DOCSLIB.ORG

Memo Whakaki Cryptic Bird Survey Results October 2018 Revised.Docx

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Memo Whakaki Cryptic Bird Survey Results October 2018 Revised.Docx MEMO To: Andy Hicks From: Keiko Hashiba Date: 5 November 2018 RESULTS OF CRYPTIC BIRD SURVEY AT WHAKAKI, RAHUI Subject: CHANNEL, TE PAEROA, AND WAIRAU File Ref: Bernie Kelly, Hand Rook, Helen Jonas, Malcolm Smith, Matt Brady, Cc: Nicolas Caviale-Delzescaux, Rod Dickson BACKGROUND Since 2017 HBRC’s Hot Spot Funding has been allocated to the Whakaki Lake and surrounding areas to make further progress on addressing water quality issues. While the overall goal is to improve the water quality of the Whakaki Lake, more holistic approach is taken to address wider biodiversity issues. Actions include habitat improvements for wildlife who utilises a series of wetlands within the catchment. The bird survey targeting wetland obligate species were requested by the HBRC and Whakaki Lake Trust in order to help gauge the success of a variety of restoration initiatives in the area. PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY AND THE REPORT Purpose of the survey was to collect baseline information on spotless crake and fernbird. These species are recognised as indicator species for overall wetland conditions, such as the wetlands habitat provision function, level of predation, and health of other flora and fauna (e.g. fish and insects that birds depend upon). Australasian bittern is qualitatively surveyed alongside with fernbird and spotless crake due to its highest threat status granted by the Department of Conservation, and also our region is one of the strongholds of this species. Total national population of this species is estimated to be 750 – 1000, and Hawke’s Bay supports 10 – 15% of the national population. Therefore any information on this species will contribute to its conservation effort nationally. Note that the DOC coordinated the evening survey of bittern booming on the nights of 23rd and 24th October 2018. Results from this evening surveys will be reported by the DOC. The bittern results shown in this report is from the day-time incidental observations as described above and also in the method. We noted many existing values in regards to the habitats. However the current report does not cover the characterisation of these wetlands. PAGE 2 OF 14 SURVEY AREA Survey area includes Whakaki, ephemeral wetland between Whakaki and Te Paeroa (“Ephemeral (2N)”, Rahui Channel, Te Paeroa and Wairau. SURVEY METHOD Survey was carried out on the mornings of 24th (Whakai) and 25th (Rahui Channel, Whakaki - Ephemeral “2N”, Te Paeroa and Wairau) October 2018. Survey team consisted of below (alphabetical order); Bernie Kelly Hans Rook Helen Jonas Keiko Hashiba Malcolm Smith Matt Brady Nicolas Caviale-Delzescaux Rod Dickson We formed four 2-person teams to survey. The survey method developed by the Department of Conservation (O’Donnell, n.d.) (see Appendix 1 for details) was followed. Key procedures was as follows; 1. We commenced the survey at 6 am (recommended timeframe is 6 am to 10 am). 2. At each count station, 5 minute play-back of a pre-recorded calls (interspersed by pauses) supplied by DOC was used to detect spotless crake. All birds either heard (Hd) or observed (Ob) were recorded in the survey form. If fernbirds were heard or seen during this initial 5 minutes, birds were recorded in the sheet. 3. After the initial 5 minutes, passive listening for fernbirds were carried out for 5 minutes. All birds either heard (Hd) or observed (Ob) were recorded in the survey form. If observer deemed the bird to be the same bird as recorded in the previous 5 minutes, they were not recorded (this is to avoid double counting). If spotless crake were heard or seen during this second 5-minute period, they were recorded in the sheet. Australasian bittern was recorded when heard or observed throughout the survey. The purpose was to capture the presence/absence, rather than counting to understand the population1. Number of count stations are shown in Table 1. Each count station is located at 200 m apart (Figure 1). Count stations at Whakaki was established by DOC in 2011, where we conducted the current survey except stations 3 – 9 and the 300 series. For the 3 – 9, surveyors have set up the points closest to the original locations due to the fact that the team had to use GPS which didn’t have the original way points pre-loaded. For the 300 series, surveyors move many of the way points closer to the water’s edge as the original points were mostly on dryland (because originally were set up for fernbird survey), and would unlikely to support any spotless crakes in the future. The rest of the count stations were newly established for this survey. 1 As mentioned above, the same survey team plus a few local volunteers helped DOC to conduct evening survey of bittern booming listening on the nights of 23rd and 24th October but this results are not covered in this report and will reported separately by DOC. M:\E_Science\Projects\340 Land Monitoring\340-206 Wetland Monitoring\20181023 Whakaki cryptic bird survey\Memo_Whakaki cryptic bird survey results October 2018_revised.docx PAGE 3 OF 14 Table 1. Number of count stations surveyed in October 2018. Wetland Name # of count stations Whakaki 33 Rahui Channel 10 Whakaki ‐ ephemeral (2N) 9 Te Paeroa 15 Wairau 9 Grand Total 76 Survey was concluded between 9 am to 11:30am each day (each team covered varying number of count stations and terrains). RESULTS Most of the birds were recorded at Whakaki. There were very few records at the rest of the wetlands surveyed. Total of 4 spotless crake were heard at 3 count stations at Whakaki (Figure 2). One was heard between count stations 902 and 903 at Wairau. No spotless crake was recorded at Rahui Channel, Te Paeroa, and Whakaki – ephemeral (2N). 24 fernbirds were recorded at 13 count stations (Figure 3), all of which were at Whakaki. Bitterns were recorded at a few count stations around Whakaki, and also at one count station at Wairau (Figure 4). Three different birds were observed (i.e. visually seen) by surveyors at 3 locations. Other booming birds were also recorded simultaneously at these locations. This indicates that there could be 7 birds recorded by surveyors during the survey. However this is only an indicative figure and location. , and accurate understanding of the population size. DISCUSSION Most of the cryptic species were recorded from the Whakaki. This may be reflecting the habitat structure suited to these species. Spotless crake require habitat consisting of shallow open water with reeds, rushes and sedges. Fernbird favours habitats where thick and bushy low-line (e.g. sedges, raupo, flaxes) vegetation with some high vegetation (e.g. manuka, kanuka). Lack of records of fernbird and spotless crake from Te Paeroa, Wairau, Ephemeral (2N) and Rahui Channel may be explained by the lack of habitats suited to/favoured by fernbirds and spotless crake. It may also be due to the presence of predators in these wetlands which are relatively smaller in habitat sizes compared to the main Whakaki Lake. For example, some M:\E_Science\Projects\340 Land Monitoring\340-206 Wetland Monitoring\20181023 Whakaki cryptic bird survey\Memo_Whakaki cryptic bird survey results October 2018_revised.docx PAGE 4 OF 14 sign of predators along the Rahui Channel (presumably feral cats) were noted, which may explain the absence of these birds from these wetlands. RECOMMENDATIONS Below are some recommendations which may make a big difference to the wildlife as well as help improve the water quality of the lakes and wetlands: Enhancement planting with species that are native (or should be native) to the area. Particularly Cyperus ustulatus (giant umbrella sedge) Enhance the recovery of existing sedgeland (Bolboschoenus sp., Carex geminata, Cyperus ustulatus), rushland (Juncus krausii) and reedland (Typha orientalis). This could be achieved by a range of actions including but not limited to; a) stop grazing, b) improve hydrological connectivity (e.g. wetlands along the Rahui Channel could be connected with the main channel), c) control weeds such as Pampas grass. Predator control targeting feral cats and mustelids where it hasn’t been put in place will likely to support the wildlife and improve their survival. Rodent control is preferable for protection of eggs and chicks. Rodent control will also improve other wildlife such as lizards. It is also recommended to carry out detained vegetation mapping of these wetlands using drone. Vegetation may be changed depending on the hydrology and opening of the mouth, which will then affect the distribution and number of these cryptic birds. Therefore it is critical to monitor the vegetation pattern going forward. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Special thanks to Bernie Kelly and Hans Rook who provided invaluable help to this survey and gave the rest of us the depth of knowledge of these birds and wetlands. M:\E_Science\Projects\340 Land Monitoring\340-206 Wetland Monitoring\20181023 Whakaki cryptic bird survey\Memo_Whakaki cryptic bird survey results October 2018_revised.docx Figure 1. Location of bird count stations. PAGE 6 OF 14 1 heard between 902 & 903 Figure 2. Result of spotless crake. All records are ‘heard’. One bird was heard at Wairau between count stations 902 and 903. M:\E_Science\Projects\340 Land Monitoring\340-206 Wetland Monitoring\20181023 Whakaki cryptic bird survey\Memo_Whakaki cryptic bird survey results October 2018_revised.docx PAGE 7 OF 14 Figure 3. Result of fernbird count. Birds were either heard or observed. M:\E_Science\Projects\340 Land Monitoring\340-206 Wetland Monitoring\20181023 Whakaki cryptic bird survey\Memo_Whakaki cryptic bird survey results October 2018_revised.docx PAGE 8 OF 14 Presumably 2 bitterns (1 booming, 1 observed) Presumably 2 bitterns (1 booming, 1 observed) Presumably 1 bittern Presumably 2 bitterns (1 booming, 1 observed) Figure 4. Result of incidental bittern observation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Usefulness of Taped Spotless Crake Calls As a Census Technique
    682 THE WILSON BULLETIN l Vol. 100, No. 4, December1988 motory systems suggeststhat subtle differences among species ’ center of gravity may explain the adaptive significance of interspecific differences in head-scratching method. Acknowledgments.-We thank C. Blem and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. LITERATURE CITED AMEIUCAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th ed. A.O.U., Washington, D.C. BURTT, E. H., JR. 1977. Some factors in the timing of parent-chick recognition in swallows. Anim. Behav. 25:231-239. -. 1980. Overwing and underwing head-scratching by a male Black and White War- bler Mniotilta varia. Ibis 122:54 1. -. 1983. Head-scratching method of Galapagos finches unaffected by variation in cranial morphology. Wilson Bull. 95: 158-160. -AND J. P. HAILMAN. 1978. Head-scratching among North American Wood-Warblers (Parulidae). Ibis 120:153-170. DUNHAM, D. W. 1963. Head-scratching in the Hairy Woodpecker, Dendrocoposvillosus. Auk 80~375. HEINROTH, 0. 19 17. Reflektorische Bewegungsweisen (Kratzen, Schutteln, Baden u.s.w.) im Lichte der stammesverwandschaft. J. Omithol. 66:ll l-l 14. -. 1930. Uber bestimmte Bewegungsweisen von Wirbeltierren. Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturf Freunde Berlin:333-342. LORENZ, K. Z. 1950. The comparative method in studying innate behaviour patterns. Symp. Sot. Exp. Biol. 4:221-268. MAYFIELD, H. 1960. The Kirtlands’ Warbler. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. MEYER DE SCHAUENSEE,R. 1970. A guide to the birds of South America. Livingston Publishing Co., Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. SIMMONS, K. E. L. 1961. Problems of head-scratching in birds. Ibis 103:37-49.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Restoration Handbook Chapter 11 Pests
    CHAPTER 11 PESTS CORINNE WATTS AND MONICA PETERS CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 RESTORING YOUR WETLAND 1.1 Developing a Wetland Restoration Plan 1.1.1 Mapping 1.2 Determining wetland type 1.3 Understanding the site 1.4 Setting realistic goals and objectives 1.4.1 Keeping it legal 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WETLAND PESTS 2.1 Control or eradication? 3 PEST ANIMALS 3.1 Selecting appropriate control methods 3.1.1 Poisoning, trapping or shooting? 3.1.2 Repellents 4 PEST FISH 4.1 Control 4.2 Eradication 5 MONITORING 5.1 5-minute bird counts 5.2 Wax tags 5.3 Tracking tunnels 5.4 Foliar browse 5.5 Fish trapping 6 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING 6.1 Useful websites SECTION TWO: ACTION ON THE GROUND CHAPTER 11 PESTS 185 PESTS WETLAND RESTORATION: A HANDBOOK FOR NZ FRESHWATER SYSTEMS PESTS CORINNE WATTS AND MONICA PETERS Since the human colonization of New Zealand all eat invertebrates, birds’ eggs, chicks and even began, many new animals have arrived. Some adult birds. Introduced browsing animals, e.g., species have been intentionally introduced – the possums, goats, rabbits, hares and cattle eat Australian brushtail possum for the fur trade, and native vegetation and will target recent plantings stoats to kill previously introduced rabbits that of nursery-grown plants as they provide rich had begun to reach plague proportions. Others sources of nutrients. In addition, rats will devour have arrived unintentionally, often as stowaways seeds that are so important for seedbanks. To a on boats. Irrespective of the method of arrival, the lesser extent, dogs may harass wetland birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention
    Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention: the role of the Convention on Wetlands in the Conservation and Wise Use of Biodiversity edited by A. J. Hails Ramsar Convention Bureau Ministry of Environment and Forest, India 1996 [1997] Published by the Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland, with the support of: • the General Directorate of Natural Resources and Environment, Ministry of the Walloon Region, Belgium • the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark • the National Forest and Nature Agency, Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Denmark • the Ministry of Environment and Forests, India • the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden Copyright © Ramsar Convention Bureau, 1997. Reproduction of this publication for educational and other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior perinission from the copyright holder, providing that full acknowledgement is given. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The views of the authors expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect those of the Ramsar Convention Bureau or of the Ministry of the Environment of India. Note: the designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Ranasar Convention Bureau concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Citation: Halls, A.J. (ed.), 1997. Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention: The Role of the Convention on Wetlands in the Conservation and Wise Use of Biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue #251 Journal of the Murrumbidgee Field Naturalists Inc
    The Murrumbidgee Naturalist August 2017 - Issue #251 Journal of the Murrumbidgee Field Naturalists Inc. PO Box 541, LEETON 2705 ISSN-1327-1172 Website: www.mfn.org.au Email: [email protected] Objectives To facilitate and promote the knowledge of natural history, and to encourage the preservation and protection of the Australian natural environment, especially that of the Murrumbidgee River Valley Community tree planting at Fivebough Wetlands by Penny Williams CONTRIBUTIONS IN THIS ISSUE For the September issue by Monday 4 September Office Bearers and Subscriptions ................................ 2 To Rowena Whiting Tree Planting at Fivebough Wetlands ........................ 3 Email: [email protected]. Spiders ........................................................................ 4 Phone: 6953 2612 Greenhood orchids found in the local area ............... 6 Birds of the Month – Spotted and Spotless Crake ...... 8 What are those Monkeys in the Gum Trees ? ............ 9 Outings this month to Papua New Guinea trip ............................................... 9 Taleeban Mining Reserve Members’ Sightings ................................................... 11 and Coming Events Calendar ........................................... 12 Cocoparra National Park Murrumbidgee Field Naturalists Inc. Office Bearers and Annual Subscriptions President: Graham Russell 0419 350 673 Editor: Rowena Whiting 6953 2612 Vice President: Nella Smith 6959 1210 Committee: Johanna Botman 6963 4855 Vice President: Eric Whiting 6953 2612 Phillip Williams 6953 3524 Vice President: Virginia Tarr 6962 5614 Betty Bradney 6959 2901 Secretary: Penny Williams 6953 3524 Treasurer: Phil Tenison 6953 4869 Website Co-ordinator: Phillip Williams 6953 3524 MEETINGS ARE HELD ON THE SECOND THURSDAY EACH MONTH, EXCEPT JANUARY, AT THE Yellow Room, Leeton Library, Sycamore Street at 7.30 PM FIELD TRIPS NORMALLY TAKE PLACE ON THE FOLLOWING WEEKEND. INTENDING NEW MEMBERS, GUESTS AND VISITORS WELCOME.
    [Show full text]
  • SHORT NOTE Evidence of Late Breeding of Spotless Crakes (Porzana Tabuensis) at Two North Island Peat Bog Lakes
    213 Notornis, 2019, Vol. 66: 213-216 0029-4470 © The Ornithological Society of New Zealand Inc. SHORT NOTE Evidence of late breeding of spotless crakes (Porzana tabuensis) at two North Island peat bog lakes EMMA M. WILLIAMS Matuku Ecology, 7 Kowhai Terrace, St Martins, Christchurch 8022, New Zealand Present address: Terrestrial Science Unit, Biodiversity Group, Department of Conservation, PO Box 4715, Christchurch 8410, New Zealand Knowledge of breeding ecology and behaviours 2018). Ecological knowledge of the species and its has important management implications for the behaviours is limited, with few published reports conservation of any species. In particular, accurate on the timing of breeding in spotless crakes in New knowledge of the timing and duration of the Zealand. Hadden (1970) suggested that egg laying breeding season for native, threatened species is occurs between late-August and late-September, important as it often defines when and for how while Buddle (1941) proposed that egg laying long conservation interventions should occur, and occurs from October until early-December. The what those interventions should be. For example, latter is supported by observations of spotless crake predator control is often prioritised to occur when a eggs being laid between mid-October and mid- native species is nesting and at its most vulnerable, December on Raoul Island (cited by Oliver 1955). particularly if that species nests on the ground or Yet, Fraser (1972) reported ‘newly hatched young’ fledglings are known to be particularly vulnerable in early-September, and as late as late-January. The to predators. In contrast, habitat modifications that current study provides evidence that spotless crake are often necessary but known to be intrusive (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Great White Shark (Carcharodon Carcharias) UNDER the U.S
    PETITION TO LIST THE NORTHEASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT OF Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Photo: Terry Goss Petition Submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service Petitioner: WildEarth Guardians 1536 Wynkoop Street, Suite 301 Denver, Colorado 80202 303.573.4898 June 20, 2012 INTRODUCTION WildEarth Guardians (“Guardians”) requests that the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),1 an agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), list the northeastern Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Great White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544). WildEarth Guardians also requests that NMFS designate critical habitat for the species in U. S. waters. Despite its reputation, the Great White Shark needs our protection more than our fear. Over 100 million sharks, of all species, are killed annually by humans. In contrast, sharks of any type only claim approximately 10 human lives per year (NOAA 2012 at 2). A human is 15 times more likely to be killed by a falling coconut than by a shark (Id.). The Great White Shark’s imperilment is part of a concerning pattern of shark endangerment globally (for example see Baum et al. 2003; Dulvy et al. 2008). Sharks are both intentionally targeted by fisheries and are killed when caught as bycatch. Sometimes they are simply “finned” – a cruel technique wherein a shark’s fin is cut off but the living shark is discarded to die a lingering death from drowning or starvation at the bottom of the ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Article
    NOTORNIS QUARTERLY JOURNAL of the Ornithological Society of New Zealand (Incorporatedl Volume Seventeen, Number Three, September, 1970 NOTORNIS In continuation of New Zealand Bird Notes Volume XVII, No. 3 SEPTEMBER, 1970 JOURNAL OF THE ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND (Incorporated) Registered with the G.P.O., Wellington, as a Magazine Edited by R. B. SIBSON, 26 Entrican Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 5 Annual Subscription: Ordinary Member, $2; Endowment Member, $3 Life Membership, $40 (for members over thirty years of age) Subscriptions are a minimum of $2 a year, payable at the time of application and the first of each year thereafter. Applications for Membership, Changes of address and Letters of Resignation should be forwarded to the Hon. Treasurer. OFFICERS 1970 - 71 President - Dr. G. R. WILLIAMS, Wildlife Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs, Private Bag, Wellington Vice-president -- Mr. F. C. KINSKY, Dominion Museum, Wellington Editor - Mr. R. B. SIBSON, 26 Entrican Avenue, Auckland, 5 Assistant Editor - Mr. A. BLACKBURN, 10 Score Road, Gisborne Treasurer - Mr. J. P. C. WATT, P.O. Box 1168, Dunedin Secretary - Mr. B. A. ELLIS, 44 Braithwaite Street, Wellington, 5 Members of Council: Mr. B. D. BELL, Wildlife Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs, Wellington Mr. A. BLACKBURN, 10 Score Road, Gisborne Dr. P. C. BULL, 131 Waterloo Road, Lower Hutt Dr. R. A. FALLA, 41 Kotari Road, Days Bay, Wellington Mrs. J. B. HAMEL, 42 Ann Street, Roslyn, Dunedin Mr. N. B. MACKENZIE, Pakowai, Napier R.D. 3 Mr. R. R. SUTTON, Lorneville Post Office, Invercargill Convenors and Organisers: Nest Records: Mr. D. E. CROCKETT, 90 Jellicoe Street, Wanganui Beach Patrol: Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory and Monitoring of Seabirds in National Park of American Samoa
    Final Report. Technical Report 136 INVENTORY AND MONITORING OF SEABIRDS IN NATIONAL PARK OF AMERICAN SAMOA By Paul J. O’Connor and Mark J. Rauzon October 2004 UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MANOA NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONTRACT NO. 8036-2-9004 CONTRIBUTION NUMBER 136 PSCU/UH - i - Item Page Table of Contents i List of Figures iii List of Tables iv Report Summary 1 Project Introduction 3 Background 3 Study Area 4 Study Species 11 Methods 13 General Methods 13 Complete Island Surveys 15 Fixed Location Counts 17 High-Elevation Ground & 19 Cliff Nesters Results & Discussion 22 General Results & Discussion 22 Complete Island Surveys 22 Fixed location Counts 35 Seabird Colonies 38 Coastal Breeders 38 High-Elevation Ground & Cliff 40 Nesters Species Present 40 Nests 43 Petrel Distributions Elsewhere 44 in American Samoa Petrel Specimens & Natural 45 History Rose Atoll Seabirds 49 Conclusions 50 Monitoring & Its Future at 50 NPSA Seabird Population Status 52 Field Access & Operations 54 Developing Additional 55 Survey Methods Invasive Species 56 - ii - Invertebrates 56 Vertebrates 56 Rodent Control 60 Human Impacts 63 Recommendations 64 Tutuila Unit 64 Manu’a Units 65 Acknowledgments 66 References 67 Appendices 71-140 Appendix A: Seabird Accounts for American Samoa 71 Appendix B: Tutuila and Aunu’u Islands, Round Island 98 Survey Site Maps Appendix C: Tahiti Petrel Voice Analysis 112 Appendix D: Ectoparasites from Tahiti Petrel on Ta’u 116 Appendix E: Radar Survey Techniques Employed at 119 Channel Islands National Park Appendix F: Establishing a Water Collection System 123 and Base Camp on Mt. Lata Appendix G: Status of the Spotless Crake in American 124 Samoa Appendix H: Coastal Seabird Colonies Maps for 130 American Samoa Appendix I: Brief Video Clips from Summit of Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of Conservation Concern 2021 Migratory Bird Program Table of Contents
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern 2021 Migratory Bird Program Table Of Contents Executive Summary 4 Acknowledgments 5 Introduction 6 Methods 7 Geographic Scope 7 Birds Considered 7 Assessing Conservation Status 7 Identifying Birds of Conservation Concern 10 Results and Discussion 11 Literature Cited 13 Figures 15 Figure 1. Map of terrestrial Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) Marine Bird Conservation Regions (MBCRs) of North America (Bird Studies Canada and NABCI 2014). See Table 2 for BCR and MBCR names. 15 Tables 16 Table 1. Island states, commonwealths, territories and other affiliations of the United States (USA), including the USA territorial sea, contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone considered in the development of the Birds of Conservation Concern 2021. 16 Table 2. Terrestrial Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) and Marine Bird Conservation Regions (MBCR) either wholly or partially within the jurisdiction of the Continental USA, including Alaska, used in the Birds of Conservation Concern 2021. 17 Table 3. Birds of Conservation Concern 2021 in the Continental USA (CON), continental Bird Conservation Regions (BCR), Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands (PRVI), and Hawaii and Pacific Islands (HAPI). Refer to Appendix 1 for scientific names of species, subspecies and populations Breeding (X) and nonbreeding (nb) status are indicated for each geography. Parenthesized names indicate conservation concern only exists for a specific subspecies or population. 18 Table 4. Numbers of taxa of Birds of Conservation Concern 2021 represented on the Continental USA (CON), continental Bird Conservation Region (BCR), Puerto Rico and VirginIslands (PRVI), Hawaii and Pacific Islands (HAPI) lists by general taxonomic groups. Also presented are the unique taxa represented on all lists.
    [Show full text]
  • First Spotless Crake's Nest for the South Island
    1993 SHORT NOTE 231 Plumage is not always a reliable indicator of age. When birds were captured on Kundy Island it was noticed that fledgling Saddlebacks ('jackbirds') were often similar in appearance to yearling birds. The two groups were distinguished on Breaksea by whether they were banded or not. Any yearling bird on Breaksea was a released bird and therefore banded, and any fledgling bird had hatched on the island and was thus unbanded. There were fledglings which might have been taken to be yearlings except for the fact they were unbanded. As with all conservation programmes, a large number of people have contributed in important ways. Access to the Titi (Muttonbird) islands on which South Island Saddlebacks are found was granted by the Rakiura Titi Committee. Breaksea Island was made rat-free through the efforts of people from the Department of Conservation, DSIR Ecology Division (now LandcareIMaanaki Whenua), Operation Raleigh and other volunteers. The transfer and monitoring of Saddlebacks were accomplished by DOC staff, representatives of the Rakiura Titi Committee, and volunteers. GRETCHEN RASCH, Department of Conservation, Te Anau PETER McCLELLAND, Department of Conservation, Znvercargill Fist Spotless Crake's nest for the South Island Spotless Crakes (Pomana tabuensis) are seldom reported from the South Island. A glance at the Atlas of Bird Distribution in New Zealand (Bull et al. 1985) reveals how few have been seen. Just 14 squares had Spotless Crakes, these being in the Marlborough region, North-west Nelson, some wetlands and lakes along the Southern Alps, Lakes Waihola and Waipori in Otago, and near the coast of Southland.
    [Show full text]
  • Persistence of the Spotless Crake (Porzana Tabuensis) on Ta’U, American Samoa
    216 Notornis, 2010, Vol. 57: 216-217 0029-4470 © The Ornithological Society of New Zealand, Inc. SHORT NOTE Persistence of the spotless crake (Porzana tabuensis) on Ta’u, American Samoa GREGORY H. ADLER* Department of Biology, University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI 54901, USA AVELE LALOGAFU’AFU’A JOSHUA O. SEAMON RORY WEST, JR. SIAIFOI FA’AUMU Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, American Samoa Government, P. O. Box 3730, Pago Pago, AS 96799, USA CARTER T. ATKINSON U. S. Geological Survey Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Kilauea Field Station, P.O. Box 44, Bldg 344, Hawaii National Park, HI 96718, USA The spotless crake (Porzana tabuensis) is a small spotless crake was not recorded again on Ta’u until rail that is widely distributed across the South Rauzon and Fialua (2003) briefly observed one in Pacific, occurring from Australia, New Zealand, dense montane scrub at the summit of Mt. Lata in New Guinea, and the Philippines eastward to the Dec 2001 and again in Dec 2002. It apparently has Marquesas and Pitcairn Is (Prattet al. 1987). Within disappeared from the lowlands; indeed, inhabitants the Samoan archipelago, it has been recorded from recall its presence several decades ago but no longer Savai’i, Tutuila, and Ta’u (Muse & Muse 1982). No recognise it as a member of the local avifauna. There recent sightings have been noted from Tutuila, and have been no published reports of its occurrence on the crake is presumed to have been extirpated. Ta’u or elsewhere in American Samoa since the brief Ta’u (14.23� S, 169.45� W) is a volcanic island sightings by Rauzon and Fialua (2003).
    [Show full text]
  • Moving Hawaiian Birds
    Pacific Island bird extinctions As many as 2,000 bird species have been lost from Oceania Hawaiian bird extinctions • In addition to losing many honeycreeper taxa… …entire families or groups have been lost. Bird conservation efforts in Hawai’i • Focused on single species • Limited ecosystem restoration • Translocations focused mostly on preventing extinction C. Snow Different conservation perspectives • Phylogenetic distinctiveness (past) • Ecological role (present) J. Jeffrey • Evolutionary potential (future) Intersection of conservation goals Why translocate species? • Increase survival of individual species (preserve the past) • Improve ecosystem function (return biota to some previous complexity) • Restart evolution (facilitate future speciation) Pacific island translocations • Marianas – Guam Rail • Marquesas – Imperial Dove – Marquesas Lorikeet • Tonga – Tongan Megapode – Friendly Ground-Dove • Cook Islands – Rarotonga Monarch – Rimatara Lorikeet New Zealand translocations Restoration of Mana Island • Mana Island (217 ha) – > 200,000 plants – mammals eradicated – 17 species of birds © David Cornick Hawai’i translocations • Laysan Rail (1891 - 1923) to Midway • Hawaiian Duck (1958) to Big Island ☺ • Nene (1960 - 96) to Big Island, Maui & Kaua’i ☺ • Laysan Finch (1967) to Pearl & Hermes ☺ • Laysan Duck (1967) to Pearl & Hermes • Nihoa Finch (1967) to French Frigate Shoals • Palila (1993 - 2005) ☺ • O’mao (1996) ? • Po’o-uli (2002) • Laysan Duck (2004 - 05) to Midway ☺ Challenges in Hawai’i • Few landscapes free of predators • Disease (climate change) • Replacement species limited – endemism is such that some surrogates could only be functional and not taxonomic J. Jeffrey J. Jeffrey No brainer; could do “today” No brainer; could do “today” M. MacDonald/USFWS “Low island” rescue E. VanderWerf J. Jeffrey Landscape scale restoration C. Snow J. Jeffrey Landscape scale restoration Pushing the envelope C.
    [Show full text]