RESTORATION OF HAWAIIAN TROPICAL DRY FORESTS: A BIOCULTURAL

APPROACH

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

BOTANY (CONSERVATION BIOLOGY)

MAY 2020

By

Aimee Y. Sato

Thesis Committee:

Tamara Ticktin, Chairperson

Christian P. Giardina

Rakan A. Zahawi

Kewords: Tropical Dry Forest, Biocultural, Conservation, Restoration, Natural Regeneration, Social-Ecological

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank my graduate committee for steering and guiding me through my thesis work. Dr. Tamara Ticktin, my thesis advisor who has been the greatest kumu (teacher) that I could have asked for in my research. I also thank my two committee members, Dr. Rakan A. Zahawi and Dr. Christian P. Giardina, who both brought their expansive levels of expertise to help develop this thesis.

Thank you so much to the hoaʻāina (caretakers/restoration managers) of my two project sites. I thank the hoaʻāina of Kaʻūpūlehu, ‘Aunty’ Yvonne Carter, ‘Uncle’ Keoki Carter, Wilds Brawner, Kekaulike Tomich, Lehua Alapai, Kuʻulei Keakealani, and ‘Aunty’ Hannah Kihalani Springer. Thank you to the hoaʻāina of Auwahi, Art Medeiros, Erica von-Allmen, Ainoa and Kalaʻau Kaiaokamalie, Amy Campbell, Andy Bieber, Robert Pitts, and Kailie Aina. I would also like to acknowledge Kamehameha Schools and the Ulupalakua Ranch for allowing me to conduct this research on their lands.

Thank you to the dry forest restoration managers and researchers that participated in the overview survey of Hawaiian dry forests. On Oʻahu Island: Lorena ‘Tap’ Wada, James Harmon and Kapua Kawelo. On Hawaiʻi Island: Elliott Parsons, Rebecca Most, Lena Schnell, Kalā Asing, Jen Lawson, and Susan Cordell.

I would like to thank the Ticktin lab, past and present lab members, for being the most supportive lab I could imagine (Smrity Ramavarapu, Julia Douglas, Miles Thomas, Lauren Nerfa, Ashley McGuigan, Zoe Hastings, Reko Libby, Georgia Fredeluces-Hart, Gioconda Lopez Vargas, Katie Kamelamela, Natalie Kurashima, and Rachel Dacks). A special mahalo to Reko Libby and Natalie Kurashima as this long-term collaborative work with Kaʻūpūlehu and the Ticktin lab would not have been possible without both of their previous work. I would also like to thank Maile Wong for assisting with field work at Kaʻūpūlehu.

Funding provided by the Beatrice Krauss Fellowship was very helpful in covering research costs. My fellowship with the Hauʻoli Mau Loa Foundation was essential for my graduate school experience, and I am extremely thankful to the Foundation for funding my tuition, for providing me a substantial stipend to allow me to concentrate on my studies, and lastly for providing me with professional development funds to assist me with my research costs as well as investing in my professional development training. Thank you Hauʻoli Mau Loa for believing and investing in local Hawaiʻi students to pursue higher education and become leaders in our home, Hawaiʻi.

And last but not least, thank you to my friends and family for supporting me every step of the way. My mom and sister who have been the greatest role models for me. My pillar of support, Phillip Kapu, for taking any role to help me to the finish line. And a special thank you to my two Hālau (Hawaiian School of Learning) families. Nā Hula O Kaohikūkapulani and my kumu, Kapu Kinimaka Alquiza for teaching me Hula and raising me around Hawaiian culture. My family of Hālau ʻŌhiʻa, including my kumu, Kekuhi Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, who has provided me the fertilizer that I needed to grow stronger, and my fellow Hālau members that have become my sisters and brothers who inspire me always. Mahalo.

2

ABSTRACT

Worldwide, tropical dry forests are among the most endangered of all tropical forest

ecosystems, and tropical dry forests once represented the greatest species diversity among forest

types in Hawaiʻi. Current research shows that the extent of native tropical dry forest cover in

Hawaiʻi may be as low as 1% of its original cover, with 45% of the tropical dry forest plant species at risk of endangerment. Despite the historical and current relationship of these forests with the wao kanaka (lower elevation human settlement zones), there has been little evaluation on the social-ecological outcomes of a biocultural approach to tropical dry forest restoration.

Two forest restoration projects located within Kaʻūpūlehu and Auwahi, have excluded ungulates and removed alien plant species, and have used biocultural approaches to restoration. Drawing on these two sites as case-studies, this thesis discusses the motivations for, and components of a biocultural approach, provides a measure of the ecological success using a case-study of biocultural restoration at Kaʻūpūlehu, and includes an assessment on the status of tropical dry forest restoration projects across Hawaiʻi. This multidisciplinary study shows that the ecological success of the forest is directly interlinked with the social benefits of restoration, and I recommend that conservation and restoration efforts in Hawaiʻi should foster and recognize the continued relationship between the kaiaulu (human community) and kaiaola (ecosystem) of tropical dry forests.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 2 ABSTRACT ...... 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 4 LIST OF TABLES ...... 8 LIST OF FIGURES ...... 9 LIST OF APPENDICES ...... 11 CHAPTER 1 ...... 12 INTRODUCTION ...... 12

Study Sites ...... 17

Auwahi TDF ...... 17

Kaʻūpūlehu TDF ...... 18

MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 19

Hoaʻāina (Caretakers/Restoration Managers) Analyses ...... 19

Kaiaulu (Human community) Analyses ...... 20

RESULTS...... 22

Personal Relationship to Place ...... 22

Hoaʻāina Perspectives ...... 22

Kaiaulu Perspectives ...... 26

Defining Biocultural ...... 27

Hoaʻāina Perspectives ...... 27

Biocultural Measures of Success ...... 33

Hoaʻāina Perspectives ...... 33

Impacts of Biocultural Restoration on Kaiaulu ...... 39

4

Kaiaulu Perspectives ...... 39

DISCUSSION ...... 42

Restoring the Relationships of Kaiaola (Ecosystem) and Kaiaulu (Community) ...... 43

Biocultural Includes Nā Mea Āpau (Everything) ...... 45

Challenges with a Biocultural Approach ...... 47

CONCLUSION ...... 49

CHAPTER 2 ...... 50 INTRODUCTION ...... 50

MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 52

Monitoring Recruitment and Survival ...... 52

Mapping Ecological Recruitment to Analyze Spatial Patterns ...... 53

RESULTS...... 57

Recruitment and survival of naturally regenerated keiki ...... 57

Spatial Patterns of recruitment ...... 58

Uhiuhi - Recruitment and Spatial Patterns...... 59

Kauila - Recruitment and Spatial Patterns ...... 60

Halapepe - Recruitment and Spatial Patterns ...... 61

Maʻo Hau Hele - Recruitment and Spatial Patterns ...... 61

Hau Hele ʻUla - Recruitment and Spatial Patterns ...... 62

DISCUSSION ...... 62

Recruitment and survival of T&E species ...... 62

CONCLUSION ...... 65

5

CHAPTER 3 ...... 67 INTRODUCTION ...... 67

MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 69

Status of the TDF Restoration in Hawaiʻi ...... 69

RESULTS...... 73

Restoration Strategies ...... 73

Measures of restoration success ...... 80

Ecological Restoration ...... 86

Social measures of restoration success ...... 88

Cultural and Spiritual measures of restoration success...... 89

Greatest Challenges and Potential Solutions ...... 90

Invasive Species – Plants and Animals ...... 90

Lack of Funding/Staff ...... 91

Longterm Hoaʻāina (caretakers, restoration managers) from Place ...... 92

Fire ...... 94

Drought ...... 94

Additional Challenges – Lack of Research, High Elevation, Permits, Setting Restoration

Goals ...... 95

Successes or Challenges for Restoration Species ...... 96

DISCUSSION ...... 98

Restoration strategies and challenges ...... 98

Measures of restoration success ...... 100

6

Success or challenges for restoration species ...... 101

Future for cross-site learning ...... 102

CONCLUSION ...... 102

FIGURES ...... 106 APPENDICES ...... 122 GLOSSARY ...... 130 REFERENCES ...... 132

7

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Motivations for Hoaʻāina in Implementing a Biocultural Approach ...... 24

Table 1.2. Themes of a Biocultural Approach ...... 29

Table 1.3. Categories of Biocultural Restoration...... 34

Table 2.1. Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest Management Zones and Timeline of Management ...... 55

Table 3.1. Organization/Project Names ...... 71

Table 3.2. Ranking System for Evaluating Successes and Challenges of Restoration Species .... 73

Table 3.3. Main Restoration Strategies ...... 74

Table 3.4. Measures Of Restoration Success ...... 82

8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Auwahi Restoration Project: Survey Participant Information ...... 106

Figure 1.2. Auwahi Restoration Project: Demographic of Survey Participants ...... 106

Figure 1.3. Kaʻūpūlehu Restoration Project: Survey Participant Information ...... 107

Figure 1.4. Components of the Auwahi Restoration Project ...... 107

Figure 1.4. Sketches from Kaʻūpūlehu Survey ...... 108

Figure 2.1. Number of New Keiki Appearing at Each Census in Ka‘ūpūlehu ...... 108

Figure 2.2. Annual Rainfall (mm) from 2011 to 2019 Recorded from Ka’ūpūlehu site ...... 109

Figure 2.3. Total Keiki Alive at Each Census Year ...... 109

Figure 2.4. Number of New Keiki Appearing at Each Census at Ka‘ūpūlehu, by Species ...... 110

Figure 2.5. Total Keiki Alive at Each Census Year, By Species ...... 110

Figure 2.6. Annual Survival (%) of New (1st Year) Natural Recruits Observed From The

Previous Census Year, at Kaʻūpūlehu ...... 111

Figure 2.7. Survival (%) of All Alive Natural Recruits from the Previous Census Year, by

Species, at Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest ...... 111

Figure 2.8. Regeneration – All New Keiki By Year ...... 112

Figure 2.9. Uhiuhi Regeneration and Mortality ...... 113

Figure 2.10. Uhiuhi Kupuna and Keiki ...... 114

Figure 2.11. Kauila Regeneration and Mortality ...... 115

Figure 2.12. Kauila Kupuna and Keiki ...... 116

Figure 2.13. Halapepe Kupuna and Keiki ...... 117

Figure 2.14. Maʻo hau hele Regeneration and Mortality ...... 118

Figure 2.15. Hau hele ʻula Regeneration and Mortality ...... 119

9

Figure 3.1. Examples of Biocultural Components of Tropical Dry Forest Restoration ...... 120

Figure 3.2. Greatest Challenges Identified by Managers ...... 120

Figure 3.4. Restoration Genera or Species and Outplank Ranking ...... 121

Figure 3.5. Restoration Genera or Species and Seedling Ranking ...... 121

10

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Interview to Hoaʻāina (caretakers) of Auwahi & Kaʻūpulehu ...... 122

Appendix B: Auwahi Forest Restoration Project: Post Event Survey ...... 124

Appendix C: Kaʻūpūlehu Visitor Survey ...... 126

Appendix D: Hawaiʻi Tropical Dry Forest Restoration Projects - Survey to Managers ...... 128

11

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Remaining cover of Tropical Dry Forests (TDF) is estimated at 1,048,700 km2 globally –

making up approximately 42% of tropical forests (Murphy and Lugo, 1986; Miles et al., 2006).

Although TDF has been among the most degraded and endangered of all tropical forest types

(Khurana & Singh 2001; Miles et al. 2006; Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2005), this forest type has

historically been understudied compared with other tropical forest types (Meli 2003). TDF is

especially at high risk from conversion to agriculture in the tropics, with records of 60% or

higher suitability for crop cultivation for TDF areas in South America, Eurasia, and Africa

(Miles et al., 2006). Approximately 97% of TDF is subject to pressures from climate change,

forest fragmentation, fire, conversion to agriculture, human population, and deforestation, and

with evidence of high biodiversity (Olson et al., 2000), TDF has been identified as a high priority

forest type for future conservation actions (Miles et al., 2006).

International Restoration Standards define ecological restoration as, “any activity with the goal of achieving substantial ecosystem recovery relative to an appropriate reference model

(informed by native ecosystems, including many traditional cultural ecosystems), regardless of the time required to achieve recovery (Gann et al. 2019).” The concept of restoration is broad

and includes many approaches to ecosystem management and nature-based solutions, all of

which are valuable. The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) recently reorganized the

International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) to better incorporate social-economic and cultural factors that can greatly affect outcomes of

restoration (Gann et al. 2019). Assessing how and why humans impact TDF is often hindered by

the diversity of site-specific and sometimes idiosyncratic drivers of land-use and land-use

12

change. For example, understanding local social dynamics, human perceptions of their

environment, and economic conditions determining resource management will all influence

human decision making and so ultimately the shape and timeline of TDF restoration (Quesada et

al. 2011).

This study focuses on two TDF restoration efforts in the Hawaiian archipelago, where

TDF once represented the greatest species diversity of Hawaiian forest types (Rock 1913). The

early Hawaiians arrived in 400 A.D. and designated much of low elevation zones as wao kanaka

(human settlement zone), where humans worked and cultivated the landscape (Kirch 1982;

Mueller-Dombois 2007; Winter et al. 2018). An analysis of human-transformed areas across the pre-Western-contact Hawaiʻi showed a geospatial footprint of less than 15% of total land area,

yet supporting 100% of the large Polynesian society (Gon et al., 2018). Hawaiian TDF were

located near and within these social-ecological zones that were were most favorable for

agriculture and a crucial source of resources including wood for survival, tools, vessels, food,

medicine, shelter, ritual, and being a crucial place for the health, spirit, and survival of the

community (Allen 2000; HFIA 2007; Medeiros et al. 1998).

With the arrival of new settlers and cultures from Europe and Asia to Hawai‘i starting in

1778, TDF underwent continued large-scale land use changes (Gon et al., 2018). Foremost was

the introduction of invasive species such as fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) as an

ornamental (Cuddihy & Stone 1990; D’Antonio & Vitousek 1992; Degener 1940; Wagner et al.

1990), and the introduction of ungulates (Blackmore & Vitousek 2000). There was also an

intense sandalwood extraction from the early 1800’s till the 1830’s (St John 1947) and habitat

destruction through establishment of pastures (Cuddihy & Stone 1990; Cordell & Sandquist

2008), which has resulted in increased wildfires (Trauernicht et al. 2015). These changes have

13 had widespread consequences to native flora and fauna and contributed to a rapidly growing number of threatened and endangered Hawaiian plant species (Sakai et al. 2002). More recently, climate change induced warming and drought (Frazier et al. 2017; Giambelluca et al. 2013) has exacerbated and increased wildfire frequency due to expansion of non-native fire prone grasses

(that now cover a quarter of Hawaii’s land area) and fine fuel loads (Cram et al. 2013). As a result of these impacts over some 1,600 years, Hawaiʻi has lost over 90% of its TDF (Bruegmann

1996), with the extent of native TDF cover reduced to just 1% of original cover and leaving 45% of the TDF plant species at risk of extinction (Allen 2000; Cabin et al. 2000).

Approaches to resource management that engage a socio-ecological framework emphasize the integrated concept of humans-in-nature, and the linkages across human and natural systems (Berkes & Folke 1998; Berkes et al. 2003). Biocultural conservation is nested in the concept of a social-ecological framework, and are conservation approaches that recognize the relationships between nature and humans, and are built on local cultural perspectives (Gavin et al. 2015; Sterling et al. 2017). Hawaiʻi is often described as a model for social-ecological systems and biocultural conservation because of the influence of Hawaiian knowledge systems in diverse aspects of life in Hawaiʻi, held in the concept of aloha ʻāina, which is broadly described as “the reciprocal kinship between people and environment, governing our ability to exist in this place as well as our ability to be fruitful and thrive” (Pascua et al. 2017). In Hawaiʻi, there are restoration efforts that recognize indigenous knowledge systems and that the kaiaulu (or kaiāulu

- human community) have had a long history with kaiaola (ecosystem) of TDF. The prefix kaia means a clustering together, ola means life and ulu meaning growth. There is a linguistical similarity between these two words that describe the clustering together of ecosystem life and the growth of the human community, two aspects of the Hawaiian Worldview that are inextricably

14

linked. Within the kaiaulu, there is another Hawaiian term, hoa ʻāina (intimacy with place) that

encompasses cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships to conservation

practice (Pascua et al., 2017).

Despite the intimate relationship of TDF with the low elevation human settlement zones

of wao kanaka, and decades of academic and agency research on TDF restoration, there has been

little evaluation of the role and social-ecological outcomes of a biocultural approach to TDF

restoration. Previous studies recommend that TDF restoration in Hawaii and other regions with

similar ecological dynamics should focus on three major objectives: (1) non-native ungulate

exclusion; (2) control of invasive grasses and weeds; and (3) exploitation of existing or creation

of new favorable microsites combined with outplanting of selected native species to these areas

(Cabin et al. 2002, Cordell et al. 2008). Over the past 20+ years there have been TDF restoration

initiatives across the State of Hawaii, but not a systematic review of strategies, successes, and

challenges from a managers perspective. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish

and Wildlife Office produced a recent status assessment of Hawaiian islands TDF, including

current status, stressors, and future viability of TDF in Hawaiʻi (Javar-Salas et al. 2019).

However, the assessment did not focus on identifying specific restoration efforts, successes and

challenges for management of TDF, and lacked any mention of the use or value of biocultural approaches other than including “providing educational and cultural opportunities” as one of the

many conservation efforts.

Conservation funding and logistical limitations for TDF restoration must also be taken

into account, and involving the community with volunteer outplanting, invasive species removal,

along with the assistance of natural regeneration is a reliable option for restoration (Hardwick et

al. 1997; Honu & Dang 2002). There is also growing recognition that conservation programs

15

should understand and recognize different worldviews, and provide opportunities for

relationships to build between multiple stakeholders (Kohler et al. 2019). Worldview refers to

how cultural groups conceptualize the world, a framework that has grounded how many

indigenous and local people conserve and manage their environment across generations (Johnson

et al. 2016). By bringing together different worldviews and knowledge systems to a particular

place, a community can not only learn from and get to know each other, but they can also learn

from and get to know the place and the nonhuman collaborators (Larsen & Johnson 2017). The

term biophilia describes the core human desire to relate to nature (Kahn et al. 2009) and further

studies into the human-nature relationship could improve our ability to take care of the

environment (Restall & Conrad 2015). Using a biocultural restoration approach to projects can

strengthen relationship to place for individuals and among communities (Chapin & Knapp 2015),

and subsequently improve conservation efforts (Restall & Conrad 2015). Four elements of

successful restoration are highlighted in this study include ecological restoration, social

restoration, cultural restoration, and spiritual restoration.

To address research gaps in the social-ecological outcomes of biocultural restoration of

TDF, I chose two Hawaiian TDF sites that have engaged in biocultural restoration efforts for

approximately two decades: Kaʻūpūlehu and Auwahi. Both have excluded ungulates and

removed alien plant species, grounded management decisions within multiple worldviews and

knowledge systems, and engaged the broader community in their restoration effort. Kaʻūpūlehu

and Auwahi have had some of the best measured ecological success in the state in terms of

natural regeneration from wild and outplanted species in TDF (Libby et al. 2018, Ticktin et al.

unpublished data; Medeiros & von Allmen 2006). Drawing on these two sites as case-studies, in

this thesis I discusses the motivations associated with a biocultural approach and impacts on the

16

community that include ecological, cultural, social and spiritual elements (Chapter 1); provide a

measure of the ecological success of biocultural restoration at one site (Chapter 2); and provide

an overview of TDF restoration in Hawaiʻi by bringing in other perspectives of restoration

initiatives across the State (Chapter 3).

In Chapter 1 I address the following questions: (1) What are the motivations of hoaʻāina

(caretakers/restoration managers) for implementing a biocultural approach to TDF restoration,

and the motivations for the kaiaulu (community) to engage with these biocultural restoration

projects?; (2) from the perspectives of hoaʻāina, what does a biocultural approach encompass?;

(3) and how is biocultural restoration impacting the kaiaulu?

Study Sites

Auwahi TDF

The Auwahi TDF restoration site lies within the ahupuaʻa (social-ecological land division) of Auwahi on the leeward flanks of Haleakalā, East Maui sitting on 3,000 to 5,000-year old lava that is privately owned by the ‘Ulupalakua Ranch. The 50 acre fenced stand of restored habitat is surrounded by less diverse forest and more open-statured shrubland on lava substrate.

The terrain consists of a series of rocky ridges and interconnecting gullies (slope 20 – 30°) with generally rocky substrate and sparse soil accumulations (Medeiros et al. 2014). Mean annual precipitation is ca. 730 mm with a pronounced dry season from April to September (Giambelluca et al. 2011) and mean monthly temperatures between 13.9°C and 18.3°C (Scholl et al. 2007).

Auwahi contains high native tree diversity with 50 species censused, many with extremely hard, durable, and heavy wood. Of the fifty-odd species of rare Hawaiian trees that are ecologically important to the Hawaiian TDF, forty-one have specific Hawaiian ethnobotanical uses; nineteen of these have medicinal uses, thirteen were used for making specific tools, thirteen were used in

17

canoe construction, eight in kapa (Hawaiian traditional cloth) making, and a further eight to

make dyes ranging from pink to blue to a rich yellow-orange. At least seven of the trees have spiritual significance and were used religiously (Medeiros et al. 1998).

Historically, Auwahi had been greatly transformed by burning, grazing, and invasion by non-native plant species and animals (Medeiros et al. 2014; Shiels et al. 2017). In 1950, the ranch planted Pennisetum clandestinus (kikuyu grass) throughout Auwahi as forage for cattle and to reduce erosion (Medeiros et al. 2014). By 1965, kikuyu grass had developed into a dense mat, negatively impacting native tree growth and dramatically reducing native seedling recruitment (Medeiros et al. 2014). In the 1960s, forest protection efforts began with fencing to exclude domestic and feral ungulates, and in the 1990s newly developed glyphosate-based herbicides were used to control kikuyu grass.

Although Auwahi has been the focus of protection and restoration efforts since the late

1960s starting in 1997 efforts diversified and become reorganized around a biocultural approach involving community (adult volunteers from the broad demographics of Maui) outplanting of dry

shrub nurse plants, which led to enhanced germination (Medeiros et al. 2014). More than 1,700

community members have directly contributed to more than 125,000 seedlings being outplanted

on the site over the span of the restoration project (Auwahi Forest Restoration Project, 2020).

Kaʻūpūlehu TDF

The Ka‘ūpūlehu TDF is located within the ahupuaʻa of Kaʻūpūlehu on the west side of

Hawaiʻi Island in North Kona district, and covers about 76 acres of fenced TDF (Thaxton et al.

2010); the site is located at about 600 m elevation (Cordell et al. 2008) with a 92 year mean of

annual rainfall of approximately 715 mm per year (Giambelluca et al. 1986; 2013). Kaʻūpūlehu

is made up of two lava flows, creating natural fuel breaks. The most recent lava flow occurred in

18

1801 (Kauahikaua et al. 2002) and the older flows date back 750 years (Wright et al. 1992). The

private land-owner is Kamehameha Schools (King & Roth, 2006). Kaʻūpūlehu remains one of

the most ecologically intact native TDF remnants left in Hawaiʻi (Cabin et al. 2000), and with its rich plant community, sacred sites, and historical artifacts, it is considered to be a wahi pana

(sacred and pulsing place).

The restoration site was established in 1999 and fenced in 2000, with management including ungulate control/fence maintenance, invasive plant removal, fire mitigation, native plant restoration, and educational outreach. Most of the understory of this site before management was dominated by the invasive fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum); the adjacent land areas today are still dominated by fountain grass and the invasive alien shrub Lantana camara (Cabin et al. 2000). Ka’ūpūlehu is recorded to have over 10 federally threatened or endangered species and some are PEP species (plants with fewer than 50 individuals in the wild, or for which wild founders are extinct). Thousands of plants have been outplanted by staff and outreach groups including children and adult community members. A recent study showed that natural regeneration of at least seven threatened and endangered species is occurring at

Kaʻūpūlehu (Libby et al. 2018, Ticktin et al. unpublished data).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hoaʻāina (Caretakers/Restoration Managers) Analyses

To study the motivations of hoaʻāina for implementing a biocultural approach to TDF

restoration, and what a biocultural approach encompasses for each hoaʻāina, I conducted semi-

direct interviews with hoaʻāina. The interviewees were asked 10-11 questions broken up into

three categories: Piko Poʻo that looked into the past, and addressed historical, ancestral and/or

spiritual connections; Piko Waena that looked at the present, and the intervieweeʻs personal role

19

or experience with the restoration; and lastly Piko Maʻi that looked into the future and goals for

the next generation (Appendix A). Interviewees consisted of three participants from Auwahi, and

five from Kaʻūpūlehu, including four men and four women, ranging in age from 30s to 60s. I

selected interviewees based on their engagement with the restoration projects, either as hoaʻāina

who were pivotal to the inception of the project and/or who joined the restoration project at a

later date but hold an active role today. The interview process required a prior informed consent

(UH Human Studies Program, Protocol ID: 2019-00419) through signature for the interview and

for an audio recording for transcription. Interviews were conducted in person when possible

ranging from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. After the interviews were fully transcribed, the audio was

erased, and the transcriptions were entered into NVivo (QSR International) to analyze data

through a combination of selective and open coding (Creswell, 2012). Major themes were coded

and more specifically, sub themes were coded within the major themes. These codes were further

analyzed to identify the themes that addressed my research questions.

Kaiaulu (Human community) Analyses

To understand the motivations for kaiaulu engagement with biocultural restoration

projects, and the ways in which these biocultural restoration projects are impacting the kaiaulu, I completed a qualitative and quantitative analysis on post-event surveys given out to community members that visit the forest. The survey for Auwahi was designed in collaboration with the managers and included 12 open-ended, close-ended, ranking, and multiple choice questions

(Appendix B). Some questions on the post-event survey sought to understand what components of the visit were most important to them and why; e.g., if the visit helped to develop a personal relationship to the place; or if the use of Hawaiian culture and values made them want to return and/or help with any future restoration efforts. To gain some context on the Auwahi Restoration

20

Project's survey participants I asked participants how many times they have been to Auwahi and

some demographic information. I distributed a post-event survey at Auwahi after three workdays

and 31 adults had completed the surveys. The process included securing prior informed consent

through reading an informative consent letter, with survey participation serving as consent for

the study. After three workdays, the majority of the volunteers had taken the survey, and survey

responses were no longer revealing new major themes.

Kaʻūpūlehu managers requested that an analysis of their existing visitor survey that was

created by the Kaʻūpūlehu hoaʻāina (Appendix C), be used in this study as opposed to

developing a new one. Surveys ranged from seven to nine questions, based on which version

participants completed, and consisted of open-ended, close-ended, and ranking questions. Some

of the survey questions were modified in 2019; however, only those that were replicated on both

survey versions were used in this analysis. I analyzed a total of 19 surveys from Kaʻūpūlehu

collected from nine different workdays. Identifiable information (names) were removed by the

project managers before the surveys were analyzed. The only demographic information that could be gathered from the surveys were grade levels and affiliation (school name or organization name). Age groups of visitors ranged from 6th grade to adults.

The qualitative analysis of survey results from Auwahi and Kaʻūpūlehu were analyzed

separately as the questions and survey design were not identical, and later coded to find common

or opposing themes. I used NVivo (QSR International) to analyze data through a combination of

selective and open coding (Creswell, 2012). As with the hoa āina, sub themes were coded within

the coded major themes, and these codes were analyzed to identifyʻ the themes that addressed my

research questions. I conducted quantitative analysis to quantify close-ended questions (e.g.,

percentage of participants that answered yes), quantifying data from open-ended questions (e.g.,

21 how many participants drew a tree when asked about their experience), and quantifying multiple choice questions (e.g., how many participants identified as Native Hawaiian).

RESULTS

Coding analysis of both interviews and surveys from both sites revealed that the motivations of hoaʻāina for implementing a biocultural approach to TDF restoration, and of kaiaulu for engaging with biocultural restoration projects were diverse, but that all themes related to personal relationship to place. Biocultural approaches were defined by the hoaʻāina in multiple ways, and these can be understood through four broad categories of biocultural measures of success (ecological, social, cultural, and spiritual) and their impacts on kaiaulu.

Personal Relationship to Place

Having or building a relationship to place was an important catalyst for hoaʻāina in using a biocultural approach to restoration, as well as for visitors’ motivations to engage with or continue engagement with the restoration effort.

Hoaʻāina Perspectives

The hoaʻāina’s motivations for using a biocultural approach across both project sites were grounded in personal relationship to place (Table 1.1). Five of the eight interviewees were lineal descendants and described their perspectives on being a part of a multigenerational path, having familial relationships with the forest but also these relationships encompassing beyond the forest boundaries to the broader landscape. These participants further described having a pilina

(connection/relationship) that will never waver in the face of land-use changes, threats, and economic drivers. A recollection of one of the interviewee’s elaborates on the importance of maintaining the physical presence of a lineal descendant with place, not only for the benefit for the place but for the descendant themselves. The recollection of the interviewee speaks to a

22

descendant that used to have a presence on the land and what happens when people of place are

displaced from the land as follows:

“...that glow that was based in a place and a purpose that was more integrated, had

slipped, or had gone away or had to leave...it's not my place to even really hypothesize

what happened. But I know when he had it, it was a really rich thing that wasn't just

something that, I mean, you could feel it.”

The remaining three interview participants who were not lineal descendants described how they

have built a strong pilina with the place, the culture, and the community, essentially becoming

hānai-ed (fostered/adopted) by place. Aspects of personal relationship to place also emerged

when participants described their catalyst for getting involved in the project and it included

recognizing the damage done to the place, the work that has already been done, and the potential

for restoration, as well as developing pivotal relationships within the kaiaulu. Some interview

participants also described their initial Western-influenced motivations towards the restoration project and how that changed by developing a personal relationship to place.

23

Table 1.1. Motivations for Hoaʻāina (Caretakers) In Implementing a Biocultural Approach (N=8) Categories Perspectives Sample Quotes from Hoaʻāina (Caretakers) Descended from Multigenerational path "...here I am kind of just on that continuum, right...when you peered people of place (N=5) behind this long path, all along the way, you know, your people, the people you descend from, all were on the same path that you are presently walking. And then when you look to the future, you see, who will become one day descendants of mine. All converging and making our way to this particular path." Familial relationship with "I look at this place, as a, literally as a kupuna (elder). These trees, saw place/forest my kupuna five generations ago, these trees saw my kupuna 12 generations up....likened to the Elama (Diospyros sandwicensis) that I'm sitting next to, to say you too have changed...you live in a place that you and I call home, we share this homeland...do I change as need be? Do I adapt? Am I resilient?" Pilina "We are always going to have a strong presence here. And no matter who (connection/relationship) comes and goes and brings in their different activities and ideas of what never wavers, maintain they want to do with the land that they have purchased, or whatever, presence we'll adapt. Because we have to." Hānai-ed Building pilina "I am not a descendant, I don't have any lineage...And it just happened to (fostered/adopted) by (connection/relationship) be that these things kind of culminated in my undergrad experience at the place (N=3) same time of thinking about reciprocity and thinking about restoration. And what it means to live and be a part of everything we experienced...And it honestly comes down to, well, I have no control over where I was born, who my parents were, and what their ethnicity is. But I feel like I do have control where I am now." Catalyst for getting Recognizing the damage done "But when I finally got there, it was a dying forest. I guess I realized, involved in restoration even though I was pretty young that Auwahi was in freefall. And that it actually wasn't even over. It was still falling…People always talk about there's no keiki (natural recruits). Why would there be keiki if there’s kikuyu grass four feet thick from Africa?"

24

Table 1.1. (Continued) Motivations for Hoaʻāina (Caretakers) In Implementing a Biocultural Approach (N=8)

Recognizing the work that has "I remember being really moved by the place, and the people and the already been done effort." Recognizing potential "You'd have to recreate this habitat you know, and at the time there was a movie, Field of Dreams, and they had a quite corny line in it, but it was, if you build it, they will come. That's what I told people at the time, we just need to build the house. If we build the house, I just know the keikis will come. Not all of them but a good portion of the keiki will come..I used to say the forest was like a broken canoe, I pulled it off the reef into deep water, and it started to run. It showed me that it still had life in it. And then it started to pull me, pulled me to places I didn't know could be reached.” Kanaka (human) relationships "a group of people who care enough about a place that has propelled with landowners, restoration them to do something." team, community, family “...the ranch and I started to have a relationship with trust..”.

Initial Western lens and "I went to college for eight years, and I came with a certain skin on, you perspective know, I mean, and that sort of academic lens...and then I got here to the forest and I really had to slow down, get connected here, turn that part off, turn your head off little while."

25

Kaiaulu Perspectives

The range in number of times a survey participant had been to Auwahi was high (Figure

1.1), with 30% of participants having been to Auwahi one or two times, 50% having been three to six times, and 20% being long time volunteers of 16-18 years who had lost count (range of 15 to 30+ visits). The Auwahi Restoration Project’s surveys also asked for some demographic information (Figure 1.2), where survey participants were asked to check the boxes that they most identified with. The majority of participants checked the box for “Moved to Hawaiʻi, been here for 5+ years.” A few participants added in the margins of the survey sheet an explanation such as: Family has been here since the 60s; 40 years resident and adopted Hawaiian traditions, values; Home; Feel like I should be Native Hawaiian. None of the survey participants were of

Native Hawaiian descent, although three were born and/or raised in Hawaiʻi. In the survey,

30/31 participants expressed an interest in returning to Auwahi. Twenty-eight out of the 31

participants said yes, that volunteering at Auwahi made them feel like they had a personal

relationship with Auwahi and the community. The three survey participants who did not agree

that volunteering made them feel like they now had a personal relationship with Auwahi and the

community, were in fact first time volunteers and noted that they would need more time and

engagement to develop a relationship. The motivations for the kaiaulu to engage with biocultural

restoration projects were found to also be grounded in the theme of personal relationship to

place.

Because the survey for Kaʻūpūlehu was created and administered by the restoration

project prior to this study, the demographic questions did not fully align with Auwahi’s survey.

However, Kaʻūpūlehu’s survey collected grade level demographic descriptions (Figure 1.3).

Twenty-six percent of surveys analyzed were completed by 6th-8th graders, while 10th-12th

26

graders made up 16% of the surveys with students representing Public, Private, or Charter

Schools in Hawaiʻi. The remaining 58% who were adults were from both Hawaiʻi and Out-of-

State. Additional details on the surveys helped to better understand motivations of participants

involved in restoration. Participants were asked to rank their knowledge about the history and

significance of Kaʻūpūlehu prior to and following their visit (‘very little’ to ‘a lot’), and knowledge ranking increased by 12% to 88% for all participants. It is important to note that the participants who were found to have a smaller difference in knowledge growth, were those who had ranked their knowledge at a high level from before their visit. There is no way to know if these participants were born and raised in the area; however, it can be implied that they may have a developed relationship to the place if they identified themselves as having ‘a lot’ of knowledge about the history and significance of the place.

Defining Biocultural

In terms of understanding how these biocultural restoration projects are impacting the kaiaulu, we needed to first understand what exactly makes the approach “biocultural” from the perspectives of the hoaʻāina. Biocultural approaches were defined by the hoaʻāina in various ways and participants drew on these ideas to discuss four biocultural measures of success

(ecological, social, cultural, and spiritual).

Hoaʻāina Perspectives

The hoaʻāina defined biocultural in context of their restoration project (Table 1.2). Aloha

ʻāina was commonly used interchangebly for the term “biocultural” and aloha ʻāina in the context of restoration was described by hoaʻāina as knowing your place, loving your place, and collaborating with place. The location of the TDF being within or near the wao kanaka zone was

deemed an important motivation for a biocultural approach as the forest holds biocultural

27

resources that are important to the people of Hawaiʻi. The return of lineal descendants was also

recognized as a crucial part of a biocultural project because these are the people of place that live

aloha ʻāina, holding deep-seated relationships with the biocultural resources of the TDF.

Participants described their biocultural projects as multicultural and multigenerational, representing a diverse age range. While interview participants acknowledged the scientific knowledge that is brought to the table, they emphasized the value of grounding their management decisions in the Hawaiian worldview, and described ways of blending traditional knowledge such as the Hawaiian moon calendar with modern managment decisions. Some cultural practices and traditions that are sustained in restoration efforts include hoʻomālie (to calm in silence), hoʻoponopono (to make right), pule (prayer), use of ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi (Hawaiian language), and storytelling through different medium such as moʻolelo (historical narratives), oli

(chant), and mele (composition). Interview participants described that a biocultural approach creates a space for the kaiaulu to have spiritual engagement, whether by providing a safe and quiet space to connect with the forest, or by engaging the kaiaulu in the act of physically rebuilding the forest. This spiritual space was described by one interview participant as a

“natural heiau” with heiau defined as a place of worship in Hawaiʻi (Elbert and Pukui, 1986).

The last component that participants at both restoration sites identified was the ʻohana (familial) work environment, described as a foundational framework that has guided the restoration team through many challenges and divisive issues. The interview participants explained that the familial work relationship was fostered by the previously mentioned component of these projects maintaining an intentional range of older and younger generations

28

Table 1.2. Themes of a biocultural approach which emerged from interviews with Hoaʻāina (caretakers/restoration managers) (N=8) Themes Description Sample Quotes from Hoaʻāina Aloha ʻĀina Know your Place "...if you know the attributes, and characteristics of that, you are mindful of where you place things, what you do...being maʻa (accustomed) to your ʻāina, maʻa, really knowing your place, which means all of it, knowing its elements, it's attributes and how you function within that, that I think is essential." "...we take the intelligence shaped by our geographies of origin...When you live in a place like this and you have rainfall like you did yesterday, which is fabulous, but rainfall like we had yesterday also leads to fire fuel loading, you know that the rain today brings potential for fire hazard later."

"...doing our best to honor stories or elemental cues...what's the name of this wind? What's the name of this rain, what's the name of the moon phase that we're in right now and whether or not it's a good time to plant, or a good time to weed or to spray and to overlap these traditional practices, but blend them into our modern day practices...we try to synchronize or strategize our work techniques or methods in relation to environmental cues."

Love your Place "For me it comes to two particular terms which are really in essence the same, aloha ʻāina & mālama ʻāina (taking care of place). You love a place, you mālama a place because you love a place."

"...it's like the one interacting with the other and how they affect each other, and the culture that is created from the two, especially if, you know you're a part of ʻāina, I mean, if you think of yourself as separate, it's never going to play into your identity..."

Collaborate with Place "For many of us we can list people, agencies, whomever we are collaborating with, in my mind the first and foremost collaborator is, you collaborate with ʻāina, beyond and above of collaborating with an agency."

29

Table 1.2. (Continued) Themes of a biocultural approach which emerged from interviews with Hoaʻāina (caretakers/restoration managers) (N=8) Wao Kanaka Culturally valuable "Because of what the forest meant to people, because there isn't a forest that Biocultural Resources forest had that many tree species, you know, because it is wao kanaka, because it’s the forest that not only is where people got things, but it was the physical setting for their lives. They lived right below the forest."

Lineal Descendants "Another thing that is very important to humans is when the peoples of place return to a place...There is science that happens here, no doubt. And that there is also and I believe for us as equal playing field is cultural components. Lineal descendants are part of the mix, it’s not a voice that’s absent...I think to go back on, if there are no native people, native kamaʻāina, people who are maʻa and familiar to the landscape have some sort of lineal connection to the place, I believe there is a void, I believe there is an absence."

Different Knowledge Multigenerational "I just think there's a lot of beauty in the diversity of perspectives and ages and Systems the associated kind of dynamics that you bring with those attributes."

"...there's different levels of people all the time."

"So the traditional ecological knowledge, of place is set, its existent, it's here. And we so credit uncle and aunty, they taught us that practice from their kupuna."

Multicultural "So there's some really interesting things that we wanted to explore this idea of, can our cultural stories intersect with this scientific data that we're able to gather...we're constantly trying to refine and study more stories and learn more mele and oli of place because it's data; we're doing our best to honor stories or elemental cues...what's the name of the moon phase that we're in right now and whether or not it's a good time to plant, or a good time to weed"

30

Table 1.2. (Continued) Themes of a biocultural approach which emerged from interviews with Hoaʻāina (caretakers/restoration managers) (N=8) Cultural Practice and Hoʻomālie (to calm in "We Hoʻomālie...we'll always do it with groups but for us on our day to Traditions silence) day...it’s usually when someone is feeling a little flustered and take a minute to release that...take a deep breath and think about what you do before you do it."

Hoʻoponopono (to make "We've had issues and we'll just address it. To me it does feel hoʻoponopono- right) ish, like, okay there’s a challenge, lets come to the table, let’s just get it out in the open. That's very cultural, for sure. I mean, internally as a team that's helped us, you know, to really try and get it together."

Pule (prayer) "...if you pule, our pule will be like the high tide that makes a modest swell a remarkable thing."

Traditions (Continued) Use of ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi "...we're trying to honor and use hawaiian names of plants, and everything (Hawaiian Language) around us: pohaku (stone), lau (leaf), lāʻau (plant), manu (bird)... We're so blessed that we have this amazing environment and the culture which is still alive, to use simple things like that, that help us to strengthen that connection..."

Oli (chant) "it was the worst drought on record. And when he started it was crystal blue. And by the time he finished it was pouring rain." [in context of interviewee describing an experience with oli]

Storytelling through "Just to see the kids when [name removed] is saying the moʻolelo, they are in, Moʻolelo (historical they are engrossed hundred percent, because it's about them, it's about their narratives) place, it's about the gods that their ancestors honored. It's about them…" "...we strive to tell the story of the land, you know, through the multimedia...In our conservation action plan for the rest area, among the more unusual elements were moʻolelo, but not just that, we would collect them from the Hawaiian language newspapers, or from the old folks telling, but that we would perpetuate the practice of storytelling that we perpetuate the transmittal of information from the lips of the teller to the ears of the listener…"

31

Table 1.2. (Continued) Themes of a biocultural approach which emerged from interviews with Hoaʻāina (caretakers/restoration managers) (N=8) Spiritual Creating space for "We're rebuilding natural heiau that are millions of years old. I brought that all spiritual engagement along from the very beginning. That this is spiritual work here..."

“So this forest affords much feeling, much reflection, pause, for me it's much more difficult to pause in and amongst that that isn't this that we're looking at. This allows kanaka the time and the space they need physically, mentally, physiologically allows DNA to really speak louder than maybe sometimes that the other things of life that tend to speak have a louder voice.”

Instilled Familial work "And then just remembering we're ʻohana. We love each other. I make mistakes familial/communal relationship between and they let me know. I like that. And you know how kupuna used to correct framework restoration team and you? I like that, you know when I was young, that's how I learned. Yeah, we're building a sense of in a relationship all together." community "...unfailing practice of aloha i ke kahi i ke kahi (love from one to the other). And even when the land use planning or other political processes cause us to be on opposite sides of the conversation table we still aloha i ke kahi i ke kahi. And because that is our traditional and customary practice, we can move through what in other communities may be even more tense, even more divisive circumstances to a progressive and positive outcome..."

32

Biocultural Measures of Success

Hoaʻāina Perspectives

In addressing the question of what is a biocultural approach, in the context of TDF

restoration, the interview participants further described what they deemed as biocultural

measures of success and if they were witnessing successful restoration at their project sites.

Ecological restoration was recognized as important, but successful restoration also required

social, cultural, and spiritual elements (Table 1.3). Some of the participants explicitly categorized

the different measures of success using these terms, and others shared their perspectives that

aligned within the four categories. One interview participant described success with all four

categories interwoven:

"Success is sitting in the shade of the lama (Diospyros sandwicensis) and uhiuhi

(Caesalpinia kavaiense), the mixed canopy, the fragrance of ʻaiea (Nothocestrum

latifolium) wafting by and seeing naturally occurring reproduction. And with a cohort of

people observing and talking about it with one another. And so I love the word naʻau, it's

mind, its heart, it's everything. So you know, just to be able to touch the naʻau from one

to the other - i ke kahi i ke kahi - is where the solutions are to be found, you know..."

Ecological restoration was described as the forest functioning on its own, having more native

than invasive species, and having a diverse plant community. Social restoration was described as

having community engagement with forest restoration, and having community come together.

Cultural restoration was described as people gaining a familiarity with cultural resources and

lineal descendants returning to place. Spiritual restoration was described as the forest becoming a

restorative church-like place, having a peaceful place where keiki are brought to life, and having

profound effects on the naʻau (heart, mind, feeling).

33

Table 1.3. Categories of biocultural restoration defined by hoaʻāina (caretakers/restoration managers; N=8) and corresponding support from kaiaulu (community) Category Description Sample Quotes from Hoaʻāina Supportive Quotes from Kaiaulu Ecological More natives "...you can walk through and there's almost no “Restoration work. Because the forests were Restoration than invasive weeds, most of the seedlings are native. It's at that destroyed, so many plants were lost or went species stage where everything's big enough or dense extinct and Maui’s ecosystem was altered. It enough, where you don't have to go spray a lot of changed everything from soil, to animals, to poison and do a lot of things to it..." weather patterns. I think it is important to restock the forest so it can return to how it once was.” A

Functioning "What I see is sequentially building forests that "I think that it’s very heartening to see the on its own have greater functionality...when systems start to successes of these endangered species once work better, when it's less like given a protected home." K gardening...reinforcing their own stability, kind of like taking care of themselves, as long as you help them out, keep the fence up."

Diverse "...are the birds...things that are that can function "I noticed the lovely birds chirping, the wind community and live without my input, are they here? Are there blowing against my skin, and I felt amazing worms in the ground? Those sorts of things are the just thinking about how much I am enjoying indicators...there's just the community, we're all my time here." K here, we're living together. We're going to our next cycles, there is natural regeneration. Kupuna, makua, keiki, there's all the phases of life in this forest, that's a measure of success for me." Social Community "And I'm really grateful to all the people. I often “Community involvement in restoration of Restoration engagement told people that said, "wow it worked, it's amazing. ʻāina, re-establishing native biota.” A with forest It's a miracle." I'm like, "I knew. I knew, I knew the restoration ecological part. You know, what's the miracle? You guys. You guys are the miracle. You guys I didn't predict."" 34

Table 1.3. (Continued) Categories of biocultural restoration defined by hoaʻāina (caretakers/restoration managers; N=8) and corresponding support from kaiaulu (community)

Community "That was what the volunteers were in a way, I said “Sense of community with people who care coming that I was haku-ing (composing, bringing together), and are doing environmental activism and together I was going to haku the forest and the community preserving culture and spirit of place.” A together. And once they became haku-ed, they would almost grow together." “Feeling welcomed and a sense of community from these wonderful staff and volunteers.” A

Cultural Familiarity “...really seeing people relate to ʻāina...they're using "During this visit, my classmates and I were Restoration with cultural the names of the trees now. To me, that's a measure able to learn about the history of this specific resources of success, if they can re-say the names and say that area and the various plants that thrive or are they felt something here, felt good here and felt being restored here. Examples of plants connected on some level." include kauila (Colubrina oppositifolia), lama (Diospyros sandwichencis), ʻohe makai (Polyscias sandwicensis), halapepe (Chrysodracon hawaiiensis), and alaheʻe (Psydrax odorata)." K

Protecting a "...when we're able to protect species that are "The thing that I had felt like we are giving cultural inherently connected to our culture we are making more life to the ʻāina." K resource our culture stronger. When we don't lose a plant due to extinction we are still keeping a component or a key piece of our culture alive and on a kanaka understanding level, when people get that, in turn, they want to protect it even more."

35

Table 1.3. (Continued) Categories of biocultural restoration defined by hoaʻāina (caretakers/restoration managers; N=8) and corresponding support from kaiaulu (community) People "Another thing that is very important to humans is "The people who live there know it so well and returning to when the peoples of place return to a place. And it's see it as more than a resource. They see the place not that they got to look through a gate, or look forest as a friend, a deity and a culture." K through some, where they don't have the code to get in, they don't have the key to get in...and you can "I felt and assuring sense of aloha, a term that relay, relay these things to your children or to your means hello and good bye, but more grandchildren to say, this is where papa importantly, love to nature and for the beauty (grandfather) did this. This is where your tutu and cultural significance/resilience that is (grandmother), so that I believe is truly an indicator reflected in the stories of indigenous of success." communities." K

Spiritual Restorative, "The presence of being around old trees in general, “Nature is my church. Giving back to the land Restoration church-like even when you're out in the pasture...when they're that feeds my soul.” A surrounded by native shrubs, and you kind of get a semblance of the shade, the air, the wind, “The sense of sacredness of the land and the something that happens there for people that's restoration.” A really important. And I do consider it spiritual restoration."

Peaceful, keiki "I don't know how we would have measured that "I enjoyed the times of hoʻomālie because it (children) except for I mean, we do have reflection sheets. I allowed me to create a deeper connection with brought to life mean they're talking about I felt at peace, I felt like my surroundings." K I belonged here...So that's a measure of success for me, just to see the keiki, to see them come alive, "Sitting in silence in the lama trees, offering and to hear some of the teachers saying, you know, our presence is something I’ve never this student does not act like this in school. You experienced on the mainland." K know, I've had several teachers say, well this student, they're shy in school. And now they're out and about, together, they're talking. The teachers are like, wow"

36

Table 1.3. (Continued) Categories of biocultural restoration defined by hoaʻāina (caretakers/restoration managers; N=8) and corresponding support from kaiaulu (community) Profound "...there are the people that are touched, as they “The lama tree, endemic and most prominent effects on the pass through...the students, out of all the places in this dryland forest is the tree of light. I was naʻau (heart, they would go, like they thought that they'd like the inspired by these kupuna tree to tap into that mind, feeling) beach places the best, but they like the dryland enlightenment and allow the mana (power) of forest the best, it went to their naʻau...So the range this ahupuaʻa and forest to flow into me and of ways that it affects us and how we sustain share my mana, through work, with them." K interaction with it, whether it's a childhood memory that informs a course that we take when we're at "It’s impossible to be at Auwahi without UH Manoa, or the way that we tell a story or the feeling the mana of the place and the aloha for way that we feel the shade on a sunny day. It's as all." A profound as we remember it might be."

All of Ecological, "Success is sitting in the shade of the lama and "Connection to place. Reflection of home above Social, uhiuhi, the mixed canopy, the fragrance of aiea (Pohnpei). Humility, gratitude, uplifting of Cultural, wafting by and seeing naturally occurring spirit, eye-opening experience, satisfaction, Spiritual reproduction. And with a cohort of people contentedness in giving back, spiritual observing and talking about it with one another. presence of ancestors, sense of self, history And so I love the word naʻau yeah, because it's significance, unique, rare plants need to be mind, its heart, it's everything. So you know, just to protected, great people are taking care of the be able to touch the naʻau from one to the other - i ʻāina, inspiration and passion, moved, ke kahi i ke kahi, is where the solutions are to be extremely moved by place." K found, you know..." A Supportive quotes from the Auwahi kaiaulu (N=31) K Supportive quotes from the Kaʻūpūlehu kaiaulu (N=19

37

While participants described components of successful restoration that they work towards or witness, they pointed out specific flaws in using the term, “successful restoration”. In doing so, they recognize the cyclical Hawaiian worldview, that the forest is a part of a larger kaiaola cycle that is forever changing and will require constant engagement and follow up by the kaiaulu. One participant states:

“...nothing can be restored because everything’s changing and there’s the human concept of

what it should be but actually getting it back to prehuman contact, that’s impossible. Change

is inevitable and without a huge dome over it you're not going to keep the weeds out.”

The majority of interview participants expressed their vision for an ideal future as having the community engaged and maintaining a recipricol relationship with the forest.

“...our hands should always be in the rocks, in the soil, in the sea. And there's a time for

planting. Much like there's a time for harvesting, there's a time for rest, so there's always

going to be some sort of relation to the ʻāina...There, it's cycles and that we get in tuned with

the cycles of place. There's never a point of no engagement. Even if we're sitting quietly, that

in itself is engagement.”

One participant emphasizes that restoration must always be place-based and to be careful what you deem unsuccessful, as even a dead tree has function in the system:

“...there's so many variables and so many factors to look at, defining success and we not be

so quick to jump to say, because it's all interconnected...you do want to have goals,

benchmarks, those sorts of things. I think what I'm trying to say is it so has to be place based,

and almost custom made for a particular place, because there's a danger I think, if we just go

straight across, if that forest never plant 250 trees, but that one did, that ones successful, this

one isn't. This is the slowest tree that we're sitting by, this elama, scientists cannot even

38

measure, date it...or that it's right next to a kupuna...this is a kauila that has transitioned.

And right next to it or in and amongst its branches is a live elama. So is there a relationship

there? Does this, to some are deemed dead wood, does it not have a function or a purpose to

be in and amongst the leaves of maybe it's keiki?”

Impacts of Biocultural Restoration on Kaiaulu

Kaiaulu Perspectives

The impacts of biocultural restoration on kaiaulu are consistent with, and provide further support for the four categories of ecological, social, cultural, and spiritual restoration that are included as biocultural measures of success that hoaʻāina identified (Table 1.3). The kaiaulu described the ecological dynamics of restoring a native forest and witnessing ecological restoration as in the featured quote:

“I think that it’s very heartening to see the successes of these endangered species once

given a protected home.”

Responses from surveys also recognized components of social restoration happening through witnessing community coming together and engaging with the efforts to restore the forest as presented in this quote:

“Sense of community with people who care and are doing environmental activism and

preserving culture and spirit of place.”

Cultural restoration was multifaceted for the kaiaulu as they described gaining a familiarity with and protecting cultural resources, and the impact of engaging with people of place:

"The people who live there know it so well and see it as more than a resource. They see

the forest as a friend, a deity and a culture."

39

Spiritual restoration was also described from the perspectives of kaiaulu in terms of sacred-ness, soul feeding, and being church-like:

“Nature is my church. Giving back to the land that feeds my soul.”

To further understand the impacts of biocultural restoration for kaiaulu, I present the results from Auwahi when survey participants were asked to identify what components of the volunteer day were important to them (Fig. 4). The components identified by the majority of volunteers (>80%) included, from most to least: being in nature/greenery and planting trees, sense of community, working towards something positive, restoration work, oli or mele, the staff and leaders, Hawaiian culture context, learning ethnobotany, and feeling welcomed. Components including (from most to least) science/research, sweating/perspiration, and volunteer hours were marked the least by survey participants (less than 50%), and the remaining components fell between 50%-80% (from most to least): instilled sense of hope, touching soil/dirt/ʻāina, learning botany (Scientific knowledge of plants), learning/hearing place names, moʻolelo.

At Auwahi, when survey participants were asked to elaborate with an open-ended question on what they felt was the most important component (from Figure 1.4), participants identified cultural, spiritual, and social components, supporting what hoaʻāina described as cultural, spiritual and social restoration (Table 1.3). When survey participants from Auwahi elaborated on the most important components, they commonly mentioned the word “culture” in their responses, however, culture was not recognized as important on its own as it was grounded in different components of their overall experience. At Kaʻūpūlehu, survey participants were prompted with open-ended questions that included, “write and share something from your time with dryland plants working and learning. It can be any combination of feelings, thoughts, sights, sounds that you noticed.” “What is one thing you learned about Kaʻūpūlehu as a native Hawaiian

40

homeland? Either from a moʻolelo told or something shared by the people who work here.”

These questions prompted responses that detailed the experiences and lessons that participants

took from being a part of the restoration effort and what specific components of the day were

found to be memorable. Responses included similar feedback to those made by volunteers at

Auwahi, including cultural, spiritual, and social component (Table 1.3).

Kaʻūpūlehu survey participants were asked to accompany their feedback with a sketch, and a few are featured below to support the results from the qualitative analysis. Figure 1.4 (left) shows a girl cross legged on a stone wall with leaves and her hair being blown in the wind, with the word “Peace” with the accompanying reflection, “I loved the quiet times. I rarely spend anytime anymore just listening and watching. It really opened me up to my surroundings and help take in all the beautiful things there. Lama, ʻalaheʻe, halapepe, ʻohe makai, kauila”. Figure

1.4 (right) seems to show one of the plants that the survey participant describes in their accompanying reflection, “During this visit, my classmates and I were able to learn about the history of this specific area and the various plants that thrive or are being restored here.

Examples of plants include kauila, lama, ʻohe makai, halapepe, and alaheʻe. I enjoyed the times of hoʻomālie because it allowed me to create a deeper connection with my surroundings.” It is important to acknowledge that it was not just a tree in the sketch, as there is a heart symbol that connects the tree to the roots, and the foundation seems to represent pōhaku (rocks). Across all surveys, the four most common images that were present in the sketches were trees, pōhaku

(rocks), paths in the landscape, and kanaka (person or a group of people). Although the quality of the sketch or grammar in the written responses may differ, the grade level of the participant did not seem to impact the essence of the overall experiences and lessons taken from the day in the forest as similar images and key words were used across ages.

41

In terms of how the four categories of biocultural measures of success are interconnected,

there is further support from the Auwahi surveys in that the involvement of kaiaulu in a

biocultural restoration project benefits the kaiaulu themselves, the forest, and the culture. We

found high levels of support that volunteering at Auwahi increased their knowledge and/or

appreciation of our Hawaiian plants and animals (90% “For sure”, 10% “Somewhat”), as well as

Hawaiian culture (87% “For sure”, 13% “Somewhat”). We also found high levels of support that

volunteering at Auwahi made them feel more strongly about the protection of Hawaiian plants

and animals in ecologically troubled times (97% “For sure”, 3% “Somewhat”). We found

relatively high levels of support that volunteering at Auwahi made them feel strongly about the

protection of Hawaiian culture in culturally troubled times (87% “For sure”, 10% “Somewhat”,

1% “Definitely not”). Finally, out of 31 participants, 30 participants said yes that volunteering at

Auwahi made them feel that the native forest was made more special by the context of Hawaiian

culture.

DISCUSSION

A sense of place is defined broadly as “the process by which individuals and groups

derive meanings, beliefs, symbols, values, and feelings from a particular locality based on human

experience, thoughts, emotions, and social relationships” and is recognized as important to

conservation efforts (Chapin & Knapp 2015). This study is consistent with other literature that supports the idea that having or developing a sense of place and a connection to place by interacting directly with a place can have a profound emotional effect, as well as influence an individual’s motivation for conservation (Chan et al. 2016; Chapin & Knapp 2015; Louv 2008;

Perkins 2010; Windsor & McVey 2005). Beyond that, this study showed that a biocultural approach can provide purpose and meaning to a person’s relationship to place, whether the

42

person is a lineal descendant or a newcomer to the place, and a sense of place benefits not only

the individual, but it can directly benefit the ecological success of a restoration project.

Restoring the Relationships of Kaiaola (Ecosystem) and Kaiaulu (Community)

From the perspectives of both participating interviewees and members of the kaiaulu, it is

clear that lineal descendants held an important presence in terms of both the landscape and the restoration project. In particular, the importance of maintaining a physical presence was brought up by all lineal descendants. They likened this to the resilience of the native plants that remain standing among changing land uses, threats, and economical drivers; the lineal descendants will adapt and remain rooted in place. Both restoration projects were initiated by lineal descendants inspiring the right group of individuals, everyone from landowners, scientists, funders, and community members to bring aloha ʻāina to practice, recognizing the value in the forest and to care for its resources.

The theme of pilina was also recognized in people that were not lineal descendants, or who did not call the area their home. The concept of time to develop pilina was important for both hoaʻāina and members of the kaiaulu that were not from place, emphasizing that the kaiaulu involves the entire kaiaulu that care for place, and not just lineal descendants, Native Hawaiians, and born and raised members of the kaiaulu. These hoaʻāina that were not from place, explained

how their relationship with the forest has changed through time, and that by spending time to

learn the forest from an ecological, social, cultural, and spiritual perpective, they were able to

truly aloha ʻāina. Likewise with the members of the kaiaulu, the demographic information that

was collected from the survey was intended to get a better understanding on whether the length

of time in a place made a difference to the results of the survey participants. Figure 1.2, which

shows the Auwahi demographics, shows that the majority of survey participants who were a part

43

of this study were not born and raised in Hawaiʻi nor were they of Native Hawaiian descent. This

demographic and their survey responses indicate that although there are members of the kaiaulu

who are not from here, it is still a biocultural connection that is their underlying motivation to

partake in the restoration project. Some members of the kaiaulu who are not Native Hawaiian or

born or even raised in Hawaiʻi added hand-written notes beside the checkboxes on the survey to

better explain their relationship to place. For example, some participants that have been in

Hawaiʻi for longer than a decade, distinguished their responses from the selection of “5+years”

and elaborated that there should be a selection for decades. These members of the kaiaulu, as

well as the three first-time volunteers who noted that they needed more visits to the forest to

develop a relationship, recognized that relationship to place changes with the length of time with

place. This is a concept that was recognized as needing more research, in terms of how meanings

and attachment to place differ between long-term residents and newcomers (Masterson et al.

2017).

There is a relationship between how volunteers develop a sense of place, and develop a

personal relationship with ʻāina. One component of a biocultural approach in particular that is worth highlighting is the need for the project to be place-based. There is no blueprint to

implementing a biocultural approach as every landscape, culture, and community is different. As

one of the interview participants stated, you must collaborate with place first and foremost.

When your restoration efforts are place-based, it is recognized by the community, as represented in the survey response.

The high level of support from survey participants that volunteering at Auwahi allowed them to develop a personal relationship with Auwahi and the community is consistent with the literature (Berkes & Ross 2013). There were high levels of support showing that volunteering at

44

Auwahi, has increased the volunteer’s knowledge and desire to protect the kaiaola and the

culture, and that the native forest was made more special by the context of Hawaiian culture, thus

interlinking my two initially separate research questions on how biocultural restoration projects

are impacting the kaiaulu, and if a biocultural approach has been successful to the restoration of

the kaiola. The biocultural approach restores the relationships between humans and nature,

whether it is in terms of lineal descendants returning to place or new members of the kaiaulu

developing pilina to place, in turn having positive benefits to the health of both the human and

forest community. This supports previous research in Hawaiʻi that showed that communities

participating in a biocultural restoration program experienced community and cultural benefits,

such as enhanced social connections, cultural (re)connections to place, and physical and mental

well-being, which sustained engagement with the restoration projects (Bremer et al. 2018),

providing further support that engaged communities can play a critical role in forest restoration by bringing with them time, energy, and hands to steward and restore a landscape, by removing invasive species, outplanting native species, monitoring, and aiding projects that may otherwise not have enough time, energy, hands, and funds to meet restoration goals.

Biocultural Includes Nā Mea Āpau (Everything)

My interviews revealed that biocultural approaches incorporate many different

components which brings about the theme of Nā mea āpau (Everything). One survey participant

from Auwahi had described the concept:

“Ok, so the really beautiful and important part of it to me is that everything I checked

above feels interconnected, woven together, entwined. Nothing's more important or less

important. They're all completely splendid.”

45

The two TDF restoration sites have intentionally incorporated different knowledge systems,

methods, and approaches to engaging the kaiaulu, that the experience in turn satisfies individual

needs, whether it may be ecological, social, cultural, or spiritual benefits. The categories from this study supports a framework that was developed in previous work in Hawaiʻi (Pascua et al.

2017) that included four categories of cultural ecosystem services (non-material benefits realized through human-environmental interactions): ‘Ike: knowledge acquisition and the recognition of

multiple sources of knowledge, Mana: spiritual connections to the natural world, Pilina Kanaka:

social interactions, and Ola Mau: physical and mental wellbeing.

The components of the volunteer day that were marked as “most important” by survey

participants align with the literature – that developing a sense of community, socializing, and

having a satisfying experience for an environmental cause while enjoying the outdoors is

important to the volunteer experience for restoration projects (Schroeder 2000). Survey respondents indicated that the hoaʻāina added value and a welcoming familial feeling to the restoration experience, which supports my interviews that the staff and leaders of the restoration project enhances the volunteer’s experience. All hoaʻāina are knowledgable on both ecological

and cultural information. At Auwahi, oli or mele were also indicated by survey participants as

important to their experience. It is important to note that this is unique to Hawaiʻi and the

common cultural protocol of presenting an oli or mele before entering the forest has been recognized as important by hoaʻāina. The survey responses indicated that the cultural experience is important for kaiaulu, highlighting the value of a biocultural approach. Although more research needs to be done on this aspect of volunteers, especially in culturally rich places like

Hawaiʻi, our findings suggest that culturally grounded and place-based components of the volunteer days are among those aspects of most importance to their experience. This is consistent

46

with other studies done on volunteers of restoration projects, showing that social components

like culture, sense of community and place, and working towards something positive was most

important to the majority of volunteers (Clewell & Aronson 2006; Measham & Barnett 2008).

This is a factor to consider for current and future restoration projects that hope to engage a broad

community in having a meaningful relationship with the forest.

Challenges with a Biocultural Approach

Understanding what biocultural approaches encompass, as highlighted by both hoaʻāina

and kaiaulu, also highlights some challenges in implementing these approaches to improve

existing restoration efforts and future endeavors. First, the importance of lineal descendants

being a part of the restoration process was acknowledged by both hoaʻāina and kaiaulu in this

study. However, when lineal descendants and local cultural practitioners are not part of the

process, the responsibility for bringing social, cultural and spiritual elements into the project falls on site managers or restoration staff. This brings challenges if restoration managers and staff are not accustomed to or trained in cultural traditions and practices, and so may be resistant to incorporating culture due to a fear of disrespecting it, or feeling that it is not their place to share that knowledge. Further research must assess how to successfully implement a biocultural approach without appropriating a culture, and additional efforts into providing training opportunities in cultural traditions and practices will improve the capabilities of others to apply biocultural approaches in lieu of lineal descendants or local cultural practitioners.

Second, there needs to be institutional efforts into equalizing the knowledge and expertise of lineal descendants with knowledge that can be gained from academia. All interview participants in this study described challenges they have faced with a biocultural approach.

Recent efforts such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and

47

Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have focused

on international science-policy processes and have presented a framework for evidence-based

guidance on how to successfully bridge knowledge systems (Tengö et al. 2017). Effective

engagement of actors, institutions, and knowledge-sharing processes have improved the

disparity, and we witness at both study sites that the knowledge and expertise of lineal

descendants are valued, put equal at the managing table, and economic conditions for

participation in a project are honored. More biocultural research that integrates multiple knowledge systems can be a way forward so that the future of science and conservation can recognize that there is also science and valuable data in the multigenerationally transmitted

knowledge that has been collected, analyzed, and adapted over centuries in indigenous cultures.

Finally, the results of this study highlight the importance of building and maintaining

relationships between the kaiola and kaiaulu, but there is still the question of how to get from protecting and restoring the forest to using and interacting with forest resources. Currently the forests of Auwahi and Kaʻūpūlehu are not feeding the kaiaulu in the literal sense of producing food and resources for their direct use, but the forests are feeding the kaiaulu in the many other ways that were expressed through the results of this study. As addressed in the results, the main biocultural efforts currently are to restore the ecological, social, cultural, and spiritual components of the kaiola and kaiaulu. The conservation community struggles with the concept of using resources from a restoration or conservation site as use has historically turned into abuse, which has brought the challenges we face today. Future research and restoration efforts should look to indigenous cultures and take the initiative to find the balance of aloha ʻāina, in which both kaiola and kaiaulu can feed each other, while keeping culture and traditions alive.

48

CONCLUSION

Aloha ʻāina in the context of restoration was described as knowing your place, aloha-ing your place, and collaborating with place. This can be broken down further by understanding the very term “aloha ʻāina”, to love and care for the land which feeds. Overall this research shows that the success of TDF restoration is directly interlinked with the success of the people.

Motivations for both hoaʻāina and the broader kaiaulu to engage with biocultural restoration projects were grounded in personal relationships to place, connecting back to aloha ʻāina, in that the term biocultural incorporates the idea of a recipricol relationship between people and nature.

Biocultural approaches were defined by the hoaʻāina and expanded into four categories of biocultural measures of success, which were also recognized and supported by the kaiaulu.

Beyond that, this study has shown that using a biocultural approach to restoration can provide purpose and meaning to a person’s relationship to place, whether you are from place or relatively new to place. And a sense of place translates into caring more for not just the ecological restoration, but also the social, cultural, and spiritual restoration that comes with a biocultural approach. The methodology used in this study can be adapted to place by other restoration initiatives to measure impacts of social, cultural, and spiritual restoration. Although there are challenges, the biocultural approach should be considered in future restoration efforts that are located in a place that has cultural and ecological significance. Using a biocultral approach can help restore the relationships between people, place, and nā mea āpau (everything) in between.

49

CHAPTER 2

INTRODUCTION

Globally, approximately 42% of tropical forests are categorized as TDF (Murphy and

Lugo, 1986; Miles et al., 2006), but this forest type has historically been understudied compared

with other tropical forest types (Meli 2003). In particular, regeneration research in TDF has

lagged that of tropical rainforest (Vieira & Scariot 2006), with implications for understanding

forest succession and restoration. Most TDF are composed of a relatively high numbers of tree

species that produce small, dry, wind-dispersed seeds. For TDF and forests generally, successful

regeneration is dependent on: seed characteristics (Gentry 1995); seasonality of available water

or drought (Inman-Narahari et al. 2016; Mooney et al. 1995); germination and establishment area

(Inman-Narahari et al. 2016); and threat mitigation (Cabin et al. 2002, Cordell et al. 2002; Vieira

& Scariot 2006). While these generalities are appreciated by TDF resource managers (Khurana

& Singh 2001; Mooney et al. 1995; Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2005; Vieira & Scariot 2006),

regeneration dynamics and drivers of successful establishment including plant characteristics

across the life cycle, need to be better understood for highly variable ecosystems of TDF.

There has also been progress in studying spatial patterns of seed dispersal that determines

natural regeneration and the composition of plant populations (Nathan & Muller-Landau, 2000),

where seed disperal patterns are known to vary across forest and plant species type, with

establishment determined by distance from parent plants (Fragoso 1997; Nathan & Muller-

Landau, 2000). Without effective seed dispersal by natural seed dispersers, studies have shown an increased probability of seeds recruiting underneath parent trees, resulting in a high density of seeds and reduced genetic diversity (Beckman & Rogers 2013). However, more recent research on the role of density dependence in TDF shows that there are strong effects of adult density on

50

seedling survival in TDF, with positive density dependence (PDD) in relation to adult

conspecifics, leading to the recommendation that TDF restoration efforts should focus outplanting efforts near adult trees of the same species (Inman-Narahari et al. 2016).

Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest is a Hawaiian TDF remnant and one of the oldest TDF restoration initiatives in the state, having had fenced enclosures and been ungulate-free for close

to 20 years (see Chapter 1). It is intensively managed for weeds and today the restored areas

consist of predominantly native species. The few existing studies on natural regeneration in

Hawaiian TDF have shown little success of natural seedling regeneration without the exclusion

of ungulates and removal of alien plant species (Cabin et al. 2000; Cole et al. 2012; Weller et al.

2011). In Hawaiʻi, landscapes dominated by nonnative grasses such as African fountain grass

(Pennisetum setaceum; Jacobi & Warshauer, 1992) and in wetter areas Kikuyu grass

(Pennisetum clandestinus) prevent native seedlings from establishing (Cabin et al. 2000;

D’Antonio et al. 1998; D’Antonio & Vitousek 1992; Litton et al. 2006). Although earlier studies

reported little natural recruitment (Cabin et al. 2000, Cabin et al. 2002, Brooks et al. 2009), more

recent collaborative work between Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest managers and the University of

Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, which began in 2013, has documented natural recruitment for nine out of the

11 T&E species at the site (Libby et al. 2018, Ticktin et al. unpublished data).

To better understand determinants of ecological measures of success for TDF, I explore

patterns of natural regeneration of threatened and endangered species in a remnant area of TDF

on Hawai‘i Island. Specifically, I build on collaborative annual monitoring to address the

following questions: (1) How much natural recruitment is occurring each year and what

proportion of these keiki (natural recruits) are surviving?; (2) Do recruitment and survival vary as a function of rainfall? (3) Where is natural recruitment occurring and are there spatial patterns

51

that reflect the presence of kupuna (source or parent) trees, management history, and/or substrate

age?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Monitoring Recruitment and Survival

Each December from 2014-2019, a collaborative team of Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest

managers, researchers and students from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa recorded the recruitment, survival and growth of all naturally regenerating seedlings of eleven T&E species

across the restored portion of Ka‘ūpūlehu Dryland Forest. These include: Koʻo loa ʻula (Abutilon menziesii), Koʻo koʻo lau (Bidens micrantha subsp. ctenophylla), Bonamia (Bonamia menziesii),

Halapepe (Chrysodracon hawaiiensis), Kauila (Colubrina oppositifolia), Maʻo hau hele

(Hibiscus brackenridgei spp. brackenridgei), Hau kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis),

Aupaka (Isodendrion pyrifolium), Hau hele ʻula (Kokia drynarioides), Uhiuhi (Mezoneuron kavaiensis), and Maʻaloa (Neraudia ovata).

Each natural recruit >10 cm height was identified to species, tagged, and measured for height and basal diameter. Other measures recorded included: distance to the nearest potential parent plant, parent tag ID, canopy cover, understory cover, presence of flowers and/or fruit, observations on health and insect herbivory, and GPS location. Each year the survival, size

(height, basal diameter and diameter at breast height when applicable) and reproductive status of all tagged plants were also recorded. Given that the Koʻo koʻo lau had many hundreds of keiki by 2017, and that they are relatively short lived, in 2018 monitoring methods were adjusted to focus only on five permanent plots. For the purpose of this study, Koʻo koʻo lau is excluded because of the inconsistent methodology, so a total of ten species is analyzed in the results.

52

Previous work (Libby et al. 2018) reported the number of keiki from 2014-2017 and

evaluated some of the abiotic and biotic factors that influenced regeneration. This study updates

and expands upon previous work by adding in two more years of data ( 2018 and 2019),

analyzing correlations of the larger data set with rainfall, examining patterns of survival for keiki in their first year of growth, and providing the first analysis of spatial patterns of natural

recruitment (see below). To test the relationship between annual rainfall and annual germination,

and between annual rainfall and survival of first year seedlings, correlation tests were run in R

Version 1.2.5033 (R Core Team, 2020).

Mapping Ecological Recruitment to Analyze Spatial Patterns

I incorporated data collected from 2014-2019 on natural recruitment into a geographic information system platform (Environmental Systems Research Institute, ArcGIS Pro 2.4) for spatial analyses of recruitment and survivorship in Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest. The main objective was to facilitate layer query by attributes of all keiki with other factors that were identified by hoaʻāina (caretakers/restoration managers). First, I imported all recorded waypoints for all keiki into the GIS. Once all waypoints were combined into one master layer, the attribute table was manually populated with the following attributes: Plant ID, scientific species name, common species name, year first observed, year observed dead, and if the plant is alive or dead currently. All 10 species are federally endangered so location data of the species was considered to be sensitive data to present on a map. Therefore the maps have all geographic references, cardinality, and scale removed.

I then created spatial data layers to represent the attributes, which were used to overlay with other spatial data layers: lava flow substrate data and kupuna tree data. I used the World

Imagery basemap, Geologic Map of the State of Hawai‘i (2007) from the U.S. Geological

53

Survey Open-File Report 2007-1089, and our data on keiki and kupuna trees. Lava flow data from the Geologic Map of the State of Hawai‘i (2007), from the U.S. Geological Survey Open-

File Report 2007-1089, was overlayed with the keiki data. Management zones are also layered onto the map with a supplementary table that was created together with the site manager to detail the timeline of management actions for each zone (Table 2.1 The resulting maps were shared with the site manager to identify any inconsistencies and analyze from both manager and researcher perspectives. Management activities for each zone (Table 2.1) that may have influences on any spatial patterns were used in the analysis of spatial patterns.

54

Table 2.1. Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest management zones and timeline of management actions as described by site manager Management Year of Description of Management Actions Zones Management Actions M1 - M4 Late 90's - Initial management of invasive species 2003/2004 2008-2009 Additional clearing of new areas (weedwacking, herbicide spraying, laying out irrigation lines, outplanting) M5 2008-2009 Clearing of new areas (weedwacking, herbicide spraying, laying out irrigation lines, outplanting) M6 Late 90's - Initial management of invasive species 2003/2004 2008-2009 Additional clearing of new areas (weedwacking, herbicide spraying, laying out irrigation lines, outplanting) M7 2009 Clearing new areas (weedwacking, herbicide spraying, laying out irrigation lines, outplanting) M8 2009 - 2010 Clearing new areas (weedwacking, herbicide spraying, laying out irrigation lines, outplanting) 2015 - 2016 Goodnature A24 Rat Traps (10 total) donated by the National Tropical Botanical Garden, and installed in these zones, particularly under Kauila Kūpuna (parent trees) with additional invasive species clearing M9 2010 Clearing new areas (weedwacking, herbicide spraying, laying out irrigation lines, outplanting) 2015 - 2016 Goodnature A24 Rat Traps (10 total) donated by the National Tropical Botanical Garden, and installed in these zones, particularly under Kūpuna (parent trees) with additional invasive species clearing under Kūpuna trees W1 - W5 Late 90's - Initial management of invasive species 2003/2004 2008-2009 Additional clearing of new areas (weedwacking, herbicide spraying, laying out irrigation lines, outplanting) R1 - R7 Late 90's - Initial management of invasive species 2003/2004 2008-2009 Additional clearing of new areas (weedwacking, herbicide spraying, laying out irrigation lines, outplanting) B1 Before 2008 Outplanted areas in the southern portions of the zone near Midline Road 2012 Clearing new areas (weedwacking, herbicide spraying, laying out irrigation lines, outplanting) B2 Before 2008 Outplanted areas in the southern portions of the zone near Midline Road

55

2013 Additional outplanting in the southern portions of the zone near Midline Road B3 2013 Outplanted areas in the southern portions of the zone near Midline Road 2016 - 2017 Outplanted areas in the northern portions of the zone B4 2000 - 2004 Outplanted areas in the southern portions of the zone near Midline Road 2009 - 2010 Clearing outplanted areas to reclaim space for outplants (weedwacking, herbicide spraying, laying out irrigation lines, outplanting) 2014 - 2015 Outplanted areas near Road B C1 - C2 2017 - 2019 Outplanted areas in the northern portions of the zone C3 - C4 2014 - 2015 Outplanted areas near Road B L1 - L3 2018 Outplanted areas near Road B

56

RESULTS

Recruitment and survival of naturally regenerated keiki

Overall annual recruitment of naturally regenerated threatened and endangered species was

relatively high, ranging from a minimum of 63 in 2016 to a maximum of 238 in 2019. After a

three year decline from 2014-2016, the number of new keiki increased in successive years to an

all time high of 238 recruits in 2019 (Figure 2.1). The trend of new keiki showed a strong

significant positive correlation (r = 0.95, p = 0.003) with annual rainfall data collected from

Ka’ūpūlehu Dryland Forest during the monitoring years of 2014 to 2019 (Figure 2.2).

Overall, the total number of keiki alive in each census year has been increasing (Figure

2.3) but there were species variation for the amount of keiki and their survival over time (2.4).

Some species produced high numbers of keiki per year. Uhiuhi, Ma‘o hau hele, and Kauila

produced the highest numbers, with up to 118 recruits in one year for Kauila (Figure 2.4). In the

total number of keiki that survive over time, there is an overall increasing trend for Maʻo hau

hele and Kauila (Figure 2.4). Uhiuhi shows an opposite trend of a high number of keiki in 2014

and 2015 and starting in 2016 there were fewer keiki recorded alive or new (Figure 2.4).

Bonamia produced fewer keiki than other species, but a consistent number of new keiki

were recorded each year (Figure 2.4), resulting in an upward trend in the total number of keiki

recorded alive or new for Bonamia (Figure 2.5). Aupaka, Hau hele ʻula, and Maʻaloa produced

many fewer keiki, ranging from 0-24 keiki in a given year (Figure 2.4). Aupaka recruitment was

highly variable over time (Figure 2.4). Halapepe, Koʻo loa ʻula, Hau kuahiwi produced very few

keiki through 2014 to 2019, ranging from 0-5 keiki in a given year (Figure 2.4). Survival of new

(first time observed) keiki after one year was highly variable by species. Uhiuhi had the lowest

survival rate (17% to 44%) while Bonamia, Kauila, and Maʻo Hau Hele had high annual survival

57

(55% to 100%; Figure 2.6). The latter three species had lower survival in 2016-2017, but there

was no correlation between rainfall and annual survival of new keiki (r = 0.19, p = 0.76).

Bonamia, Kauila and Maʻo hau hele all showed an increase in annual survivorship of keiki in

2017-2018 followed by a drop in 2018-2019 (Figure 2.6). Hau kuahiwi, Maʻaloa, Koʻo loa ʻula,

Halapepe, Hau hele ‘ula, and Aupaka are not included in Figure 2.6 because these species did not

maintain at least 5 new keiki at any given year, and the figure could be misleading as most of

these species maintained high survivorship but very few individual recruits.

In terms of survival of all keiki alive from previous census years (as opposed to just keiki

observed within the annual timespan), survival rates are high, generally >75% for four of the five

species evaluated (Figure 2.7). However, Aupaka survival drastically dropped in 2018-2019 to <

10%. Uhiuhi shows survival rates of only 27%-45% over time.

Spatial Patterns of recruitment

Mapping natural regeneration

The map of all keiki illustrates a measure of success for natural regeneration in that we

see keiki spreading outwards over time into newly managed zones (Figure 2.8; Table 2.1). There

appears to be larger and denser clusters of keiki around zones that have been managed for a

longer length of time, and were “cleared” prior to 2008 (Table 2.1). The least amount of keiki are

found in the newer managed zones, but there is a gradual spread of keiki outwards from the older

zones. There are two distinct lava flows that run through the Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest. The

older flow age of 1,500-3,000 years old makes up the majority of the forest substrate, and the

younger flow of 200-300 years is near the boundary of the management area. While keiki are

found in both substrate ages, only a small portion of the restoration area falls on younger

substrate, so it is not possible to assess differences. The lava flows are not represented in the

58

maps as it contains geographic information that could be used to locate federally endangered

plants.

After a review of all keiki that were alive at the last census in 2019, five target restoration

species were identified by hoaʻāina (caretakers/restoration managers) to assess spatial patterns of

recruitment and survival. One species is wind-dispersed and the other three are animal dispersed

but have lost their dispersers.

Uhiuhi - Recruitment and Spatial Patterns

The regeneration and mortality maps for Uhiuhi (a wind-dispersed species) by year, shows four dense clusters of natural regeneration (Figure 2.9). The regeneration and mortality maps also show that where there is mortality recorded, there is still new regeneration within the same area that same year. The keiki are observed, but they do not establish and survive. This species is known by managers to be challenged by introduced insects pests such as root mealy, aphids, scale, ants, and psyllids. The site manager describes that most of the keiki will be healthy when they are first observed, however the impact of insects and pests can cause mortality within two to three weeks.

Figure 2.10 shows two kupuna trees, and all keiki of Uhiuhi that have been observed throughout the years of monitoring. There is a cluster of many keiki around two distinct kupuna trees. There seems to be some wind dispersal of seeds. Point #38 and #214 represent two keiki that are believed to be natural recruits from an iwi lāʻau (plant bone), an old kupuna tree that fell over and died back in 2008. There are two more distinct clusters of keiki that are believed to have come up from a seed bank as the species is known to have long lasting seedbanks. There was known to be a kupuna tree that fell over and died in 2015, but seeds are still observed on the ground near and around the iwi lāʻau. Another area was planted in 2000-2004 but overrun with

59

weeds, followed by weed management starting from 2008 to reclaim the zone for the outplants

(Table 2.1). Four to five mature iwi lāʻau of the species were found during the weed management

work and with the combined efforts of clearing weeds and rain, keiki from the iwi lāʻau’s

seedbank were observed recruiting in 2009-2010. Uhiuhi is also known to decompose quicker

than most other woods once dead, and could be a factor in creating good conditions for seedling

recruitment.

Kauila - Recruitment and Spatial Patterns

The regeneration and mortality maps for Kauila shows that in the years 2014-2017 there are just a few new keiki scattered across the management area (Figure 2.11). In 2018 there is a larger cluster of keiki, observed in the upper area of the map (Figure 2.11). In 2019 there is a large recruitment observed in the same area and spreading outwards (Figure 2.11). Throughout the years, not much mortality is observed and there seems to be no pattern of mortality spatially.

Figure 2.12 shows kupuna trees of Kauila scattered about the management area, but keiki are clustered in the older managed areas (Table 2.1). The Kauila clusters are described by the site

manager to be a result of management activities in 2009 (Table 2.1). Management activities

involved clearing under the kupuna trees of Kauila, with additional rodent management for rats

(Rattus exulans, Rattus rattus) by setting up Goodnature A24 rat traps in the older managed areas

(Table 2.1). These management activities, in addition to more than average rainfall (Figure 2.2), appear to have resulted in more recruitment in 2018, followed by even more recruitment in 2019.

There have been a few keiki observed in the more recently managed areas, and the site manager described these areas as having a denser abundance of common native species cover, Nehe

(Lipochaeta spp.), ʻIlieʻe (Plumbago zeylanica) and Koali (Ipomoea indica) vines, and this over abundance of native cover may be impacting seedling recruitment. The site manager confirmed

60

that there are no Goodnature A24 rat traps near other kupuna trees for Kauila elsewhere at

Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest, except for the traps in older managed area. In addition, seeds of

Kauila are known to have a much shorter period of viability as Uhiuhi.

Halapepe - Recruitment and Spatial Patterns

Only three keiki of Halapepe have been observed in the six years of monitoring. There are more kupuna trees than observed keiki for Halapepe (Figure 2.13). There is one keiki that recruited from a kupuna tree that died and fell. The two other keiki that were observed are not near any kupuna trees. The seeds may have been carried there by animal dispersal, but the source of the keiki seen in the upper area of the map is uncertain (Figure 2.13). There is currently no active management being done in the area (lower area of Figure 2.13) near the kupuna trees for

Halapepe. The site manager has also shared observations of Halapepe that since there are no longer animal dispersers, ripe fruits tend to remain in the tree until the seed dries and lose viability. If a seed does fall and is viable, there is still the potential rat predation before the seed can receive the right conditions to germinate.

Maʻo Hau Hele - Recruitment and Spatial Patterns

The regeneration and mortality maps for Maʻo Hau Hele shows that in the years 2014-

2017 there new keiki recruited across the management area (Figure 2.14). In 2015 there is a large cluster of keiki that recruits in one area, and a few other keiki observed outside the cluster

(Figure 2.14). The following year, 2016, there are hardly any new keiki, and just a few mortalities from previous keiki (Figure 2.14). There is a gradual shift from the original recruitment area that can be seen in the maps with some mortality observed (Figure 2.14).

61

Hau Hele ʻUla - Recruitment and Spatial Patterns

The regeneration and mortality maps for Hau Hele ʻUla shows that in the years 2014-

2017 new keiki recruited across the management area (Figure 2.15). In 2015, scattered keiki are

observed dead, and the following year a few more dead keiki scattered about in the same area with little to no new keiki (Figure 2.15). The following year, 2018, there are no mortalities

recorded, and new recruits observed to be scattered across the same area, and no significant

recruits or mortalities to report from 2019 (Figure 2.15). Throughout the years, there is some

mortality observed but there seems to be no pattern of mortality spatially.

DISCUSSION

Recruitment and survival of T&E species

Our results show increasing numbers of keiki for 10 T&E species in the Kaʻūpūlehu

Dryland Forest. The highly successful recruitment for some species in this study may be credited

to many efforts from the management staff (Table 2.1), including weed management, irrigation,

and/or rat control, and the strong correlation between rainfall and the number of new recruits

suggests that rainfall was an important factor as well at Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest. In TDF,

seeds remain dormant either in the soil, grass, lava substrate, or in dead wood, until the next

rainfall when seeds can germinate (Ceccon et al. 2006). Previous research showed that most of

the T&E species in Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest are fruiting and flowering, whether they are

kupuna (parent) trees or outplanted trees (Libby et al. 2018, Ticktin et al. unpublished data).

Some species that fruit in the dry season may form a short-lived seed bank until the rainy season

(Foster, 1982; Garwood, 1982), while other species may have long-lived seedbanks.

Understanding the links between rainfall and natural recruitment is important since

Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest and other Hawaiian TDF have become drier by about six to eight

62

percent per decade over the past century and are expected to become drier still with climate

change (Frazier et al. 2017). While Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest has suffered drought twice during

the restoration period, from 1999-2003, and 2009-2012 (the most severe drought in the past

century), this study took place over a period of time with no drought. The last two years of this

study, 2018-2019 were the wettest years that Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest has recorded in the last

decade, and the second and third wettest years in the last 20 years and were above the 92-year average of 714 mm (Giambelluca et al. 2013).

While higher rain resulted in higher number of germinating and surviving keiki for most species in 2018, despite even higher rainfall in 2019, and a corresponding increase in germination, there was a decrease in survival for new keiki. Manager observations suggest that this may be because there was higher non-native insect herbivory in 2019 caused by higher rainfall; a similar effect was observed by managers after drought followed by heavy rain in 2004.

The interplay between rainfall and non-native insect herbivory requires further investigation.

Restoration managers from Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest shared that the potential cause of mortality for one of the species, Aupaka, may be the black twig borer, or a fungal pathogen as the species population was located in a microclimate with heavy canopy. Although the species population was genetically weak with one founder plant, future studies should look into the threats to species that have particularly low survivorship.

Spatial patterns of recruitment

Some of the factors affecting recruitment are highlighted by the spatial analysis. First, the maps demonstrate the spread of natural recruitment over time as a function of management: the number of keiki increases with increased clearing of invasive grasses. The direct relationship between management activities involving invasive grass control and the level of natural

63

recruitment remains consistent with past studies on the impacts of invasive grasses on natural

recruitment (Cabin et al. 2000; D’Antonio et al. 1998; D’Antonio & Vitousek 1992; Litton et al.

2006).

Second, Uhiuhi illustrated the concept of iwi lāʻau (plant bones) and the role of old dead trees in natural recruitment. A large amount of the keiki for Uhiuhi were tied to the only source

of seeds in the management area: iwi lāʻau that were either recorded to have existed there or that

managers discovered while clearing invasives. This concept of iwi lāʻau brings back the theme

from Chapter 1 that dead trees still hold a function in the TDF restoration. Decaying logs, stumps

and other woody remnants have been recognized to be seedbeds for natural recruitment (Bače et

al. 2012), and seedling dependence on dead wood has been more commonly reported from

subalpine forests of North America, Europe and Japan (Lonsdale et al., 2008; Peterson et al.

2000). However, a literature review presented no research on the concept of dead trees holding

long lasting seedbanks for natural recruitment in TDF. I recommend future studies examine the

role of iwi lāʻau in TDF and the viability of their seeds, especially for TDF species that are

known to have long lasting seedbanks.

Third, the importance of rat control for species recruitment was evidenced by the spatial

patterns of Kauila over time (Figure 2.11). The abundance of keiki that emerged within and

around the older managed area where Goodnature A24 rat traps were installed, provide a clear

picture, alongside observations by managers of rat predation on those seeds. While there has

been no published research on natural regeneration for this species, these results are consistent

with other studies that maintain that in addition to exclusion of ungulates and invasive species

removal, rat control is central to successful natural regeneration, especially in lowland TDF

(Athens et al. 2002; Athens 2009; Shiels et al. 2017; Cabin et al. 2000; Chimera and Drake

64

2011). The maps from this study show the areas of high potential for increased natural regeneration, that have kupuna trees that are producing viable seeds, but with no keiki observed.

The seeds that are not predated by rats, are still challenged with the lack of native seed dispersers with the decline of native forest birds (Sakai et al. 2002, Blackmore & Vitousek 2000, Ziegler

2002, Pratt & Jacobi 2009; Tagawa 2013).

Fourth, the maps suggest that there is a need to explore new methods for seed dispersal.

Despite the rat traps, Halapepe showed little recruitment since the seeds are not dispersed and dry out while still on the plant. The majority of TDF seeds no longer have the assistance of native bird dispersers, which were large birds that are now extinct such as the moa nalo

(Thambetochen chauliodous). Previous observations in Kaʻūpūlehu suggested that there are no large bird dispersers that can consume the whole seed of Halapepe. Human-assisted regeneration such as outplanting is recommended for forest restoration (Zhao et al. 2013); however, human- assisted seed dispersal is a process that is understudied and can also influence restoration efforts, especially for species that have lost their natural dispersers. As Chapter 1 detailed, humans are a part of nature and the ecological cycles, and humans can become the seed dispersers that so many of these threatened and endangered plants need today.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown an overall increase in numbers of keiki of T&E species in the

Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest from 2014 to 2019. There was a strong correlation between rainfall and number of new recruits suggests that, as expected, rainfall is an important factor in TDF restoration. While the number of new keiki germinating increased with higher annual rainfall, for most species the survivorship of new keiki noted a drop in 2019, despite that year having the highest rainfall. A potential relationship with higher non-native insect herbivory with higher

65 rainfall was discussed with restoration managers, and needs further study. The highly successful recruitment for some species monitored in this study may be credited to the many efforts of management staff, including weed management, irrigation, and rat control. This study showed also that a large amount of the natural recruits for one species was tied to a seed source of iwi lāʻau (plant bones) that were either recorded to have existed there previously or that managers discovered while clearing invasives. Lastly, the results from this study suggest the need to explore methods for seed dispersal involving human-assisted seed dispersal, especially for plant species that no longer have their natural seed dispersers.

66

CHAPTER 3

INTRODUCTION

TDF in Hawai‘i are home to a wide variation of species that range across elevation

gradients and climatic zones. TDF are generally found on the leeward sides of the islands in

lowland or in montane-subalpine zones (Gagne and Cuddihy, 1999). There are four TDF

categories in Hawaiʻi: lowland, montane-subalpine / woodland, introduced, and introduced plantation TDF. Annual rainfall ranges between 30 and 200 cm (12 and 79 in) in lowland dry forest and montane-subalpine dry forest / woodland (LANDFIRE, 2016). The dominant species of TDF in Hawai‘i are members of: Malvaceae (14 spp.), Rubiaceae (12 spp.), Rutaceae (9 spp.),

Euphorbiaceae (8 spp.), and Fabaceae (7 spp.) (Javar-Salas et al. 2019). Species level endemism in TDF is unusually high with 90% of all species being Hawai‘i endemics, 37% of which are single-island endemics, and the remaining 10% indigenous or native non-endemic (Javar-Salas et al. 2019).

Past research had shown that Hawaiʻi has lost over 90% of the TDF coverage that it once

had (Bruegmann 1996). More current research shows that the extent of native TDF cover may be

as low as 1% of its original cover, with 45% of the TDF plant species at risk of endangerment

(Allen 2000; Cabin et al. 2000). Previous studies recommend that TDF restoration in Hawaii and

other regions with similar ecological dynamics should focus on three major objectives: (1) non-

native ungulate exclusion; (2) control of invasive grasses and weeds; and (3) exploitation of

existing or creation of new favorable microsites combined with outplanting of selected native

species to these areas (Cabin et al. 2002, Cordell et al. 2008).

Most research on tropical forest succession has focused on rainforest plant communities

(Vieira and Scariot, 2006), and in the last published meta-analysis of tropical forest literature,

67

TDF only made up approximately 3% of all tropical forest restoration literature (Meli 2003).

While it is broadly recognized that indicators of restoration success should be defined according to the ecosystem and goals of the restoration project (Ruiz-Jaen and Aide, 2005), compared with other tropical forest types, there is also a lack of discussion of measures of success for TDF.

Similarly, while it is widely acknowledged that conservation and restoration projects have ecological, economic, and social consequences, and that multiple measures of success should be included (Brooks et al. 2006), developing and measuring social indicators of restoration success have received much less attention. It is also important when studying characteristics of TDF restoration to conduct socio-ecological research to understand changes in land-use history and its effects on succession and natural regeneration (Quesada et al. 2011) of TDF, and TDF tend to be located in areas of high human habitation. Finally, the majority of the publications on TDF restoration strategies are from a researcher perspective, and not from the perspective of a restoration practitioner. Current literature has addressed a shift of the traditional view of researchers providing the knowledge to users or managers, to a more engaging method of knowledge co-production that involves all stakeholders including researchers, decision makers, and other users of knowledge (Young et al. 2014). The knowledge and experience of restoration managers is also critical to include when evaluating the status of restoration, as long-time managers are likely to have local and place-based knowledge of the restoration site, that a visiting researcher may not have or be able to acquire during their study period.

The sharing of restoration strategies, as well as challenges and successes learned across sites, can inrease overall potential for successful restoration of TDF. Over the past 20+ years there have been TDF restoration initiatives across the State of Hawaii, but not a systematic review of strategies, successes, and challenges from a managers perspective. The U.S. Fish and

68

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office produced a recent status assessment of

Hawaiian islands TDF, including current status, stressors, and future viability of TDF in Hawaiʻi

(Javar-Salas et al. 2019). However, the assessment did not focus on identifying specific restoration efforts, successes and challenges for management of TDF, and lacked any mention of the use or value of biocultural approaches other than including “providing educational and cultural opportunities” as one of the many conservation efforts. In addition, to date there has been no cross-site analysis of the successes or challenges of outplanting TDF species.

The aim of this Chapter is to provide a more comprehensive review of TDF restoration practices, successes and challenges across sites, so as to provide an understanding of the state of

Hawaiian dry restoration and to foster cross-site learning. Specifically, my objectives are to identify for Hawai‘i: (1) the current forest restoration practices being used in TDF restoration;

(2) if and how biocultural approaches are being utilized in these efforts; (3) locally relevant measures of restoration success; (4) the greatest challenges that restoration projects are faced with and potential solutions; and (5) whether there are similarities and/or differences in successes or challenges across plant species or genera.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Status of the TDF Restoration in Hawaiʻi

To address my study objectives, I created a survey for TDF managers (Appendix D).

Chain sampling (Patton, 2002) was used to identify managers of projects that represented a large

spectrum of TDF types, conservation agencies and groups, and restoration strategies. A total of

twelve TDF restoration sites are included in this study (Table 3.1). Data were collected from

phone surveys with project managers of ten TDF restoration projects (September-December

2019), and from interviews from Chapter 1 with project managers of the two TDF of Auwahi

69 and Kaʻūpūlehu. The restoration projects in this study represent approximately 30% of all known conservation efforts in Hawaiʻi (Javar-Salas et al. 2019), and include most of the large scale projects that were identified during chain sampling with TDF managers.

70

Table 3.1. Organization/Project names with organization type, island, forest type, time of restoration, and average area of restoration Organization/Project Organization Time of Area of Name Type Island Forest Type Restoration Restoration Montane Auwahi Forest Subalpine Native 1997- Restoration Project Private Maui Dry Forest Present 50ac Lowland/Coastal 2017- Ka Loko o Kiholo Private Hawaiʻi Native Dry Forest Present 3ac Kalaeloa Unit of Pearl Harbor National Lowland/Coastal 2001- Wildlife Refuge Federal Oʻahu Native Dry Forest Present 37ac Multi-agency Lowland Native 1997- Kaluakauila Partnership Oʻahu Dry Forest Present 110ac Kaʻūpūlehu Forest Lowland Native 1999- Restoration Private Hawaiʻi Dry Forest Present 76ac Multi-agency Lowland Native Mākua Keaʻau Partnership Oʻahu Dry Forest NA NA Lowland Native 2011- Manuwai State Oʻahu Dry Forest Present 300ac High Elevation Mauna Kea Forest Subalpine Native 2002- Restoration Project State Hawaiʻi Dry Forest Present 6,540ac Multi-agency Lowland Native Ohikilolo (lower) Partnership Oʻahu Dry Forest NA 5ac Montane Subalpine Native 1998- Pohakuloa Federal Hawaiʻi Dry Forest Present 37,000+ac Puʻu Waʻawaʻa Lowland/Montane 1984- Wildlife Sanctuary State Hawaiʻi Native Dry Forest Present 37,600ac Waikoloa Dry Forest Lowland Native 2011- Initiative Private Hawaiʻi Dry Forest Present 275ac

71

The surveys were structured to understand: (1) restoration strategies; (2) indicators or measures of success; (3) challenges; and (4) similarities and/or differences in the success or challenges for specific species or genera of restoration species (Appendix D). The survey questions were open- ended to allow participants the option of providing additional thoughts. Phone surveys, which lasted from 45 minutes to 1.5 hours, and with permission from each participant were audio- recorded and transcribed verbatim. I used NVivo (QSR International) to analyze data through selective and open coding (Creswell, 2012). Selective coding was used to examine the overall state of TDF in Hawaiʻi. Open codes were used to identify and differentiate restoration strategies, indicators or measures of success, challenges, and similarities and/or differences in the success or challenges for specific species or genera of restoration species.

To specifically assess the successes and challenges of TDF restoration species (objective v), participating managers ranked their restoration species in a checklist based on the outplants ability to (1) survive and grow to adulthood and (2) complete a life cycle, including producing viable seedlings (Table 3.2). This ranking criteria was modified from a previous study (Burnett et al. 2019). Not all restoration managers were able to provide species-level data for all of their restoration species – either because monitoring data didn’t exist, or data were not compiled – in which managers instead identified their most successful and/or least successful restoration species. Where information was available, managers provided additional notes on why restoration of a species might be succeeding or failing, and what might be the main barriers or threats to successful restoration of that species. These additional notes are used here to assess larger-scale drivers of success or failure in the restoration of a particular species. Species that ranked three or greater for outplant ability to grow and survive (>50% of outplanted individuals survive and grow past the sapling stage), and two or greater for reproduction (seedings

72

sometimes to seedlings abundant) were determined to have a high viability for survival and

established when used for restoration (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2. Ranking system for evaluating successes and challenges of Tropical Dry Forest (TDF) restoration species. Table has been modified from a previous study (Burnett et al. 2019). Ranking Criteria Ability of outplants to survive and grow to Ability of adults to reproduce adulthood (produce seedlings) 1 0-25% outplants survive No seedlings observed 2 25-50% outplants survive Seedlings sometimes observed 3 50-75% outplants survive Seedlings often observed 4 75-100% outplants survive Seedlings abundant

RESULTS

Restoration Strategies

TDF managers described 12 restoration strategies used in their restoration projects (Table

3.3). In general, two different broad approaches to TDF restoration were reported, dependent on initial condition: (1) sustaining a relatively intact area of native forest by controlling invasive plant species, excluding ungulates through fencing and hunting, protecting the forest perimeter from the eroding effects from wildfire, and using the forest fragment as habitat for native species that are targeted for restoration; or (2) returning a non-native species dominated unit of land to native forest species cover by controlling invasive plant species, excluding ungulates through fencing and hunting, outplanting native species, and providing significant post-planting follow- up.

73

Table 3.3. Main restoration strategies identified by Tropical Dry Forest (TDF) restorations managers in Hawaiʻi; (N=12 Restoration Projects, N=10 Restoration Managers) Restoration # of Methods and Manager Descriptions Added Challenges and Potential Strategy Project Approaches Solutions Sites Invasive 12 Sites Invasive grasses Fountain grass, Kikuyu grass, Guinea "...prevents any kind of seed Plant targeted as greatest grass, Buffalo grass from resprouting, but we have Control threat erosion issues with delicate cells so to prevent erosion in some areas we maintain Kikuyu grass less than 12 inches high on the fuel break." Other invasives Fireweed, guava, pine, kiawe, ironwood, targeted silver oak, cape ivy Using common native "Started ecosystem restoration team that species to convert alien goes out and converts alien forest forests between patches of really native patches (i.e. guava, christmas berry conversion into native)...active restoration with common natives" Division of labor "Staff does weedwacking & herbicide; volunteers can help with handweeding" Fire 9 Sites Firebreaks “...fire management is our main top one “New focus post fire on Management because we consider wild fire to be the maintaining fire breaks, keeping largest threat to dryland ecosystems invasive grasses down; rough here... terrain means hard physical labor to maintain, 6 months spraying "firebreaks and fuel breaks target every month or so to keep endangered plant areas" invasives out of the break; potential for grazing rotation” Using common native “…iliahi/Santalum ellipticum doing great species as firebreaks and might be resistant to fire, naupaka kahakai along the fire break road”

74

Table 3.3. (Continued) Main restoration strategies identified by Tropical Dry Forest (TDF) restorations managers in Hawaiʻi Post fire restoration “Native seed broadcasting and weed management”

Animal 11 Sites Fencing, fence "...management consists of maintaining “Pasture turns into a Control maintenance, trapping, existing fenced units, building new forest...fence the animals and (Goats, hunting fenced units, removing animals; the 2003 you’ll eventually start seeing cattle, pigs, PWW Management Plan calls for fencing automatic success, trees can dogs, cats, and ungulate removal on about 10% of finally regrow themselves rats, and Pu`uwa`awa`a. In addition, and perhaps because they aren’t constantly mongoose) coincidentally, the Conservation Plan we being grazed on. But because have been working on calls for fencing there’s no animals, grasses come and ungulate removal on ~10% of the back…” plan area which is Pu`uwa`awa`a plus Pu`uanahulu. The PWW ahupua’a is about 38,885 acres in size..."

Outplanting 12 Sites Spatial strategy "Outplanting yes, but encouraging “How can we change our natural recruitment, it’s happening and planting style? How do we deal seem to be doing better than outplants. with drought? Weekly Filling in where natural recruitment isn't maintenance is not going to happening." happen, irrigation challenging, so stick to plants that are going “Start outplanting from small area to make it & strategy of getting a outwards” ground cover layer of natives (Ulei & Chenopodium) to gain "...now that we’re getting into less territory of grass.” accessible areas and places that are a little bit harder to physically get to, we’re "For outplant selection...Try um, starting to have volunteers really help see what happens, and don't with increasing abundance and density really invest in things that aren't and diversity in our already established doing well when you have other outplanting areas..." stuff that are doing well."

75

Table 3.3. (Continued) Main restoration strategies identified by Tropical Dry Forest (TDF) restorations managers in Hawaiʻi Community 7 Sites Volunteers help with “2nd tier of importance in management Challenges in access, rough Volunteers outplanting, weed strategies... community volunteers aren’t terrain, liability management, facility really separate from all of the rest of the maintenance and events stuff...For outplanting especially, probably over 90-95% of the ~40,000 plants that we've planted over 10 years have been planted by volunteers.” Education 8 Sites Bringing schools to the “Hosting 3+ huakaʻi every month for and forest or outreaching to about 7 years, kinesthetic and creative Outreach their school or events learning, hands on, place-based activity. "Terrain makes access Local kids, Hawaiian charters schools, challenging for community; public schools, outer island & out of permitting is challenging for state. Outreach at conferences..." cultural practitioners to utilize Biocultural 8 Sites (See Figure 3.1 for a "Three staff are Hālau ʻŌhiʻa learners cultural resources; difficult to get comprehensive list) and trained in Hawaiʻi lifeways/skills..." community interested in "...we have had a community forestry conserving species that don't project where we're trying to create a have cultural importance (i.e. community co-managed forest of about Gouania)" 84 acres, we've had quarterly or sometimes every other month meetings "Access, safety, and liability...so, that have included lineal descendants and focused most of our outreach in cultural practitioners of the area...I think terms of education like schools we've grown a lot the last couple of years or events" in terms of incorporating a biocultural approach..." Native Seed 12 Sites Native seed restoration “Native seed restoration, I think it’s Management and storage important to consider for restoration of these areas to properly store these seeds for the future.”

76

Of the main restoration strategies, invasive plant control was an important strategy for all twelve dry restoration projects in this study, with a focus on controlling grasses and other invasives with various methods to encourage native species success. Main identified target invaders included: fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum); kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum); Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus); buffalo grass (Bouteloua dactyloides); fireweed (Chamaenerion angustifolium); common guava (Psidium guajava); Christmas berry

(Schinus terebinthifolius); kiawe (Prosopis pallida); ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia); silver oak (Grevillea robusta); cape ivy (Delairea odorata); and pines.

In terms of the division of labor for invasive species management, all participating managers shared that staff conduct a mix of handweeding, weedwacking, and herbicide treatment. When restoration projects engage community volunteers, they allow volunteers to do handweeding, when necessary. The specific challenge of invasive grasses preventing native seedling recruitment was highlighted, with one manager describing the dilemma of managing erosion prone landscapes where the grasses must remain until the site is ready to be outplanted.

Invasive plant control was essential to fire management, but nine projects distinguished fire management as its own separate restoration strategy. Instead of invasive plant control to improve the success of native plant restoration, fire management requires invasive grass control and firebreaks to reduce fire risk and damage. Firebreaks are time consuming and challenging to maintain, and the use of common native species such as naupaka kahakai (Scaevola taccadaas) or ʻiliahi (Santalum ellipticum) as vegetation firebreaks was an approach that one project is implementing. A restoration manager also addresses the shift in management approaches after a large wildfire to focus heavily on fire prevention by reducing fuel loads:

77

“New focus post fire on maintaining fire breaks, keeping invasive grasses down; rough

terrain means hard physical labor to maintain, six months spraying every month or so to

keep invasives out of the break; potential for grazing rotation”

Managers also acknowledged the short timeline for the opportunity post fire to do native

seed broadcasting and weed management. There are added challenges to maintaining firebreaks

involving rought terrain to physically maintain the firebreaks, and the potential solution of using cattle grazing rotation coupled with fencing to prevent grazing of outplanted native species, to keep fire fuel loads low.

Animal control was an essential restoration strategy at eleven restoration sites to manage threats such as goats, cattle, pigs, dogs, cats, rats, and mongoose. The main methods included fencing, fence maintenance, animal trapping, and hunting. While the impact and benefits of fencing were identified by all managers, one participant addressed a second dilemma of grass management and the cost and benefit of fencing out animals such as cattle in a pasture setting:

“Pasture turns into a forest...fence the animals and youʻll eventually start seeing

automatic success, trees can finally regrow themselves because they arenʻt constantly

being grazed on. But because theres no animals, grasses comes back…”

Invasive plant control, fire management, and animal control reduces barriers to native

plant restoration. All managers shared details on outplanting strategy such as outplant species

selection to compete with invasive plants, the health of outplants and filling in where natural

regeneration is not occuring. Spatial strategy of outplanting was also mentioned, in terms of

starting a small outplant area and working outwards, creating a kīpuka (oasis of native

vegetation). Additional challenges were identified with outplanting including the threat of

droughts and lack of irrigation, that can be partially addressed by the selection of drought

78

resistant plants and native ground cover. In regards to where to source seeds for propagation and

outplanting, the importance of native seed restoration and storage was brought up by all

managers and included details involving where to source seeds (on-site or neighboring forests),

how to store seeds properly, and how partnerships have helped with seedbanking initiatives

(Table 3.3).

Restoration projects that are able to host community volunteers identified volunteers as

essential to achieving project outcomes as they provide the labor required to run larger scale

outplanting and weed management efforts, as well as facility maintenance and staffing of events:

“Community volunteers aren’t really separate from all of the rest of the stuff...I would

just say the volunteers don’t do anything that requires specialized training (chainsaw

work, ungulate control, fence building, herbicide spraying, etc.). However, we do utilize

volunteers for help with weed management (hand weeding), planting, trash removal,

facility maintenance, and events.”

Managers of five project sites do not currently rely on community volunteers, but described a strong interest in engaging community volunteers. They also shared challenges in implementing a volunteer program, including access limitations with rough terrain, liability concerns for areas that may not be safe for all ages, and the variable fitness levels of volunteers.

An essential activity to promote the engagement of community volunteers was identified as education and outreach. This is also a strategy to reach community members that may otherwise not be able to support restoration activities. Managers described a variety of methods for education and outreach such as hosting educational visits on-site with place-based activities, reaching out to local schools as well as outer island and out of state schools, and outreach at events such as conferences, symposiums, and other community events open to the public:

79

“Hosting 3+ huakaʻi every month for about seven years, kinesthetic and creative

learning, hands on, place based activity. Local kids, hawaiian charters schools, public

schools, outer island & out of state. Outreach at conferences..."

Similar challenges with engaging community volunteers were identified for education and outreach activities, including access limitations with rough terrain, and liability concerns.

All managers in this study supported a biocultural approach to restoration, whether or not such an approach is a part of current or future projects. In addition to the biocultural components of TDF restoration that were presented in Chapter 1, TDF managers added (Figure 3.1): practicing kilo (Hawaiian methodology of taking observations), introducing visitors to place with mo‘olelo, wahi inoa (place names) and wahi pana (sacred and pulsing place), resource gathering, and community co-management. As with restoration generally, rough terrain also was described as posing challenges to implementing biocultural restoration strategies. In addition, permits to utilize cultural resources were also addressed because cultural practitioners have experienced challenges with accessing forests and gathering cultural resources. One manager also brought up the challenge of securing community interest in protecting a native species that may not have a

Hawaiian name or be of clear cultural importance:

“Want to involve more community members. One issue to get community is to say this is

to protect "Gouania- no hawaiian name" and people donʻt recognize...wiliwili (Erythrina

sandwicensis) or ʻōhiʻa (Metrosideros spp.) gets more interest, so it might be better to

say wiliwili restoration.”

Measures of restoration success

Locally relevant measures of restoration success were identified by TDF restoration managers in Hawaiʻi (Table 3.4). Although the language used to describe successful restoration

80 was not identical across sites, the measures captured by this survey overlap with the broad themes that the hoaʻāina of Auwahi and Kaʻūpūlehu identified in Chapter 1. Ecological measures of success were identified by all managers and included: the increase in abundance of native plant species; native plants persisting independently; a decrease in abundance of non-native and invasive species; an increase in the abundance of native bird species; and increased water retention in forest soil. The social measures of success included a variety of methods to measure social restoration included having community members engaged with the forest, and achieving cultural and spiritual outcomes including cultivating cultural relationships with the forest. Social, cultural, and spiritual measures of restoration success were being measured less than ecological measures due to challenges in metrics, addressed below.

81

Table 3.4. Measures of restoration success identified by Tropical Dry Forest (TDF) restorations managers in Hawaiʻi; N=12 Restoration Projects, N=10 Restoration Managers Measures of # of Description on Sample Quotes from Managers Challenges and Potential Solutions Success Managers measurements (N=10) Increase in 10 Number of “As far as planting...we have visual “..outplanted trees (for grants), so it’s abundance of managers outplants observations... you can start to see the unit good for us because the measure is on a native plant forested from the top of the puʻu or google planted count, not a success, because species earth so it could be quantified...” not all outplants are going to be successful”

"...we haven't gotten to the level of getting plant survival or growth rates or area covered but those things could be done if there was a partner interested in doing that." Number of "Main goal is outplanting and hopefully natural lead to natural recruitment." “Forest inventory and analysis program recruitments is a large scale assessment of trends of "...tried to assess endangered plant forests over time; outplant survival; recruitment with partnerships with UH experimental tropical forest agreement (University of Hawaiʻi) lab" between US Forest Service and State of Hawaii to cooperate on research, education, management, and demonstration...USFS has been doing a lot of research here monitoring changes in forest over time, and the ESTCP program for endangered plants...So, it's being quantified by our partners but not our project ourselves” Changes in “UH Hilo flight lab drone surveys with TDF cover quantifying changes in dry forest cover over time”

82

Table 3.4.(Continued) Measures of restoration success identified by Tropical Dry Forest (TDF) restorations managers in Hawaiʻi

“...measuring total native canopy and understory...non-native/native comparison over the years, remonitor every 3-5 years. Also measuring individual species, changes in diversity and any potential issues for particular species. Rare species is a numerical goal (census). Gives us a baseline of where we started and if we're moving in the right direction."

Native plants 8 Seed “...happening either in the wild from being “...where there's not as much grass you persisting managers production and protected from our threat mitigation or do see recruitment.” independently natural from outplants that are now seeding regeneration themselves...so much more sustainable “Saw a halapepe loaded with fruit! than weeding plants and irrigate, etc.”; Something may be moving them around because they are germinating “We’ve been planting for 7-8 years, 6 away from their parent” years really consistently, and we’ve definitely seen more natural reg every year “Endangered species coming up in especially in established areas but also restoration areas, but we’re not really outside of areas that are actually managed necessarily monitoring the so we’re seeing seedbank effect but also recruitment.” adding seeds to the area” "Not enough time, staff, tools/resources “Meeting recovery goals...how many to measure" individuals need to be reproducing, #s within a stabilized/established population, and so many individuals within that population need to get to the level of self- reproducing...”

"Measure with photo points"

83

Table 3.4.(Continued) Measures of restoration success identified by Tropical Dry Forest (TDF) restorations managers in Hawaiʻi Decreased in 10 Decrease of “In some areas, for silver oak, target trees abundance of managers invasive cut down in some units so that's easy to invasive species forest quantify and to show on maps...” species cover “Started ecosystem restoration team that goes out and converts alien forest between patches of really native patches...active restoration with common natives.” “...we are measuring the area that we have reclaimed that is native dominance vs nonnative dominance.”

“...measuring total invasive canopy and understory and overall total cover. Non- native/native comparison over the years, remonitor every 3-5 years."

Increase in 3 Monitoring "Monitoring with annual bird surveys" "...not tracking or quantifying, but with abundance of managers birds kilo some native birds are coming bird species by..."

“Bird surveys and the return of birds is of course great, but not the only thing we should be measuring”

Water retention 1 Not measured “No, but we’re looking at preliminary soil “We don’t measure and this is in forest manager data” something that would be really helpful soil/aquifer to have tools to do because for a small recharge project like us we don't know how to measure that kind of stuff.”

84

Table 3.4.(Continued) Measures of restoration success identified by Tropical Dry Forest (TDF) restorations managers in Hawaiʻi Engaged 7 # of volunteers "...measured with # of volunteers and “We want to involve community, but community managers and students, hours, # of outreach events, # of students access is biggest problem.” members with outreach and reached." the forest education “We don't have a metric to say if one opportunities year was a failure...but the more engage community members over the years is a good thing.” Returning “Trying really hard to establish an community ongoing presence that we have a regular members group of community people involved” New “Volunteers is good, but the amount of community NEW volunteers we get every year, means members that word is being spread.”

Cultivating 7 Engaged “Absolutely definitely an indicator of "It's something we try to do but we cultural managers cultural success, that’s part of the protocol, don't have a metric" relationship practitioners whenever anyone comes on site talking with the forest about the guiding philosophy, collaborating with cultural practitioners, keep that going and maintaining that sort of relationship”

Increased “We do have the biocultural blitz where opportunities we're hoping to get as many students here to engage with for 4th grad outdoor science and cultural the forest and studies...there’s a program Teaching learn culture Change that we are partnering with and this is a big component.”

85

Ecological Restoration

Table 3.4 shows that the increase in abundance of native plant species is an important measure of success, and is measured by the number of outplants and naturally regenerated plants, and changes in native TDF cover. The topic of having caution for what is deemed unsuccessful was brought up by one manager, a perspective also noted by managers from my Chapter 1 analysis, that the lack of survival should not be deemed as unsuccessful. Overall, the need for expanded partnerships and more collaborations was an overarching theme shared by most managers when discussing measures of success, and especially in terms of measuring the increase in abundance of native plant species. One participant shares the many different partnerships that they rely on:

“Forest inventory and analysis program is a large scale assessment of trends of forests

over time; Ticktin lab plant surveys; UH Hilo student looking at Uhiuhi outplant

survival; experimental tropical forest agreement between US Forest Service and State of

Hawaii to cooperate on research, education, management, and demonstration...USFS

has been doing a lot of research here monitoring changes in forest over time, and the

ESTCP program for endangered plants at two different sites have looked at survival and

natural recruitment and how it correlated with things like rainfall and substrate and

protection from wind and water stress. So it's being quantified by our partners but not

our project ourselves”

For small restoration projects, partnerships and collaborations with University, State and Federal studies and assistance, and other resources for tools, research, and training are essential. One manager suggests:

86

“Work with University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa...to help understand climate change models,

how to restore to the future. Workshops of how to use research and how to translate to on

the ground. Teach managers where the resources are and how to use tools...possible

breakout sessions at Dryland Symposium, Hawaiʻi Conservation Conference...”

In relation to the increase of native plant species, the success of native plants persisting independently was identified as an important measure of success by managers. Seed production was described as individuals getting to the level of producing within a population and creating a seedbank effect for natural regeneration to occur. The importance of invasive species management was discussed again as grass invaded areas prevent natural regeneration. The lack of resources and partnerships to measure natural recruitment was shared by most managers as well as the recognition of missed opportunities to study the dynamics of natural recruitment.

In order for any of the measures of success discussed above to occur, there needs to be successful efforts in decreasing the abundance of non-native or invasive species. Overall the decrease in abundance of non-native/invasive species was not identified as the most important measure of success, but a necessary step in order to achieve other measures of success. In support of what was shared in Chapter 1, there needs to be caution in calling the presence of invasive species "unsuccessful" as restoration requires attention to timing. One manager describes how non-native areas are sometimes held in their current state until managers are ready to outplant:

“Our intent is to restore as much open area as we can, canopy, and then do understory

work in the future. If there is any focused control of decreasing invasives and grass, it’s

right before an outplanting to clear the area.”

87

Measuring the abundance of bird species was identified by three managers through annual bird surveys. The other managers stated that they are observing an increase in birds but are not tracking or measuring. Another challenge related to this measure on bird species was addressed by the Mauna Kea Forest Restoration Project because of their focus on the palila

(Loxioides bailleui) bird restoration:

“Restoration of Mauna Kea has been in regards to the success of palila, but so much

attention was placed on the bird itself that now there's a comparison of palila vs sheep,

the goal should have been the ecosystem itself. It's unfortunate because everything on

Mauna Kea right now is doing better than when we started the project, except the palila,

but people don’t see it as a successful restoration. Species recovery isn’t that easy where

you eliminate one thing and the other does better. Bird surveys and the return of birds is

of course great, but not the only thing we should be measuring”

Measuring water retention in forest soil to study aquifer recharge was not assessed by any projects other than the Auwahi Forest Restoration project. This is another measure of success that is acknowledged as important but difficult to do because the projects are lacking in the tools and resources to conduct these measurements. The study at Auwahi was done in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey.

Social measures of restoration success

Engagement of community members with the forest was identified as a measure of success for all managers, even if some projects are challenged by the mechanics of getting community members involved in the restoration due to the issues outlined above. Measurements include number of volunteers and volunteer hours, number of outreach events, and number of students reached. Another method of measured success was in the volunteer demographics, and

88 whether or not they were new or returning volunteers. Views differed between managers on which was deemed more successful. On one hand returning volunteers were considered more successful because the goal of the project is to maintain a regular group of community members; on the other hand, another perspective valued new community volunteers because that was a measure of how much of the broad community that the restoration is reaching:

“Volunteers is good, but the amount of NEW volunteers we get every year, means that

word is being spread whether it's through school or other volunteers. The more people

coming to volunteer strengthens the relationship between the community and Mauna Kea.

The majority of local/hawaiians aren’t going to be volunteering at several places, and

they move as a group. Choice of outreach venues is very important to reach a variety of

demographics...Hālau Hula should be more involved with different

restoration/conservation projects...it would be great to reach more...small communities

because most of our volunteers are from Hilo or Kona”

A challenge shared by managers was how to determine what is a successful level of community engagement or number of volunteers for reporting purposes.

Cultural and Spiritual measures of restoration success

The cultivation of cultural relationships with the forest was also identified as challenging to measure but a very important measure of restoration success. Indicators included engaged cultural practitioners, access for lineal descendants, and the amount of opportunities for people to engage with the forest and learn culture.

“Absolutely definitely an indicator of success, thatʻs part of the protocol, whenever

anyone comes on site talking about the guiding philosophy of kaananiau, collaborating

with cultural practitioners, keep that going and maintaining that sort of relationship”

89

Managers acknowledged the importance of qualitative results that you are not able to measure

quantitatively that align with results from Chapter 1, in relation to the social, cultural, and

spiritual measures of success that hoaʻāina identified. A manager from Kaʻūpūlehu describes the

difficulty in having a Hawaiʻi worldview of collaborating with place, and communicating these

unquantifiable measures of success to funders:

Because it takes money to do all of this. Can, can we say to them? "Just trust? Yeah, just

trust us. But trust Kaʻūpūlehu?"...So it kind of might seem like it's this lofty, way out there

sort of idea. So it is, right, that's perhaps where in lies some of the challenges, how do we

convey or when we go and write the report or when this or that or, and back to the thing

on measures of success?

Greatest Challenges and Potential Solutions

In the survey, managers were asked to rank their top three challenges to TDF restoration.

The majority of managers were, however, unable to rank their top three because they saw many of the challenges (e.g., invasive species, fire, and drought) as being interlinked; however Figure

3.2 presents a collective ranking of the greatest challenges identified by managers. Managers

were also asked to offer any ideas for potential solutions for these challenges.

Invasive Species – Plants and Animals

Invasive plant species were identified as a top-three challenge by nine restoration managers (Figure 3.2), and ranked by six managers as the greatest or second greatest challenge.

Managers who identified invasive grasses as the greatest invasive threat did so because their management requires a lot of labor, and invasive grasses are directly linked to other challenges such as fire, both of which are made worse by drought. Policy and stricter biosecurity protocols were recommended by some managers as a potential solution to invasive species in Hawaiʻi. One

90

manager placed responsibilty on the Department of Agriculture to, “stop the invasion and

biocontrol initiatives that have unintended consequences.” Another manager expanded on other

entities such as the nursery trade, airports, and sea ports that bring in invasive species, and the

need for stricter biosecurity protocols:

“We do not have strict biosecurity protocols for things that come into our State (new

insects, plants, diseases, pathogens) and itʻs due to Nursery trade for one, lack of staff

and facilities at airports and sea ports...should require firewood to undergo heat

treatment procedures.”

Invasive ungulates were not identified as a great challenge for managers because once you put up

a fence around the forest, the fence is easily maintained to keep ungulates out. Rat predation on

the other hand was identified as a challenge for at least three restoration managers.

Lack of Funding/Staff

Lack of funding and staff was identified as a top-three challenge by eight restoration managers, and voted as the greatest or second greatest challenge by at least three restoration managers. Federal, state and foundation funding is generally allocated in one to three year grants,

which compromises long term stability as resources can become depleted, forcing recipients to

focus on delineating goals that are short term. Managers at Auwahi describe how the project has

had to shift from receiving funds through endangered species management:

“...the world of funding the project has, a lot of it has come from endangered species

management and that world has no money. We are really struggling to get funding. I

worry that our society doesn't place enough value on any of it.”

Potential solutions for funding TDF restoration efforts that were shared by managers

included more support and partnership with the State of Hawaiʻi to have more long term stable

91

funding. There was support for a “green fee” in which tourists to the State of Hawaiʻi would pay

a fee to come to Hawaiʻi, which would fund natural resource management efforts in Hawaiʻi.

One restoration manager described that lack of funding and staff is a challenge that can be

overcome with community engagement:

“Funding is always a challenge & we're not very well funded but I think we're

overcoming that because we have so much engagement in our community and we've

really invested in that part of what we're doing. Even if we started with no money and our

average donation is pretty small, we're kind of overcoming that.”

Longterm Hoaʻāina (caretakers, restoration managers) from Place

Challenges to having long term and full-time staff included issues with high turnover rates (two to three years) among staff team. The challenges of finding and maintaining long term hoaʻāina (caretakers) for the forest affects the consistency of management, and challenges the overall restoration project as management needs to consistently hire and train new staff. One suggested solution, specific to government run restoration projects, involved recruiting a person or group from within the community near the restoration area to be invested in the site so that the person or group can lead the community with restoration efforts if priorities of the government should shift:

“To have someone from the area, invested in the site and with the community that has the

time to keep things going. Because we're thinking bioculturally...almost like a konohiki

that is responsible, having someone there. That person is the one that is invested with the

community and can be that community lead that inspires others to participate...agency

priorities can shift, and any given time it can become a lower priority that we can't be

there and if we go away how does the restoration and community stay involved? If we

92

just had a person or group of people that will step in if we had to step back and give

attention they'll still be able to keep the community involved with minimal involvement

from the agency. Not that they would have to take care of everything. Like other refuges

that have "Friends of..." that’s what I’m talking about...”

The issue of long term engagement by community-based hoaʻāina was addressed by Auwahi managers as well, in the context of both having local community members working for the restoration project as well as creating a sustainable group of volunteers that will remain engaged long term. In terms of engaging local or Native Hawaiians to work in conservation and forest restoration, the managers describe the potential of getting more people that already have a knowledge and relationship of place into management positions:

“There’s not enough Hawaiians involved right now. I mean we've worked with probably

thousands of kids, mostly Hawaiian students trying to show them what a Hawaiian forest

looks like and what it represents in Hawaiian culture and all that. I've been kind of

bummed out from all these years, with all the kids, none of them ever came back to work

there...I would like to see kids come back and do graduate student work...”

Likewise to improve community engagement and make it more long term and sustainable, managers describe their observations of local and/or Native Hawaiian volunteers seeming to hold greater interest in learning more about biocultural resources and the places that they grew up.

Managers described a positive feedback loop of having engaged local community members bringing more people that had an already existent interest and engagement with the forest. One manager describes the challenges of having short term engagement from people that are relatively new arrivals to Hawaiʻi:

93

“...so much people come and go, which can be frustrating. I really appreciate them

taking one of the precious days off and coming and crawling around in the bushes and

digging holes, but it could be better.”

Fire

Fire was identified as a top-three greatest challenge by 5 restoration managers, and

ranked as the greatest or second greatest challenge by at least four managers. Reasons involved

the characteristics of fire danger in that it has the potential for most damage by burning down the

whole forest. Managers identified that invasive grasses are the fuel and along with more severe

drought conditions with climate change, the frequency of fires have increased and will continue

to threaten the dry ecosystem. One manager explained why they did not identify fire as a

challenge as they have a good handle on fire and fuel break management. Having a more

dedicated fire-fighting program within the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)

to fight wild fires was suggested by one of the managers, as a potential solution to address the

challenges of wild fire.

Drought

Drought was addressed as a top challenge by four restoration managers, and ranked as the

greatest or second greatest challenge by at least two restoration managers, including follow-up

detail that drought dries natural recruits, and that supplemental watering and irrigation is difficult

to maintain when short-staffed. Other managers did not identify drought as a challenge because

of the reality of TDF in that it is essentially dry, and the native species are able to live in dry conditions. One manager describes:

“...it's interesting because we are the driest of the dry forest but I wouldnʻt put drought

as our top three because our plants are resilient and we know it's going to be dry and it's

94

going to get drier. If they can make it and be successful in restoring to native dominant in

Waikoloa I think that bodes well to the whole idea of dry forest restoration. Yeah we see

those ebbs and flows but its not a devastating thing that happens.”

Additional Challenges – Lack of Research, High Elevation, Permits, Setting Restoration Goals

Other additional challenges that were not provided on the survey were identified by

individual managers included lack of research and knowledge, high elevation, permitting, and

the setting clear restoration goals. Lack of research and knowledge pertained to having key

information missing to explain challenges with restoration:

"...there may be some key info missing...we don't know what the issue is and something is

going on that we don't know and because we don't know what it is we can't fix it, we can't

make it better and everything else that we can see and are doing might not even make a

difference. That to me is a big issue....”

High elevation was only a challenge for one restoration project as their lowest management

elevation is at 5,000 feet. Higher elevation restoration efforts have an added challenge of frost

events that are described as threats to not only young plants but also grown trees:

“...other dry forests probably don’t have this challenge but we get frost events. So we

structure outplanting to incorporate this challenge, plant in the spring and fall (take

break in summer and winter). The frost events aren’t always destructive but one frost

came through and six ft tall māmane that were outplanted a couple years ago got wiped

out, so it isnʻt always just keiki plants, some grown trees get impacted.”

The challenges of setting clear goals was in reference to understanding your reference point for restoration and that restoration should be done for the future and not looking to restore to the past. Permitting is an issue that was brought up by a few managers including Kaʻūpūlehu, with

95

respect to both restrictions for the community in getting permits for either access or gathering,

and also in reference to permitting challenges for the restoration staff.

“So the usefulness of parentage studies, when you're dealing with a stable population in

specific area....We could have 500 trees out there like that. But instead because of

permitting, we're only going to do 25 from two trees...there are literally hundreds of

thousands if not millions of endangered species seeds falling on the ground here every

year. Because of the permitting, we let most of them just fall...”

Successes or Challenges for Restoration Species

Data on successes and challenges for restoration species across the project sites were

shared by project managers to assess whether there are similarities and/or differences in

successes or challenges across plant species or genera. Managers ranked their restoration species

in a checklist based on the outplants ability to: 1) survive and grow to adulthood; and 2) promote

recruitment of new plants by flowering, fruiting and producing seedlings that then persist to

adulthood (Table 3.2). To assess similarities or differences across project sites, I have

highlighted the genera or species that were reported for at least more than one project site (Figure

3.4, Figure 3.4). Species that ranked three or higher for outplants ability to grow and survive

(>50% of outplanted individuals survive and grow past the sapling stage) and two or higher for

reproduction (seedings sometimes to seedlings abundant) are determined to have a high viability

for survival.

Abutilon menziesii, Bidens menziesii, and Euphorbia spp. on average were observed to have high outplant persistence and seedling recruitment. A. menziesii outplants were found to do well in ʻaʻā lava substrate (50-75%) but not as well in ashy-soil pockets. Managers noted that A. menziesii is fairly fast growing but beetle damage can threaten survival. B. menziesii is doing

96

well at two restoration sites with 50-75% outplant survival; seedlings are often abundant.

Managers noted that the species is relatively short-lived (one to two years) and their natural life

cycle will drive a lower survivorship rate for the species over this long term analysis period, so

monitoring measures of success should be adapted to monitor average survivorship over one

year. E. haaeleeleana has high outplant survival (75-100%), but data on seedling recruitment are

not yet available. E. skottsbergii outplants seem to have high percentage of survival (50-75%), with very high rates of natural recruitment observed.

Chrysodracon spp. have a high average percentage of outplant survival (50-75%), but

seedling recruitment appears to be rare. C. halapepe has been recorded to be doing well with 75-

100% outplant survival with occasional seedlings being observed, compared to C. hawaiiensis

where outplant survival ranges from 25-75% and no seedlings being observed. Managers noted

that natural regeneration for Chrysodracon spp. does not seem possible without rat control.

Hibiscus brackenridgei has a highly variable outplant survival across sites, between 25-75%,

with variable numbers of seedlings being observed – from sometimes to often. Managers shared

that H. brackenridgei is quick to grow, flower, and seed but seems to be susceptible to plant

pests, especially ants. Mezoneuron kavaiensis has an outplant survival rate of just over 50% with variable numbers of seedlings being observed – from sometimes to often. Ants and other pests

(mealy bugs, root mealy bugs, twig borer) are a threat to M. Kavaiensis, which seems to survive

once established. Vigna o-wahuensis has an average of 25-50% outplant survival but with a high variation in outplant survival from having 0-25% survival at one project site and 75-100% outplant survival at another site; seedlings are observed sometimes. Aphids were noted to be a

potential threat for V. o-wahuensis while the plants for outplanting are housed in the nursery.

97

Restoration species that have a lower outplant and recruitment success across project sites include Kokia drynarioides and Zanthoxylum (Z. dipetalum, Z. hawaiiensis) with averages of 25-

50% outplant survival and seedling ranking ranges from no seedling to seedlings observed sometimes. Neraudia ovata was also reported with low outplant survival (0-25%), and seedlings are observed sometimes at project sites.

Although threatened and endangered species are highlighted from this analysis, managers also identified successes and challenges of outplanting common species. Managers noted the importance of maintaining biodiversity in TDF restoration and using common species to assist in improving site conditions for other native species (ground cover to combat invasive species, shade/canopy cover, lower fire risk). Common shrub species such as Dodonea viscosa and Sida fallax were noted by managers to be fast growing, creating native ground cover, and resilient to fire and post fire recruitment. On the other hand, managers identified common canopy species such as Diospyros sandwicensis and Psydrax odorata as slow growing and also seems to not be resilient species to fire.

DISCUSSION

Restoration strategies and challenges

Restoration strategies that are being carried out by TDF restoration managers (Table 3.3) are consistent with previous recommendations for TDF restoration management, including invasive plant control, animal control, and outplanting to reintroduce select native species starting with favorable microsites (Cabin et al. 2002; 2004). In addition, fire management was widely practiced, and fire is a threat that managers identified as one of the main stressors to

Hawaiian TDF as fires are becoming more frequent with higher intensity and duration

(Trauernicht et al. 2015). Similarly, the social strategies managers are using, including

98 engagement of community volunteers and education and outreach have been widely recommended (Chapin & Knapp 2015, Hardwick et al. 1997; Honu & Dang 2002, Larsen &

Johnson 2017, Restall & Conrad 2015), and are especially useful when there is a lack of funding and/or staff to conduct outplanting, invasive species removal, and other restoration efforts. Fewer project sites currently incorporate social strategies to complement ecological strategies due to specific challenges with forest access and safety and liability concerns that need to be resolved first.

All managers involved in this study recognized the importance of place-based management and the engagement of community through biocultural approaches. The diversity of biocultural approaches is important to recognize, showing that there is a wide spectrum of ways to incorporate biocultural components, from small elements such as oli (chant) to having biocultural as the foundational approach to restoration by including lineal descendants and

Hawaiʻi worldview in every management decision. Biocultural approaches that Hawaiʻi TDF restoration projects can provide a space for the community to engage in Hawaiʻi traditions and practices and learn the Hawaiʻi lifeway. As one of the managers described:

We’ll all do individual oli komo (entrance chant) and have the place respond because we

are not the hosts, the place/the mauna (mountain) is hosting all of us.”

In addition to the economic and logistical incentives to incorporate social and cultural components to restoration efforts, this study shows that managers recognize volunteers, education and outreach, and biocultural components as essential to their projects, supported in the measures of success that were identified by managers (Table 3.4).

Some managers also mentioned the importance of training to expand the expertise of managers and staff, which supports the challenges addressed in Chapter 1 regarding the issues of

99

projects not having lineal descendants or cultural practioners that may have the knowledge and

skills to incorporate appropriate biocultural components to a restoration project. Furthermore,

one manager shared that training is needed to change the culture of managing natural resources

at many different levels. The manager used an example of a training in Hawaiʻi Lifeways such as

the Hālau ʻŌhiʻa Hawaiʻi Stewardship Program that the manager and staff members are a part of:

“The culture of managing natural resources throughout DOFAW. The value system of

what we have, and being able to get out of the comfort zone...The culture of work needs

to improve and programs like Hālau ʻŌhiʻa help to improve this culture.”

Measures of restoration success

The measures of restoration success discussed by managers included ecological, social,

cultural, and spiritual components. Most of the ecological components were standard,

measureable indicators such as an increase in abundance of native plant species, native plants

persisting independently, and a decrease in abundance of non-native and invasive species. There

were a few measures such as an increase in the abundance of bird species and increased water

retention in forest soil that were monitored at certain project sites as they were partnered or

involved in collaborative studies, while other managers addressed the lack of resources and tools to measure these ecological variables. This lack of monitoring speaks to the value of collaboration and partnerships with universities, agencies, and within the TDF restoration community as well. Challenges were also identified in measuring the success of community engagement and cultivated cultural relationships (Table 3.4). Methods shared in Chapter 1 of utilizing post-event surveys and reporting qualitative and quantitative measures, can be used as a starting model and should be adapted to restoration projects.

100

Success or challenges for restoration species

Abutilon menziesii, Bidens menziesii, and Euphorbia spp. on average had high percentages of

outplant success and natural recruitment observations across different project sites. These species are relatively fast growing, especially B. menziesii and A. menziesii so that may be a reason for

high persistence. For species that are short-lived such as B. menziesii, managers should adjust

their monitoring methodologies so that it aligns with the plant’s natural life cycle. One manager

described their lower survivorship rate for this species over a long analysis period, whereas the

suvivorship rate should have been looked at annually for B. menziesii. Restoration species that

had lower outplant and recruitment success across project sites included Kokia drynarioides,

Zanthoxylum (Z. dipetalum, Z. hawaiiensis), and Neraudia ovata. Managers did not expand on

any particular reasons on why these species may not be doing well; however, previous studies in

Hawaiian TDF hypothesize that the lack of natural recruitment could be due to many reasons that

are understudied – such as the loss of native pollinators and seed dispersers, an unfit substrate for

germination to occur, natural episodic patterns of recruitment, and/or just needing more time to

develop a seed bank (Cordell et al. 2008). There were management implications that substrate

matters for the success of specific plant species such as A. menziesii, in which outplants were

observed to be doing better on ʻaʻā lava substrate and worse in ashy-soil.

Although outplant survival may be high, rat control and invasive grass control is important

for natural recruitment to occur for species such as Chrysodracon spp. and E. sandwicensis. This

is consistent with literature on restoration of Hawaiian TDF that recommends restoration efforts

to include removal of invasive grasses as well as managing grasses after outplanting to assist any

native seeds to reach the right substrate to germinate (Cabin et al. 2002, Cordell et al. 2008).

There were other challenges identified by managers that included insects and pests that pose a

101 real threat to the health of restoration plants. Potential management and solutions should be discussed, and should perhaps start with stricter biosecurity measures with plant nurseries that may care for restoration species, especially if the nursery houses and handles other plant species that are not for TDF restoration as this can become a vector for new pests.

Future for cross-site learning

This study brings the Hawaiʻi conservation world one step closer to improving cross-site learning between the different TDF restoration projects. Currently the few avenues for cross-site learning are through initiatives like the Dryland Forest Hui ʻOhana on Hawaiʻi Island made up of: Waikoloa Dry Forest Initiative, Ka‘ūpūlehu Dryland Forest Preserve, and Pu‘uwa‘awa‘a

Volunteer Work Program, to include The Nature Conservancy’s Kīholo Bay (fish pond)

Restoration Project, the Mauna Kea Forest Restoration Project, and the newest member, Kaloko-

Honokōhau National Park. The group was initiated by the restoration manager of Puʻuwaʻawaʻa and has allowed restoration projects to visit and learn from other projects, and all projects can benefit from bringing other TDF staff to their restoration sites where large tasks can be accomplished with the help of other restoration professionals. Managers who participated in this study were all supportive of sharing challenges and solutions to help enhance the management methods of TDF in Hawaiʻi. There were several recommendations to create more opportunities for TDF managers to come together and discuss the topics that were shared for this study. This may be a potential for workshops, meetings, or forums that is organized around yearly gatherings at symposiums or conferences to stimulate the discussion between forest neighbors.

CONCLUSION

This Chapter provided a more detailed review of TDF restoration practices, successes and challenges across sites, and has provided an understanding of the state of Hawaiian dry

102 restoration and how cross-site learning should be fostered. Restoration strategies that were identified by TDF restoration managers included the predicted ecological strategies such as invasive species removal, ungulate control, and outplanting. Although the social strategies managers used were not as common as the ecological strategies, engagement of community volunteers was widely accepted as a good approach to assist the project in conducting outplanting, invasive species removal, and other restoration efforts. Challenges such as access limitations, liability, and safety concerns are the only reasons that not all restoration projects incorporated community volunteers. All the managers involved in this study recognized the importance of a biocultural approach and shared a wide spectrum of biocultural components that may be implemented in restoration projects. Although there are a few training opportunities available in Hawaiʻi, there is a call for significant change in the culture of conservation as one manager mentioned in this study. More opportunities and training on host culture should be developed for conservation professionals in Hawaiʻi and other culturally rich communities.

The measures of restoration success discussed by managers included ecological, social, cultural, and spiritual components. A significant challenge that was addressed by managers had to do with the lack of resources and tools to measure ecological, social, cultural, and spiritual components. This lack of monitoring recognized the need for more collaboration and partnerships with universities, agencies, and within the TDF restoration community as well. In terms of ecological measures of success, species such as Abutilon menziesii, Bidens menziesii, and Euphorbia spp. on average had high percentages of outplant success and natural recruitment observations across different project sites. Restoration species that had a lower outplant and recruitment success across project sites included Kokia drynarioides, Zanthoxylum (Z. dipetalum,

Z. hawaiiensis), and Neraudia ovata. Potential management solutions to improve outplant

103

survival and natural recruitment were discussed, including careful outplant selection and site

selection as some species were observed to do better in specific substrates, placing careful

attention to rat and invasive grass control to encourage natural recruitment, and implementing

stricter biosecurity for insects and pests, especially in the nursery setting.

Lastly, this study has brought the Hawaiian TDF community one step closer to improving

cross-site learning between the different TDF restoration projects. Managers who participated in

this study were all supportive of finding better avenues to exchange lessons learned and

exploring new management methods restore Hawaiian TDF. The results and analysis of this

study will be provided to all the restoration managers that participated so that the different

projects can learn from one another, but the hope is that this effort becomes a catalyst for TDF to connect not just throughout the landscape and the methodologies that are implemented but through the people that care for the TDF.

Overall, this multidisciplinary study (Chapter 1-3) has shown how the ecological success of the forest is interlinked with the social benefits of restoration, and therefore recommends that

TDF restoration efforts in Hawaiʻi should foster and recognize the continued relationship between the kaiaulu and kaiaola of TDF. Successful restoration was described by the majority of

TDF restoration hoaʻāina as including four major categories of ecological, social , cultural, and spiritual restoration. Methodology used in this study can be adapted by restoration projects to measure impacts of ecological, social, cultural and spiritual restoration. Lastly, this study has found that if biocultural approaches to conservation is promoted, the conservation community also needs to address challenges such as training in Hawaiʻi Worldview and skills, equalizing knowledge and value systems, access limitations, and safety concerns to allow community engagement. The concept of aloha ʻāina that was described in this study tells us that humans are

104 going to have an impact with the kaiola because we are a part of it. This study has highlighted the examples in which kaiaulu can have a direct positive relationship to the health of the kaiaola and vise versa because in aloha ʻāina, the relationship is reciprocal.

105

FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Auwahi Restoration Project: Survey Participant Information on Number of Times Volunteering at Auwahi

Figure 1.2. Auwahi Restoration Project: Demographic of Survey Participants

106

Figure 1.3. Kaʻūpūlehu Restoration Project: Survey Participant Information on Grade Level

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

Percentage of of Volunteers Percentage 10% 0%

Important Components of a Volunteer Day

Figure 1.4. Components of the Auwahi Restoration Project that were identified by volunteers as most important to their restoration experience. The list of possible responses were identified in collaboration with managers. Other components that were identified by individuals included: environmental advocacy, photography, friendship, exposure to all the natural beauty, healing, visual change, and being a tiny part of something so much bigger (N=31).

107

Figure 1.4. Sketches from Kaʻūpūlehu Survey: (left) Sketch from a 11th grader accompanying their reflection, “I loved the quiet times. I rarely spend anytime anymore just listening and watching. It really opened me up to my surroundings and help take in all the beautiful things there. Lama, ʻalaheʻe, halapēpē, ʻohe makai, kauila”; (right) Sketch from a 10th grader accompanying their relection, “During this visit, my classmates and I were able to learn about the history of this specific area and the various plants that thrive or are being restored here. Examples of plants include kauila, lama, ʻohe makai, halapepe, and alaheʻe. I enjoyed the times of hoʻomālie because it allowed me to create a deeper connection with my surroundings.”

Figure 2.1. Number of new keiki appearing at each census for 10 T&E study species in Ka‘ūpūlehu Dryland Forest. Koʻo koʻo lau is not included here because it had over 1000 keiki.

108

Figure 2.2. Annual rainfall (mm) from 2011 to 2019 recorded from Ka’ūpūlehu site. Monitoring of keiki at Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest has occured from 2014 to 2019.

Figure 2.3. Total keiki alive at each census year including: Hau kuahiwi, Maʻaloa, Koʻo loa ʻula, Halapepe, Hau hele ‘ula, Aupaka, Bonamia, Kauila, Uhiuhi, Maʻo hau hele

109

Figure 2.4. Number of new keiki at each census from 2014 to 2019 in Ka‘ūpūlehu TDF, by Species

Figure 2.5. Total keiki alive at each census year for each species. The line plot shows the overall trend in total number of keiki over time for each species. Code Names: HIBHUA – Hau kuahiwi, NEROVA – Maʻaloa, ABUMEN – Koʻo loa ʻula, CHRHAW - Halapepe, KOKDRY – Hau hele ‘ula, ISODEN - Aupaka, BONMEN - Bonamia, COLOPP - Kauila, CAEKAV - Uhiuhi, HIBBRA – Maʻo hau hele

110

Figure 2.6. Annual survival (%) of new (1st year) keiki observed from the previous census year, by species, Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest, from 2014 to 2017. Only T&E species that had N=5 new keiki any given year are included. Code Names: BONMEN - Bonamia, CAEKAV – Uhiuhi, COLOPP - Kauila, HIBBRA – Maʻo hau hele

Figure 2.7. Survival (%) of all alive keiki from the previous census year, by species, Kaʻūpūlehu Dryland Forest, from 2014 to 2017. Only T&E species that had N=5 new keiki any given year are included. Code Names: BONMEN - Bonamia, CAEKAV – Uhiuhi, COLOPP - Kauila, HIBBRA – Maʻo hau hele, ISODEN – Aupaka 111

Figure 2.8. Regeneration – All new keiki by year (Plant ID #s are labeled on the map)

112

Figure 2.9. Uhiuhi Regeneration and Mortality (Plant ID #s are labeled on the map) 113

Figure 2.10. Uhiuhi Kupuna and Keiki (Plant ID #s are labeled on the map)

114

Figure 2.11. Kauila Regeneration and Mortality (Plant ID #s are labeled on the map)

115

Figure 2.12. Kauila Kupuna and Keiki (Plant ID #s are labeled on the map)

116

Figure 2.13. Halapepe Kupuna and Keiki (Plant ID #s are labeled on the map)

117

Figure 2.14. Maʻo hau hele Regeneration and Mortality (Plant ID #s are labeled on the map)

118

Figure 2.15. Hau hele ʻula Regeneration and Mortality (Plant ID #s are labeled on the map)

119

Introduction to Place Community Oli co- (chant) (Place management names & Stories) Restoring relationship Multigenerational between people engagement and place

Kilo Community Biocultural (Hawaiian volunteers observation approach)

Integrating Hawaiʻi science and worldview, knowledge traditions, & systems protocol Resource Mauka gathering Lineal makai descendants connections / cultural practitioners

Figure 3.1. Examples of the spectrum of biocultural components of Tropical Dry Forest restoration that were presented in Chapter 1 and Chapter 3.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 # of # of Votes 3 2 1 0

Greatest Challenges

Figure 3.2. Greatest challenges identified by managers (N=10 managers)

120

Figure 3.4. Restoration genera or species that were reported for at least more than one project site: Abutilon menziesii, Bidens menziesii, Kokia drynarioides, Zanthoxylum spp., Neraudia ovata, Bonamia menziesii, Euphorbia spp., Vigna o-wahuensis, Chrysodracon spp., Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mezoneuron kavaiensis, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata. This figure presents the spectrum of outplant survival to evaluate successes and challenges of Tropical Dry Forest (TDF) restoration species, based on ranking criteria in Table 3.2.

Figure 3.5. Restoration genera or species that were reported for at least more than 1 project site: Abutilon menziesii, Bidens menziesii, Kokia drynarioides, Zanthoxylum spp., Neraudia ovata, Bonamia menziesii, Euphorbia spp., Vigna o-wahuensis, Chrysodracon spp., Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mezoneuron kavaiensis, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata. This figure presents the spectrum of seedling observations to evaluate successes and challenges of Tropical Dry Forest (TDF) restoration species, based on ranking criteria in Table 3.2. 121

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Interview to Hoaʻāina (caretakers) of Auwahi & Kaʻūpulehu

Kamaʻāina (descendants of this land, long time residents) or Landowners

Piko Poʻo (The past, ancestral, spiritual connection)

1. Can you tell me a bit about your relationship with this ʻāina (land)? How long (generations) has your ʻohana (family) had a relationship with this ʻāina? 2. Has the relationship between you/ʻohana & ʻāina changed since the restoration project started? If so, how? What seems to be the reason for these changes?

Piko Waena (The present, yourself)

3. How would you describe your involvement with this restoration project? And what motivated you to be involved? 4. What do you think makes this restoration project biocultural? 5. What does successful restoration look/sound/feel like to you? Are you seeing this now? 6. Has a biocultural approach helped the project achieve certain restoration goals? 7. Has a biocultural approach helped the project address challenges in dry forest restoration? 8. Any large challenges or failures associated with a biocultural approach that you or the project has had to overcome? How were these overcome?

Piko Maʻi (The future, next generation)

9. What is your vision for this ʻāina into the future? What kind of relationship do you want your keiki & moʻopuna (children and grandchildren) to have with this ʻāina? 10. Are there any questions you have or suggestions of future studies that might be useful to the restoration project?

Interview to Project Managers & Longtime Staff

Piko Poʻo (The past, ancestral, spiritual connection)

1. Can you tell me a bit about your relationship with this ʻāina? And what motivated you to be involved with this restoration project? 2. How has the relationship between kānaka (human community) & ʻāina changed over the years? What seems to be the reason for these changes?

122

Piko Waena (The present, yourself)

3. What do you think makes this restoration project biocultural? 4. What does successful restoration look/sound/feel like to you? Are you seeing this now? 5. Has a biocultural approach helped the project achieve certain restoration goals? 6. Has a biocultural approach helped the project address challenges in dry forest restoration? 7. Any large challenges or failures associated with a biocultural approach that you or the project has had to overcome? How were these overcome?

Piko Maʻi (The future, next generation)

8. What is your vision for this ʻāina into the future? 9. Are there any questions you have or suggestions of future studies that might be useful to the restoration project?

123

Appendix B: Auwahi Forest Restoration Project: Post Event Survey

1) How many times have you been to Auwahi?

2) What do you feel was important to your experience today? Check all that apply: □ Hawaiian culture context □ Planting trees □ Moʻolelo (stories) □ Touching soil/dirt/ʻāina (land) □ Oli or mele (chant/song) □ Being in nature/greenery □ Learning ethnobotany (Hawaiian □ Learning botany (Scientific knowledge of plants) knowledge of plants □ Learning/hearing place names □ Science/research □ Sense of community □ Volunteer hours □ Feeling welcomed □ Restoration work □ Spiritual experience □ Working towards something □ The staff and leaders positive □ Other: □ Instilled sense of hope □ Sweating/perspiration

3) What do you feel was the most important above and why?

For each statement, circle what best fits:

4) Do you want to return to Auwahi?

YES NO (If so, any reason why?)

5) After volunteering at Auwahi I feel like I have a personal relationship with Auwahi and the community now:

YES NO (If so, any reason why?)

6) Has volunteering at Auwahi increased your knowledge and/or appreciation of our Hawaiian plants and animals?

Definitely not Somewhat For sure

124

7) Has volunteering at Auwahi increased your knowledge and/or appreciation of Hawaiian culture?

Definitely not Somewhat For sure

8) Has volunteering at Auwahi made you feel strongly about the protection of Hawaiian culture in culturally troubled times?

Definitely not Somewhat For sure

9) Has volunteering at Auwahi made you feel more strongly about the protection of Hawaiian plants and animals in ecologically troubled times?

Definitely not Somewhat For sure

10) Has volunteering at Auwahi made you feel that the native forest was made more special by the context of Hawaiian culture?

YES NO

11) Check the boxes that you most identify with: □ Native Hawaiian ancestry □ Born and/or raised in Hawaiʻi □ Moved to Hawaiʻi, been here for 5+years □ Moved to Hawaiʻi within a year □ Visitor □ Unidentified □ Other:

12) Any other comments about your experience?

Mahalo nui loa for your time and energy!

125

Appendix C: Kaʻūpūlehu Visitor Survey

126

127

Appendix D: Hawaiʻi Tropical Dry Forest Restoration Projects - Survey to Managers

1. What are the main restoration strategies used in your restoration project? Outplanting Invasive plant control (weeding, herbicide, etc.) Fire management (fire breaks, targeting invasive grass, etc.) Animal control (fencing, traps, hunting, etc.) Biocultural (involving cultural practitioners, lineal descendants, cultural knowledge/practices, etc.) Community volunteers Education and outreach Other: 2. Which of the following are indicators or measures of success that you are managing for in your restoration work? Increase in abundance of native plant species Increased in abundance of native insect and bird species Decreased in abundance of non-native/invasive plant species Native plants persisting independently (seedling recruitment/natural regeneration) Water retention in forest soil and/or aiding in aquifer recharge Engaged community members with the forest Cultivating cultural relationship with the forest Any other indicators of success? 3. Which of the following have you observed at your site? Increase in abundance of native plant species Increased in abundance of native insect and bird species Decreased in abundance of non-native/invasive plant species Native plants persisting independently (seedling recruitment/natural regeneration) Water retention in forest soil and/or aiding in aquifer recharge Engaged community members with the forest Cultivating cultural relationship with the forest Other: 4. Which are the biggest challenges at your site? Pick ONLY top 3 (rank if possible): Control of invasive plant species Control of animals/ungulates Fire Drought Insect pests Funding/lack of staff/time Other: 5. Potential solutions to the challenges addressed above? 6. Does this restoration project use a biocultural approach? If so how? (If you don’t, are you interested in it and what are the main barriers to implementing a biocultural approach?) 7. To assess similarities and/or differences in successes or challenges across plant species: please rank your target restoration species according to their status on: 1) survival and

128

growth of outplants to adulthood and (2) ability to recruit seedlings using the ranking system below.

Table. Ranking system for evaluating successes and challenges of dry forest restoration species. Table has been modified from a previous study (Burnett et al. 2019)

Ranking Criteria

Ability of outplants to Ability of adults to survive and grow to adulthood reproduce (produce seedlings)

1 0-25% outplants survive No seedlings observed

2 25-50% outplants survive Seedlings sometimes observed

3 50-75% outplants survive Seedlings often observed

4 75-100% outplants survive Seedlings abundant

8. Anyone else that you would suggest we should interview that manages dry forest restoration projects? Or any other questions you would like to us to address in this survey?

Mahalo for your time and commitment to Hawaiʻi’s forests!

129

GLOSSARY

(Definitions are in the context of this study)

Ahupuaʻa - social-ecological land division

Aloha ʻāina - the reciprocal kinship between people and environment, governing our ability to

exist in this place as well as our ability to be fruitful and thrive

Haku - compose, bring together

Hānai – foster/adopt

Heiau - a place of worship in Hawaiʻi

Hoa ʻāina – caretakers, restoration managers; intimacy with place; encompasses cultural,

genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships to conservation practice

Hoʻomālie – a practice to calm in silence

Hoʻoponopono - to make right

I ke kahi i ke kahi - from one to the other

Iwi lāʻau - plant bone

Kaia - a clustering together

Kaiaola – ecosystem

Kaiaulu/kaiāulu - human community

Kanaka - person

Kapa - hawaiian traditional cloth

Keiki - natural recruits

Kilo - hawaiian methodology of taking observations

Kīpuka - oasis of native vegetation

Kupuna/kūpuna – elder/elders; source or parent tree (in terms of this study)

130

Mana - power

Mele - composition

Moʻolelo - historical narratives

Nā mea āpau - everything

Naʻau - mind, heart, feeling

ʻohana – family, familial

Ola - life

ʻŌlelo hawaiʻi - hawaiian language

Oli – chant

Piko maʻi - the future and next generation

Piko poʻo - the past, historical, ancestral and/or spiritual connections

Piko waena - the present

Pilina - connection/relationship

Pōhaku - rocks

Pule – prayer

Ulu - growth

Wahi inoa - place names

Wahi pana - sacred and pulsing place

Wao kanaka - human settlement zone, where humans worked and cultivated the landscape

131

REFERENCES

Allen, W. (2000). Restoring Hawaii's Dry Forests: Research on Kona slope shows promise for

native ecosystem recovery. Bioscience. 50(12): 1037-1041.

Auwahi Forest Restoration Project. (2020, March 20). About Us: Achievements.

https://www.auwahi.org/partners

Berkes, F., and C. Folke. (1998) (Eds.) Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management

Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience; Cambridge University Press:

Cambridge, UK.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. (2003) (Eds.) Navigating Social-Ecological Systems:

Building Resilience for Complexity and Change; Cambridge University Press:

Cambridge, UK.

Berkes, F., and H. Ross. (2013). Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Society

and Natural Resources. 26(1): 5-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605

Blackmore, M., and P. M. Vitousek. (2000). Cattle grazing, forest loss, and fuel loading in a dry

forest ecosystem at Puʻu Waʻawaʻa Ranch, Hawai‘i. Biotropica 32: 625 – 632.

Bremer, L. L., K. Falinski, C. Ching, C.A. Wada, K.M. Burnett, K. Kukea-Shultz, N. Reppun, G.

Chun, K.L. Oleson, and T. Ticktin. (2018). Biocultural restoration of traditional

agriculture: Cultural, environmental, and economic outcomes of Lo ‘i Kalo restoration in

He ‘eia, O ‘ahu. Sustainability. 10(12): 4502.

Brooks, J. S., M. A. Franzen, C.M. Holmes, M.N. Grote, and M.B. Mulder. (2006). Testing

hypotheses for the success of different conservation strategies. Conservation biology.

20(5): 1528-1538.

Bruegmann, M.M. (1996). Hawaii’s dry forests. End Sp Bull. 11: 26–27

132

Burnett K.M., T. Ticktin, L.L. Bremer, S.A. Quazi, C. Geslani, C.A. Wada, N. Kurashima, L.

Mandle, P.A. Pascua, T. Depraetere, and D. Wolkis. (2019). Restoring to the future:

Environmental, cultural, and management trade-offs in historical versus hybrid

restoration of a highly modified ecosystem. Conservation Letters. 12(1): e12606.

https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12606

Cabin, R. J., S. G. Weller, D. H. Lorence, S. Cordell, and L.J. Hadway. (2002). Effects of

microsite, water, weeding, and direct seeding on the regeneration of native and alien

species within a Hawaiian dry forest preserve. Biological Conservation. 104:181–190.

Cabin, R. J., S. G. Weller, D. H. Lorence, T. W. Flynn, A. K. Sakai, D. Sandquist, and L. J.

Hadway. (2000). Effects of longterm ungulate exclusion and recent alien species control

on the preservation and restoration of a Hawai’ian tropical dry forest. Conservation

Biology. 14: 439–453.

Chan, K.M.,P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R.

Gould, N. Hannahs, K. Jax, S. Klain, and G.W. Luck. (2016). Opinion: Why protect

nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the national academy of

sciences. 113(6): 1462-1465.

Clewell, A. F., and J. Aronson. (2006). Motivations for the restoration of

ecosystems. Conservation Biology. 20(2): 420-428.

Cole, R. J., Litton, C. M., Koontz, M. J., and Loh, R. K. (2012). Vegetation Recovery 16 Years

after Feral Pig Removal from a Wet H awaiian Forest. Biotropica. 44(4): 463-471.

Cordell, S., R.J. Cabin, S.G. Weller, and D.H. Lorence. (2002). Simple and cost-effective

methods control fountain grass in dry forests (Hawai’i). Ecological Restoration. 20: 139-

140.

133

Cordell, S., M. Mcclellan, Y. Y. Carter, and L. J. Hadway. (2008). Towards restoration of

Hawaiian tropical dry forests: the Kaupulehu outplanting programme. Pacfiic

Conservation Biology. 14: 279–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/PC080279

Cordell, S., and D.R. Sandquist. (2008). The impact of an invasive African bunch grass

(Pennisetum setaceum) on water availability and productivity of canopy trees within a

tropical dry forest in Hawai’i. Functional Ecology. 22: 1008-1017.

Cram, D., S. Cordell, J. Friday, C. P. Giardina, C. M. Litton, E. Moller, and E. Pickett. (2013).

Fire and drought in paradise— say it isn’ t so smokey. Rural Connect. 7: 19– 21.

Cuddihy, L. W., and C. P. Stone. (1990). Alteration of native Hawaiian vegetation: Effects of

humans, their activities and introductions. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies

Unit, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Honolulu.

D'Antonio, C. M., R.F. Hughes, M. Mack, D. Hitchcock, and P.M. Vitousek. (1998). The

response of native species to removal of invasive exotic grasses in a seasonally dry

Hawai’ian woodland. Journal of Vegetation science. 9(5): 699-712.

D’Antonio, C. M. Hughes, and P. M. Vitousek. (1992). Biological invasions by exotic grasses,

the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review Ecology Systematics. 23: 63 –87.

Degener, O. 1940. Flora Hawaiiensis, Family 46. Pennisetum Ruppelii. Published privately, 2 pp.

Elbert, S. H., and M.K. Pūkui. (1986). Hawaiian Dictionary: Hawaiian-English; English-

Hawaiian. University of Hawaii.

Frazier, A. G. and T.W. Giambelluca. (2017). Spatial trend analysis of Hawaiian rainfall from

1920 to 2012 International Journal of Climatology. 37: 2522–3155.

134

Gagne W.C. and L.W. Cuddihy. (1999). Vegetation. In: Wagner WL, Herbst DR, and Sohmer

SH (eds.) Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai‘i, pp. 45–114. Honolulu: University

of Hawai‘i Press, Bishop Museum Press.

Gann, G.D., T. McDonald, B. Walder, J. Aronson, C.R. Nelson, J. Jonson, J.G. Hallett, C.

Eisenberg, M.R. Guariguata, J. Liu, and F. Hua. (2019). International principles and

standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology. 27: S1-S46.

Gavin, M. C., J. Mccarter, A. Mead, F. Berkes, J.R. Stepp, D. Peterson, and R. Tang. (2015).

Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 30(3):

140-145. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.005

Giambelluca, T.W., Q. Chen, A.G. Frazier, J.P. Price, Y.-L. Chen, P.-S. Chu, J.K. Eischeid, and

D.M. Delparte. (2013). Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i. Bulletin of the American

Meteorological Society. 94: 313-316, doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00228.1.

Giambelluca, T.W., M.A. Nullet, and T.A. Schroeder. (1986). Rainfall atlas of Hawaii. Report

R76. Division of Water and Land Development, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural

Resources, Honolulu.

Gon, S. M., S.L. Tom, and U. Woodside, U. (2018). ʻĀina Momona, Honua Au Loli—

Productive Lands, Changing World: Using the Hawaiian Footprint to Inform Biocultural

Restoration and Future Sustainability in Hawai ‘i. Sustainability. 10(10): 3420.

Hardwick, K., J. Healey, S. Elliott, N. Garwood, and V. Anusarnsunthorn. (1997). Understanding

and assisting natural regeneration processes in degraded seasonal evergreen forests in

northern Thailand. Forest Ecology and Management. 99: 203–214.

HFIA. (2007). Hawai’i’s Dryland Forests. Hawai’i Forest Industry Association. Web. 11 March

2011. http://www.Hawai’iforest.org/reports/dryland.html

135

Honu, Y. A. K., and Q. L. Dang. (2000). Responses of tree seedlings to the removal of

Chromolzena odorata Linn. in a degraded forest in China. Forest Ecology and

Management. 137: 7582.

Inman-Narahari, F., R. Ostertag, S.P. Hubbell, C.P. Giardina, S. Cordell, and L. Sack. (2016).

"Density-dependent seedling mortality varies with light availability and species

abundance in wet and dry Hawaiian forests." Journal of Ecology. 104 (3): 773–780.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12553

Jacobi, J. D., and F.R. Warshauer. (1992). Distribution of six alien plant species in upland

habitats on the island of Hawai’i. Alien plant invasions in native ecosystems of Hawai’i.

Javar-Salas, C. M., R. Peʻa, F. Amidon, M.K. Reeves, and S.E Miller. (2019). Hawaiian Islands

Dry Forest.

Johnson, J.T., R. Howitt, G. Cajete, F. Berkes, R.P. Louis, and A. Kliskey. (2016). Weaving

Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods. Sustainability Science.

11: 1–11.

Kauahikaua, J., Cashman, K., Clague, D., Champion, D., & Hagstrum, J. (2002). Emplacement

of the most recent lava flows on Hualalai Volcano, Hawai‘i. Bulletin of Volcanology. 64:

229–253.

Khurana, E., and J. S. Singh. (2001). Ecology of seed and seedling growth for conservation and

restoration of tropical dry forest: a review. Environmental Conservation. 28: 39–52.

King, S.P., and R.W.Roth. (2006). Broken Trust: Greed, Mismanagement, and Political

Manipulation at America's Largest Charitable Trust. University of Hawai’i Press.

Kirch, P. V. (1982). The impact of the prehistoric Polynesians on the Hawaiian ecosystem.

Pacific Science. 36: 1-14.

136

Kohler, F., T.G. Holland, J.S. Kotiaho, M. Desrousseaux, and M.D. Potts. (2019). Embracing

diverse worldviews to share planet Earth. Conservation Biology.

LANDFIRE (2016) LANDFIRE/GAP land cover map unit descriptions. U.S. Department of

Interior, Geological Survey. Accessed 9 April 2018 at

https://www.landfire.gov/documents/LFGAPMapUnitDescriptions.pdf.

Larsen, S. C., and J.T. Johnson. (2017). Being together in place: Indigenous coexistence in a

more than human world. U of Minnesota Press.

Libby, R.., K. Barton, J. Jacobi, and T. Ticktin. (2018). Factors that affect natural regeneration,

growth, and survival rates of threatened and endangered species in dryland forests in

Hawaiʻi (Master’s thesis).

Litton, C.M., D. R. Sandquist, and S. Cordell. (2006). Effects of non-native grass invasion on

aboveground carbon pools and tree population structure in a tropical dry forest in

Hawai’i. Forest Ecology Management. 231: 105–113.

Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder.

Algonquin books.

Masterson, V. A., R.C. Stedman, J. Enqvist, M. Tengö, M. Giusti, D. Wahl, and U. Svedin.

(2017). The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review

and research agenda. Ecology and Society. 22(1).

Measham T., G. Barnett. (2008) Environmental Volunteering: motivations, modes and outcomes.

Australian Geographer. 39: 537‐552

Medeiros, A. C., and E. I. von Allmen. (2006). Restoration of native Hawaiian dryland forest at

Auwahi, Maui. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, 2006 – 3035.

137

Medeiros, A. C., E.I. von Allmen, and C.G. Chimera. (2014). Dry forest restoration and

unassisted native tree seedling recruitment at Auwahi, Maui. Pacific science. 68(1): 33-

46.

Medeiros, A. C., C. F. Davenport, and C. G. Chimera. (1998). Auwahi: Ethnobotany of a

Hawa’ian dryland forest. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University

of Hawai‘i at Mänoa, Department of Botany. Pacific Cooperative Study Unit

Technology, 117.

Meli, P. (2003). Restauracio´n ecolo´ gica de bosques tropicales. Veinte an˜os de investigacio´n

acade´mica. Interciencia. 28: 581–589.

Miles, L., A. C. Newton, R. S. DeFries, C. Ravilious, I. May, S. Blyth, V. Kapos, and J. E.

Gordon. (2006). A global overview of the conservation status of tropical dry forests. J.

Biogeography. 33: 491 – 505.

Mooney, H. A., S. H. Bullock, and E. Medina. (1995). Introduction. Pages 1–8 in S. H. Bullock,

H. A. Mooney, and E. Medina, editors. Seasonally dry tropical forests. Cambridge

University Press, New York.

Mueller-Dombois, D. (2007). The Hawaiian ahupua ‘a land use system: Its biological resource

zones and the challenge for silvicultural restoration. Bishop Mus. Bull. Cult. Environ.

Stud. 3: 23-33.

Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, R. Abell, T. Allnutt, C. Carpenter, L. McClenachan, J. D’Amico, P.

Hurley, K. Kassem, H. Strand, M. Taye, and M. Thieme. (2000) The global 200: a

representation approach to conserving the Earth’s distinctive ecoregions. Conservation

Science Program, World Wildlife Fund-US, Washington

138

Pascua, P., H. Mcmillen, T. Ticktin, M. Vaughan, and K.B. Winter. (2017). Beyond services: A

process and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous

relationships in ecosystem service assessments. Ecosystem Services. 26: 465-475.

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.012

Perkins, H. E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of environmental

psychology. 30(4): 455-463.

Peterson, C. J., and B.L. Haines. (2000). Early successional patterns and potential facilitation of

woody plant colonization by rotting logs in premontane Costa Rican pastures. Restoration

ecology. 8(4): 361-369.

Quesada, M., F. Rosas, R. Aguilar, L. Ashworth, V.M. Rosas-Guerrero, R. Sayago, J.A. Lobo,

Y. Herrerías-Diego, and G. Sánchez-Montoya. (2011). Human impacts on pollination,

reproduction, and breeding systems in tropical forest plants. In Seasonally dry tropical

forests. Island Press, Washington, DC. 173-194

Restall, B., and E. Conrad. (2015). A literature review of connectedness to nature and its

potential for environmental management environmental management. J. Environ.

Manage.

Ruiz‐Jaen, M. C., and T. Mitchell Aide. (2005). Restoration success: how is it being measured?.

Restoration ecology. 13(3): 569-577.

Sakai, A. K., W. L. Wagner, and L. A. Mehrhoff. (2002). Patterns of endangerment in the

Hawai’ian flora. Systematics of Biology. 51: 276–302.

Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A., M. Kalacska, M. Quesada, J. C. Calvo-Alvarado, J. M. Nassar, and J.

P. Rodrı´guez. (2005). Need for integrated research for a sustainable future in tropical dry

forests. Conservation Biology. 19: 285–286.

139

Schroeder, H.W. (2000). The restoration experience: Volunteers’ motives, values, and concepts

of nature. Restoring nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. 247-

264.

Shiels, A.B., A.C. Medeiros, and E.I von Allmen. (2017). Shifts in an invasive rodent

community favoring Black rats (Rattus rattus) following restoration of native forest.

Restoration Ecology. 25(5): 759-767.

St John, H. (1947). The history, present distribution, and abundance of sandalwood on Oahu,

Hawaiian Islands: Hawaiian Plant Studies 14.

Sterling, E.J., C. Filardi, A. Toomey, A. Sigouin, E. Betley, N. Gazit, J. Newell, S. Albert, D.

Alvira, N. Bergamini, and M. Blair. (2017). Biocultural approaches to well-being and

sustainability indicators across scales. Nature ecology & evolution. 1(12): 1798.

Tengö, M., R. Hill, P. Malmer, C.M. Raymond, M. Spierenburg, F. Danielsen, T. Elmqvist T.

and C. Folke. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons

learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 26: 17-25.

Thaxton, J. M., T.C. Cole, S. Cordell, R.J. Cabin, D.R. Sandquist, C.M. and Litton. (2010).

Native Species Regeneration Following Ungulate Exclusion and Nonnative Grass

Removal in a Remnant Hawai’ian Dry Forest. Pacific Science. 64(4): 533–544.

Trauernicht, C., E. Pickett, C.P. Giardina, C.M. Litton, S. Cordell, and A. Beavers. (2015). The

Contemporary Scale and Context of Wildfire in Hawai ‘i1. Pacific Science. 69(4): 427-

444.

Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. (1990). Manual of the flowering plants of Hawaii.

University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

140

Weller, S.G., R.J. Cabin, D.H. Lorence, S. Perlman, K. Wood, T. Flynn, and A.K. Sakai. (2011).

Alien Plant Invasions, Introduced Ungulates, and Alternative States in a Mesic Forest in

Hawai’i. Restoration Ecology. 19(5): 671–680.

Windsor J.E., and J.A. McVey. (2005). Annihilation of both place and sense of place: The

experience of the Cheslatta T’En Canadian First Nation within the context of large-scale

environmental projects. Geographical Journal. 171:146–165.

Winter, K., N. Lincoln, and F. Berkes. (2018). The Social-Ecological Keystone Concept: A

quantifiable metaphor for understanding the structure, function, and resilience of a

biocultural system. Sustainability. 10(9): 3294.

Wright, T.L., J.Y.F. Chun, J. Esposo, C. Heliker, J. Hodge, J.P. Lockwood, and S.M. Vogt.

(1992). Map Showing Lava Flow Hazard Zones, Island of Hawai’i. Miscellaneous Field

Studies Map. MF-2193. USGS.

Vieira, D. L., and A. Scariot. (2006). Principles of natural regeneration of tropical dry forests for

restoration. Restoration Ecology. 14(1): 11-20.

Young, J.C., K.A. Waylen, S. Sarkki, S. Albon, I. Bainbridge, E. Balian, J. Davidson, D.

Edwards, R. Fairley, C. Margerison, and D. McCracken. (2014). Improving the science-

policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations

rather than talking at one-another. Biodiversity and Conservation. 23: 387–404.

141