sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aguiguan, Anatahan, Common moorhen, Mariana mallard, Moorhen, Sarigan

The Condor93:3843 0 The Ccqer Ornithological Society 1991

THE MARIANA COMMON : DECLINE OF AN ISLAND ENDEMIC ’

DEREK W. STINSON Division of Fish and Wildlife, , MP 96950 USA

MICHAEL W. &TTER Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources,P.O. Box 2950, Agana, 96910 USA

JAMES D. REICHEL Division of Fish and Wildlife, Saipan, MP 96950 USA

Abstract. Current statusof Mariana Common (Gallinula chloropusguami) in the was determined by wetland surveys.A total of 300400 moorhensexist on Guam, Saipan and . have occurred recently on and prehistor- ically on . A review of literature, field notes, and loss indicates the ’ total population has probably been reduced by at least 36-52% in this century. The deg- radation and loss of wetlands and introduced competitors and predators pose the greatest threats to the moorhen in the Marianas. Kev words: Mariana ; Gallinula chloropusguami; Mariana Islands; stat& endangered.

INTRODUCTION torical and present status of moorhens in the The Mariana Common Moorhen (Gallinula Marianas and outlines present threats and pros- chloropus guami), known locally as “Pulattat,” pects for their survival. is endemic to the Mariana Archipelago in the METHODS western Pacific. This moorhen resembles the Eurasian subspecies(chloropus, indica, and or- We surveyed moorhens on Guam, Saipan, Ti- ientalis) which have a frontal shield with a nian and Pagan (Fig. 1). These islands are of rounded top, but differs from these slightly in volcanic origin, but the surfacesof Saipan, Ti- coloration and/or size. G. c. guami differs from nian, Rota and northern Guam are primarily the Hawaiian endemic, G. c. sandvicensis, which limestone deposits that have been uplifted. has a larger, truncated frontal shield and is prob- To determine the historical populations of ably of origin (Hartert 1898, 1917; moorhens and the extent of habitat loss, we ex- Baker 195 1; Ripley 1977). The Mariana Com- amined accounts in the literature and examined mon Moorhen was historically found on the is- field notes of previous researchersin the Mari- lands of Guam, Saipan, Tinian, and Pagan (Ba- , including those from the Guam Division ker 195 1). Recent archaeological excavations of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR) have found that it apparently was also once found and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana on Rota (Becker and Butler 1988). The Mariana Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife (CNMI- Common Moorhen was listed as Endangered by DFW). DAWR undertook an island-wide wet- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1984 land/moorhen distribution survey during 1988- (USFWS 1984). They identify habitat loss as the 1989. Most wetlands were surveyed twice: once most important factor affecting the Mariana during the wet seasonand again during the dry moorhen (USFWS 1988). The Mariana Com- season (generally, January or February through mon Moorhen shared wetland with the June). Each wetland was identified as man-made Mariana (Anus oustaleti), now believed or natural, the vegetation identified and classified extinct (Engbring and Pratt 1985; Reichel and as dominant or subordinate, the percent open Lemke, in prep.). This paper summarizes the his- water approximated and any signs of moorhen recorded. Thirty to 60 min were spent at each wetland surveyed. Surveys at Fena Valley Res- I Received 19 March 1990. Final acceptance3 1 Au- ervoir were conducted by canoe. gust 1990. Current population estimatesare derived from

[381 DECLINE OF MARIANA COMMON MOORHENS 39 wetland surveys. CNMI-DFW surveys involved visiting wetlands from several minutes to 6 hr W~OOE’ 146”bls and looking and listening. Wetlands were visited from one to 16 times between March 1989 and I May 1990 and most were visited both in the dry _18”oo ’ QPa!+* and rainy seasons.Surveys at Lake in- volved circumnavigation of the lake once on foot 0Alamagan I and four times with an inflatable boat. Moorhen 0 estimates for Susupe Lake and small wetlands are based on the highest number detectedduring I any visit. A planimeter was used in estimating o wetland sizes and loss on Saipan. The lakes on I 0 Pagan were visited during seven trips from 1983- 1990 which totaled 36 man-days. No moorhens - 16hlO ’ ’ Farallon de or permanent wetlands currently exist on any Medinilla other Mariana island.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION GUAM Quoy and Gaimard (1824-26, in Baker 195 1) first recorded the moorhen on Guam. Kittlitz (1858, in Hartert 1898) reported that moorhens were rare and inhabited “inaccessible reed-thick- ets.” The moorhen’s affinity for fresh and brack- ish water wetlands, fallow rice paddies, and cul- Guaml tivated taro patcheshas been noted by numerous Km authors (Hartert 1898, Seale 1901, Baker 1951, 0-0 Beaty 1967). During the early 1900s moorhens were an esteemedfood and hunting pressuremay FIGURE 1. Distribution of the Mariana Common have resulted in their relative rarity (Seale 190 1, Moorhen (* = islands with records of occurrence). Safford 1902, Bryan 1936). During the late 1940s moorhens were consideredcommon to abundant teen out of 18 wetlands (83%) used by moorhens on the island (Marshall 1949, Baker 195 1). Baker during the wet season were man-made as were (1951) found large numbers of along the 11 out of 14 (78%) used in the dry season.Wet- Ylig River and the Agana Swamp. In the 1970s lands used by moorhens were primarily vegetat- the population was estimated at from less than ed with nonpersistent emergents (Cyperaceae, 100 (Tenorio and Associates 1979) to 150 birds Gramineae, Panicum muticum). During this (Drahos 1977). Over the last 15 years, the moor- study, 15 out of 34 (43%) ofall wetlands surveyed hen population on Guam seems to have been and four out of 18 (22%) wetlands used by moor- relatively stable. Currently, the population is es- hens were ephemeral. The appearance of moor- timated to be loo-125 birds (DAWR unpubl. hens at newly flooded ephemeral wetlands in- data). dicates that intra-island movements between We found moorhens using 17 palustrine wet- ephemeraland persistentwetlands occurbut have lands and one lacustrine wetland on either a year- not been observed. round or seasonal basis (Table 1). With the ex- Fena Valley Reservoir, a deep, open water res- ception of Fena Valley Reservoir (8 1 ha) and the ervoir with steeply sloping sides, is a major dry reed-choked ( karka) Agana Swamp seasonrefuge for moorhens. Fringing vegetation (71 ha), the majority of wetlands inhabited by is limited to small isolated stands of emergents moorhens were lessthan 0.6 ha in size. Moorhens and some areas of the submergent Hydrilla ver- make extensive use of man-made wetlands in the ticillata. Our surveysindicate that moorhens pre- form of suburban ponding basins, golf course fer sites that support diverse emergent vegeta- ponds, and both large and small reservoirs. Fif- tion, contain both deep and shallow areas, and 40 D. W. STINSON, M. W. RITTER AND J. D. REICHEL

TABLE 1. Size, location, estimated number of moorhens, and survey effort for Guam and Saipan wetlands.

Est. no. surveyeffcnl Size Y%Y Wetland site Yz:- (ha) @a) Man br No. visits LocationUTM ’ Guam Barrigada pond 6 co.5 0.5 2 N 1490000 E26 1660 Prison pond 4 KO.5 Ki 0.5 2 N1487810 E260062 SGP upper 5 co.5 0:3 0.5 2 N1484375 E249630 SGI lower 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 N1404575E249000 SGI west 0.8 0.4 2 N1484625E249060 SGI diked fields : KO.5 0.3 :.: 2 N1484500 E249500 Fena Reservoir 32 81 77 6:0 2 N1478500E250181 Agana Swamp 8 71 18 1.0 N1489500E257250 Assupian pond 4 0.5 0.3 1.0 : N1472875E256750 Yabai wetland 4 1.0 2 N1469430 E256250 Navmag pond 4 t?: :::c 1.0 2 N1481930E248630 Navmag Swamp1 0:6 1.0 2 N1478560 E252560 Navmag Swamp2 ! 1.6 K 1.0 2 N1479000E252680 Pulantat west 4 1.2 0% 1.0 2 N1484580E254310 CCP #3d 4 co.5 2 N1479125E257625 Sarasapond 4 1.2 :8’ :.: 2 N1475000 E253180 Masso -Reservoir 4 1.6 1:2 1:o 2 N1488680E250180 Tumon Bay Pothole 4 0.2 1.0 2 N1495310E262300 Acapulco 8 ::; 0.4 1.0 1 N1475680 E255000 Saipan Susupe-Chalan-KanoaMarsh 20 185 3 4 2 N1673-1676650 E360-362100 SusupeLake 16 17 16 13 5 N1675300E361400 2 17 Oc 2 2 N1684100 E365500 3 9 0.1 4 2 N1682200 E362600 Sadog Tase 10 10 7 14 N1683500 E364500 As Lito 5 2 &;a 1 1 N1672900E361900 Flares Pond 16 1 0-1C 13 13 N1674000E362920 Ragman North 16 1 0.5 8 16 N1678100 E367150 Ragman South 2 0.5 O-O.5 3 10 N1677160E367200 a UniversalTransverse Mercator coordinates. bShell Guam Inc. cSeasonally flooded only. 1 CountryClub of the Pacik, holeno. 3.

have approximately equal portions of cover and War II but are no longer extensively cultivated. open water. Even though this of habitat is The greater affluence and increasing population extremely limited at Fena, moorhen numbers of the island have put additional pressure on typically increase during the dry seasonand de- wetlands for development. Major portions of the crease during the wet season. Monthly counts Agana Swamp have been filled since the early varied from a high of 66 birds in June 1988 to 1970s and smaller wetlands have been converted a low of seven birds in March 1989 (DAWR to agricultural, commercial and residential uses. 1987-89). These data suggestthat moorhens im- migrate to the reservoir during the dry seasonas SAIPAN small ephemeral wetlands dry up and emigrate Oustalet (1896) was the first to report moorhens from the reservoir during the wet seasonas more on Saipan; he statesthat Marche collected six in wetlands become available. 1887. However, there is no indication in the lit- No estimate of cumulative wetland loss is erature of how abundant moorhens were until available for Guam, although it is certain that at after the American invasion of 1944. Long-time least a moderate amount has been lost. Indica- CNMI residents over 30 years of age often re- tive of the problem is the gradual lossof wetlands mark that moorhens were formerly abundant and due to changing agricultural practices. Rice and commonly hunted. Stott (1947) reported that taro were grown on a small scale prior to World moorhens were “abundant” in the marsh sur- DECLINE OF MARIANA COMMON MOORHENS 4 1 rounding Lake Susupe in 1946, being “contin- moorhens seen flying suggeststhat they fly pri- ually heard,” but not often seen. Marshall (1949) marily at night (Ripley 1977). Based on recent states moorhens were “abundant” in freshwater reports and a single visit to Tinian during the marshes. More recent researchershave thought 1989 rainy season, we estimate a resident pop- them less common and have provided popula- ulation of 75 moorhens. tion estimates. Pratt et al. (1979) saw only three Tinian does not have extensive wetlands. In during 38 man-days and thought moorhens were 1742, there were reported to be two “consider- “much reduced in numbers,” and that “hunting able pieces” of fresh water that abounded with pressureis apparently great.” Our counts at Lake waterfowl and shorebirds (Barratt 1988). There Susupe(8, 14, 15, 16) were similar to a count of were also reported to be forest ponds on Caro- 18 reported by Tenorio and Associates (1979). linas Hill until forest clearing increased evapo- Lake Susupe and all the surrounding marsh in- ration in the 1930s (Nakajima 1944). Of the two cluding the area, account for about large wetlands, only Lake Hagoi now has per- 202 ha (77%) of the remaining 260 ha of fresh manent open water. Hagoi usually has less than water and estuarian wetlands. Army Corps of 1 ha of open water, but may provide a critical Engineers personnel estimated a population of dry season feeding area when it supports the 90-120 for the entire Lake Susupe-Chalan Ka- greatestconcentration of moorhens in the Mari- noa area in 1978 (USACOE 1986); Tenorio and anas (USFWS 1988). The other wetland, Makpo Associates(1979) estimated 60-l 00 in the area. Swamp, is now completely choked with small Our conservative population estimate for all of trees (Hibiscus tiliaceus) and reeds. Makpo has Saipan is 100 birds (Table 1). been altered by past rice cultivation and probably Human activities have reduced the amount reducedby a lowered water table due to pumping and quality of freshwater wetlands. Filling has of nearby wells that began in the 1930s. Makpo resulted in the lossof an estimated 64% of Saipan will probably be further reduced by future water wetlands. Sugar cane and rice cultivation on Sai- withdrawal (The Northern Islands Co. 1989). pan (and Tinian) occupied most of the land area Moorhens are reported by residents at Makpo, of the island during the 30 years of the Japanese but use seems to be sporadic and no estimates mandate. Increased erosion and siltation have have been reported. The only other wetlands on probably acceleratedsuccessional processes with Tinian include a few stock ponds, bomb craters, the result that most of the remaining wetlands and temporarily flooded sites. are entirely covered by thick vegetation, partic- PAGAN ularly Phragmites. Two 16 ha lakes on Pagan supported a popula- TINIAN tion of moorhens until recently. Moorhens were Oustalet (1896) was the first to report moorhens first recorded on Pagan by Takatsukasa and Ya- from Tinian. Gleize (1945) estimated 70 moor- mashina (1932). Slightly brackish Inner Lake at hens at Lake Hagoi. Recent recordsmay indicate the foot of Mt. Pagan had an extensive fringe of little has changed since the war, although Owen water ( aureum); it supported could only find one in 1974 (Ring 198 1). Perhaps an estimated population of over 50 birds in the moorhens on Tinian were subject to heavy pe- 1960s (D. Aldan, pers. comm.). Lake Lagona riodic hunting pressures. Estimates by CNMI- supported fewer moorhens (20+) probably be- DFW biologists have ranged from two to “up to cause it had less emergent vegetation, a higher 200,” but most estimates have been between 25 salinity, and was subject to more impacts by hu- and 100. The highest numbers have been re- mans and domestic (Corwin et al. 1957; corded during the dry season when other wet- D. Aldan, pers. comm.). Habitat damage by do- lands were dried up. However, though Lake Ha- mestic animals became a problem in the 1960s goi was thought to be persistent,it was dry during and 1970s. Tenorio and Associates (1979) saw our visit in the 1990 dry season.Engbring et al. only one moorhen at Inner Lake and estimated (1986) report the highest number ever seen at the total population at less than 10. The 1981 one time (100, with an estimated additional 25 volcanic eruption of Mt. Pagan caused the hu- present) during 1982. The wide range of esti- man inhabitants to leave the island and abandon mates may indicate that moorhens make the 5 domesticanimals. CNMI-DFW biologistsdid not km flight between Saipan and Tinian regularly, find moorhens in 1983 and reported that as a but this has yet to be documented. The rarity of result of ash and cinder fall, together with over- 42 D. W. STINSON, M. W. RITTER AND J. D. REICHEL grazing and rooting by feral cattle and pigs, there wetlands. Feral animals and vulcanism have been was virtually no emergent vegetation visible at factors in habitat loss on Pagan, the lake. Six subsequenttrips during 1984 through In addition to habitat loss, moorhens are prob- 1990 found the situation unchanged and con- ably affectedby a host of mortality factorsrelated cluded that the moorhens were extinct. to humans. Poaching, autos, and introduced an- imals may reduce moorhen numbers below the ROTA habitat’s carrying capacity. Monitors (Varanus’ Rota has no historical records of moorhens and in&us), rats, cats, and dogs probably take their presently has little or no permanently flooded toll on eggsand chicks. Hunting or poaching in freshwater wetlands (USFWS 1989). Recent ar- the CNMI has probably been an important mor- chaeologicalexcavations discoveredthree moor- tality factor since World War 11 when guns be- hens in three separate test pits that would indi- came more readily available. Overhunting is cate that moorhens were hunted by the early thought to have been the most important factor indigenous people (Becker and Butler 1988). The in the of the Marianas Mallard (Rei- position of the moorhen remains indicated an chel and Lemke, in prep.). With the protection age of 1,500-2,000 years ago (Butler 1988). Ev- of the Endangered Act, hunting is no idently wetland habitats existed at that time, but longer a causeof decline on Guam. In the CNMI, perhaps have long since succeededto upland. the present extent of poaching is unknown, but Irrigated rice paddies are reported to have been the moorhen’s wariness and affinity for thick maintained on Rota by Chamorros from prehis- cover has probably allowed it to survive to the toric times up until this century (Marche 1889, present. Solenberger 1967). Increases in sea level since Moorhens are opportunists and relatively pro- the last ice age may also have eliminated wetland lific; they will probably survive these threats if habitats. their habitat can be secured and enhanced. The USFWS has recently instituted a “no net loss” FACTORS AFFECTING MOORHEN policy for Mariana wetlands to protect the moor- POPULATIONS hen and the endangered Nightingale Reed-War- Mariana Common Moorhens are difficult to count bler (Acrocephalusluscinia). If this policy can because they are somewhat secretive, often use withstand challenges by developers and local pools within nearly impenetrable swamps and politicians, the moorhens will survive for the marshes, and move about to take advantage of immediate future. ephemeral, seasonal,and persistentwetlands. Our estimate of their total population is 3OwOO. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Moorhens have gone extinct recently on Pagan We acknowledgethe contributionsof unpublishedre- and apparently prehistorically on Rota. If pop- portsby D. Aldan, J. Ford, P. Glass,M. Jenkins,H. ulation densities have not changed, then based King, T. Lemke, A. Maben, T. Pratt, J. Savidgeand on habitat loss and an estimate of 75 birds on others.The U.S. CoastGuard and the crewsof the cuttersCape George and Basswoodprovided transport Pagan, the Mariana moorhen population has to Pagan.Comments by P. Corny, J. Engbring,M. probably been reduced in this century by 36- McCoid, C. Rice, C. Stinson,G. Wiles, and an anon- 5 2%. Moorhen densities may have been reduced ymousreviewer improved the manuscript.This work by competition with tilapia (Oreochromis mos- wasfunded by the FederalAid in Wildlife Restoration sambicus),introduced to Guam, Saipan, and Pa- Programto the CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife (projectW- 1R-8) and the Guam Division of Aquatic gan for aquaculture in the 1950s (Eldredge 1988). and Wildlife Resources(project FW-2R-27). Moorhens use most types of wetlands, but were not recorded at production aquaculture ponds LITERATURE CITED on Guam. Also, a characteristic shared by the BAKER,R. H. 1951. The avifauna of , its Saipan and Tinian wetlands with the highest origin, , and distribution. Univ. Kans. moorhen densities (Hagoi, Flores, Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. 3:1-359. North) is the absence of tilapia. Aside from this Bmrr, G. 1988. H.M.S. CenturionatTinian, 1742: potential competitor, the degradation and loss of the ethnographic and historic records. Microne- sian Archaeol. SUN. Rep. 261-79. wetlands through filling, pollution, siltation, and BEA=, J. J. 1967. Guam’s remarkable birds. South the encroachmentof Phragmiteskarka have been Pacific Bull. 4:3740. and continue to be the greatestthreat to Mariana BECKER,J. J., ANDB. M. BUTLER. 1988. Nonfish ver- DECLINE OF MARIANA COMMON MOORHENS 43

tebrate remains, p. 473475. In B. M. Butler [ed.], Saipan,Tinian, Guam and . Condor 5 1:200- Archaeological investigations on the north coast 221. of Rota, Mariana Islands. Micronesian Archaeol. NAKAJIMA, F. 1944. A treatise on water supply, Ti- SUN. Rep. 23:1-482. nian. Marianas. Pacific Geol. SUN., Militarv Geol. BRYANJR., E. H. 1936. The birds of Guam. Guam Branch, U.S. Geol. SUN., Tokyo. _ Recorder 13(4). OUSWLET,M. E. 1896. Les mammiferes et les oiseaux BUTLER, B. M. [ED.] 1988. Archaeological investi- des Iles Mariannes. Nouv. Arch. Mus. Nat. , gations on the north coast of Rota, Mariana Is- Ser. 3,8:24-74. lands.Micronesian Archaeol. Surv. Rep. 23: l-482. PRA-r-r,H. D., P. L. BRUNER,AND D. G. BENNETT. [=S. Illinois Univ. at Carbondale, Center for Ar- 1979. America’s unknown avifauna: the birds of chaeol. Investigations Oct. Paper 81 the Mariana Islands. Am. Birds 331227-235. CORWIN,G., L. D. BOW, M. J. TERIUIAN,AND G. QUOY,J.R.C., ANDP. J. GAIMARD. 1824-26. Voyage W. VIELE. 1957. Military geologyof Pagan,Mar- autour du monde. Enteprespar ordre du Roi. Ex- iana Islands. Intelliaence Div., Office of the En- ecutesur les corvettesde S. M. l’uranie et la Phys- gineer HeadquarteriLl. S. Army and U. S. Geol. icienne, pendant les annees 1817, 1818, 18 19, et SUN. 1820. Par M. Louis de Freycinet, Capitaine de DIVISION OF AQUATIC AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES Vaisseau. Paris, Zoologie: l-7 12. (DAWR). 1987-89. Unpubl. annualreport. Dept. REICHEL,J. D., ANDT. 0. LEMKE. (In prep). Natural of Agric., Mangiloa, Guam. history and extinction of the Marianas Mallard. DRAHOS,N. 1977. Population dynamics of Guam R~PLN, S. D. 1977. Rails of the World. M.F. Fehelel birds. Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Re- Publisher Ltd., Toronto, Canada. p. 279-289. sources,Dept. of Agric., Mangiloa, Guam, unpubl. SAFFIXD,W. E. 1902. Birds of the Marianne Islands rep. p. 118-121. and their vernacular names. I. Osprey 6:3942, ELDREDGE,L. G. 1988. Case studies of the impacts 65-70. of introduced species on renewable re- &ALE, A. 1901. Report of a mission to Guam. Oct. sourcesin the U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands. In B. Papers Bemice P. Bishop Mus. 1:17-60. D. Smith [ed.], Topic reviews in insular resource SOLENBERGER,R. R. 1967. The changingrole of rice development and managementin the Pacific U.S.- in the Mariana Islands. Micronesica 3:97-103. affiliated islands. Univ. Guam Mar. Lab. Tech. STOUT,K., JR. 1947. Notes on Saipan birds. Auk 64: Rept. 88:118-145. 523-527. ENGBRING, J., AND H. D. Pa~rr. 1985. Endangered TAKAXXJKA~A,S., ANDY. YAMASHINA. 1932. Second birds in Micronesia: their history, status, and fu- report on the birds of the South Sea. Dobutsu. ture prospects. Conserv. 2:71-105. Zasshi 441221-226. ENGBR~NG,J., F. L. RAMSEY,AND V. J. WILDMAN. TENORIO,J. C., AND As.so~t~~~s. 1979. Omitholog- 1986. Micronesian forest bird survey, 1982: Sai- ical survey of wetlands in Guam, Saipan, Tinian van. Tinian, Aauiauan. and Rota. U.S. Fish and and Pagan.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.,Pacific Wildl. Serv.’ rep. - Ocean Div. GLEIZE.D. A. 1945. Birds of Tinian. Bull. Mass. Au- THE NORTHERNISLANDS Co. 1989. Storm water con- dubon Sot. 291220. trol handbook. CNMI Soil and Water Conserv. HARTERT,E. 1898. On the birds of the Marianne Districts of Saipan and N. Islands, Tinian and Islands. Novit. Zool. 5:5 l-69. , and &a. HARTERT,E. 1917. On some Rallidue. Novit. Zool. U.S. ARMY. CORPSOF ENGINEERS.1986. Garavan 24~265-274. flood coutrol study: detailed project reports and KING, W. B. 1981. Endangered birds of the world. environmental impact statement. Army Corps of The ICBP Bird Red Data Book. Smithsonian In- Engineers,Honolulu District. stit. Press and ICBP, Washington, D.C. U.S. FISH AND W~DLIFE SERVICE. 1984. Nine Mar- K~~~LITz,F. H. VON. 1858. Denkwurdigkeiten einer iana Islands specieslisted as Endangered.Endan- Reise nach dem russischenAmerika, nach Micro- gered SpeciesTech. Bull. 9(9): 1, 5-6. nesian und durch Kamtchatka. Gotha 1:383, 2: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFESERVICE. 1988. Recovery 463. plan for the Mariana Common Moorhen (=Gal- MARCHE, A. 1889. The Mariana Islands. Nouvelles linule), Gallinulu chloropusguumi (Draft). U.S. Archives des Missions Scientifiqueset Litteraires Fish and Wildl. Serv., Portland, OR. 1:241-280. [translation by S. E. Cheng and R. D. U.S. FL~HAND WILDLIFESERVICE. 1989. Island of Craig. 1982. Micronesian Area ResearchCenter]. Saivan. National Wetlands Inventorv. U.S. Fish MARSHALL,J. T., JR. 1949. The endemic avifauna of and Wildl. Serv., Portland, OR. (map).