. 1983. Howoii's ~ n r e s t ~ i~ecoven.
rd
plan. US. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
Shallenberger, R.J.(ed.). 1984. Hawaii's Birds. Hawaii Audubon Society, Honolulu.
Simons. T.R. 1985. Biolom and behavior of the endancered Hawaiian dark-rumoed .~ c t r e l
~&rdor87:229-245.
Stone, C.P., R.L. Walker, J.M.Scott, and P.C. Banko. 1983. Bawaiian goosc managemcnr and
research--where do we go from here? %!epaio 44(1):11-15.
van Riper, C. 111, S.G. van Riper, M.L. Golf, and M. Laird. 1%.
The epkooth,logy and
ecological significance of malaria in Hawaiian land birds. Ecolo@cd A4onoppl1s
56(4):327-344.

".